HomeMy WebLinkAbout0399.091~ .. -..
. .
. .
~ . ,-"
'.' ,-,
August 1~. 1991
HONORABLE CITI COUNCIL
Pa10 Alto, California
531 CowperJPhnnf!d CtriTlJluni h District ZOf1e Change
~embers of the Council:
Report in Sri ef
This report CQ~ers a proposed zone cnar,ge application for property at 531
Cowper Street froTtl CO-C(?) (omercla1 Downtown Distrjct, Pedestr~a!l C-ombini'lg
District to PC. Planned Community District. :he request for a PC zone is to
allow construction of i three-story. 16.9S3-square-foot commercial office
building adjacent to the entrance of the towper/Webster parking garage. The
project inc1udes a cov~red pedoestrian arcade and enhanced pedestrian entry
linkinlj Cowper Street te t~e public park.ing garage. H:e new building would
replace a single-story 7,SOO-square-foDt commertia1 bui1di~g which has been
demolished. The proposed project includes no parking, but the applicant has
offered to pay an in-lieu parking fee of 123,000 per spice for th~ required
parking. In additi~~ to the p~b1ic benef~ts of enhancing the gayage entrance,
the applicant proposes to (ontribute $150,000 towards th~ (ost of a child care
faciTjty in the downtown area.
Architect"ural Re'iielr( Soard Action
The Architectural Revlew Soard {A.RB) re ... iellied tl're project on May 16. 1991-
The ARB unanimously recommended approval of the project (4-0, one absent).
The Board was supportive of the design bl.Jt had some concerns regarding 1M.':
detalling of the buildlng materials and landscape plan. The ARB did ~ot
recoltlTtend that the project be conditioned' to provide retail on the ground
floor, but did f)(preSS strong support fer deiloting at least a porUon of the
ground floo~ to retail. Snouid the ipp1i~ant be required to use a11 o~ a
portio~ of the ground floor for retail related u~es, the building 15 designed
in such ill way as to be able to accorlTllodate additional openings onto Cowper
Street with minor revisions to the windows. tcno1tion] rtflects the ARB's
request tnat final architectural ind land~cape details r~turn fQr ARB approval
prior to issuance of a building permit. Min~tes of the AkB meeting are
provided as attachments to Ue attached .1ulJ 3, ]991, Planning (omission
sta.ff report.
CMR:399:9!
.~ ............ -•... ' L
-
•
-, -
f ,
-1 ....
-.-
r -_ ........
1-
plann-ing (QrmdssiQn A~1.1.Q'!u.
The Planning Commission reviewed tne application at two public ~earings. At
its 'nit~ll review of the project an April 24, 19~1) the Planning Commiss1a~
,oted "nanimously (6-0, on. absent) to conceptually approve the project .s
propose~, but r!quested additional analysis ab~ut tn! potentia1 for ground
f]~or retail be 'pro~·;.:jed at the time of their second revit •. The Planning
Commission expressed support for the design of the project and the provision
of an in-lieu parkf~g fee. Most of the Commfss;on~s conc€rns were related to
the p~tential for ground floor retiil, the dollar am~u~t of the in-lieu fee
and the rtlationship and b~r.efit of a chi1d eire contribution.
At its second re~ie~ of t~e p~Qject on Jul) 10, !99]~ the P1anning Commission
agdin ~oted unanimously (6-0, one absent) to recommend approval of the PC lone
change. Tbeir action included modification of two staff recommended
conditions of approval dlscussed below (tonditions 17 ~nd 18). A letter from
the applicant addressfng the issue of ground floor retail was provjded to the
Commissioners is part of the:r packet materfa1s (July Z, 1991 letter attoc~ed
to July 3, 1991 Commission report].
The Planning Co~~ission considered the orban design and child care
cantTibutions proposed as pa~t of the project~ without i mandatory requirement
for ground floor retafl, to be sufficient puhlic benefits to justify appro~al
~f the PC ~e~ignation ind to offset the 'ncreis~d floor area. However, the
C~ission was reluctant to relinquish all future potentill for ground floor
retail at this location. simply because the applfcant's conclusion t~at ground
floor retail is not economically viable under today's ~arket conditions.
Aft~r lengthy discussion in seeking resolution to this concern~ the Commission
conSidered an incentive rather than regu1atory approach to encourage the
developer to pursue ground floor retail in return for a reduced parking
TE'quirement.
ihe Commissio~ modified Condition 11 relating to tne ~n-1ieu plr~ing fee to
prowide an incentive to encourage th~ developer to install i retail use on t~e
ground floor of the building. Tne modification .as to add I provision which
.ould allow fo~ a reduction to the required in-lieu parking fee equivalent tc
the sum required for four of the required pirkin9 spaces (minimum of $92.00Q)~
if the developer provides a retail ~se with a ~inimu~ three yea~ lease, which
occupies over 30 percent of the ground floor of the building_ The Commission
made clear in its discussio~ t~at it was mertly in incentive to the developer
and would n~t include a permanent zoning proviSion requiring long-term use of
the spice for retail, staff monitoring or penalty if suc~ retail use ~as
unable to sur~lve.
The Commlssion modified Condition 18 ~eTating to the child care contribution
to clarify that tne contribution ~as to be use~ toward the cost of a child
care faci1ity in the downtown or near tne do~ntown area, in accordance with
needs ~dentified by the Cnild Cire Master Plan.
T~e amended wording of both conditions are reflected in the conditions of
approval which fcl1o~. as w~11 IS the attached Or~ft PC Ordinance.
(Mi:J99:91
(o"per.(HRlI3/1c
6/15/91
Page 2
•
•
'-' .----
•
~ .. -.. ·1
• ,
--.... --
r ..... _ . ..;:.. ---------
-
Staff Reco!l'll\endatioO,
Staff reco9nll~s tMe benefits and co~curs ~ith the Cc~~;ssinn and the
A.rchitectural ReI/ieIII' Board on tne desirabilHy o( ~a'olin9 retail on the ground
floer {l( the proposed 531 Co~~er building. Staff also concurs that tne publk
benefits proposed 'oy t~e app1 icant are-sufficie.,t to justif.y the proposed PC
zone, ~;tnout a mandatory ground floor rEtail require~£nt. Howe'oler~ staff
does not support the Planr,ing Corrmi:S.sion's proposal to offer a parking
reducti~n is an incentive to encourage ground f100r retai1.
The creativity of the approach is recogni,ed and the (oncept of Wince~til/e·
o .... er ·regu1ation-is applauded, but shff c(lr,si·jers the approach to have major
flaws. first of ill it attempts to a.ch.ie ... e orle goal, pedestrian. ~ita1ity, it
the expense of anoth2r , adeq~ate parking.
Second, the incenti¥e, ~ reduction in the required in-lie~ fee of
approximately 592 ,000, is offered to the developer primari1y at the expense of
the othet bUsinesses 'Within the Downtown Parking Assessment DIstrict. The
concept of t~e in-lieu parxinq fee is to pro'olide the full nu~ber of required
parking spaces located within the parlinQ asses!:.ment distric.t, but it a
10<ition where the need for parking is more ~cute. Any redvction in the
number of required parkin~ spaces, or tne in-lieu parking fee per space
translates directly into the loss of funding for an equi~alent n~mber of
park1ng spaces within the downtown area. lherefore •• natever parking is not
provided (either actua11y or in fee) by the developer of this project, if it
is to be provided, ~i11 ha'ol€ to be paid for by the other property owners an~
te~ants in the assessme~t district.
Third , t~e City is not rece~ving much (or the money, and the Commissio~'s
~o'/icept reg-ar-d~Tlg tr.e 1C1ss of flJtlJre pctef1tial for ret.il -.t thi-s. lociti:)n is
not add~esse~ by t~is snort-term approach. To offer a 592,000 incentive for a
three year lease for 30 percent of tne gro~nd floor irea (apprnximatelJ 1,350
sQ~are feet), with no 9u~rantee that such a use ~i11 remain in b~siness, or
that such area will not be (on .... erted to office uses snould the original retail
tenant fail, does not address tne ~ommission;s desire for 1ong-term retai1 use
of this space. Only a z.on1ng pro'iisi,on. ~hich ste..ff does !'.ot support, 'IIIou1d
address the long-term issue.
F~urtn. bj allowing ~ reducticn in the req~~red 1n-lieu parKing fe~ of
approximately S92,QOO t while requiri~g a child (ire contribution of SISO,OOO,
the Cil1 is essentially transferring funds from Gne account to another+ If
th~ City wanted' to provide a reta-il inr.enthe of .s92.~QC, it would be more
straightfonlard to. reduce the c~ltTd care {:ontributior. by S92,OOO, is a
tradeoff for ground f100r retall, and mai~tain the parklng requirement.
Whether it is done with the parking fee or the chtld care fee. the City is
essentiall) tradlng off one d2sirible p~blic benefit against another.
In conclusion, staff believes that what hc5 bee, proposed by t"e Planning
Commission is a short+ter~ retail subsidy. The ~lans ~pproved bi the ARB show
a hu;l~ing de~i9n that tou1d be u~e~ for e'tn~r offic~ or r~tiil. If ground
floor retail at this location is a high priority, it is ~ore appr~priate to
CMR:>99:91
(owper. CMR/ ll/1 ,
8/15/91
Page 3
.-... ., r·
r&Quire i permanent ground floor retail restriction i~ part of th~ project.
Given what is known abo'Jt tll1e site and retail c1 imate t staff does not
reto~n~ tn~s llternttive. Staff recommends i~stead that the City Ccuncil
elimin~te the retail incentive provision from Condition 17.
Environmental Assessment
The Commission's recommendation to allow a rrductfon cf in-lieu fee for four
of the required' parking spaces wfHlin a large assessment district is r10t
considered significant environmentally. It is also not ccnsidered a change of
such substance to warrant an amendment to the enwironmental assessment.
Adoption of I Ne9ati~e Oecla~ati~n would be recommended without the in~lfeu
fee for four spaces. toss of tMe four spaces or tnelr eQulwalent is not
deSirable b!Jt the icctptability of SLJch is a ,p-01icy issue Tither than a
signincanl environmental issue.
RecQntnen4ation
A. Should th~ Cit1 Council concur with the Planning C~ission
recommendation, the City C~uncil sho~ld adopt the neSiti~e rleclirition
and approv! the proposed Planned Community zone change subject to the
followfng findings u:d conditio(1s. i~c1u.d'in.g the highlighted
mo~ificitions to Conditions J7 ind 18.
B. Should the City Council c.r;:ncur W'1t~ shff. the City Council should adopt
the ne9iti~e detlaration and appro~e tne PC lone, subject to all
fir.djngs and conditions except the higr.lighted modificatio~s to
condition 17, and direct staff to modify the PC ordinance. accordinglYt
prior t~ the second reading of the ordinance.
findings
I. The site is so situat~d, ~nd the use or ~ses proposed for th~ site ~re
of such characteristics that the application of the general districts or
combining districts wil' not provide suff{c,e~t flexibility to allow th~
proposed development, in that the site is located on a ~arcel that the
Urban D~sign Committ~e has identified as one that ~ould ~n~a~,e t~e
urban landscape witPl a three-story btdldi:ng. 11'1 addit ion, t~e (o..-per
Street driveway to the W~bster/Cowper Parki~g ~arage has been identified
by t~e Urb~n Design C~mmittee as part of a ·Pedestrian Way," beginning
at lytton Plaza and extending to the Ilebster/Cowper Parking 6arage.
whic~ ~ould also bp.nefjt the urban landscape by upgrading and
~nhancements t~at would promote pedestrian vitality. The tnree-story
building and the pr~vision of ill covered. well lighted pedestrian aycade,
substantially landscaped on bot~ sides of the dr,~e~ay? improved
pEde~tr,an access to th! ~ebst~r!Cc~per Pir~ing Garage. and a ~idened
sidewalk on the north side of the driveway, proposed in conjunction with
the p~oject. could not othe~.ise be accommodated under st40dard zo~ing.
2. Development of the site under the provisions of t~e PC planned comm~nity
dis.trict will result in public benefits not otherwise ,attainable by
C~R;399;91
Co.per.CM~13/1c
L
8/15/91
Page 4
, :
•
. ,
\
-
..
··r····
application of the regu1at1cns of genera' districts ~r cDmbining
districts. These benefits include the upgrading of the Cnwp~r Street
entry to the Webster/Cowper packing ga,.'ge with. widened sidewalk
special piving treatment, lig~tfng and landscaping, a co~ered pedestrian
arcade, and bu"ding ~ca'e complementary to the ur~an landscape. In
add·;tion to tne illey and other sit-e improvements. the applicant st~all
contribute 5150 1 000 to the CilJ1s Child Care Ttust fund to be us€d
toward prov1ding a child eire facility in or near the downtown area.
The CHy C{l.unctl has identi"fied both alley impro'lemel'1ts and pr'\)~is,on of
iI downtown child care faciiity, is posslb1e benefits appropr:ate foJr
approval of floer area beyond the limits of the standard Downtown area
zoning Teg~1atinns.
3. The use or uses permitted and the Site deve10pment regu1atlons
a'ppl~cable witMin the district .. in be corjsistent with the Palo A1to
(omprehe~s;~e ~ian. and will be compatible with e~isting and pOLential
uses on adjoining sites or witnin the general ~ic;nity~ in that the
project will maintain the same uses lII~i.:h app1y llIith ttle current c.o-c
(Pi di strict.
Conditions
Prior to issuance of a bui1ding perm~t the appiicant sha11 comp~ete the
fcHowing.
1. Final arcnitectut"al de'tiliis, including another look. iit material ,ar;d
design of co1~mns. detailing at the e.~ES, surface treatme~t of the
party ~all. sun control on the Cowper Street facade? materials, ccTors.
glazing, downspouts. mechanical equipment, paving materia1s. and
light)ng aod landscape plans, 5ha11 return fer final re~iew by the ARB
prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. Provide l{ Cl." III (Hitc~ II) bicyc1. storage racks. Four of these
sha1l be provided o~ site, or llter~ate lacatians ap~roved by the
3.
. Tra.nsportation Division. The remaining 10 rads shalT be installed
illtmg University Avenue oil! locations identified by He "Transportation
();'vision. locati':ln ilr'ld des.~9n shan be re'>lie .... ~d' ar'ld lpp'r()\led b)i the A,RB
and s~own or. the bui'di~g permit plans.
~rant il perma~ent peda~tYiiln easement to the City by deed for the
covered pedestrian arcade and any landscaping idjacent to t~e arcade
that falls within the applicant's property is s~cwn on the approved
Development Plans (Sneet 3 of Attac~ment 9).
4. File for apprcvaT of a lot·l~ne adjustment ~'th the Department of Public
Worki and con~ey to the City. in fe~ title, a 2·foot·~ide strip along
tlie nortt'lern prtlperty 1 ine cf the 531 COJfpel'" StrEet parcel, a.s Sh{)WT1 or,
the apprG~ed Oev~lopme~t Plans (Sheet 3 of Attachment 9).
5. Provide. to the satisf~ction of the tity ~ttorney and Publ!c Works
Oepartmer,t, El(ideoce af a.ppropriate insurance fcr a11 wart ;.oerformed.
CMR:399:91
(owpor.CMR/13/1c
8/15/91
Page S
•
, .:::/
•
, ,
\ ..... \:
.. ~ .. ".: ...... '.' ... . , ···~»'I ." .. ,'.
»{~':~
i ,
-
6.
.~ .. ~~--
Post i performance bond ~1tM the P~b'fc Works Oep~rtme~t guaranteeing
completion of 011 improvements proposed within tne publ1c rjght-of-way.
7. Obtain an encroachmer.t pe~it and street opening pe~it frGm the Pub11c
Works O~partment for all work done wft~in the Cit~ Tight-of-way.
8. . Submit I d'Etilled drainage plan to the Public Work.s Department for
9.
r!wiew and apprc~il. All roof drains shall be connected to the storm
dratn under Cowper StreE~t, with tl'le connection "'tade at the existing man
ho1e. All sidewalks shal' ~a~e adequate cross slope (2 percent
~in;mum). Perforated drains sha1l be installed in all landscaped areas
to pre'llent saturation .t::f adjacent driveltJli] subgrade.
Tne appl ieant s~a" submit iI construction impact report for review and
approYil by the Plinnin9 and Trinsportat;on Divisions, ind tne Public
Works Department. Such report shall address and/or reflect th~
following.
(i) Delivery and storage of materia1s.
(b) Construction of the access drjve~ay to tne parking garage.
including sequencing and d~rition of the work.
(c) Public relatio~s tiuring construction of tne aCCESS driye~ay~
'd) Prcj~ct access and staging may occur on7y on Co~per Street i~
front of the project. No construction and maintenance parking
permits shall be issued for construction parking on Co~per Street,
except in front of the project.
(e) No double parking or queuing of trucks or tonstruction vfhicTes
shall be permitted on. c.owper Street between lytton and Hamilton
Avenues.
(fJ Cawper Street shall be open to two~way traffic it all tfmes.
(g} The Cowper Street dri'le ..... ay to the Webster/~owper Pilrkil'lg Garage
shall be c>pen to t ..... o-lifay tnf(ic during cot1struction of t~e
bui1ding. No project access and staging shall occur in this
driyewray.
(h) The COwrper street dri~eway may be closed ~hile the drivelifay is
being reconstructed. A sign shall be posted indicating that
vehic1e access to the ~ebster/Lolifper Parking Garage is on Webster
Street. Pedestrian access to the Webster/Cowper Parking Garage
from Cowper Street shall be ~ainta;ned at all ti~s. This tan be
accomplished by completing the covered pedestrian arcade prier to
beginning any ~ork on the drlveway.
10. Submit flo~ calculations prep. red by a licensed en9inee~ to the Water
Gas-Wastewater £ngineering Division for r~~;ew and approval t~at show
CHR:399:91
Cowper .CMR/13jlc
L
8/1 S/9!
P.g. 6
\
!
-.
-
that t~e off-site and on-site water and sewer ~iins provide the domestic
water, fire flows and se~er capacity naeded to ~ervi,e the devejopment
and adjacent properties during anticipated peak lcad~.
11. Submit improvement plans ind specifications for all utility const~uctiD~
to the Utilities Engineering Division fer review and approva1. The
Plans must show the proposed alignment of ~ater~ gas, and sewer ~ains
and services and electri~ service lines within the development and in
the public ~igMt-of·way. No work shall begin u~ti' the ~tiTity
'mprDvement ~'ans 6n1 load sheets ~ave been approved by the ~ater, Gas,
Wastewater Engineering Division, the light and Power Engineering
Division and the City's Cross Connection Control Inspector. Utility
connections and ut;l;ty~relited construction activities shall reflect
the following.
{\} The connections. to tr,@ underground \ltilitles lnd storm dra,nage on
Cowper Stre~t and other on~site cons!ruction activities sna11 be
coordinated with the Utilit,es Oepartme~t in ordir to reduce the
constr~~tion impacts on Cowper Streett arod to coincide with ether
underground projects to be ~erformed by the Utilities Oepartment
in the ~icinitJ of the project.
(b) The applicant shalT be responsible for installing and up9rading
on~site and off-site water and sewer ~t;l;ties~ ~s necessary. to
handle anticipated peak loads, including the cost of all
associated utiiity installations/upgrades.
(c) The applicant s~ill pay all cests associated wit~ required
improvements to off-site gas mains. A1J improvements to the gas
syste~ shall be installed by t~e City Df Palo Alto.
(d) Utility ccnnection charg~s must be paid prior to the scheduling of
any work performed by the City of Palo Alto.
{e} All utility ;nsta'lati~~s s~all be in accordance with the (lty of
Paio Alto Standard Specifications and Utilities Department
Standard C~ndition5. All utilities thit need to be relocated ~ill
be paid for by t~e applicant.
12. Prepare and pro~ide the Utilities Engineering Di~isiDn with t~e
necessary pub1ic ~tilitJ easements to serYice this de~e1opment.
13. Building Constr~t.tion ~hall cernplY ..... th the p,-o'iisioflS, of the ClJrrel1t
~niform Ffre Code, to tne satisfaction of t~e City's Fire Marshal.
14, except for trees, landscaping snall r.ot exceed I maximum natural ~ro~th
he'ght of three feet.
15. In t~e raised pedestria~ area of the public parking garage co~ncjng at
t~e east end of tne pedestrian arcade, the de~eloper shall relocate any
CMR:l99:91
Co-.per. CHR/ Il/l c
8/15/91
Pog. 1
\ .
,
I ,
•
.-1 ....
1
I
L
obstacles in crder to provide i clear pedestrian ~alk~QY at least 8-feet
in width.
Prior to Issuanc. of an Occupancy P.emit the Applicant s,.ll comp1.te the
following.
16. Enter into a maintenanc~ agreement ~itr. the City, is approved by the
C,t.y Att()~ney, the Phnn,ng Oivisicm and t~4! Pub1ic Works Department~ t1
maintain III driveway re1ated improvements (int1U'ding special paving and'
landscaping) withir. the public right-of-way (from the southern curb of
t~e dri~e~ay to the northern boundary of the pub1ic right-of-way), for a
t1me peri~d to ~atth the existing maintenanct a9reement reiated to the
lfebster/Cowpe-r Parking Garage (approximately IS years). The appl kant
shall pe~anently ~aintain th~ lS-fcot. lO-1nch-Yide pedestrian arcade
and the planting strip adjacent to the drive~ay surface edge of cur~
al~ng the ~ntire '~ngth of the driveWij.
17. Pay the City an in~lie~ parking fee based on the number of parking
spaces reQuired, it a rite of one parking space for each additional Z50
sQuare fe2t of gross floor area. This fee ls to be based on $23,000 per
parkin9 space for the estimated 36 spaces required by the a~ditional
square footage or S828,OOO. This figure If,ay vary based on final
(~nstruction measurements. In the e~ent th~ City adopts an ordinance
prior to occupancy of the project, which establis~es an fn~lieu parking
fee that eXCEeds $23,000 per space, the appllcant shall pay the higher
fee. I~ no event shall the applicant pay Tess than 523,000 per parking
space. If the applicant provfdes I retail use with a .fni~ 3~year
Tease that exceeds 30 percent of the first floor $~uare footage. the
required number of spaces for which the fn~lieu fee will be paid s~9ll
be reduced by four s~aces. These fcur spaees. however. will be subject
to annual assessment dist?1ct fees~
IS. Pay $ISO,OOO to t'e City·s Child Car. Trust Fund to ~ used toward t~e
cost of a child care facility fn the downtown or near th! downtown area,
in accordance with needs documented by the Child Care Master Plan.
HI. Rephce the thr-ee existing Ha'to'tt.orlle street trees along the. project's
Cowper Street frontage with tnree new >6~inch box Pi stacia C~inensis
t~ees) ~nd install all re~uired on~sit~ .~d off~site la~dscap1ng.
20~ Const~uct all side~al~s to comp1y with Pub1ic Works Oe~artme"t's
approved standards.
21. Reconstruct the access drlveway with Existing pavers, or oU,er pavers
appro¥ed by the Publtc Wo~ks Department. The Yse ef ne~ pivers (if
proposed) shall be subject to the appro~al Qf the Public ~orks
Oepa~tment prior to submittal to the A~B.
22. All m.te~'i1s an~ decoriti~e f~nishes ~sed ,n the pub1ic right-of~~ay
shall be selected from the approved list provided by tne Public Works
Oepartment. While the pa'iing ma.teria1s used in the covered ped'e-$triin
CMR:399:91
(o.per.CMR/13/1c
L
a/1S/9l
Page 8
•
-
arcade do not ha~e to be from the approved list, the materials used in
the arcade shall meet the Public Work.s Department appro '.led stal1dards.
•
'''-~O_-t
i ,
;
l
J/A ! I~ -I y:nJl.£.LL-.t~(YI/I.eJ:aVL
SARAll CHE~H
~nior Piin r
'\1 I . ~~' fL(~ING i~ istant Cit
Utathrnerots:
ger
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
virector of Planning and
Community En~iron~ent
Draft P1a~ned Community lone Or~i"anCe {Amended}
July ~. 1991 Planning Co~;ssion staff report and
attachments
lab1f! 1, tomparislJns tlf Selectej Planned COlMlunity Zone
Changes
~ega t ; ve Declarat i on
Draft P1 anned C0iT'VT1UI1ity Zone Ordinance
location Jl!;ap
letter from applicant datej June 20, 1991 containing
Specific Deyelopment Pro~ram Statement
Oe~elopment Schedule
Letter from applicant dated July 2, 1991 addressing Retail
Us,
May 15? 1991 A~B ~inutes and Informationa, Memorand~m
April 19, 1991 Planning Commission staff ~eport and original
attachments
April 24, 1991 £xce~pt Plannfng Commission minutes
Dev~1opment PhI'S {Counc.il Members or:1.:d
c:c: Planning COlwllssion
Architectur-al Re'w'iew Soard
G€S Archit~cts , Engineers, 399 Bradford Street. ~edwood City. C~ 9(063
Premier Properties, 420 Florence Street, P~10 Alto, CA 94301
Chop (eenan. 70Q Emerson Street, Palo Alto. CA 9430]
CMR;J99;91
Cowper .CMR/13/1c
8/15/91
Pogo 9
•
'-
-.
ORDINANCE NO.~~~~
O.RDINANCE OF l'HE COUNCiL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNIC
IPAL CO~E (THE ZONI~G MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFI
CATION OF PROPERT"{ !<NOHN AS 531 COWPER STREET nOM
CD-C(P) TO PC
The Council Clf the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
f0110"5:
SECTION 1. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the ·Zoning Mapw, is hereby amended to cbange the zoning of
c~rtain property k~ovn as 531 Cowper Street (the ·subject
property~} from the ·CD-C(P} Commercial Do·~town Service/pedestrial
Shopping Combining District" :zone t:lassificatio:1 to the ·PC Plan."ed
Community District-zone classification. Said prcperty is f.hOI.i11 on
a map attached hereto as Ex1'1ibit -A'll and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTIOi: 2. The City COl..mcil hereby finds with respect to
the subject property that:
(a) The subject property is so situ:!ted, and the use or
uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics
that the application of general districts or combining
districts ~ill not provide sufficient flexibility to
allow the proposed develop~ent, in that the site is
locatetj on a parcel that the Urban Design Committee
has identified ~ .... hich would e'!".hance the urban landscape
-with a three-story building. Tile Cowper Street
drive ... ·ay to the Webster/Co":per garage has been also
identified by the Urban Design Co~~ittee as part of a
.. Pedestrian ';,'ay" beginning at Lytton Plaza and
extending to the Webst.erjCo"'Per garage ... 'hich 'Would
also benefit the urban landscap.e by upgrading and
enhancements that ~ould promote pedestrian vitality~
The three-story building and the provision of a
covered, well lighted pedestrian arcade, substantial
landscaping on both sides cf the driveway~ improved
pedestrian access to the Web5ter/Co~~r garage~ and a
widened side ..... alk: on the north side of the drive .. ay
proposed in conjunction 'With tne project could not
otherwise be accommodated ur.der standard zoning.
(b) Development of the subject property under the
provisions of the Plar.ned COlr".mur,ity District will
1
•
-
result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by
application of the regulations of general districts or
combining distr-i::ts~ These benefits include t.he
l1pgrading of the cowper Street entry to the
lJ'ebsterjCc'.Wper garage 'With a .. idened sidewalk, speci~l
paving treatment, lighting and landscaping I a covered
pedestrian arcade~ and building scale comp!e-rnE'ntary to
the urban landscape. In addition to the alley ann
other site improvements, the applicant shall pay
$150,000.00 to the city's en-ild Care Trust Fund to be
used towards providing a child care facil i ty in or
near the downtown area. The City Council has
identified both alley inprovements and provision of a
downtown child care facility as possible benefits
requiring ~ajor incentives.
(c) The use or uses pennitted and the site develop!llent
regulations applicable vithin the district shall be
consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and
.. ill be compatible IoIith existing and poter.tial uses on
adjoining sites or within the general vicinity, in
that the project ·will maintain the same uses vhich
apply under the current CD-C(P) 2onir.g district.
SECTION J~ Those certain plans, entitled "'531 CO\ofper
street-prepared by DES Architects, given Archit.ectural RevieW'
Board approval on April la, 1991. and revised June 14, 1991, a copy
of which is on file in the Planning Department, and to which copy
reference is bereby made cor.cerning the full particul ars thereof I
are hereby collectively apprcved as the Develop~ent Plan for the
subject property pursuant to Section 18.68.120. Said Development
Plan is approved for the fcllovir'iq uses, and subject to the
follo·.;ir..g conditions:
:\"
(a) k:r:;:mitted Uses. The permitted \.lseS shall be those
uses permitted in the CO-C(P) zoning district.
(b) ~onditional Uses. 'l'ne conditionally per:nitted UEes
shall be those uses condition~lly permitted in the CD
C(P) zoning district.
(el Site O""ve19J2!11.f::!.nt Regulations. The site development
rE':gulations governing the subj ect property shall be in
acccrdal'.ce \oI'ith the CD-C(FJ :z:oning district and the
Development Plan; provided, that in the case of a
2
L
(d)
(el
I.
-
conflict bet~een the t~o, the Development Plan shall
control.
~inq and Loadir.:.9-Requirements. The parking and
load.ing requir~ments governing the subj ect property
shall be in acco~dance with the CD-C(Pj zoning
district and the Development Plan; provided, that in
the case of a conflict bet~een the t~o, the
Development Plan shall control,
Special Eeg}dj,.reIl1ents, The follo~ing conditions are
made special requirements conditioning the approval
granted by this ordinance:
PrIor to Issuance of a Building Permit the o-..'ner of
the Subject Property Shall Complete the Folloving:
1. Final architectural details incluaing a relook
at material and design of colu~s, detailing at
the eves, surface treatment of the party wall,
sun control on the Cowper Street facaae,
materials, colors, glazing, do~~spouts,
mechanical equipment, paving materials, and
lighting and landscape plans shall ret.urn for
fi~al review by the Board prior to issuance of a
building permit.
2. Provide fourteen Class III (Hitch II) hicycle
storage racks. Four of these shall be provided
on site, or alternate locations approved by the
~ranspcrtation Division, The remaining ten
racks shall be ir,stalled along University Avenue
at locations identified by the Transportation
Division. Location a~d design shall be revieved
and approved by the Architectural Review Eoi!rd
and shown on the building permit plans.
3. Grant a pennanent pedestrian ease:tlent to the
City, by deed, for the covered pedestrian arcade
and any landscaping adjacent to the arcade that
falls lolithin the subject property as ShO'ooi1l on
the approved Development Plans.
4. File for approval of a lot line adjustment with
the Department of Publ ic Works, and convey to
the City, in fee title, a t...-c-foot .. ide strip
3
-.~.
'~¥:~"
;'", .~
-
s.
6.
al~ng the northern property line of the subject
property, as sho· ... n on the approved Develop1!:ent
Plans.
Provide to the satisfaction of the city Attorney
and Public Works Department evidence of
appropriate insurance tor all work performed.
Post a performance bend with the Public \r'or).:;s
Department guaranteeing cocpletion of all
improvements proposed vithin the public right
of-w·ay.
7. Obtain an encroachment permit and street opining
permit from tbe P'.Jblic Works Department. for all
~ork done ~ithin the City right-of-~ay.
8. Submi t a detailed drainage plan to the Public
Works ['8part:t'.ent for re'.lie·w and approval. All
roof dra ins shall be connected to the storm
drain under Cowper Street~ with the connection
made at the existing :!1anhole. All sidewalks
shall have adequate. crOSs. slope (two percent
minimum). Perforated drains shall be in5tall~d
in all landscaped areas to prevent saturation of
adjacent driveway subgrade.
9. The owner shall submit a construction impact
r.eport for revie ... and approv31 by the Plar:.nin9 ..
public Works, and Transportation Departments.
Such repol.:t sh311 address a:;d/or reflect the
follo, .. ing:
fi) Delivery and storage of materials;
{ii) Con~truction of the access drive ... ·ay to
the parking garage, i~cludin9 sequencing
and duration of the work.
(iii) Public relations during constr1.!.ction of
the access drive~ay.
(iv) Project access and staging may occur only
on Co~~er Street in ~ront of the project.
No construction and maintenanco;;: par-king
permits shall be issued for construction
,
,
.-~--,-
pa.rking on CO\l'Per Street, except in front
of the project.
(vJ No dou.ble parking or queuing or trucks or
construction ve:hicles shall be penitted
on Covper street bet~een Lytton and
Hamjlton Aven~es.
(vi) Cc~per Street shall be open to two-...... ay
traffic at all times.
(vii) The Cowper Street driveway to the
Webster/Co-.,;per garage shall be open to
two-way traffic during construction of
the building. No proj ect access a.nd
staging shall occur in this driveway.
(viii) The Cowper Street drive"'ay may be closed
\I'hile the drive .... ay is: being
reconstructed. A sign shall be posed
indicating that vehi.::le access to the
Webster/Cowper garage is on Webster
Street. Pedestrian access to the
webster/Co.~er garage from cowper Street
shall be maintaineo at all times. ~his
can be accompl ished by completing the
covered pedestrian arcade prior to
beginning any ...... ork on the drive~ay~
10. Submit flo~ calculations prepared by a licensed
engineer to the Water-Gas-Waste"-ater Engineering
Division for revi-e .... and approval, which sho ....
that the off-site and on-site lolater and sewer
mains provide the domestic ~ater# fire ~lows and
sewer capacity needed to service the development
and adjacent properties during anticipated peak
loads.
11~ Submit improvement plans and specifications for
all utility co~struction to the Utilities
Engineering Division for review-and approvaL
The plan.s shall sho'. the proposed alignment of
water, gas and se~'er mains and services and
electric service lines within the development
and in the public riqht-of-way~ No .... ork shall
begin until the utility improvement plans and
5
'E-W7fte
•..•. ~ •• !,; .•.
-" " __ '. ·-'<~-'<',i-~·· ,
-
11.
--
load sheets have been approved by the Water,
Gas, wastewater Engineering Division, the Light
and P,Ywer Engineering Divisio:t and the City's
Cross connection Control Inspector. Vtility
connections and utility related construction
activities shall reflect the follo\dng~
(i' The C'onnections to the underground
utili ties and stO!1ll drainage on Cowper
Street and other on-site construction
activities shall be coordinated with the
Utilities Department in order to reduce
the construction impacts on CO""'Per
Street, and to coincide with otr.er
underground prvjects to be performed by
the Utilities Department in the vicinity
of the project.
(ii) The owner shall be responsible for
installing and u:pgrading on-site and off
site -water and sewer utilities as
necessary to handle anticipated peak
loads, including the cost of all
associated utility installations arId
upgrades~
(iii) The o~ner shall pay all costs associated
W'ith required improvements to eff-site
gas lllains. All improvements to the gas
systein shall be installed by the city.
(iv) Gtility connection charges shall be paid
prior to the scheduling cf any ..... ork
performed by the City.
(V) All utility installations shall be in
accordance .ith the City of Falo Alto
Standard Specific3tions and Utilities
Department Standard Conditicn$. All
utilities that need to be relocated shall
be paid for by c',.mer.
Prepare and provide
Division ~ith the
easements tc service
6
the utilities Engineering
necessary public utility
this development.
--
f
1
I
I
--
12. Building construction sh311 comply ~ith the
provisions of the current Uniform Tire Code to
the satisfaction of the City's Fire Marshal.
13. Except tor tre'.es~ landscaping shall net ex-:eed a
maximum natural groTMth hei9ht of three teet.
14. In the raised pedestria:l area of the public
parking garage cO!'m\cncing at the east end of the
pedestrian arcade, the owner shall relocate any
obsta.cles in order to provide a clear pedestrian
;,;-alkway at least eight feet in .oidth.
Prior to Issuance c-[ an Occupancy Permit the owner
Shall Complete the Follo~ing:
1. Enter intc, a I!aintenance agreement .... ith the
City, as approved by the City Attorney~ Planning
and Public Works Departments, to maintain all
drivevay related iroprovements (including special
paving and lands~aping) ~itbin the right-of-~ay~
from the southetr. cl.::rb of the dri-ve\iiay t.o the
northern boundary of thra publ ic r ight-of-\iay}
for a time period to match the ek:istinq
ma intenance aq-ree.:::ent related to the
Webster/corwp!?r garage (approk:il!lately 15 years).
The owner shall pemanently maintain the 15
foot, 1~ inch 'Wide pedestrian arcane and the
plant.ing strip adjace.nt. to the driveIJay surface
edge of curb along the entire length of th~
drive ..... ay.
2. Pay the City an in-lieu parki!lg fee based on the
number of parking spaces required at one parking
s.pace fer each addi.tional 250 square feet of
gross floor area. The fee is to be based on
$23~OOO per parking space for the estima~ed 36
spaces required by the additiQnal square footage
or SB28.DOO~ This figure :may vary based on
tinal cor.structiQn rr,easureme!'l.ts. In the event
the Cit.y aco~,ts an ordinance prior to occupancy
of the project ..... hien establishes an in-.1l.eu
parking fee that ek:ceeds $23,ODO per space, the
applicant shall pay the higher tee~ In no event.
shall the applicant pay less th3n S23~OOO per
parking space. If the applicant provides a
7
'. ~
.... ~-"-.,-~-.--------.-
1.
retail use ,",i th a minimum 3-ye.ar lease that
exce-~ds 30 perce;,t of the first floor square
footage, the re~Jired number of spaces for vhich
in-lieu fee vill be paid shall be reduces by 4
spaces~ These ( spaces ~illJ ho~ever~ be
subject to annual assessment district fees.
Pay $150~ 000 to the City's Child Care Trust Fund
to he used tOillard the cost of a child care
facility in the do"''1ltc'-'"n or near the do'.,ntowll
area in accordance with needs dc'cumented by the
Child Care Master Plan.
4~ Replace the three existinq Hawthorne street
trees along the projec~'s Cowper Street frontage
with three nev :36-inch box pi stacia Chinensis
trees. and install all required on-site and off
site landscaping.
5~ Construct all side· ... alks to co:rnply .. ·it:h Public
Works approved standards~
6. Reconstruct the access drive,".ay vith Existing
pavers; or other pavers approved by the Public
Works Department. The use of new pave::-s (if
proposed) sha:ll be subject to the approval of
the PUblic Works Pepartment p~ior to subnittal
to the Architectural Review Board.
7. All mat.erials and decoratiVe finlshes used in
the public rigr.t-cf-;.:ay shall be selected fro::n
the approved list p.l:'ovie:ed by the Public Works
Department, w~ile the paving mat~rials used in
the covered pedestrian arcade do not have to b~
from the approved list; the materials used in
the. arcade shall .meet Public ,",'orks Department
standards.
(f) DeveloPID_ent Schedule. Construction 5~all be completed
within two years froCll the date of adoption of the
ordinance rezoning the subject property to PC.
SECTION 4~ T~e City Council hereby finds that this project
will have no significant effect on the environment.
8
•
SECTION 5. This
thirty-first day after the
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
1I0ES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ser:.ior Asst~ City Attorney
91011.5 bdo:: OOlClJ ,S
F
ordinance
day ot its
shall be
ado~ticr:t.
APPROVE!):
Mayor
City Manager
effective
Director of Planning and
Community Enviror~Ent
-..
on the
-
Cii,P oJ T010 :Rlto
, 0 tOl 1C150
'-",0 ", .. TO. CAUfORN'", 9"J,:,3
TO; PALO ALTO PlANNING COMMISSION PREPARED BY: Robert Haley/
Sarah Cheney
DATE: July 5, 1991
FILE NO.: 91·ZC-~I, 9:-ARB-6, 9!-EIA-2
PROJECT [HfORMATIO!
location~
Applicant:
Property Owner~:
Requested Action:
PROJECT Sl.I!!I!.I RY
531 Cowp.r Street
P.l0 Alto, CA 94301
DES Architects I Engineers
399 Bradford Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
Premier Properties
420 Florence Street
P.l0 Alto, CA 94301
Zone Cnange from CD-C(PJ Commercial Downtown
Service District, Pedestrjan Shoppi~g Combining
District to PC P1anned (ommunity District
The appl icant proposes to ctlC1.nge the zoning of the parcel located at 531
Cowper Str~et from CO-C(P) tc PC Planned Community in order to construct a
three-story 16,983-square-foot commercial office building adjacent to the
entrance of the Cowper/Webster parking garage. The project includes a covered
pedestrian arcade and enhanced pedestrian entry linking Cowper Street to the
public parking garage. The ne. building would rep1ace a single-story 7.500-
square-foot cOlllller'chl buHding 'Which has been demcTistJeO'. The proposed
project 1nt1udes no p~rking. but the applicant has offered to pay an in-lieu
parking fee of 523,000 per space for the required parking_ fn addition to the
public benefits of enhancing the garage er.trance. the applicant ~roposes to
contribute 5150,000 towards the ~cst of a child care facility in the downtown
areia~
AEC~ENDEO ACTION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission reco~nd that th~ City Council
adopt t~e negatiye declaration and approye the proposed Planned Commun1ty lone
(hange based on the findings and cor.ditions iisted later in this report.
SITE INFORMATION
Parcel Size: 8,025 square feet
Assessor's Parc~l ~umber: 120-03-68
SC/A/SR531C3 Page I
\
,
i
i
f
i
i
H , 1
I
J
·-1
-
Existing Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan
Deslgn.tion:
Existing lond Us.:
Surrounding Land Use;
History:
Mand.tory Action Date(s):
EnVironmental Impact
Assess~nt:
ANAlYSIS
Project O!sc~iption
--'''~--' .. ''''
CD-C(P) Commercl.l Downtown District, Pedestrian
Shopping Combining Dist,ict
Region.ljCo\TlT\unHy COITIII.rciol
Vacant Sit. (Pr •• lously • 7,S08-squar.-foot
co .... rcl.l bui lding)
North:
South:
East:
West:
520·526 Un;~ersjty Avanue, rEtail
building
Commercial office bUl1ding
Webster/Cowper parking garage
'irde~ (ourt Hote1
The preliminary review by the Architectural
Re'i.~ Board o<curred August 16, 1950 (summary
~inut.s attached).
Conceptually approved by the Plannin; C~~is5ion
on April l4, 1991 [minutes att.ched).
The Arc~itecturii Review Soard recommended
.ppro,.l on ~ay 16, 1991 (minutes attoched).
The application was filed on January 16. 1991.
A Notice of Incomplete Application was issued on
February 14. 1991, and t~e application was
deemed complete on March IS. 1991. The Planning
Commfssion was reQuired to hold its first public
hearing ~ithin 90 days of March 15, 1111.
An environmental assessment recom!'l".ending
adoption of i negati~e declaration is attached.
The applicant proposes to constr~ct a 16?983-sQuare-foot three-story office
buiT~ing adjacent to the Cowper Street alley entrance to the Webster/Cowper
parking 9arag~~ The 8,025-square-foot site, located it 531 Cowper Street. was
fonnerT] OCCUpiEd ty a single-story, 7,50S-sQuare-foot ~ffice bui1ding in poor
condftion. This building was rec~ntly demolished in order for the site to be
used as a construction staging i~ei for the two additional levels of parking
to be added to the Webster-Cowper parking garage, approved through a prior
Planned Community zone change. The plans do not provide for on-site parki~g
due to the proximity of the project to the public garage. Instead, the
applicant proposes to pay a $23,000 in-lieu fee per required space fer
constructing parking elsewnere within the assessment district.
se/A/SRS3IC3 Pose l
i·
I~
t
L~r--.
I
i
The Traditfor.a.lfst·style building will be faced witI':: brick. and precast stOllE
with ~arble accent iTements. The first floor will be r~,e55ed lSi feet from
t~e proposed norther11 property line, allowing a 4j·foot planter and an
approximately 16-foot-wlde (15'10') covered p.destri.n .rc,de .'ong the north
edge of the building. The front and rear of the proposed building .!11 be set
back approximately 3 fe.t in order to .llow for additional landscaping .long
the street frontage and along the existing T!aT pedestrian wa1kway_ A tnird
floor landscaped balcony over1ookin9 the corner of Cowper Street and the
drl~e~ay t~ the garage i$ inc1uded.
The project ~ill re$ult in an improved visual entry to the garage and better
pedestrian access by increasing the width of the current public right-of-way,
dedication Df ) pedestrian ease~nt, and expansion ~f land~taping and sidewaik
ilt'.provements I.long the realigned dri\{eway into the gange. lhls w~denin'3 of
tne pedestrian access to tne public parking garage Otc~rs near the rear
terminus of the proposed 16-foot-wide covered pedestrian artade. The existing
public right-af-way to the Webster-Cowper parking garage from Cowper Street js
31 feet wide. In th,s 31 feet~ ther! ex,sts 1 5i-foct sidewalk along the
nort~ern Side, a 2Z-foot-wide driving surface, and a 31-fcot side~alk aTong
the project site. The applicant proposes to convey to t~e City, in fee, an
additional 2-foot wide strip of pri~ate property for an expanded right-of-way,
to grant a pe~nent pedestrian ease~nt fur the i6-foot-wide pedest~ian
arcade and adjointng larld'scape strip a10ng the southern edge of the driVeway.
Within the widened 33-foot wide public right-of-w.y, the applicant .lso
proposes to install improvements including a 4j-foot-wide plinting strip a10ng
the northern sidewalk.
Background
A. Previous Planning Commissio~ Action
At the preliminary Planning Commission review en April 24, 1991, most of
the Comm'ssioners expressed support (Dr the design and the proviSion of
an in~lieu parking f!e. Most of t~e concerns were related to the
potentia) for requirin9 retiil on the ground f1oor~ the re1ationsnip and
benefit of a child ca~e c~ntribution. and the dollar amount ~f th~ in
lieu parking fee. ComrnissicnErs were presented with copies of Temporary
Committee on Do~town Design and Am2nities Repart, in which bJth the
alley improvements and the development of a downtown child care facility
vert identified is possib1t benefits requiring major incentives. As
requested by the Commission. the applicant bas provided an analysis of
the potential for ground floor retail uses as Attachment No.6. The
CommiS5ion voted 6-0. with Commissioner Beecnam absent. to conceptua1Ty
apprDve the project. Minutes of the April 24, 1991, Plannln9 Commission
meeting are attached~
8. Architectural Review Board Recommendation
At the Architectura1 Review Board meeting on May 1~! 1991, the Soard
reco~nded approval of the project, 4-0, with Board Member Lyzwa
absent. The Beard was generally very supportive of the desi9n with some
concerns regarding the detalling of the bu;lding materials and landscape
SC/,l/SR531C3 Page 3
,
:~ ;.c' _' _
--.-,--,-...----,-----~-,., .....
~l.". Whil. the 8oa~ did not recommt"d th,t tho project bo conditioned
to pro~fde rel.tl on tne gro~nd floor. they did express strong su~port
thot .t l ••• t • portion of the ground floor be devoted to r.ta!l. The
Board did recommend revisions to the 1andscape p1an for tnf drjve~ay to
provid~ ~per.ings 1n tnt planting strips to .llow pedestrtan access
Icros. the drlve.ay at locati,n, oth.r tnan at Cowper Street and the
.ntrance to the gar.go. Should the applic,nt b< required to use ,II or
• portion of the ground floor for r.tail rel,ted u •• s, the building is
rlesigned In s~th i ~aJ IS to be able to accommodate ,dditioDa1 openings
onto Cawper Street with minOT revisions to the windows. Condition No.1
would require that final architectural and landscape details return for
Architectural Revi •• So.rd approval prior to issuance of • building
penna.
Ground F)apr Retail
8ath the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Soard expressed
interest and support for the provision of retail related uses on all or a
portion of the project's ground floor. The applicant will be presenting to
the Colft'l'lis.sioners his reasons for requesting that a crtrrdition requiring sround
floor r.tail not be imposed on the project. It is staff's opinion tOit the
public ~nef1ts provided by the alley improvements t pedestrian arcade, other
urban design amenities outlined in this report, and the SI50,OOO c~ntr!bution
toward. a downtown child caTe facility provide a suffiCient public benefits
paC~a9! to warrant the approval of the proposed Planned C~rnmunity lone Change,
without imposing the ground floor retail restriction. In addition, staff has
noted that properties on the perip~ery of the GF zone have i m~re difficult
t~me in retaining ground floor reta~' tenants~
Parking Garage Entry Design
The plans have been modified since tM! conceptual review by the Planning
Commtss~on to respond to st!ff's ~ontern that the e~isting Z2-foot-wide
drive~3Y t~ the Webster/Cowper parking garage did not n!ed widening to 27
ffet. The current plans show the e~isting driveway s~ifted approximately 4
feet to the south wbile remaining 22 feet w~de. Tne existing sidewalk along
the northern edge of the dri~e~iY beh~nd pr~pertiei fronting on U~i~ersity
Avenue will be incre,uec1 to approximately 8 feet wide with 4-1/2 f(lot planter
strip. along both sides of the drive.ay. Staff i$ supportive of these
revisions. The building design remains the sa~e as previously reviewed by the
Planning Commission but with further development ~f the architectural and
materl11 d~tails.
[n-liey Parking Fee Proposa1
A deta'led QiscuSSlon of the parking issues related to the project and the
prGPosed use of an in·lje~ parking fee is pro~ided O~ p~ges 4-8 of the
Jtta,hed April 19, ]991 Planning Commission staff report.
SC/A/SR5lICl Page 4
.~ --L
L
I
-
!
I
i
1
Based upon • tot~l project size of 16.983 square feet less a credit for
txistinq square footige (l l 50S square feet} and appljcable e~~mptfons (400
square feet), th! net new add1t;o~il bu,ld1ng square footage to whicM the
parking pro~1s1on requirement is applicable 1s 9,015 square feet. At tMe rate
of ene parking space per 250 square feet. the reQufred number of parking
spaces Is 36. If the ult1mate building size is either larger or smaller th.n
16,9B3 square feet. the r~Quired n~m~r of parking spaces ~;11 increase or
decrease at tne rate of one s~ace per 2Sn square feet.
The proposed project currently includes a pro,ision for t~e payment of a
minimum of $23,000 per space, or if an ordinance establishing an in-lieu
parking fee has been adopted prior to occupancy of the buildirg .hien
establishes a hlgher fee per space, the deve10per will pay the h1gher fee.
The ~inimu~ ~alue of S23,OOO is driven by cDn$ideration of funds pr~v~ously
paid by the City to tn. s.me de,eloper for p.rking sp.ces it the 250
Un1"~er:iit)l Avenue prDject. The proposed project as no,* defined (16,983 sQuare
feet) ~ith a requirem~nt for 3& p&rk'ng spaces would re~u1t in a t~til '~·lieu
fe. of $828,000.
Staff supports the proposal to ~.ave ttle City accept payment of a.n in-lieu
parking fee for the r~Quired number of parking spaCES for the proposed
prl)ject. Staff a1so supports tne proposal that tne developo:-r pay the il'l-' ieu
fee at the higher r.te of 523,000 per space, or th, r.te established by
ordinancE, if an in-lieu fee ordinance is adapted prior to occupancy of the
project as anticipated.
Bicycle Parking
The Trans.portation Division has recomended that rather than pro .... ide· six Class
I loc~ers on the Site, the app1i:ant instead be required to provide a total of
fourteen Class 111 (Hitch 11) bicycle storage racks, with four of the spaces
to be located on site and ten to be locat~d along UniYt·fsity AvenUE! at
locatiQ!'\s specified by staff. This recommendation is based on the Close
prOXimity of the under-utilized eXlsting bicycle lockers ~nd bicycle TitKS
lo'=.ated in the Webster/Cowper parking garil.-ge, c.n..:! th-e demand for bicycle rach
on Uni'lersit)' A'le.nue. Of the racks to be reqllired on site, tWei should be
prc~,ded ~ea~ the main building entrance and t~c shou1d be provided al~~g the
(oW?er Street fronta.ge. A more detailed discussion. of this recommendation. lfIias
prQvidelj' on page 8 (If the attacned .A.pril 19 staff report.
Public Benefits
The applicant seeks approyal of the additional 9,075 square feet above ~hat
would be allowed under the current CD~{(P) loning by ~rovjding public bEnefits
based on ~rban design amenities and i S150.00~ contribution to i Buildtng
Trust Fund for future development of a ~hild care center to be developed near
downtc>W"T1. Both alley improvements and the provlsion tlf chnd cate facilities
~ere recommended by the lemporlry Co~ittee on Downtown Design and Amenities
as pos~iblt benefits req~'rin9 major incentives. A cOPJ of po~tion$ ~f the
Janu2ry 30, 1981 lemporary Ccmrnittee en ~c~ntown Desi9" and Am~n;ties Report
on Committee Recommendatinns and J~ne 8, 1981 City Council minutes ir~
attached. A ~ompa~,son of public be~ef'ts prov,ded tnrough rEcent Planned
SC/II/SR511Cl P.ge 5
,
[
-
Coomunlty Zone Changes, both proposed and approved, ire attached In Table I
(Attachment 5) for background Information.
T~e C1ty's Child Care Coordinitor, Davfd ~artfn, has conducted in informal
survey of jurlsdlctlo .. th.t I1,Ye I chlld Cire ~ltlg.t Ion fee. The
preliminary results Df that survey found th.t the child c.re .Itlgotlon fees
r~nge from $0.25 per squire foot of new commerCial development in Danville, to
$1.00 per square foot of commercl.l development .boye 50,000 square feet in
San Francisco. The applfcant's proposed ,$1S0,OOO contribution equals
approxImately $16.50 per square foot for the additIonal 9.0)S square fe.t.
Other public ~nefits related to urban desIgn amenitIes inciude the follo~;n9
Item,:
1. The creatfcn of a J6-foot-wide coverfd, lfghted pe~estrian arcade
.10ng the southern edge of the Cwper Street dri,. •• y runnIng .11
t"'e -":.2y from Cowper Street to tne 'Webster-Cowper parting garage.
The r!locatfon of I planter at the entrance to the garage will
i1l~ for safer direct pedestrian access.
2. The proposal ilso includes the idditi~~ of landscaping along both
sides of t~e Cowper Street driveway to lot J.
3. An enc10sed refuse and recyclfng area with e~cess capacity in
order to prDvide recycling space for some of the adjacent
prDperties is proposed wltnin the rear of tne buiTd?ng.
4. The proposed t~ree-story height of the new building will t.elp
screen the Webiter/Cowper parking gerige. TMe vie_ of the garage
will soon dominate the pedestriin exper1~!",ce along this portion of
Cowper Street, ~nTess t~e height of buildfngs in front of it ;s
increased.
~hen$fve Plan Comp~
Urban Ptsign
The stated objecti~es of the Comp~ehensf~e Plan's Urban Design Polities an~
Program~ are as fol1o~s:
I. Preserve Pa10 Alto as a creative en~ironment w~ere peop1e can live
and work;
b. Promote the orderly and harmonious de~eTopment of the Cit~ and tne
attainment of the most desirable land use and improye~nts through
the re~ie. of new deye1opment;
c. Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetiC quality
and ~arfety. and considerate Df each other;
d. rncourlge maintena~ce of trees and plantin9 of new trees;
SC/A/SR531C3 Page 6
L
·:.-.
e. Identify ar:-d Inaintll;n the smaHer stale visual f~at'Jres that ;i~e
character to Pol. Alto ond its neighborhoods.
Each of the Dbjectives ire satisfied by th~ prcposed proj!ct's' creation of 1
pedestrian arcade &nvircnment I~d ·~umin'lation· cf the pub1ic 9a~ag~ entr)
throu9~ 1andsclping and ped~$t~iin im?r~~ements_
Relevant Urban Oesign Policies and Programs are as follows:
Policy 1:
Program I:
~roqram 3:
Maintain the present s,.l. of the City, but modify those
elements which by their massiveness are ov~rw~elmir.9 and
una.cceptable .
Discourage massive Single ~ses tnrough llmitatfons on
htight and density to protect surrounding uses and
cOlTlTlllnity 'Val~l~s~
Develop ~isual design standards for new and expanded
deve10pmenL
While the square footage of t~e proposed project is greater tnan allowed under
the CD~C zo~e, the size, irchitecture, and arcade ar~as contribute to reducing
the scaTe of the public parking garige behind the proposed project and making
the entry to that garage more enjoYible for t~e user.
Policy 3: Promote visual aestnftics through tre~ plantfng~ 1andscaped
areas and remova1 of vlsua11y disruptive elemeMts on ~ajor
City streets.
Program 14: fncourage the USe of street trees and planting in the space
between street and sidewalk rather tnan unrelieved concrete
pavirlg.
Program ]5: (reate l1in'i~parh, pedestrian llill, promenil:des, Oprn space~
and area where pedestrians ~o~1d ~ave Ti9ht~cf-way over
automobi"1es.
A major feiture of the proposed PC Cistritt is the creation of a pedestrian
arcade and a~cade driveway. Considerable open space is being creited by this
project, centered an the creation of I strong pedestrian environment.
EmplQyment £lement
The rmpl~yrnent Element policies and programs ~onsidered rele~ant to the
proposed zone change are Pol jey ) and Program Ia ""l1ch address tne need to ~se
tne provisions of the zoning o~dinance to reduce employment potentia1; and
Policy 4 and Program S ~ich ore to encourage provision of child care
facilities in industrial a~eas ind to support variances where appropriate to
expand Site covera~e in ind~strial lones t~ al1o~ for child ~ire facilities.
It is recognized that the proposal to allow additional square footage above
the current zcning limlt will increase potential employment in the Downtown
SC/A/SR531C3 Page 1
•
'."
r--
~.
'-
r
area which CQuld ml"l~lly affect the exIsting jo~s(h.using imb.l.nce. Thowgh
thIs effect .111 not directly comply with the provisions of fmp10yment Polley
1 and Progr~ la, when combined with the publjc beoefit. packag. proposed, It
Is consi~ered to coapl, wlt~ other ~loyment policies and the g.ner.l Intent
of t~e Employment Eleoent.
Policy 1 and Program la, largely speak to the •• diflcations to the zoning
ordinance undertaken by the City to reduce development potential in the Cft,'s
tommtrci., and industrial areas. They also speak to the need tG carefully
review new zone change applications for p~te"ttal employment impacts.
Significant compliance with thIs proyra. and polley was achieved through
completion of the various commerCial ar.a studIes, Including the Downtown
Study and Citywide study. which substanti.1ly .educe~ the development
potential and .elated potentIal employment growth in the City. It wa.
recognized .t the tIme of the Downt.wn Study th.t there might be .peci,l
circumstan~es fn the future where the newly established FAR limits might be
allowed to be exceeded, provided the return to the City, the public benefit,
was sufficient to offset s~ch an int~t~se. The Oo~ntown Urban Amenit,es
Committee adopted by CDuncil. identified what ty~es of public benefits. and
amenities w~re valued and desired in the Downtown. A major purpose of the PC
process as it relates to this project ;s to determine the spec1.1 conditions
and circumstances wh~reby in increase in floor area and potential employment
generation above those limIt. established in the Downtown study would be
acceptable and appropriate.
The publiC benefits proposed '5 part of the project include. substanli.l
contribution (SI50,OOO) t~.rds the prov;,i,n of • child care f.,ility In the
Downtown and Urban Design improvements to the Webster/Cowper parking garage
access. As the Downtown lS a high employment center, a c~ntribution t~ child
caYe is consid~Ted to tomply ~ith the intent of Emp10yment Po1icy 4 and
Program 8.
The urban design elements of the project will add to the healtn and
attractiveness of tne Oowntown r~tail environment and will provide commercial
spa~e which strengthens retail ~italit) it the ei~tern tdge of tha Downto~.
V~en combi~ed, the specific characteristics of this project, its 1ocation in
the Downt~wn close to public t~ansft, ser.ic~s and pub1ic perking, the urban
design improv2ments and child care ccntrlb JJtion proposoed and provision of ;1l
lieu parkin9 fees are considered to offset the minor increase in employment
wnich could b~ generated by the increase~ square footage, and to comply with
the overall intent of the Empioyment Element and the Comprehensive Plan.
Arnon9 the objectives of the TransportJtion element of the Co~p~ehensi~e Plan
advanc~d by the proposed project are the followfn9:
a~ Reduce parking congestion in the core downto~.
The safe, lighted attractive pedestrian arcade s~ould encourage parking
outSide the core cf the Oo~town by making the Webster-Cowper parking gar'9E
more inviting and pleasant for office workers and shoppers. The pro~ision Qf
SCjA/SR531C3 Page 8
L
\
*':'i'~:
~,
. ,
\
.,.
r·····
fn-lieu fees wili factlttate t~e construction of off-site parking in an ar~a
w~ere it is more needed,
Planning Commission A,t~
Per the requirements of the PC district regulations, in Ilaking a
r.commendat1on to the tity touncil 00 thg propos.J PC designation, the
Planning Cornrniss~on is rtQuired to make specific determinations regarding
prGject in support of tr.e zone chan~~ and review:
an environmental determination;
a specific development program $tatement;
a develapment plan; and
development schedule.
the
These doeuments along with the recommended conditions of &ppro~al form the
basis for the sfte-specific regulAtions to be appl;ed ~'t"in the proposed PC
Planned Community zone district, as reflected in the Draft PC Ordinance,
These dac~ments are prov;de~ as attachments~
RECOMME!!!lATlOH
Staff reC(l1M1ends that the Planning CoiTlTtiss ion recorlJllend that the City (lUlIC; 1
adept the negatfve declaration and approve the proposed Planned COrMnmit,)' Zone
Change subject to the f~llowing flndings and conditjons~
FlNll!HGS
1. The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are
of s~ch characteristics that the ap~licatfon of the general districts or
combining districts will not pro~1de sufficient flexibility to allow the
proposed development~ in tna~ the Site is located on a parcel t~at the
Urha~ Design Committee bas 1dentified that would enhance the urban
landscape ~1th i three-star} building. The Cowper Street dr\ve~a~ to
tfle Webster/Cowper parkir,g 9arage ~as been also identifled by the Vl'ban
Design Committee as part of a ·Pe~estrjan ~~y. beginning at lytton Plaza
and exte~ding to the Webster/Cowper parking 9arage ~~ich ~ouid also
benefit the urban la~dscape by upgrading and enhancements that would
promote pedestrian vit.lity, Th~ three-stnry bui1ding and the pro~isiDn
cf l co~~red. ~ell li9ht~d pedestrian arcade, s~bstanti&l landscaping en
both sides of the dri~eway~ improved pedestrian access to the
Webster/Cowper parking garage, and a widened sldew!l~ on t~e north side
of the driveway proposed in conjunction with the project could not
otherwise be iccommodated under standard zoning.
2. ~~!lapme"t of the s{te und~r tM~ pro~is,ons of the PC p1anned commun't~
~istrict will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by
application of tne regu1ations of general districts or combining
districts. These benefits include the upgrading of the Cowper Street
SC/A/SR531C3 Pas. 9
,,' Til
-
..
I
I
I
I
. ')XS~r··
----' --.:::'. -----.-~ .... -.",'---~-.--.""" .""
eotry t. the Webster(C.wper parking garage wfth • wfdened ,'d •• alk,
specf.l paving treatment, lighting and landscaping, , covered pedestrian
,reade, and building seal. eomple=ontary to the urban landscap.. In
add1t'~n to ttle 111tj and ether site ~mpro"iemel\ts, the applicant :;hlll
c.ntribute SJ50,OOO to the City', Child Car. Trust fund to be used
toward providing i child care f.c11tt, In ~r near t~e dDWnt~wn are •.
Th. City Council has identified both .11ey improvements and provision of
• d~t~ child care faci1ft, IS pessibl. benefits requiring major
incentives.
3. T~~ use Dr ~ses pE'ntitted, and the site development r~ul.tions
applicable within the district will be consistent with the Palo ATto
Comprehensive Plan, and will be compatible with existing and potential
~se$ on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity, in that the
pTOject will ~aint.in the same uses which lpply wit~ the cu"rent CO-C
{PI distriCt.
tONDITlOHS
priqr to Issuance pf a Buildjng Permit the ApDl'cant S~all Complete the
fpll,;,wing:
1. ft~al Ircniteeturll detal15 fncluding I rel~Dk at materi,l and design of
col~1Dns, detailing it the eaves. surfate treatment of the partJ wall.
sun contra1 on the Cowper Street facade, ~ateTJllst colors, glazing,
downspouts, mechanical eqUipment. pa~ing materials, In~ lighting and
landscape plans s~al1 return fer final review DY the Baard prior to
issuance of a building permit.
2. ProVide fourteen Cl.ss III (Hitch tl) bicycle storage rict.. four of
these shall be provided Dn site, Dr alternate locations approved by the
lransportation Divis'on. The remainfr.g t~n rack~ shall be installed
.long University Avenue it locations identifitd by the Tr.,sport.tion
D;~is;on. location and design shall be revfewed and approved by the
Architectura1 R~wiew Board and sho~ on the building pe~it plans.
3. Grant a per.nanent pede5tria~ easement to the City by de~d for the
covered pedestrian arcade and any landscaping adjaCEnt to the ir~ade
that falls withl" the applicant's ~roperty is shown on the approved
Oev.lopment Pl.ns (Sheet 3 of Attachment 9).
4. File fDr approval of a Tot-line adjustment with the Oepartm!nt ~f PubliC
WQrks. and convey tD the Cily, ;~ fee title, ~ 2'foot-~ide strip .1ong
the northern property line of the 53! Cowper Street parcel, as shawn Q~
the approved Development Plans (Sheet 3 of Attachment 9).
5. Proyid~, to the satisfaction of the City Attorne) and Public ~orks
Depart~nt. evid~nce cf appropriite insurinc~ for all work p~rrormed.
6. Post I perf~rmince b~nd wlth the Public Vorks tepartment guaranteeing
completion of ill imprQ~ements proposed wit~in the p~~lic rig~t-of-way.
SCI IV SR5l1 C3 "ge 10
."-.-.
,
' .
•
'.
I
.. -1
I
f
I
!
7.
8.
9.
Obtlfn a~ encroachment permit and street opening pe~it from thf Public
Works Department, for all work done within the City Ti9~t-of-way.
SubmIt a detaIled drainage plan to tne Public Works Department for
r~~le_ and apprQval. All roof drains shall be connected to the storm
drain under Cowper Street, wit" the connection Dlade at the e~ist;ng man
hole. All slde.,IKs shall have adequate cress slope (2 percent
mi~imum). Perf~riillted drains shall be installed in all landscip!d areas
to pn'o'ent saturation of adjacent dd'ieway s:Jbgrad'e.
The applicant shall submit I construction impact report for review and
approval by the Plannfn~, Public Works and Transportation Depart~nts.
Such report shaH address and/or rene'd ttle following.
(a) Delivery and storage of ~aterials.
,bJ Construction of the access dri'lleway to the park.ir,g garage,
including sequencing and duration of the work.
(c) ~ub1ic relations during construction of t~e access driveway.
(d) Project access ar.d staging m~ occur only ~n Co~er Street in
front of the project. No construction and ~alntenance parking
permits shall be fssued for construction parking on Cowper Street)
except in front of the project.
(e-) No double parking or <;jueulng of truc«-s or cOl'lstruction vehicles
shall be permitted on Cowper Street betwe~n lytton ind Hamilton
Avenues.
(f) Cowper Street shall be open to two-.ay traffic at all times.
(g) The Cowper Street driveway to the Webster/Cowper par'in, garage
shall be open to two-way traffic during constructlon of tne
building. No project access and staging snall occur in this
drh'e-Itfay.
(hJ The Cowper Street driye~ay may be closed wnile the driveway is
being reconstructed. A sign ~hall be posted indicating that
vehicle access to the Webster/Cowper parklng garage is en Webst~T
Street. Pedestrian access te the Webster/Cowper parking garage
from Cowper Street shall be maintained at all times. ThiS can he
attomplished by completing the co¥ered pedestrian arcade pri~r to
beginning any work on the driveway.
10. Su~~it flow calculations prepared by a licensed engineer t~ t~e Water
Gas-~aste~ater [n9ine~ring Division for re¥iew and approval which sho~
that the off·site and on·site water and sewer mains pro¥ide the domestiC
water, fire flollis and sewer capacity needed to senice the devel<.lpment
and adjacent proparties during antiCipated peak loads.
SC/A,lSR53IC3 Pog. II
•
,
!
\
I
-
.,"'-' ',"-.:'
"",,..
II. S.bmit Improvement plans and specifications for all utility constru<tl ••
to the Utilities [nglneering Civlslon for review and appro,.l. The
Plans IrJst show the proposed alignment of water, 9as, and sewer ~a1ns
and se~1ces and electrlc service lines witnin the development and in
the public right-of-way. Ho work shall begin until the utility
i~rovement plan$ Jnd load sheets ~~ve be~r. apprc¥ed b~ the ~ltert Gas.
Wastewater fngln~ring Ol,lslon, the light and Power Engineering
Di~islon IPd t~e City's Cross Connection Contrel Inspector. Utility
connections and ut'1~ty re1ated construct1o~ actfvlti!s ~hall ref1ect
the following:
(a)
(b)
(c]
(d)
(el
The connections to the underground uttlitifs ;nd storm drainage on
C~T Street and other on·site construction acti~ities shall be
coordinated .ith the Utility Department in order to reduce the
construction impacts on Cowper Street, and to cofncid~ with other
undergrou"d projects to be performed by the Utility Dep.rtment in
the vicinity of the project.
The 'pplicant shall be responsible for installing ,nd upgrading
on-site a~d cff-site wittr 1no ~e~er ut,1ities is necessary to
hand1e antiCipated peak loads, including the cost of all
associated utility in~t.1Jation5/upgrades.
The appl1G;,nt shall pay 111 costs uSQciatEd wi ttl requ.ired
improvements to Qff-site gas ~ains. All improvements to t~e g_s
system Shill be installed by the City of Palo Alto.
Utillty connection charges must be paid prior to the schedvlir.g of
any work parformed by the City of Palo Alto.
All utility inst.llation. shall be in ,ccord.nce with the City of
Palo Alto Standard Specific.tions ,nd Utility Department Standard
Conditions. All .ti1ities that need to be re10cited .i11 be p.id
for by the applicant.
12. Prepare and provide the LJtilities Engineering Division with the
necessa:ry public utility easements to senic.e this ce'lelopment.
]3. Building (onstructiGn shall co=ply with the provis10ns of the current
Un,ronm Fire Code to the satisfaction of the City's Fire ~arshall.
]4. [xcept for trees, landscaping shall not exceed I maximum natural growth
height of three f.et.
15. ln the raised pedestrian area of tne pub1ic parking garage commencing at
the east end of the pedestrian arcade. the developer snall relocate any
cbstac1es in order to provide a c,eiT pedestrian ~alkway at least a-feet
in widtk.
PriOT tg [ssuance pf an Qccupancy Pe~it the ApDlica~t shall comc1ete tbe
fo 11 QW; 09.
SCIA,lSR531C3 r.ge 12
...... , .
cl
r
'of'
16. Enter tnt~ I maintenance zgreement w~th the City, as approved by the
C;ty AttorneYt the Planning Department and tne Public Works Department.
to mafntain all driveway related i~proyemer.t$ (fncTudfng spec;al pa~ing.
and landscaping) within the public rjgnt-of-way {from the ~outnern curb
of til. drivew.y to the north,rn boundlrj of H. public right-of· .... y) for
i time periGd to ~atch the existing maintenance agreement reTat~d to the
Webster/Cowp.r parking g.r.g. (approxim.tely IS years). The applic.nt
sha1l permanent1y ~aintain the IS-foot, 10-inch-wi~e pedestria~ arcade
and the planting strip adje:cent to He driveway surface edge of curb
i10ng the entire length of the driveway.
17. Pay the City in in-lieu parking fee based on the number of parking
spaces required at one parking space for each additional 250 square feet
of gross fl~or area. This fee is to be based ~n 523,000 per parking
space for the estimated 36 spac!s required by the additional square
footage or $828,000. This figure may wary based on final construction
m4asurernents. rn the event the [ity adopts an ordinance prior to
occ~pancy of t~e project which !sta~lishes an in-lieu parKing fee that
exceeds 523,000 per space, the app11car.t shall pay the hig~er fee. ln
no event shall the applicant pay less than S23,OOO per parking space.
18. Pay S150,OOO to the C;\y's Child C.r. Trust fund.
19. Replace the tnree existing Hawthorne street trees along the project's
Cowper Street frontage with three new 36-inch box Pistacia [hinensis
trees, and install all required on-site and off-site landscaping.
20. Construct all sidewalks to comply with Pub1ic Works approved standards.
21. Reconstruct the access drivewa~ with existing pavers, or other pavers
approved by the Publ}c Works Department. The use of new pavers (if
proposed) shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works
Department prior to submitta1 to tne Architectura1 Review Board.
22. All materials and decorative finishes tJsed in the publlc right-of-.'ay
shall be selected frDm the approved list provided by the Publ1c Works
Departmef1t. While tne paYing rnaterh1s Llsed in the cOilered pedestrian
arcade do not have to be frc~ th~ approved list, the materials used in
the arcade shall meet Public Work> Department sta~dards.
ATTACHHEllTS
Table I. Comparlsons of Selected Phnncd' C.ormlJnity Zone OIan;es
~egative Oeclaration
Draft Planned Community ZonE Ordinance
Loc.ation ~ap
letter from applicant dated June 20, 1991 contatning
-Specific Deilelopment Program Statement
-Development Schedule
Letter from applicant dated July 2. 1991 addressing R~tai1 Use
Hay 16. 19S1 ARB m'inutes olnd' lnformat ional fl!emorandLlm
April 19, 1991 Plannfng Co~ission Staff Report and original attachments
SCI A/SRS31 C3 P.ge 13
I
-J
,
April 24. 1991 E.cerpt Pl.nning Commission minutos
DeYelopment Pl.ns (Commission Members onlll
tOPIrs 500 TO
Ar,'itectur.l Royi •• Board
D(S Architects I (ngino.rs. 399 Bradford Stroot. Redwood C~ty. C~, 94063
Pro.ier Propertios. 420 Floronco Street. PiTo Alto, CA 94301
Chop Keenan. 700 (merson Streot. Pil. ATto, CA 94301
SC/~SR53JC3 PagE 14
,
t ,
I
I
\
•
TABLE I
Comp.rlsons of Selected Planned C~nlty lone Cn.nges
Mm'.! ~ 531 Cowper Str .. t
250 Un i vers it),
Cowper/Web,ter p.rking
garage
529.Bryant Street
625 El C.mlno Real
(Holiday Inn)
SC/A/SR5JlC3
Publfc Benefits
Urban Desjgn .AJn.enfties
inc:1uding alley
iltlprove!l1e,ts,
pedestrian arcade, and
• $150,000
contribution toward
the cost of a downtown
cnild care facility
level -of publ it
parking with 62 spaces
paid for by the
assessment district;
Alley and plau
1mpr<lvements.
e-nhancement of
historic district
166 p.rking space.
constructed privately
for ~rivite use for IS
years then donated to
til. City for public
u.e
Contributfon of
$150,000 for
improv~m€nts to the
C;~ic Center Plaza;
UrbJn Design im€nities
incl~ding alley and
street impr~vement5
Additiona1 hotel
occupancy tax reV€flues
to the City
(approximateTy
S220,OOO per year),
proje;t Excesses
9,075 square feet
above zoning limit
r~cess of SO foot
height limit, 13,700
square feet in ~~~ess
of CD project size
limit
Addition,l t.o l.vel.
of parking e~ceeds
daylight plane ind
f1~igM limits
Re'~ase from Ground
flocr (SF) district
TimitatiMs;
2,500 addition,l
SQUire feet above (~
project size limit.
This was the important
part ~nd the Plaza
improvements were
mostl~ to off!et t~is
SF requirement. The
added square footagE
was of limited
consideration.
Project exceeds
previous PC district
FAR of .S to I tu ,n
FAR of .68 to I, and
an additional 54 roams
Page IS
PJ!OPPSED
330 tverett
325 lytton Avenu.
st/A/SR53IC3
provislao far day-ti ..
publIc penait·us. of
l8 •• Istlng HolIday
Inn par~in9 spaces.
contribut1on of funds
to study. bike p.t~
froo SP St.tlon to
Palo Alta High Schoa'
51 units of .ffordabl.
senior housin.g
Contribution of
approximate', 7S
public parking spac!s
for. tot.l of 343
rooms.
1.22 to J f~,R where. 6
to I Is .llcwe4;
vir;ances needed for
daylight pl.ne and
setbaCK intr~sions
Project _ill exceed CD
FAA and project sizt
limits by 16,750
sQ:uare feet
Page 16
'.
."~~
.. ~~:.
:4i:. __ ~ _" _. __ ~ . ~~1;,,-
• t-~,-•. :
,cp ,.y'; ---.' ..
"
I
---.
Environmental Documents· City of Pa10 Alto
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Project Oe.s.c.ription/Title: 53.1 CowRer Street P1a.nf'1ed Community 7on~Shang-e
location/Address: 531 Cowper Street, PallJ .A.~!, 94301
Sp"",oring Agency/Appl icant: OES Archi tec"t"s __ _
Address and T~lephone of Applitant: )99 Bradford Street
Redwood Cit Y.-:';C'iiA"-9~4;-'O"'5')-_-___ _
1415Uo4 6453
Application for: Zone chanQe. architec~~r~a~l~r~e~v~i~e~w ________ ___
Zoning at Project lDcation: CD-_U_~ Fee Receipt foio.: --------
NOTICE OF DETERIHNATION "
Based IJPO!'1 review of the project files. the undersigned member of the Plan
ning Department has ccnclud!d:
ill Negative Declaration: The pr~ject has no si9nificant en~ironmental 1m
pact. No Environmental ImD4ct Report is requ1red_ The reaSO~5 far a
N~9ative ueclar.ation are; included in tne att_iJcfl_ed initial sJ_udy. A COPy
of project action is available for review from 8;00 a.m~ to 12;00 p.m. jl~Q
1:00 p.m. to_5.:00 p.m. ?-l~nd_at through Friday! at the _p..!)o Alto Plann
n
l!!9.
Oeparetme_t1t. located on __ the 5th floor
n
of City Ka11. __ 250 Hamilton_ P,vef\ue,
Palo Al_!.~
J I T~e project may ~ave a significant envlronmental impact_ An Environ
mental rmpact RfPO(t ~i11 be prepared.
---;>
III anntng Depart'r;:ent oW .. · .. ccii .. aa~l; \ ('-\ ~_
Phnn; ng Di rect or: ~:""'J!~~~~1o;;'!:i-$Or'~''$t1~~i1
ThE project ~as been Date:
The project nas been denied_ Date:
Fi 1. No.: 91·ElA-02
. I .
,
" .. r __ --;:.:.:. ..... -
"' ·-'A
(~Y'ronm!~tal Documents (,ty of Pllo Aito
[.
II.
II!.
INITIAL STUD yl.2
Project Title/Addr,ss:
Ertvi ronmenh 1 Sett f ng! ~A~1'~V~'~1~8~.=O~?~5il:S~gfu~.~r~e:i:f~oo~tt:'~~~Ci'EntJPa ret 1 with commercia' hnd us.es to ihe M:-tr, south and .... est. 'With a_city or,,;nelj 5 1e~el parki~9 garage to the east~
JY. Environmental Impact CMeck.1fst (Explanation cf all "yes" anSillle'rS are in
Section V):
J.
-.
-
EartM~ Will the proposai resu1t in:
!. U~$t6b1e earth c~nditions or cnahges
~r. ;~ologlc substructures?
b. Oisruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcoyering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or S:-:::'..iiioi surface
re1ief f~.t~res?
d. The destruction, coverir,g or mocification
of ini unique geologic Qr physic~l
featu-res?
e. Any increase in ~ind or water ~rosfon of
soils~ e~ther on or eff tne site?
f.
9·
Exposure of people or property to
gEc10gic hazards such is futhrrv~k.esi
landslides, mud~lide5. gro~nd fai1ure.
nr sim11ar hazards?
Ch~nge~ in siltation, depcsition, or
erosion ~~ich may ~cdify tne c~anne1
of a river or the bed of a bay or inlet?
MA1BE
91-nA·02
2
"!.Q
L
L
_x_
L
-~
.,
,
r
1
!
I
I
2. AfT. Will the prClpasal res;.lt in:
J. Substantial air emisl~ons or deterinrJ
tton of a~bient iir quality?
b. ihe cT!ation of object,onal odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, mOlsture
temperature, or any dinge in cl imate,
eitner 1oca'1y OT r~gionJ1?
3. wat.r. ~jll the proposal result I",
I. Changes in absorpt10n rttes, d~il.ir.4ge
patt~rns. ~r the rate and amount of
surface w~ter runoff?
b. Alterations to the caurse Qr flow of
flood ... aters?
c. Ois,harge i~to surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature,
disso'~ed oxygen or turbidity1
d. Alt~rat;on of the direction of rate of
flew of ground waters?
E. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as f100ding or
tidal 'Wave~,?
f. Change in the quantity of ground ~aters.
eIther througb direct addit'ons cr with
drawals. or through i .. tercept'ons of a~
aquifer by cuts or etCivations?
c.~ fJ1:.lit life. W-;l1 He ?rDposal re:su1t in:
i. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of p1ants (includ
ing trees. shrubs, gr~ss, c~ops. micro
flora and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the number~ of any uni~ue.
rare or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduct~o~ in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
El4FMCK
-
_L
9)'ElA-02
1
x
~
r
-
5. An'I'm'l Ufe. Wlll the-propos"l result in;
iI.. Chang~ f" t~e di~erslt1 of speci!s, or
of 2:"1 species of anilf.ah (birds, land
an1ma's including reptiles, fish and
s~ellf;sh. benthic organfs~s, ins~cts
or microfauna)?
b. Red'Jction of the r,umbers of any uniqu!,
rare or er.dangered species of animals?
c. rntroducti~n of new species of animals
into an irea, or resu1t in a barrier t~
the migration or movement of anilTld:ls?
d. Dp.terioration in existing fish Dr
wildl if. habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
7.
8_
i. lncreases in existing noise le .... e1s?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and 912re. ~i'l the proposal produce
new 1lght glare?
land Use. ~ill the proposal result in a
substantial a1teration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
".9~ fnergY/Natural Rest"uP'"ce.!. Wi 11 t~e proposal
result in:
a. U~e of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
b. SUbstantial increase in dema~d upon
existing sources of energy, or reQui re
the deve10pment of new sour,e~ cr
energy?
c. Increase in the rate ~f use of any
natural resources?
d. Substantial depletion of any nonrenew
able natural reso~rce?
lO. Risk: of Upset. Does tne proposal invol .... e a
risk of an explosion or tne release of
hazardous substances (including. but not
limited to, oil. pesticides, chemicals ~r
radiation) in the event of a~ a~cident or
upset?
. EIAFMCK !1-EIA-02
4
x
x
_1-
x
•
"
---------"
. .J
,
L
-
II. Populot'on/Hous'ng.
a. Will tnt ptoposal Ilter the location,
distrlbution, density. or growth rate
(If the human popul ation of an area?
b. ~ill the propos.l effect existing
Mousing. or create i dem~nd for addi·
t tonil hDusing?
12. Tr!nS2ortat~C;rculat;on. Will t~e proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular moyement?
b. Effects on existing parktng facilit1fS,
or demal'ld for ne_' par<ing?
c. Alterations to ,present patterns of
c;rcu1atfoo or moyement of people andl
or gMds?
d. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, hicyclists or pedestrians?
13. ~ub'1e Services. Will the proposal ~ave an
effect upon, or result in i ne~d fo: new or
altered governmental ser .... ices in any of the
follow1ng areas:
i. fire protection?
h. Pol tee prot€ction?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreatiolial facilities?
e. Maint€nance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
14. Utilities. Will the proposa1 result in a need
for new systems, or 5uhstantial aTterations to
the following utilitles:
i. Power ar natural gas?
b. Co:nrn!Jnicat;ons systems?
EIAfMCK 91·£IA·02
S
x
x
E1AFMCK
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tank?
e. Stor= wat!r drainage?
f. Solid wast! and disposa1?
15. Human Health. Wlll the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any hea1th ~azard or
potenti.l he.lth hazard (excluding
mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potenti.l he.lth
hazards?
!6~ Aesthetics, ~jll the proposal result In t~e
obstruction of any scen;~ vlsta or y;ew
open to the public, or will the proposal
result in tne creation of an aesthetically
offensiYe site open to public view?
17 ~ Recreation. Wi 11 th-e proposal result in an
impa:t upon the quality or quantity of exist
ing recreational opportunities?
18. Cultural Rtsourc~s.
a_ Will the proposal result in the altera
tion of/or the destructian of a
prehistoric or bistorlc arthaeological
site?
b. Will t~e proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
pr~historic or historic building,
structure. or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential
to cause i physical change which would
affect unique cultural values?
d. 'IIill t~e proposal restrict txisting
religious or sacred us~s within t~e
potel'ltiill impact area?
".---;'. L-· . _._--
. .
91·EIA-D2
6
x
x
_x_
_x_
•
-"~ .. '.-.".-'" .~" ..
19, Ma"dator¥ findings of Sianific~,
I. Dues the preject ha¥e the potentfal to
degrade the Qua1ity of the environment.
substantially reduce the habitat of i
fish or wildlife spEc~es. cause a fish
or wil~Tife popu'ati~n to drop bel~w
self-sustaining 1evels. threaten to
eliminate a plant ~r an;maJ co~unity.
reduce t~e number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant ~r animal or
ellminate important examples of the major
period3 of California history or
prehistory?
b. Do~s the pr~ject ha¥f the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, en¥ironrnental goals? (A
short-term impact on the environment is
one which occurs in a relati¥e1y briEf,
defl"itive perio~ of time while To~g-term
lmpatts will endure well into the future.)
c_ Does the project ha¥e impacts which are
fndividually 11mited, but cumulat;¥e1y
con$iderable? (A project may impact on
twa ~r more separate resources where the
impact {)~. each resource is relatively
small. but where the effect of t~e total
of those impacts on the en¥lronment is
Significant.)
d. D09S the project have environmenta1
effects ~hich will cause substantial
adverse effects en human beings, either
dirfctly or indirectlJ?
V. Ekp1anation of ·yes· answers in envirc~mental checklist.
See attached_
El~MC(
r
91-nA-02
7
-
The project site 15 located in a seismic araa of modlO!rate risk. a~d
would be subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an
eart~quake. All new construction on the site will be suject to the
proll'ts;ons of the curr~nt Uniform Building Code (lISC) , portions of which
ire dlrected at minimizing seismic risk and prellenting loss of life and
property in the e~ent of i~ earthquake.
Th~ construction of the project will temporarily res~lt in an increase
in dust emissions over existing ,ambient air conditions. The following
dust control measures shall bi! required to r~duce the impact to an
acceptable level:
To reduce dust levels during construction it shall be required tnath
exposed earth surfaces be watered frequently during the late morning and
the errd of Ue day, with frequPrl(,,Y of watedng increasing during windy
conditions. All streets and haul routes s~al] be cl{!aned daily. The
project !ngin!er shall deSignate a person(s) to monitor the dust control
program with authority to reQuest increased watering an~ clean:ng of
streets when necessary and/or upon the reQu~~t of the Public Works
Department. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across
any pub1ic ~r private property shall be removed i~ed;ately and paid for
by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor's
operations wither inside or outside the public right-of-way shall be
controlled at the contractDr's expense.
If. in the opinion of the City Engineer, the contractor fails to comply
with any of the items concerning spil1age and dust control. and the
contractor is either ~n;"i11ing or unable to remedy the deficienc)'. tne
City Engineer shall employ pr;~ate or pvblic WOT( forces and equipment
as reQuried to correct tne deficiency. The cost of employing such
foreps shall be doub1ed as a penaly, an such cost shall be borne by the
contractor. Such action taken by the City shall Mt relieve the
contractor of the respons1bnity concerning s;:liliage ar,d dust cJntrcl.
6. Noise (a)
c.onstruction of the project will result in temporary increases in
ambient noise lev~'s. Construction acti~it'es shall be suhject to t~e
provisi~ns of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.10 PAMCJ. ~hich
requires contruction equipemer!t to be i1!uffled so as r.ot to exceed a
nOlse emiss10n of a3 decibels (dBAJ at i distance of ,5 feet, or a noise
l!~el exceeding 86 deCibels (dBAJ outside the property line, unless an
exception is granted.
The traffic generated by the project ~il contribute to a~bient noise
levels in the area? but this increase should not result in a noticeable
difference in triffic noise. over Existing tonditians.
7. Li .gMt and 61 are
[JAFHCK 91·EIA·02
B
•
/"4
J
i
l
I
!
1
r ,
!
-
The pr~ject will increase ll~ht and g1arc em:nating from the site, but
~ill n~t have an adver~t impa~t on surrounding commercia1 uses. A
detailed ligHirrg plan ad'dressing street and alley treatment shall b€'
required to be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board.
~ulation/Housfn9
The housing impacts associated the proj~ct's addit:cn of 9,500 squar~
feet of cDmmercial dey~'opment were adeQuately addressed in the Downtown
Stucy [nvir~nmentll Jm~act Report, 19S6. The City's housing mitigation
ordin.nc. [Ch.pter 16.47 PAMC) exempts the first 20,000 square feet of
new and e~isting commercial square footage. S~nce the total squari
footage of th~ tomp'ete project is on1~ 17,000 squa~e feet, the project
is expempt from the payment cf housing mitigation fees.
12. Transportation/Circv,.tlon (b)
The area wid! impacts of an addtiona1 350,000 square feet of cemmerciai
flo~r area in the Do~town ~ere adequate1y addressed in the Downtown
Study £IR. 1986. The appl ; Cint proposes pay an i"~ 1 ieu fee of
approximately 523,000 to S2S.00Q per required parking space instead of
providing the 36 on-site required park,ng spaced for the addtional 9~OOO
square feet of commercial floor area.
Tn-lieu Parking Fee Proposal
A. BaCKground: Status t>f E~istinq [)owntow!l_~_~ __ ir.q Deficit
Between August IS, j986, (effective date of the CD zoning regl.lhtions)
and September 1, 1990, approved p;ojects added 28,202 square feet of
floor area to the Downtown area. This additional square footage
resulted in a 13·space increase to the parking deficit, bringing the
total deficit to 1,513 spaces.
Two projects. i.f., the PC zone change for S29 8r)ant Street and the
modification to the ~ zoned Cowper/~ebster Parking Garage (lot J). have
been approved since September 1, 1990. The project at 529 Sryant Street
added 2,560 square fe~t of floer area and resl,;aed in an increase to the
Ocwntc'tm parlil':9 def~cit b,t ten spac.E:~. The PC ZO!ie-ame:noment for the
Cowper/Webster garage ~ill add two leyels of parking ~nd 166 additional
spaces. The net effect of these two projects will reduce the Dowr.town
parKing deficH by 156 spaces. In SUIf.!TlHy. changes i,1 the Downtown
par'dng deficit between September 1, ]986 and No~'ember 1. 1990,
including all approved projects~ show a reduction of 143 spaces in the
Downtown parking deficit.
B. f!!~ing Reg~iremer.t for the Project
Based ~pon a total project size of 15,950 square feet less a credit fer
existing square footage (7,SOS square feet) and app'icab'~ exemptio~s
(400 square feet), the net new additional building square footage to
~hich the parling prevision reQ~irement is i?plitabje is 8,03< sq~are
feet. At the rate of one parking space per 250 square feet, the
reQuired number of parking spaces is 32. If the uTtimate building sfze
is ~ither larger or smaller than 15,942 square fe~t, the req~ired number
UAfMCK 91·[]A·02
9
•
t .•. ,oJ
I
1
.,-.
. "'-
I ....
. " -'
of parking spaces w1ll increase or decrease at t~e rate ~f one space per
250 square feet.
C. Parking Ava,labiltty
-
The propo$ed pr~ject is located directly across the street from Parking
lot 11 wit~ 97 spaces for short Urrn (Z-hour 1 imit) pub] i<: parking and
1mmediately adjacent tc the e~f5t;ng five·level Webster-Cowper Parking
Garage with ISS ~paces (basement and ground flo~r) fer short term
(3-hour limit) public parking >v.il.ble to anyone. and 260 spaces for
permit parking (unlimited tfmeJ ava;Table only to downtown emp1oye~s who
have a valid parking p,n.it. ~hile lot H is typically full during the
p~ak m,d·day period, tne PGrl'~9 spaces in th~ 9arige are somewhat 1~ss
tnan fully ut;lized~ The public spaces on the ground floor are ilw~ys
in use, while substantial u~e of the base~~nt tends to occur only irou~d
the noon-time per·;od. TIrtD floeTs Df perm1t pa'rling are always we~l
utilized, while the roof continues to be Significantly under util1zed 0'1
it regular basis. Typically, there have been a total of 40 to 60 pub1ic
and ~i!rmit spaces avanable for use.
Tn!re is a current approved project for which construction will soon
begin, ~hich will add two additicnal levels of parking to the existing
garage~ thereby creating an additiDnal 166 spa~es at this particular
lO<:iJtion. For a period of IS years. thes.e spaces "IIIil1 be leased for
priYate ~5age for businesses in the arf~. After a period of 1S years,
the tity will take over control of these additional spaces ar.d
admin'~ter them im l similar m3nne~ (publi~/permitl to the existi~9
portion of the garage.
ilhl1e it ca.nnot be stated with cE-rta~nt)' that ~)isting and future
parking supp1,. is :iuff; cient to fully meet future parking demand in th is
immediate area, the knowledge of what is known to be taking place and
some understanding of what may occur in the future leads to an
inevitable conclusion that the imbalance between parling supply and
demand is and will continu~ to be more acut~ in ether areas of the
dOWTItown. 7n.erefore. rather than req!.Jirin; that additional !'JiI!'"king
spaces of p~obably lo~ utiltzaticn potential be pfo~ided in 1 a~ea ~~ere
parking supply is relatfveTy ampl!, i propsoal for an in·lieu payment to
be used to prov~de additional parking elsewhere in the dcwntewn parking
:\ssessment distr'ict where pUling sUPlilYI in re1ation to parkin9 demand
lS more acute, ~as considerable merit.
D. In-l leu ·Parking fee A,1ternat.lve: Current Staff Assignment
The Downtown Study estabTished the direction to de¥elop in-lieu par~ing
provisions that ~ouTd provide certain projects with the option ~f paying
an in-l ~elJ parking fee rather than 'PT'ciViding the reQuired n..:mber of
parking spaces ~n site. The general intent is tnat such provisions be
~imited to special situations where the small size, unusual
configuratio~, speCial featUres or historica1 character ~f the site was
suc~ that imposition of parking requirements wou1d preclude development.
Section IS.49.100Id) of the Pilo Alto Municipal Cod. specifies
situations where in-lieu parking provisions would be applicable.
At present, staff is working on the development of an ordinance tnat
would establish a mechanism to enabTe the City to cel'ect, retain and
E1AFMCK
L
91-EIA-OZ
10 .
\
,> ':; • . '
•
1
I
j
I
1
"S'" '.,
{~~zL.
•
-
dispose ~f fn-lieu par~in9 fees. Such an Ordl"inCe ~ou1d 11so establish
an appropriate fee to be collected and ide~tify the jnt~nded ~ses ~f any
fees thus co11ected.
~ile the proposed project fs being considered as a PC Zone, and
therEfore r.ot formally linked .. ittl eXlsting in-lieu parking provisions
or a future in~lieu park~ng or~inanceJ s~me Qf the informat1on being
developed for the ordinance ~ay ser~e as ~seful reference point in
f~rther re~ie~ and consideratio~ of the prcp~sed project.
Th~ prcposed project includes a pro~ision for the payment of the sum of
520.000 per parking space for whatever numbel'" of spaces are required and
not provided on·site. lhe proposed project as now defined (lS;9~~
square fe~tl with a requireme~t for 32 parking spaces would resu1t in a
total in-lieu fee of $640.CO~. lf the ultimate building size is either
, arger or smaller than lS, 950 s~uare het. the re~uired numbe-r of
parking s~aCES will increise or decrease at the rate of one s~ace per
250 square fe~t and t~e total in·lieu fee will increase or decrease
according1y.
C~rrent efforts to eva;lJate the cost of providing additional parking
with"!'n the downtown parking assessment district in that CDntext of
probab1e implernentati~n scenar10S indicatts that~
a. If the future parking is pro'w'id~d' in the form of a parking gartge
built on the site of an existing CitJ p~r~ing lot {Webster-Cowper
Parking Garage ~odel). the in-lieu fee shou1d be in the range of
Sl5,000 to S10,000 per 'pace;
b. If the future parking is pro'liided in the fo~ of Me ~r two levels
of underground parking in canjucticn witn the development of a
private site {2~O Univers1ty Avenue model). the in-lieu fe~ snou1d
be in the range of $25.000 to $30.000 per space.
Ihese estimated costs are based upon available date from six parKing
structures located in and around Palo ATto and include consideratiar. of
tne following: aJ actual construction costs (not estimates) adjusted to
current year dollarsi b) no land costs; c) replacement of any di~placed
ex,stin9 surface level par~fn9; d) the co~strained and tight ~alure of
sites in thE downtown i.reaj i:ind e) some pro'''';sior'f of administrith'e
costs.
E. Use of In~l ieu Parking Fees
The concept cf an in-lieu parking fee. is that fees w", be co1lected
and accumulated and used to fund the provision of additional parking
spaces within the downtown parking assessment district. While it is
un'ike1) that in-lieu pa~~in9 fees ~i11 generate soffic,ent menies tG
separately fund a new park:ng facility, they can be used to fund a
portion of a new parking f~cility thereby reducing the burden to the
as~essm~nt district.
While the location of any such future parking is not definitive t the
areas of prlmary need appear to include one ce~tered around lct~ R, P,
and N~ and another centered around lots G and E+ This 1S based upon
consideration of the expansion of t~e existing j,;Iebster·Co:.rper Parking
-
. . ~ .:
.,," '.'
------------------------------"
.~ .
Garage, a ~relfminary understanding of possible c~anges .t Lot K. the
~~ortanc2 Ind c~ple{1ty of uses for lots Sand L, and tne existence of
the lot Q Garage. Furt~eP7lOre, w~.i1e He City may on.e day build an
additional parki~9 strutture similar to the Web5t~r-Cowper Parktng
Garage. ft is staff's ~resent assessment t~at it ~$ ~ore llkel) tnat
additiona1 pirk~ng will be develop~d in tonjunct'on with privatt
deveTopment of private .ites and/or parking Tot air right •• imil •• to
the 2SQ University project and lot Q Garage, a. such public/private
o"p;::Jrt'Unities art se. In sl.1rrmary. the aceptance of in in-l ieu fee
instead of providing actual on-site parking ;s not anticipated to create
Iny signifance advere parking impacts in the d~wptown area.
Construt1on Related Traffic/Circulation impacts
Tne vacant project site is being used as a construction staging area (or
the id~it1on of twc levles of parking tG the existing city awned
Webster/Cowper g.rage immedi.tley to the rear (east) of the propo.ed
proj~ct. Once the addition tG the Webster/Cowper garage is complete,
erection of the wood superstructu~e will begin and should take
approximately 6 wee~s. By building a wood frame building. cranes will
not be used fDr tne project. Samll construction vehicles will deliver
all material for the site. This this is the benefit of weod
construction. Heavy materials are not used, reduc1ng contruction
impacts.
During construction. the loss of app~ox1mately fou~ on-street parklng
spaCES are expected. 1hese spaces (an be accornodated in the
Webster/Cowper garage which is nJt used to its full capacity.
Similarly, for a wood frame project, the number of construction _crkers
will be limited to approximtely ten ~orkers at a~y one time during the
course of the project.
The Sidewalk along Cowper Street will be closed dU~1ng construction with
pedestrians being detoured to cross it ~niversity Avenue and Cowper
Street. and It Hamilton Avenue and Cowper Street.
The drlveway between Cowper Street .nd the Webster/Cowper 9irage ~ill
remain open except during the alley 1mprcve~ents. This aspect of the
project will be phase~ to minimize disruption to existing adjacent
property owners, tenants and vehic1es parkir.g the the Webster/C~w~er
garage.
At tnis poi~t in time in the design review process, the project will be
subject to it least the (ollo~iog constuct,~" related condit'~"s:
1. Project access and' stagi"9 lilY occur on1y on Co .... per Street i'l front
of tne project. Ho c~nstru'tion and maintenance par~ing permits
shall be issued for constu'tio~ parklng on Cowper Street, except in
front of the project.
2. No double parking or Queueing of trucks or constructlon vehicles
shall be permited on Cowper Street betwee~ Lytton and Hamilton
Ayenues.
3. Cowper Street sha11 be open to t .... o-II/ay traffic at ill times.
ErAfMC~ 91-E!~-02
12
L
.. ~
;
(. n. Co."er Stroet driveway to the Webster/Cowper garage 'hall be
open to two~way traffic during const~uctfcn Dr the building_ No
project access and staging shall occur in this drivEway.
S. ne Cowper Street drive",a)' mily be closed w~ i le the driveway is
being reconstructed. A sign s~all be posted indicating tnat
yehic1~ access tQ the Webster/Cowper garage is on Webster Street
and pedestrian access 15 on University and Hamilton A'Ienues.
6. Pedestrian access fro~ Cowper Street to the Webster/C~wper garage
shall be maintained at all times.
fJAFMCK 91-EIA-02
13
•
\
!
1
I
-
ORDINANCE NO.-=~-===
ORDINANCE OF THE CC"JNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNIC
!PAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CflANGE THE CLASSIFI
CATION OF PROPERTY ](NOW!< AS 531 COWPER STREET FROM
CD-C(P) TO PC
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
~Ql!....l. Section 19.08.040 of the Palo Al to Municipal
Code, t}te ·Zoning Ma.p" I is bereby amended to change tbe zoning of
certain property knovn as !31 Cowper Street (the ·subject
property" J from the "CD-C CP} commercial Downtown Service/pedestrial
Shopping Combining District-2~ne classific~tion to the "pC PlannE~
Community District-zone classification. Said. p.rcperty is sbown on
a lIiap a,ttached hereto as Exhibit "A-and incorporated herein by
referf!;nce.
SEC1ION 2. The city COllncil hereby finds 'With respect to
the subject property that:
(a)
(e)
The subject property is so situated, and th~ use or
uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics
that the application of general districts or combining
districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to
allo~ the proposed development, in that the site is
locatec on a parcel that the Urban Design Committee
has identitied ""hich would enhance the urban landscape
with a tnree-story building. The Cowper Street
driveway to the webster/Co~er gar~qe has been also
identified by the Urban Design Committee as part of a
~Pedestria~ Way" beginning at Lytton Plaza and
extending to the WebsterlCc'w'Per ~a,rage 'Wbich 'Would
also benefit the urban landscape by upgrading and
e~~ancements that would promot£ pedestrian vitality.
The three-story building and tl1e provision of a
covered, ... ell lighted pedestrian arcade~ substantial
landscaping on both sides of the driveway, improved
pedestrian access to the We~ster/Cowper garage, and a
wiaened 6idewalk on the north sioe of the drive'Way
proposed in conjunction with the project could not
otherwise be accommodated under standard zoning~
Development of the subj~ct property under the
provisions of the Planned COmr;lunity District .... ill
result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by
application of t.he regulations of general districts or
comhining districts. These benefits include the
upgrading of the cowper Street entry to the
Webster/Co"'Per garage: 'With a widened side'or(alJt, special
paving treatment, lighting and landscaping, a covered
pedestrillfl arcade~ an.d building scale comple.mentary to
the urban landscape. In addition to the alley and
1
•
\
, .. '
,
. . ........... -;;. ,,<
-
(el
other 151 te iDlprovements, the applicant shall pay
$lS0,00Q.00 to the City's Child Care Trust Fund to be
used. towards providing a child Cllre .facility in or
near the downtown area. The City Council has
identified both elley improvements and provision ot a
downtown chile! c~re facil ity as posssible benefits
requirinq major incentives.
The use or uses permitted and the site development
regulations Applicable within the district shall ~e
consistent with the Palo Alto comprehensive Flan, and
will be compatible with eXisting and potential uses on
adjoining sites or within the general vicinity, in
that the project will maintain the same uses which
apply under the Current CD-C(P} zoning district.
SEarON :3. Those certain plans, entitled -531 Cowper
street-prepared by DES Architects, given Architectural Review
&:>ard approval on April 18, 1991, and revised June 14, 1991, a COPl"
of ~hlch is on file in the Planning Department, and to which copy
reference is hereby made concerning the t~11 particula~s thereof.
are hereby collectively approved as the Oeyelop~ent Plan for the
subject property pursuant to Section 18.68.120. Said Development
Plan is approved for the following uses. and subject to the
following conditions:
..... "
(a) remitted Uses. The permitted uses shall be those
uses permitted in the CD-C{P) zonin9 district.
(bJ Conditional RseL The condit ienall y permitted uses
shall be those. uses conditio-nally pe-nnitted in t.he CD
C(P) zoninq district~
(C) Site Development Regulations. The site development
regulations governing tne subject property shall be in
accordance ~ith the CD-C(P} zoning district and the
Development Plan -: provided, that in the case of a
conflict bet~ee~ the two, the Development Plan shall
control~
Cd) Parking and Loading R_eguirernents. The parking and
loading requirements 90verning the subject property
shall be in accordance ~ith the CD-C{P) zonin9
district and the Development Plan; provided, that iin
the caGe of a conflict bet~een the t~o, the
Developme~t Plan shall control.
(e) ~ial Requirements f The followinq conditions are
made special requirements conditioning the approval
granted by thiS ordinance:
L
Prior to Iss~ance of a Building Permit the OWner of
the Subject property Shall Complpte the Follo~ing~
2
•
l I
. ,
" ,
<
-
1-
2.
,,~---~ ,-
Final architectilral details including a relook
at material and design of columns, detailing at
the eves, surface treatment of the party wall,
sun control on t.he Cowper Street facade,
materials, colors, glazing, downspouts,
mechanical equipment, paving materials, and
lighting ~nd landscape plans shall return for
final review by the Board prier to issuance of a
building permit.
Pro'1Jide fourteen Class III (Hitch II) bicycle
storage racks. Four of these shall be provided
on site, or elternate loca~ions approved hy the
Transportation Division. The remaining ten
racks shall he installed along University Avenue
at locations identified by the Transportation
Division. Location and design shall be reviewed
and approved by the Architectural Revlev; Board
and shown on the building permit plans.
3. Grant a permaner.t pedestrian easement to the
City. by deed, for the covered pedestrian arcade
and any landscaping adjacent to the arcade that
falls within the s~bject property as shown on
the approved Develop~ent Plans.
4. File for approval of a lot line adjustment 'With
the Department of Publ ic Works ~ and convey to
the City, in fee title, a t .... o-foot ..... ide strip
along the northern property line of the subject
property. as shown on the appro .... ed De·"elopment
Plans.
5~ Provide to the satisfaction of the city Attorney
and Public Works Department evidE:rJce of
appropriate insurance for all ... ·ork performed.
6. Post a performance bond .... i th the Pub1 ic works
Departme:lt guaranteeing completion of all
improvements proposed within the public right
of-way.
7. obta.in an encrcachrn~t penni t and street opin ing
permit from the Public Works Department for all
worK done within the city right-Qf-way.
e. Submit l:l detailed drainage p.lan to the Public
Works Department for revie· ... and appro ... ·al. All
roof drains shall be connected. to the stOn'll
drain under Co~er Street~ with the connection
made at the existing manhole. All sidewalks
shall have adequate cross slope ,t ... ·o percent
minimum). Perforated drains shall be installed
in all landscaped areas to prevent saturation of
adjecent driveway subgrade.
)
mun 517 c·
1
I
I
911)7Q3 bdc 0030318
•
The owner shall submit a const.ruction impact
report tor review and approval by the Planning,
PUblic works, and Transportation Departl!lents.
Such report shall add.ress and/or reflect the
rolioving:
(i) Delivery and storage of materials;
(ii) Construction of the access <lrive",ay to
the p~rkin9 9arage, including sequencin9
and dUration of the ~crk.
(iii) Public relations during construction of
the aCCeSs drive~ay.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Project access and staging may occur only
on Cowper street in front of the project.
No construction and maintenance parking
permits shall be iss~ed tor construction
parkin; on Co"w"per street, except in tront
of the project.
No double parking or queuin9 of trucks or
construction vehicles shall be permitted
on Cowper street bet~een Lytton and
Hamilton Avenues.
Cowper Street shall be open to t .... o-way
traffic at all times.
(vii) The Co..-per Street driveway to tbe
Wcbster/Co'wr."Per garage shall be open to
two-way traffic during construction of
the building. No project access and
staging shall occur in this driveway.
(viii) The cowper St~eet drive~ay may be cl~sed
'Wnile the drive .... ay is being
reconstructecj. A sign shall be posed
indicating that vehicle access to the
Webster/Cowper garage is on Webster
Street. Pedestrian access to the
webster/~wper garage from Cowper Street
shall be maintained at all times. Th.is
can be accompl ishe-d by completing the
covered pedestrjan arcade prior to
beginning any .... ork on the drivevay.
10. Submit flow calculations prepared by a licensed
enqineer to the Water-Gas-Wastewater Engineering
Division tor review and approval, which show
that the off-site and on-site .... ater and seit'er
mains provide the domestic water~ fire flo~s and
sewer capacity needed to service the development
•
•
."~ •..
-~-~
" "_._ 0"
•
I
"
l
I
I
and adjacent properties during antiCipated peak
loads.
11. Submit improvement plans and specifications for
all ~tility construction to the Utilities
Enqineerinq Division for revieW' and approval.
The plans snaIl show the proposed alignment vf
'Water, gas and sewer mains and services and
electric service lines 'Within the development
and in the public right-of-it'ay~ No ..... orJc shall
begin until the utility improvement plans and
load sheets have been approved :by the Water,
Gas, Wastewater Engineering Divisior., the Ligbt
an..:] Po'Wer Engineering Division and the Citr's
Cross Connection Control Inspector. utility
connections and utility related construction
activities shall reflect the tOllowing:
(i) The connections to the underground
utilities and storm drainage on Cowper
Street and other on-site construction
activl tie.s. shall be cool:"dinated ""ith the
Utilities Department in order to reduce
the. construction impacts 'On cO"'Per
Street~ and to coincide ~ith other
underground projects to be performed by
the Utilities Department in the vicinity
of the project.
(ii) The ovner shall he responsible for
installinq and upgrading on-site and o[f
site water and sewer utilities as
necessary to handle anticipated peax
loads, including the cost of all
associated utility installations and
upgrades~
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
The o;.rner shall pay all costs associated
with required improve!!1ents to off-site
gas mains. All improvem~nts to the gas
system sl'lall be installed by the City.
Utility connection charges
prior to the scheduling
performed by the City.
shall be paid
of any .... ork
All utility installations shall be in
accordance with the city of palo Alto
Standard SpeCifications and Utilities
Department standard Conditions. All
utilities that need to be relocate_d shall
be paid for by owner.
5
•
-
11. Prepare and. prc',lide
Division with the
easements to service
the util it ies Eng ineer in;
necessary public utility
this development.
12. Building constructio~ shall comply with the
provisions of the current Uniform Fire Code to
the satisfaction of the City's Fire Marshal.
13. Except for trees, lar~scapin9 shall not exceed a
maximum natural growth height of three feet.
14. In the raised pedestrian blrea of the public
parking garage commencing at the east end ot the
pedestrian arcade, the owner Ehall relocate any
obstacles in order to provide a clear pedestrian
walkway at least eiqht feet in width.
Prior to Issuance of an Occupancy Permit the OWner
Shall Complete the Following~
1. Enter into a maintenance agreement witn the
City, as approved by the City Attorney~ Plannin9
and: Public Works i:repartments, to maintain all
driveway related improvements (including special
paving and landncaping) within the right-ot-way.
from the southern curb of the driveway to the
northern boundary of the public right-of-way)
for B time period to match the exist,inq
maintenance agreement related to the
Webster/Cowper garage (approximately 15 years) ~
The owner shall pemanently maintain the 15
foot, 10 inch 'Wide pedestrian arcade and the
planting strip adjacent to the driveway surface
edge of curb along the entire length of the
driveway.
2. pay the city an in-lieu parking fee based on the
number of parking spaces required at one parking
space for each additional 250 square feet of
gross floor area. The fee shall be $23,000 per
parking space. The number of required spaces is
ee-timated to be 36; the actual number 'Will be
based on final construction measurements. If
the City adopts an in-lieu parking fee ordinance
that establ ishes i!!I tee-per-space of more than
$23,000, the owner shall pay the higher fee. In
no event. however, shall the fee payable
pursuant to this condition be less than $23,000
per space.
J~ Pay $150,000 to the City's Child Care Trust
Fund.
4. Replace the t~ree existing Hawthorne street
trees along the projectts Cvwper Street frontage
•
; $*, PMIi"
~------
with three ne ... 3 ti-inch hol!.: Pistacia Chinensis
trees, and install all re~ired on-site and of£
site landscapin9.
5~ construct all side .... alxs to comply with Public
Works app~oved standards.
6. Reconstruct the access driveway with existing
pavers, or other pavers approv~d by the Public
Works Department. The use of new pavers (if
proposed) shall be subject to the approval of
the Public Works Depart~ent prior to submittal
to the Architectural Review Boar~.
7. All materials and decorative finishes used in
the ~ublic right-of-way shall be selected from
the approved list provided by the ~~blic works
Department.. While the paving materi.als used in
the covered pedestrian arcade do not have to be
.from the approved 1 ist, the materials used in
the arcade shall m.eet Public WQrks Department
standards.
(fJ Development Scl'.edule. Construction shall be completed
within two years from the date of adoption ~f the
ordinance rezoning the subject property to PC.
SECTION 4. The city Council hereby finds that this project
yill have no siqniticant effect on the environment.
7
9,07'03 !:de: DOlO311
·:~l'
. ,,",.,'
-.,
• , -
I
>
i ,
I
I , I
l
SECTIQN 5. This ordin:!lnce shall be effective on the
thirty-first day aft~r the day of its adoption.
INTRODUCEO AND PASSED:
AYES,
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
city Cler~
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City ~ttorney
9107't13 b:X DCIlC118
8
APPROVED:
Mayor
Cit.y Manager
Director of Planning and
Commu.nity Environment
•
) (>_. ! l'\\f~I~I~ ~ ~~"f\~ I~I~ l..[ ~-,2 6 4 9 ~ p. . 0\ ~ IE ~iiir '" ~~ lit. ~-,~_~"':
pc-"'" .
:~ ~I~~~~',~~,.~~.+---~
, 2 ~ 6 8 I~ I * ~URCH I ,~,,' -;-u-=;$ ~ 4: i7 f.-. ~ \ M ;.... , ., 0 Iff ~ ~
• .' :,,~:/ ,f"Z .....•. ~ r _______ I m 2545 H;; '" ~~
." ;.. .' .... '. r"",~ p PC-. <;;7 .•• ;0:'2 IS~H45 e ~
::::X:· ~ ·3499 ~ .. PC-' ~ k{t ~3' Is~ I;=-Ii '.' ~> . . ;;; -~ . . NiD -C ' . Ii .....••...•. !:t. r~ IVV I--
:?: .•• ::.: .•.••.. (P) 51Q " ~ -;os I! b. ::J.:».' ...... '50\ _" ~::::::::::::: :: . ' I: ti.~~,.::,::,: :, ::.:. ~;a
. !fUWPER 5 ~
~':~#; -~ rr ~ SITE LOCAiJON ~ ~,
._ [~ I ~ ~ I~ ~oO ~ ';°\11,-, F. < •• 1 ~ s '.:. 1-~ r I"WAV'ERI $TREE. I' '-. ._---... -
G) GRAPHIC AITACHMrNT I DATE: '-17-91 I SCALE: 1" -200'
lO STAFF REPOiT I fILE NO. 91-2C-1 'lJ -AJUl-6 ~1-ElA-2
NORTH
E~~,ibit '.~"
• \
,
-----..
' .. II
~
I ,
I
!
Ms, Sara], Dleney
Planning De partInen'
City or Palo Alto
250 Hanulton Avenue
Fifth Floor
Palo Alta, California 94301
A P.O,"-IOWA%. eo.POI' .... TlOlO
June 20, 1991
Re; 531 Cowper PC Application
Dear Sarah:
'1"1:.1..1[ .... 0 .. 1[
~,., "",., ... ,
B0507-9033OO
I understand that you are taking over responsibility for the completion of tbe
531 Cowper planned community zone appUcation.
Bob Haley caDed me and asked that I provide you three pieces of information;
1. A program development statement;
2. A development SChedule; and
3. A develop",en' plan.
PROGRAM DEVELQPMEI'."T STATEMEI'."T
We propose to build a truce story, office bui1ding of high quality architcctur~
consi.~ting of brick, marble, and cementiolls plasler. The lotal buGding area W'J] be
approximately 17,000 square reeL
Included with our project 'Will be significant off-site improvements consisting of
widening and .trdigh<ening or the driveway between Cowper Street and Parking Lo, J,
widening of the sidewalk along .he ""rtbern edge of the Cowper/garage driveway,
landscaping of both tho northern and sou'hern edges or the Cowper/garage driveway,
and the creation 0( a pedestrian, covered arcade bet\oV~l:n Cowper Street and the rear
of our building.
---cr .. -.....• _7'II1II'''-_.'''''.
--.~~
-
~I
-
Ms. Sarah Cheney
1uno 20, 1991
rage 2
The off-site icprovemcnts lind the building plan are included in the architectural
materials previously provided you.
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
A construction schedule ~ rnc~d shQ¥.ing construction commencing in Jate
Aug"st, 1991 and continutng through lal< March, 1992. This is about seven monL'Is.
\Vhen tenant improvement work is atso included the project is Jikely to b(. eight
or eight and one-half months from commencement to completion.
We do not yet know the date for C0mrnencement. It can be no earI.ler than
CilJl Council approval on August 19, but probably no later than November I, 1991.
DEVELOPMEro.. PlAN
The development prans are set forth in tl1~ architectural drawings wruch have:
been delivered to you.
We do not an,licipate any changes to the bUIlding other than those changes
neceSS3J)' to receive fina1 ARB approvaL
At this time we have received ARB final approv:J..! subject to a few conditions.
Please caD me if you need any funhrr inforrna6on. [will be cut of the office
until July 1.
Shawn Newman at DES. our ;architect, can answer any of )'our questions. He
may be reached at 364-6453.
JEB:cak
Enclosure
f
Sincerely.
J IIl( (fIt-
James E Baer
-
-
P..u.o Ax.ro, C~l..& 94301-182~
VIA HAND DEUVERY
Ms. Sarah Cheney
Pla~.ning Department
City of PaIo Alto
250 Hamilton AveDue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Re: 531 Cowper Usc
Dear Sarah:
July 2, 1991
~I:U;""<;'''I:
..... ':1.1<.' •••
Tt:'-Vl_.:1""
'1'11:1..1:<;0*'<" .... ,.. »,._ ••
00507-903300
During the April 19 conceptual re .... icvw, and approval by the Planning
Commission of O1Jr proposal development at 531 Cowper, the Planning Commi:ision
requeslr'-d that further information be prO\oided with respect to a few issues, indudmg
the proposed .... of the property_
The application ha", offered no change in the use from existing ZOl1lng which
COC pedestrian combining district.. The property is not sUbject to the GF combining
district. This means that 100% of the ground floor would be available for nOll-retail
use'_
We have not offered [0 pr(J\.oide required retaIl uses at the ground floor for
several reasons.
1_ The GF Cornbininil Distrkt Pois Not Apply on C.owper. The entire
eastern side of Cowper Street is excluded from the GF comblning district, and only the
Garden Coun Hotel and 115 n Fornaio restaurant are included within the GF
combining district among the buildings on the western side of Cowper Stree t..
'When the CD zone, with its combining districts was adopted in 1986 careful
attention was. paid to the areas for which the OF combining district was appropriate_
The focus for retail activity was to be University Avenue so as Dot to disper~ retall
uses unsuccessfully_ The Garden Coun Hot1:1 was approved for construction w.hen the
CD ordinance was adopted. Ar that time, and since, the eastern edge of Cowper and
beyond has prOYed to be unsuitable for retail 'USe. Cowper Street and University east
of Cowper have suffered a high rate of ground floor \'acanC)'.
,t>,..=
"'''-,\.."
M>. Sarah Oleney
July 2, 1991
Page 2
Prior 10 demolition of tile building previously existing at 531 Cowper Stree~ the
building had been vacant fOf aD bU1 six montm of the-last six },faxs, The ~ix morJths of
occupancy beginning in summer, 1990, was for a used bookstore, The bookstore OYi'Der
was a nephew 0{ a prominent Palo Altoar, Sam Webster, who was moving to Ca.~ada
10 leach and who wanted 10 sen his coneclion 0( used books which h~ had assembled
over two decades. r did not charge any rent. and did not even r~cejye payments for
utilities; the space was provlded free as a favor to Sam. Were rent charged, the
bookstore would nOI have been able to operate,
During its six years of vacar.:cy, the spac!! was offered for lease continuously and
unsuccessfully. Prior to these years of .... acancy the buuding was occupied as a law finn,
initiaJJy. and \ater as. bealth care facility.
The adjacent bwlding at 541 Cowper, has to my knowledge, never had a retail
aser.
2 ReUtil Activities in the Project Area Have Suffered Very High Rates of
Vacancy. East of Cowper, along University Avenue, has historically been an area of
extremely bish groun~ floor vacancy. Neare.t to 531 c,,-..-per. the ,;>ace now occupied
by Jerus.ba bas been vacant nearly oM.-half of the tas.t ten yean. The space now
occupied by Toga's and Stanford Video were each vacant for oyer 18 months before
tenants were located. At 530 University, the ground floor is occupied prirnanly by
doctors and this buildi.'g suffered crver 18 months of ground floor 'vacancy prior to the
doctors' occupancy. 540 Univer.;ity (the brkk building) has been vacont about one,half
time since the departure of Phileas Fogg. Our building at 550 University was vacant
for eighteen II:oOilths before being leased 10 Expressions. Expressions and other
retailers. are suffering.
The C.ourtyard retail area at the Garden Court failed achieving no leasing
success O'Ier thr--e and one~half yeaT5.
The restaurant priOf to D Fomaio was a major fi.'1ancial failule.
3. Retail Activity AJoni University Avenue and Regionally is Fra~, Retail
sa1es DowntCNm are nDt robust. Failures and Dear failures within the !ast year are at a
ten year high. The ability to attract a Cj\lalwcd retail tena.nt other than a restaurant
operator is unlikely, Adding another restaurant wOllld be a hostlle acl 10 the many
restaurant operators Dcrwntown. Do we need more pizza or yogurt offerings?
"'-'.',"'----
L
J
{
J
!
-
M.<. Sarah o,eney
July 2, 1991
Page 3
4. We Have Been Marketil1i the BUllding Including J'tS Ground Floor. to
I:to\\.'Itlcwp.l:{Qn:-Retail Users for Aboyt One Yc:ar. The unfilled office need in the
Downt:::rNn is for expansion space tor Dowz:l town busillesses.
This year two tenants that had been Downtown for over ten yean. 1eft the
~'ntmm because they could not find contiguous space. Both tenants arc: losses to
the community.
Since initiating plans for our buildU1& we bave offered the building to DOD-retail
users L'l the Downtown. Three local businesses, each ha'\.wg gro'Wll such that il needs a
facilily 01 13,000 feet or greater have approached us with respeC! 10 this building.
] cannot name the businesses but aD three have ~en Downtown over lS years
Dod are vital elements of the community.
This building was concefved !o satisfy this office need.
4_ Pedestrian Vitalhy Wi'll Be Achieved. Since last presented to the
Planning Commission, lbe project has re~ived ARB final approval We bave modlfied
the landscaped areas in front of the buildlng and along both ~ides. of the Lol J
driveway to enhance pedestrian movement so that the rear entries of the stationery and
video siore are more I"JgWy usabJe.
Our building will by its design and movement of pede~triaru enhance community
vitality wMther occupied by re:ai! or non-retail uscn;.
6. GF Would Impose Si5Dific.am F1Danda! Hardshi~. \'wr-:.re the GF
combining district applied to this. building, we may be predlJded fram Obtaining
construction financing dile 10 the nearly impossible condition of lending practices in
lada,..s coDapsed rea) estal.e financial markets... Retail uses are virtually red-lined by
lenders due to the national failure of retail operations.
We arc working to preserve the Co-.40per frontage for retail use but we cannot
be legaDy obligated to do this ~1thout negatively impacting our projer..; in ways IDOII:
s.everc than we think any polley maker wou~q intend.
s1Jre~.
,.-::\"{ (rJCCti<..
James E.. ~er
.J ..
-
ARCHITECTURAL REYIEW BOARD HEARING
531 Cowper Street
Pilo Al to. Cal i fornh
May 16. 19!i'1
Mr. lyzwa: 53] Cowper Street is a Planned CommuMity zane c~ange. Are
there any additional staff c~mments?
Ms. lytle: Just J reminder that in the Planned Community lone c~ange
process, the architectural review board and p1anning commission are th~
reco!m'leiidil'l9 bodies to the city council. The planning commission has
re~iewed, on I conceptual level, the land use and public benefit issues
related to the application, and were in agreemer.t wit~ staff that tnis was
to be recommended for approval. Your task is primarily to l~ok at the
design and ~ake a recommendation to the cou~cil.
Ms. Wilson: They ~ad some serious rese~vat;ons .bout the ground floor
lise.
Ms~ lytle: Th;s will return to the~ with some issues to be resol~ed in
terms of whether or not at least it port ion of the ground' floor should be
devot~d to retail use.
Tom Silman. DES Architects: Our focus today is to get final ARB appro·.al.
with the exception of 1 ighting arid landscapirog. We have some concepts to
that effect but expect to nave more details in tnose two areas and bring
those back later.
Essentially, in terms of tne building design, we were before you last
August and the building concep~ an~ design is very similar. with very
minor changes Since that time. There rertafnly ~ave been a number of
details that hive developed during th.t time. I would say that the one
major change which has occurred since then is that tnere no longer is an
underground parking level. The building will be built directly at grade.
The parking, as noted in tf1e packets, wi 11 be handled by pa.,ying in lieu
fefs. That is somethin~ ~e have worked out and i concept that ~as been
generated t~rou9h meetings with the Transportatio~ Department.
So that has impacted the site planning basica11y to the extent that we no
10nger are attempting to ha~e parking on the alley drive entrance to the
garage behind. whic~ was a major concern of tne Transportation Department,
as well as the ex~sting terraced landscaping behind t~e building which
steps down into tnf parking structure below and will remain completely
int4ct. Previously, there was abo~t a 60-foot swath that was being cut
through that to gain access to the underground Jewel of th~ garage. So
all of that landscaping will nc~ remain as proposed.
In addition, fr>om a site planning standpoint, we previously ~ad the
concept of trying to shift tne roadway so that there is a little bit Jess
Df i bend going back into the garage. That is still the Cisa. The
roadway will still be shifted to the south~ The width of the roadway will
remci~ the sa~, but ~easuring from the buildings to the north. where we
essentially are seeing the backs of the buildings that front on Uni~ersity
Av~nue, there currently is a five-foot walk al~ng the north side of that
drlye, ffve feet frc~ tne property line. plus about another
foot-and-a-~alf to the bullding. as they are built in from the line, so
there is about si.lC-and~a-half feet of e.xisting ltIalkway .... icth. 'tile have
-1-
71":"
" -
" ""
-".' .
I
i
l
been ~or~ing with staff on thest dimens'ons lnd ~n ho~ much land$capin9
and how cuch walkway. Currently the concept is t~at we wii1 ~aye an
e1gnt-foot-uide ~alkwiY, so we ire expanding that by an ~dditional
foot-and-.-ha1f, so it .. ill be a little bit ""'Te us.ol. w,lk.ay_ It
tarries on through t~at b'ock, sa there is I good dea1 of triffi~ that
that carr'es. Then we will na~e a f~ur-and-a·~alf foct ~idth of
l."d~cap~ng. Currently, there is nothing t~ere, so t~is will soften up
that entire north side (If the garage, and the 22-foot width of driveiJl!ay
which currently etists but ;s now r~toclted to the south, and a
four·and·a·half fO<lt wide band Df landscaping, and then the colonnade for
our building, w~ich then creates this J5-fcot-wide covered arcade, w~ich
is the ~ew access back to the parking garage. From a site p1anning
standpoint, ~e also have ~ three-foot band Qf landscaping tnat occurs
,long In front of the building.
In locking it the staff report, there ~ere on1y t~Q areas that we had
Dbjections to. The first 15 a request (or locating four bicycle park1ng
racks near the frvnt entrance. The front entrance, as yOIJ wilT recall
from the p1ans~ is the second bay in, is one comes do~ the arcade. We
hlye a 1;ttle concern that if .e ~eTe to locate t~em in this area, ~ither
the ends of the bikes might be hanging in tne arcade. or we are g<ling to
lose an Dpp~rtunit1 for some ltnds~aping rig~t it the entrance to the
bullding. That is something we would ~refer to take a closer look at in
terms of toe lo~at10n and ha~e some flexibility is to where we do lo<ate
them. It may be that there are some areas that are adjace~t to the
building wh;th would be more appropriate end still b~ visually in contact
with the entTin(e.
T~e second issue ~id to do .-ith the g1azing of the huilding. The
intention is that all of the glazin.g would be clear glass fOr' the
buildin9. Stiff had s~e toncern that t~1s upper beam on the first floor
~ight be Spandolite. ThlS mayan line is at plus len feet from the first
floor. rt gees up to 14 feet. From I $tr~ctural standpoint, it is
possible to create a drapery pocket on the first floOT ceiling. The
ceilings ~ay be as ~~th ts lZ feet. Because the d~pth of eur structure ;s
fairly thin, we might let I ceiling plane return back up to the underside
cf the structure such that this entire area, including that upper area,
can be glass, as opposed to Spardo~ite or $omet~ing of that nature.
One of the things we ~ere tryfng to achieve ~lsually is that this entlre
first and second floor g1azing system ~111 read as ~ne eltment, so it wa~
im~crtlnt to us to not create too ~Uth of a band h~re to break that
visually. rt seemed important to make this entire arch element link.
Slmilarly. that is the reason for all of the g1azing at that second f100r
being clear 9JaiS, and we would have in oe.jection to going to Spandol ite
in that little panel. The vindows, being arcned, are a little less in
size tha~ tnese en the first fleor. As ~uch glass and light is ~e can get
on that se-tond f1cor WQIJld be 900d. It really is no different from I1HlT'ljl
other buildiogs that have glass to the floor on upper levels.
Ms. Wilson; What is the height between the f1(lDr and the top of the arch
on the second floor?
.ltr. Gilman: Eight feet. $0 ldth the arch, it starts cutting out. It
will nave i very nice ~ua'itJ from tne inside. It is important t~at we
-z-
'I ,
I
I
:., 'I' -
,
~., ... ... ·'f --_ .. -
, ... .;..;.---~
"\\', <~,. ':'.;;:-, .. ,;,
-
get the full amount of windcw area.
In terms of Ilateriah. the building is basically a thin brick. materia.l.
ha~~ some samples here. We have been working with doing some ~a1ue
engil'1iJ!riru;J and design development with some of the \larious brlck
manufacturers. One of the things we vert ~ery cancern~d tbout on the
huilding in terms ~f tne detailing was that we, in fact, get some relief
and some sense rJf depth in He materials themselves. The section ir. tr.is
el!vati~n show how the ~ar1ous Si22$ of br)cks and th~ relationships to
the differ.nt Mat,rials .ould occur. The concept would be that the basic
building would be of tnin brick, using tnese retu~n snapes to gi~e the
fu1l brick kind of appearance, as well as additional, in some cases, these
inch-and·a·quarter bricks, and there are others that are t~o ~ncnes deep,
that c:an be used wit~ the same system tnat ire thin-set onto a pl aster bed
in order to give relief. So in each of tnese cases. where we sho~ detail
on the building~ in some tases we ire stl11 getting as muc~ as an
inch·and~a-half of relief. ~e ~ad gone throu9~ an exercise of loo~ing at
providing steel ang1es and ~sing full bricks, It appeared. in look.fng at
some buildings that have th1s kin~ of system, that we felt we would
ach,e~e the same, Equal quality as we ~ould i~ going to f~ll briCKS. One
of the problems with mixing tne ho systems is that tile sett~rs put on
!Mis kind of material and a full brick is put on by a bric::khyer~ so there
would be a coordination problem ~itn thE subtrades, etc. In fact, tnings
like t~is archway, ~here we ire using a thic~er brick and a return
l-sect1on~ will actually ~a~e the appearance of being a full seetior..
Ihet is very important j 1 feel, to the s~cceS$ of this tu11ding.
These are the material samples. Tnfs is the brick; the accent co1ors.
The marble is the green bands that occur between floors under the
windOill;;'. The trim ... ou1d also be the 'IIood l"ctents; the-reof ti1e-sample.
As we did thE drawing, we feH that we needed a littl~ more relief on the
south el~vation, so what I am showing ()n this sketch is that we will
return the thin brick around on that fjrst gabled element, and it will be
carried through with score lfnes i~ the same rhythm that occurs in the
wfndo~s on tnat third floor. Also score lines to ~lsualTy stop tnat.
Ms. Maser; 00 you plan to ~ut toil~ts in this building? (~es) Ob~~ously
you have not gotten that far, er are you waiting fer tenants to decid~
where te locate them?
Mr. Gilman: Actually. we ha~e been studying tnat as we did some
preliminary planning with various tenants. Because of the fairly small
sile of the building 9 it seemed mQre important to locate the lobby plus
the resti.urant layou.t .. a.s that tenaf1t .. ill be i. little O',ore spec.ific. If
it were a much larger. spec~latlye building, we could be a little If'1ure
speci fic.
Ms. Maser: This is sho~n as wire cut and what looks like i sand·finlsh
brlck. I assume that that is the color and finished brick you are
propnsin~ Dn your material sample board, and that t~is briCK here is just
to show us different shapes? (Yes) Ooes anybody knD~ what is going to
happen next door? [s there any plan for the future?
Mr. Bier; I can a~swer that. The bui1ding belongs to Mr. I~erson. It is
~ery hard to knoct down a b~ilding that is ~ell leased, historically,
because you ha~e to pay for the land. Yo~r land costs become prohibitfve,
.J-
'P' en
,
,
-
so that demolition is not. realistfc .1ternative. ~e have talked to
them. The Yoga Center has be~M 1: long·term tenant and is very pop~lar
downtown. Ther. is a t~erap!st who has been there for ten years. They
could handle I skin fae.1ift. 1 would hope they would take the lead from
our kinds of materials i~ tn!ir selection for the skin.
Ms. Ma$er; So the solution that Tom has come up .ith is probably w~it ~e
art going t~ see (or a long time.
Mr. B.er; I think it is unlikely that that would be a candidate for a PC
wne-n they would lnock. the t>ui1dSo9 do'rl'!", and cons.truct a tal1e'T' one. The
existing building is $~ctessfu1.
Ms. Maser: That conc1udes my questions.
Ms. Wilson! ] have a question about transportation. Have you doclJmented
adequate parking in Parking Lot J for t~is tenant? 00 you know that there
are enough vacant spaces in Park1ng lot J to accormlOdate this bt;ilding,?
And what assurances do we have that the occupants of this building will
~se H?
~r. Q~@r~ay: They ~i11 be offe~ed permits like others in that area.
Ms. Barnes; Could you q~ickly ru~ throug~ why the underground parking was
shot dC»rr.tn?
Mr. Overway; rt is not shot down. It is a ~uestior. of w~et~er t~ere is a
better way to do it. In order tG satisfy the building size, tney parked
~ndern~ith here the netded spaces 110n9 h~re, and they used the buffer
strip along ner~. These spaces along here were of questionab1e value in
aesthetics. safety and other iss~es. 1n our opinion. T~ese spaces along
here ..,ere Quest;onab1e, fro:n aLlr perspective, in terms of utility of being
able to drive down into the biseme~t i"d parl in those a'T'elS. Also, from
an aest~et1c lssue, [ was not sure it was ~ise to remove that buffer, but
thdt is not in my purview. from the operational aspects, those are
Questionable. The spaces they ~a6 here were adequate hut not highly
desirab1e. They were tight; they wer~ dead end; those kinds of things.
rt was our conclusion thit in looking for a b~tter way to do this, we
began tal king about in 1 ieu fees for at least some of t~e spaces. We
started to. taB<. about whit f\appens if these spaces are tig!"lt d'D .... n here,
and I nave an office in this building with i space down here, if I am
going to be there for three hours, r am probahly going to end ~p parking
in the Webster/Cowper garage anyway 1n some of the pub'ic spaces. It;5
easier for me to get into one of those space~ and walk into the build~ng.
Not everyone will do that, but some people ~ill. frDm t~at, we concluded
that tne utilizat10n of t~is space is gOing to be lower than what one
would assume it m'9ht be if there ~ere not a large s.upply of p~rkin9
spaces available next to it. If that is true, then ~e started Tooking at
whether it ~ade sense to require him to do this and maybe pay some in lieu
fees for some of these other spaces, or ailo .... him to do the who1e parking
there. When we looled at the parking supply here, and right no~. we do
have an excess parking supply, the roof has "e~er been fully ~tilized.
The ~asement is utilized probably t~e most during the noontime peak. but
that is the e.tent of It.
Our assessment is that the supply of parking relative to t~e demand around
·4·
... ...,
.~
1
!
I
.... ~
t oI-·t '_. _ .
-
n~rt is much more in balante. I cannot 9uarant~e that it ~ill r!main that
way f~rever, but it is ~u(h ~ore In balance than fn other portions of the
downtown area. Therefore, ~e made the choice to ~~pport no parl~ng
requirements h~re; let that flow into this building and compete with other
parking demands there, and let's use those funds to invest in additional
fJarking where t!"le demai1d is more out of sync fII'Hh the supply.
Ms Wilson: Jf I could focus this I little c1oser 9 what wo~ld you guess
_. I realize that the parking spaces required fer a bu;ldin; b~ square
footage include ~ls;tors, as we1l IS occupants. let's say that the
~isitor$ are taKen care of w\th ~ublic parking. I am pretty comfortable
wiUI that. How many spaces do you t~ink you would need for ttle occupants
of tn. b" il ding?
Mr. aier: 1 will answer that direct11, but I would like to elabcrlte on
SOmE of the parking arrangements we have made. If you recall, the top two
floors hold 166 parling spaces. J want to describe to you the limitations
~la~ed on Di9ita1 and on Prfmier Properties for t~e use of those spaces.
Digital maJ not. and has to ctrtify to the City every six months, that no
tenants in 250 University Avenue or 529 Bryant Street nave permit spaces.
That was to ensure that on when they gnt th.e exclusive rights to tne upper
t'lfC floors, they 'Were not "',ivinS their people take up permit spaces
e1se~here. The head count that they now have for those two bU11dings, 250
University Avenue was a 2~,500 sQuare feet for Digital. The same is true
for 529 Bryant Street. We nave arranged to lease 36 spaces of 166 spaces
f.or office us.e.
Ms. Wi1son: You, as tne landlord, are going to hold that lease?
Mr. Baer: Yes. So cf the 16~~ 13Q of those are a~al1able to Oigltal, and
Z6 are available to us. Digital cannot use permit spaces. for any peop1e
employed in the two buildings yo~ were conce,ned about.
Ms. "'Pson: I Uink tnat a what needs to be done. and it ought to be
spel1ed out somewhere.
~r. Ba~r; The pla~~in9 commission ~ould certa~~ly be interest~d ,~
looking at that. There are about B5 unused pe~;t spaces at 811 times.
Secondly, we dcn1t give the ARB t~e same package that we do the pl~nning
commission anj C1ty council in tet~s of some th€ neighborhood po1iticil
iss~es. We try not to maKe the ARB a political body. We have tal~ed to
all of the businesses in the aru and hav! SC letters in support that say,
W~ all can park very eas;ly. We would rather that you put the money i~to
the ~ore do~town. This was not done by Roxy Rapp~ ~o would love park~~9
downtown near the core becaus~ ~e is 1oc~ted ther~.
As for future demand, t.hese are fairly n~w b~1ldlngs from Cowpfr Street
ea~t~ so you do net h~~e s~ismic or historiC upgrade possib11it'es. The
opportunity for assemb1ing properties and increased square footage is
reilly very low. SO W~ do not see the demand getting mu,h worse over the
next ten years. However, that wou1d not be true for Emerson Street, where
we tnow that reno~ation can take place.
Ms. Barnes; J know at the planning commission hearing, we went into some
tontern$ that you had about trJing to fit retail in the bottom. I don't
want you to 90 thr~ugh a1) of that agai~. other than to point out on the
-5-
(~. -.,
L
f.' I
plan where you thought of dividing It. You said that If you divided It In
I val that .akes $@nse for th~ front, it does not ~ak~ sense for the
back.
Hr. Baer: Sh1rlty is correct. Two of the commissioners s~;d, we ~ant you
to COR blck ilnd give us a full expl inaUOl'! of why you can or cannot do
retail. They responded to w~,.t you had said. We know that the little
bookstore that is cperatin9 across fro~ El Fo~naio is very de'i9htfu1~ So
J understand t~at the ARB is pro~ably saying9 we would encourage ycu to
make some or al1 of that retail. I nave been negotiating for r.fne montns
fer ~ tenant, not retli1~ If y~u carve ~ff the front p1ece, our .;ndo~
linu .t the rear becomes really awkward. It is really tough.. If we were
to take the logical break, we'd say. let's put a retailer 'n here. The
Dnly retailer we would get, generally. at any rents that would support new
co~struction1 would be J restaurant. Or Doutique users ~n the front. The
minute you take off that space, what you ar! left with is a situation that
we ~ad .t 499 .ami1ton Avenue on the ground floor. It is eQuiv,lent to
thfs~ This is your fr~nt door, whic~ is glazed~ You open your (rent
door, and you cannot ha~e a prf~ate offic!. then, that ~as ar.y glazing.
'four entry ;s !ll'~5Sr IJ'ld M other offices exist t"at have glass, unless
you were able to hit the bull's eye~ which you cannot count cn~ which is
to get one user who takes the whole remair..der. So yot! liore or less] 'mit
the financi.1 fea,JDi1ity of how to ~.rket it.
I am not expecting the ARe to $ay t~iilt you ire persuaded to foreg<l iI ver'y
good retail oppnrtunity. I am not e~en asking that, because you probably
should recGmmend it, and I wou1d have to ta~E it to the city council. I
am ~ot here to persuade you that I financially hecome Vtry unable to split
off the front piece and be left wIth only that piece.
look at what bay, you are left with. This becomes rotoil. We can ,II
un1erstand that t~at wou1d make I very nice retail site. O~
alternatively. in order to make the whole first floor retail. you really
are looking at a user Df the size of i restaurant. So if we were breaking
this into sma1l users. this becomes a front door. and what office user
could exist there? Somebody who nas a reception area tnat has a ~i~dow
and a private offlce with no window.
Ms. DaRosa: If one user took tr.at ~hole b3ck portion, it would be a
little more ~fable.
Mr~ Baer: There is no Question that it would be. T~e problem is that we
can look at iI number of ground floor office examples where tne more yo~
reduce your window ratio, you Tun .t a Teal disadvantage. 499 Hamilton.
which is a really pretty buildIng t~at we all like --it has the nice
arcade, narrower than this -~ bas been vacant 5S percent of the time, and
{)nt of its spaces is b;gger tlHln this. I want til add one ather thought.
I understand tne design concerns and the opportunity f~r retail Vitality.
Tne city council made the decision t~at 529 Bryant Street was it t~e ~alue
for foregoing the rehi1 opportunity tI"iE1"'E' .. is $190,000 for .,ay"ing
mitigations. [know that the ARB and J:llanning c.omission may have d'l!bated
it differently. rt is hard for lie to ~o'unhrny Siy great, let's make it
retail w~en it probably re.11y ha, th,t level of dollar •• lue .nd impact
to me and risk OwEr the life of the project. Believe me, if [ h~d a user
sign up right now to take this for retail, I would pus~ tnat enterprise
.ery forcefully. I r •• 11y understand that it would be do1i9htful to have
·6·
L
,
I
,.
.
-' ... ' .
. , ,,-
. '.-
-
t~o USeT$ in this bUi1ding. 1 hope that ans~ers your quest'o~.
T~is was the brfakfng point that Commissioner HirSCM Isked ibo~t.
Ms, QaRq$a~ I hiye one more question. ~here does the 1800,000 par~ing
fee go? What ~appens to tha! money?
Mr, Qyerway: R19ht ~D~, we do not ha~! an in·lieu crdina~ce. ~e are
working on preparing one. It is not necessary for this project, because
it is I PC. But is pzrt of the Downtown Study e~rjier, we ~e~e suppos~d
to est.;lis~ it for smaller de.elopments. So thore will be • fund cre.ted
for th t s pu.rpose, and th i $. money will t<e the fi l"S t to. 91J into that fund.
A1ditional fun~$ will come on line IS devel~pments come in. It will
collect interest and the interest wi n remain in the fund a~d .accumuhte
~ver time. It wil' be used at some point when the c,ty decides to invest
in parking, either by b~jlding another garage or buying into a level. as
they did at 250 University Avenue. Hopeful'y, the interest will cover the
costs. If 50meone comes in with whatever p~lce ;s decided at this pOlnt,
presumably that in-lieu prite wo~ld adjust with the co~struction cost.
Ms. DaRpsa: And that money is set aside specifically for parking, not for
the gener.l fund?
Mr_ Qverway: Yes. fer the in-lieu par~ing assess~~nt district.
Ms, lytle: It is handled jost like a~y other fe~ for ~'tigati~n would be,
such as our traffic mitigaticn fees or our housing mitigatfon fees. The
fund will set up in corr,pliance witn AS 1600, which have very strict
pro~;si~~s abo~t the money going fer that u~es and for that use on1Y9 and
being spent with1n a certain period ~f time. This fee is not necessari7y
subject to thiiit, but it will became the first mor-ey ir. a fund t~at ... ill be
established actcrdin; to those ru1es.
Ms. DaRosa; As a point of c1arification, w~~ere does the downtown park.ing
assessment go now?
Hr. Overway: There is an assessment made each year to payoff the
assessment bor.ds like the Co.~er/Webster garage. The ~onies are directly
collected to pay those bonds.
Ms. Barnes: These are columns that are white on the outsfde of your
building? ]$ that what 1 am seeing?
Mr. Gf7man: Yes. It looks IS if the way ~e are going to construct these
areas, as we1l as the band, Ire probab7y I plaster of brown and scritch
toat. The lj16-inch finish coat .oul~ be a drJvit material, so that it
will have the sol id backing and the same solid ity tJ'lat a plaster surhce
would ~a~e. but ~ill not have the problem of ~a~fng to have Expansion
joints.
Mr. Baer: I was confused by that. So this is not styrofoam at the ground
floor that you can knoc~ an it and it feels like a Hollysood set. TJ'lis
will not have that. It is Primus, whic~ is the epo~y~based top coat,
~'ister base, and then you put Primus over it. Primus is an epoxy.
higher-strength mater; al .
·7·
...
... ",:-~""~
"-:""'4:~ "'"
.'
•
''"71
. :.< t'l
\'
j
-
Mr. Gl1mlD: Ye;, It I. an epoxy·based materi., that does not hay, the
cricking.
Mr. Baer: yo~ do r.ot May! styrofo3m under this?
Ms. Haser: And the 'ric~ing that you have fn the plaster underneith dJes
"at .ffect the top coating?
Mr. G;lma~: No, btcause you art puttfng th~s fiberglass mesh over it.
~~: 1 se •• coupl. of discrepanci.s that I want to cl.rify. Tom,
while you Ire up, the panel abovt the •• 1n entry in the renderfng on the
second floor does not seem to jibe with the pl.n or the elevation over
here.
Hr. Gilman: rt is deceiving, because what we ITe seeing is a surface
beyond.
Ms. Maser; Yes, but it does not show on the second floor.
Hr. Gi1man: This..,iS an eulier ~ie'll t~,lt shO'ifed tkat carry,n,; on
through. As we got into some design development fro~ a structural
standpoint, we determined that it was re.11y creating some problems for
getting the entire fleor d'iphri9~ to work t0get~er~ So ~e e1iminated the
~ole It that point on the second floor. In te~s of the ~isual aspect, it
still has the same look, except tnat this is i w1ndow.
Ms. Maser; So your elevation is correct, and th15 is in earlier setting
that na$ been shown. Also, I was lookin; at your dental detail ~p there.
It does not s~ern to jibe with the elevation. What is the snape of your
dental?
~r. SiJman; Yes~ this is more recent.
Ms. Maser: Isn't this a much more abbre~;ited ex~ression t~an what WE see
in the rendering? 1n1s comes ~own irt~ I Y·shape.
JI1r. Gilman: Pre.,.iously, '112 had oil facia .itn a solid soffit and this
bracket. rt seemed more hone~t getting ,.id of this horizontal plane or
~nder·soffit and letting those reid as end$ of rafter ti11s coming ~own.
So the intent is st111 to have that kind of detail, but to let it read is
the plane.
Ms. Wilsgn: Tnank you for your presentation.
I ilTl ~oin9 to be~in, '.dth the lIrblT'o oesigt'1 issues. 1 ha.d i lot of cot'1cern
about this retail issue and the way in which your landscapi"S impacts
that. J feel that the cn1y way reti11 is viahle in this corridor is to
play back and forth between the two sides. 1 feeT yeu are creating
~arriers to your interaction by forcing pe~p1e to walk around with your
landscaping. I t~ink there should be breaks i~ the landscaping. Whether
or not we get retail here may go beJond this board, b~t the potential for
it sho~ld not be excluded. I am very strongly in support of retail
there. I do nat think that what you are doing sol.,.es the public benefit
urban design needs that we talked ab~ut ilt the list rev-ie.... It is hard
~1thout tenants. To me, pedestrian elements are doors, acti~ity, people
·8·
•
.
-
com;ng a~d going. We h~ve i she1l right now ind we really do not kno~
where the doors will be. [would feel better if there wos some o,lt"ly
from t~at building. _ith people coming in and out. To me. the
pSJchologic~l level of confidence that we are triing to develop coming out
of this recess is the pa,~;ng garage with th~t sense of s~f~ty that you
get. 1 don't t~ink you get i sense of saf~ty walking by ) wa11 that has
no openings in it. If Y{lU thought YOU \IrIIere be;ng fol Jowed and YOu wanted
tl) duck inside-somewnere, how do 'yOU do it? 1 feel s imihrly about the
Cowper Street frontage, iilnd tllat it dOES not have any pedestri a~ access
into the space ~ither. It has I barr;er of landstapi~g in front of the
windows, too~ I sat In this room last night and he.~d Chop Keenan say,
'you don't have a retail sense when you put lands,aping between a building
and the bullding wa1L Sa agaiil1, there would be a need for pathltlays
throu9h t~at lind~capi~g. r am not sa~ing to el,min,te it; it shou1d be
there, but t~ere should b! some opportunity for iccess there.
ThiS rendtring shows 91ass to the street on Cowper, but ~e see this tile
or marb12 base. Js there i ~arble base ~verywhere at the windows or does
some of the glozing go to the side.·alk?
MY'. S,ilman:
would be an
bottom.
No, there is a marble base on the first floor. Again that
issue, jf there were retail, we would brin9 the glass to tt1e
Ms. Wilson: [am really interested to hear what the rest of the coard has
to say about this issue tha.t I ha\le r.dsed. r am ~opi"g ffJr SOIOO ~Hal ity
on that neck into the garage. [hope we can get it? one way or another.
So the issues for retlil pot~ntill are: proper flc~r·to-teiling ~eights
{and I encourage you to go to the 12·fo~t ~ejght if you can manage ;tJ;
entry ~pportunities; the glazing is clear no~, and I fee1 better about
that; and the interplay pfJssibilit.Y across the al1ey~ because one slde
~'one is not going to be a healthy e~vironment.
~ith regard to the parking, r feel very reassured about what you have
done. TranspDrtation is terrib1y import~"t. _e cannot ta~~ in-lieu fees
and say, you Can park wherever yo~ _ant to. They have to make a
commitment. Another thing J said to the planning commission last tight is
that we have to start thinking about the fact that the clogging in
neighb'Jrhoods does not come from the Itajor ter\ant. It comes from the
support staff. Support staff 9 according to the informal survej I ~aye
been taking as; I 1; V! IIY 1 ife in Pa10 A.lto, ask;ng ~ver'y bank teller or
clerk that I talk to, where do you parK? Oft!n, t~e inS~~T is, I p~r~ on
Everett or on H3rifiorne or somewhere in the neighbornood. When I tell
them it only costs S200 a year? they still say they cannot afford ;t. So
I feel we are looking for some support from the employer for this kind of
parkins. It ~ou1d really ~elp this neighborhood parking situation. I
want to start working wit~ tnat with these projects. If ttl! employer pays
part, or even takes a space for a year. It is 160 a quarter. They look
It that as a big chunk Df money. If the employer ta~ing it for i year,
e~en if the employee chdnged. he would ~aye the space. Maybe the
employ~es do not see themselves as long term and do not ~ant to make that
commitment fer a parking space. ~o 1 encourage us all to take that
ilpp,-oach.
I am glad you are starting to dea.l ~ith the part.,ll wall. Keep developing
and decide what you want to do ~it~ that. 1 support your position on th~
-9-
~:
;~~
-'., I
", ;
... ~:.·.'I
:/1 t -~~-. ,-.'-',
::.".? ........ ~ .. ~ .. ::'.-'-:-.• . :~-,:::-:"
. ,-. -;
>'I:"'~~ '.,
. ~.,
. .::.. '
-
r
s~.ndr.l gl.ss. J thi"" you are right about it.
t ha~e some c~ncerf,S ~bout your c~lors and materil1s. 1 lile 111 the
colors a~d ~'teriais. They are Yery rich, and J partjc~larlJ lik! the
rendering. but [ ~ave I fe~lfng that those ~ateriils out~Dor5 ire geing to
ha"ole a 'II'tO'fe de-ad leok.. This is a vef'Y live1y rel"o<SeriT'og', an-d rw.:e hl~e to be
really careful that these co1~rs do not absorb too much light ind qet to~
dead. l;~e the brown brick building on Uamilton Avenue where City lights
us~ tD be. That is unfortunate. The bricks we get today ara S~ even in
their color. Perhaps th.t is not what brick used to look li... I can
remember whole buildings of brick that did not have a dead 100. to them.
I don't lti:ow if you need a different texture-Dr a very SUbtle mi .. of
co1or, or if you want that criSp 1oak. How do you keep it bright? 1
thinl you are in • dangEr lone~ colQrwis~. [want yeu to WOrK Qn that
some more. We s~ould take these outside.
Mr. lY2wa: that \5 one arei that I hav@ been concerned ibo~t. These
brick cclors, for instance, against the white surface. are coming out
darker~ ir. reality.
Ms. Wilson; It is a vitality~
Mr tnw.,j~ In fact, this brick color is one that we have 1ct<.la11y tak.en
to bu'1dings, that are darker or 11ghter to get ill fee1 for wnat lind. of
relationship there is. [am i little concerned about getting much lighter
than this, because Qne of the problems that occurs is that tne clays start
getting into a more yeno. or brovntsh cast when they get much lighter
than this. One of the buildings we have noted recently is the one at Page
Mill Road and Porter Drive, which is very yellow. It is much ye110wer
th4l.T, tfie rendering we saw.
~s. Wilson: One of the things th!y do, which you might consider, is tnat
they did a lot of panels on the site and rea1iy look.ed at them outdoors.
Mr. Baer: W~at you tauld do is hang it up on that construction fence. and
let the board members loek at it.
Ms. paRosa: l~t me p~int out a big diff~renc~ bet~een t~e build1ng that
you menti:>n2d (In Hami 1 ton at t1i9h~ Jt, s that this bui lding t1il.S a lot of
dear glass; it has white trim; U has a lot IfI{)re 90in9 fer it here. I
was lookin9 at what happens ~;th the grout. Vhen you are on that groun~
floor, you are seeing ~ lot of cle~~ 91as~. and with that other bu,lding,
you saw a lot of dark glass with a dark, inod~zed frame and sort of a
brown brick. The proportiens are quite different, is well as t~e (olors.
Ms. Wilson: The building on Alma is being repaired now. 1t is an
entirely different c010(, but again, you see this incredib1e contre11ed
color. so vet'.)' homogeneol.!s. Brick. is earth, to me. t ha\'e some re.l1y
basic architectural problems ~ith what is going on here, even though this
is a very !legant building. You have a woc~ frame structure ~ere which
10~ls like a britk build\n9~ so it is very much fa~ided. ~cu have plaster
columns supporting brick, which is not intellectually comfortable with
me. It is not a strong enough material statement to be ho~d;ng up wnat
100KS like brick. I have never been ab1e to divorce myself from a
load~beariog qUil;t) of bricl~ which historically. it is. So ( ha~e
-J 0 .
L
•
I
';~: ,.
-
.1ways been. very u.~comfortable "'"ith these brick. tile. applications. r 11&'15
excited when the dra«ings y~~ submitted t~ us had r2al brick in the
arches. but tHJW, we do not eli€n have t~ose. I understand your logic about
efficien(:y.
So wtlat 1 I.Il tryi ng to say tnat altnolJgh I car. SiJPport thi 5 because it is
"ery attractive, archihcturilly J have re.al problems with the
construction and tho;~e of ~ateria1s. 1 hope we can reacn t~e point
eve~tually where we have ~hit I ca11 real architecture. To me, this is
stage setting. and it is elegant stage setting; it is beautiful and it
will be a fine building, but r nave a lot of trouble with this genera11y.
Ms. earn~: Basicll1)t 1 liKe what ~ou have here, and I do not ~ave the
concerns witn colors so IYUJch, although I would lfke to tak!! the panels
outdoors. Hie other architectural corrment I want to malle is tnat I think
this narth ~al1 needs to be worked on. The sense that Shirley is a11uding
to is that th,s is rea11y 1 faux building is c~1y amplified by th1S ~ind
of ~hift. This is w~at you do with stage sets. As you recede fro~ the
curtain, the detail fades to give you a sense of perspective. This does
not ri!ad at all well to me. I want yau to do a lot more wft~ that. If.
indeed, that !'iext doa,-neighbor is 901f19 to rerna!in for U'I extended period
of time, I think that is worth the development. There are going to be
hotel rooms look.ing at that __ iew. as well as people coming along the
streeL
My ~aj~r concerns with this building echo Shfrley's concerns. When we
discussed Parking lot J, we spent a lot of time tar king to safety and
about r.aving something back th!re that makes that area more __ ita1. I
think the iss~e of doors is critica'. yo~ need to be abl! to n~p into a
door ~hen you .ant to. It doesn't e~en matter if someone is there. yo~
just need to be ab1e to do t~at. rt is a little mitigated now that the
hotel has a parking attendant. That person is tnere basica11y iround the
clock. Still, the safety issue i~ that alleyway is a conc~rn to me, and I
really want to bring some vitality into that. Shfr1ey 's comrnents are good
ab~ut encouragin9 back and forth mo~ement fro~ thE rear entrances to the
University Avenue shops, However. it has been over time that those have
been closed off. I remember that they \lsed to be doors that you cou1d go
in. Tenants changed and slowly. one by ane. they have become de1f __ ery
entries. They used to be consumer e~trjes. I do not know ho~ much
inte~est you would have in ir.itiating that kind of flow. They may
respond, onte you have something going.
I think it is critically importarlt to get some retail In t~ere. 1 think
that what ~orxs about tne bookstore is that it is open late. Is it
Jerusha that 1s the store there? That hiS been histoTica1ly a hard place
to keep retail. and [ k.now they h'le had troubh in the hote1 to the paint
where they have practica11y abandoned it. What has worked in that space
was the bookstore that was open at night. So J ~ould like to see a
tobacco~ist, a newspaper stand. sweet shop, flower stand ~inds of
comb1natians t~at would have e __ eni~g hours. That is ~hen people come to
the restaurant. That, I Hdr.k, would be Iriable. That is just a
one·person show, practically a retiri!d cowp1e could do tnat in a very
s~11 area ~f thiS b~ilding ind still keep some of your windows, not
pulling it bac~ down here. [rea11y want to encourage som~ sort of retail
that will be open later. with ifter-dark ~our5. It does not have to be
very bf9.
-11-
,
•
,,~:
"'~~~,,:
:"
·-
-
"~ ..
Mr. Baer: May I ask. question, because I know this is important to y~u ,n? If I (.i;tve out i. sm.all pi!!c.e of retli1~ sigT'lage is goi.ng to be the
1ss~e, because now, y~~ ha~t I~ upptr floor u~er? Btlieve me, I ~ill work
hard in the next IlOnth to t~y ar.d sei! if we can carve out some reta il
frontage, but .hat does t~i$ de for me insi~e1 I am just saying that to
Ic~1eve t~at objective apd to get what otherwise a full building user, t~e
prominence of the signage fs I part of tneir image associattd wit~ the
building. This is a cast where someone ~s going to want I sign on Cowper
and on the drlve •• y for their ret.ll ",e.
Ms. Barnes: Are y~u working with a tenant already?
Mr, Baer: Yes, with two.
~~: Vo you ha~e some concept in te~s of signage?
~r~ Baer! [f they are i single building user, t~ey can put up their sign,
and we do not nave the issue we ha~ with Citibank or other users~ where
theTe is confusion.
Ms Wilson: I don;t know w~y you ~ave put the main entrance on the
alley. That has a1ways puzz?ed mel with no entry ~n Cowper. Your addrfss
is on CO"cql2f.
Mr~ Baer; It is due to tne experience we nad wit~ 250 University Avenue.
landscaping blocking out transit is absolutely right on. It ~il1 not 9!t
addressed if the landscaping keeps you from crossing the dri~eway. The
reason for moving it to t~at side was to create vitality down that way
toward the driveway, muc~ as we put the lobby it 250 Uni~ersity A~enue in
mid-blo<~, to pull people dQWR the ,i~ •.
Ms. Barnes; That works for me~ That I like. The issue before at 250
University Avenue was that it was on ) different building. it was hi~h, it
was repeated. There were many issues there. Thls is 111 one building,
one major tenant and perhaps a couple of retailers.
~aer: I thiT'lK you are right.
Ms. Barnes: Jl'iy last conment is. abJlJt th!: parking. r philosophically hhe
a problem ~;th buildin9 parking it the other end of town frDm in cffice
building. I can understand the situation with the parking data as it is
eurrently. 1 am not so sure that I buy into the argument that east of
Cowper is not 901n9 to be developed. As I reeal1 when we w:ere ta1'King
about the sun angles studies on Parkiog lot J~ there ~as much discussion
about that whole Webster Street frontage being underdeveloped~ a~d
apartment houses are going to be wiped out, an~ the house o~ the corner ;s
just waiti1'l9 to be sold. 1hat was the thrust of tr.lt -..:hc1e d~s.cllssion.
and that sounds like a heck of I lot of di!velopment. I don't know that we
can count on their not being development in tnat part of town, and r have
i hard time grappling with the in~lieu concept.
Ms. Maser: Eetting back to Shirley'S comments about the co?ors, first of
all, r have less of i problem with what J see over there tnan w~at I see
iTo the Tenderings. Dut)n day1ight and ~ith the polished surface of the
marble, t~at is going to make a veri elegant, li~elier kind of
-12·
L
•
I
.. :::;..
._"
..J
i
\
I
I
I
I
I
" ,
'.......,.-"
-
presentation than w~at I see in the rendering. It is rendered with red
that looks dead, fl,t, You are going to 9.t sparkle from that. I truly
think it is an elegal'lt CCmbi!'iition of CQlors and milterials. r d() not h.J·J~
I pr~b1em with it. That is not to say I ~ould not like to see i panel of
tne gTanite and the bric~ with the mortar cut th~re for us to approve
ahead of time. but I do not hil"w'e too I'lany reSEnat;ons about 'IIIt1at 1 see.
It is very different, ind d;fferent from .hat I expected after looking at
t~e ele~ttiQns~ I expected the tr~ditiona1 brick color and a red tile
roof. $0 at first, I ~as a little taken aback, but as I sit here locking
at it, [ think it is really a welcome relief. This building i$ Qyite
different. in my mind. from the building we were talking about ~here City
l'ghts was. because of the richn~ss of t~e dttiiling and the tra~sparency
of the ground floor and the amount of breakup of space and the proportion
of the building. It;s b<!.utifully proportioned and skilf"lly put
t~gether as a design. T~ me. it is in another league comp1etely. and
feel v~ry comfort.b1e ~ith what I sce.
ne one thing 1 do not feel very comfortable about is tiles! colul11ns. Tney
resemble snafts that were just put in there, whatever tne material is.
Shirle) alluded to this. I really th~nk it would be worth y~ur while to
look. it the possibility of their b0210g real columns witn capita.ls and
bases and maybe Dura-Art Stone or Focal Point ur one of these companies
that make a Tusca~ type of column. which would carry out tne richness of
t~e rest of the des19n. 1hey have some fnrm. so perhap; a little richer
surface materiaT~ especially if it is the Oura·Art Stone. I f~el that
wo~ld enhance the building and not just Took li~e poles stuck in. It
could ~se that detal;ing of a slight modulation it the top and bas~ of the
cD1umn to car~y down tne richnt$s of th~ ~est of the b~ilding.
I am uncomfortab1! with tne cha.nge frore your original eal!e section to this
new one. I personalTy would rather see yo~ go bo~~ to the dentaTs tnat
are shown in this rendering, rather t~an the rafter ends indicated. I
wou1d like to ha~e you re1Do~ at t~at. It is a d~tailt but ~~at I see
~ere in the rendering is more in keeping with the rest of the bui1ding
design than what [ see in that section.
As far 1S the retail bus.i!",ess, I do "">ot feel equipped' to comment too
decply~ but in Ue \11'31 the core is designed rigH now limits the
capability of flexible retail space. where~er it is. It eats i~to a
fleXible type of arnnge,nent the Jiay it is de$ig~ed rigr,t no... If there
;s s.ome 'Way of getting the stairs out of here. lnd putting ,t along ~,e.n~,
and getting i block of something over t~ ~ne side that would allow more
fl~w thrDugh from front to back, more potential for various different
sizes of retail, it ~ignt start going in , direction that would allQw
different things to tcke pl.ce. A9i{r.~ I don't k.new ~!iit YClJr thir,k:'ir.g is
about t~e upper f100rs and ~~ere the toilets would go. If they are going
to go in tniS ,pocket. Uat w{l~Td also eliminate !ht's passage .... ~y and p'Jt
things together ln a more usable package.
1 reai1y feel it is a nandsome building. I do not have t~is reservation
about the stage·set approach that Shir1ey does. I ~ee w~at you are doing
with the l-snaped bric~; 1 think it is going to give the '11~sion of a
fijl1 bric~ ~fry success.fully. ~e ~a~e used the same ~lnd of detai1ing in
buildings, and it comes off ~Ery well. Obviously, you r,a~e t~ken a lot of
time to work out sections and details of large-scale bay studles, and it
Tooks li~e you know where yo~ are gOing, and it 100K5 fairly con~incing to
.-, .... ,.
: 1
,
-
. ,."
be. It is • r.ally handsome building. I do a.ree with Marn, who
commented that it .ould re.lly be terrific If you could possibly introduce
t~at trim over here and not disenfranchise this side of the b~ilding. The
fde~ of the score lines and gEtting some modu1atlon in there is certa,nly
pr~ferible to just ~ P'i'"~ p1asl~r will. 1 do 19fee that if you want to
give thfs i proper fil'lish, tnat makes it appear is though it is as Rwch a
part of the project .s the front p.nel. I r •• lly hope that 'veryon. who
wal~s by this building is dressed in purple. I li<. t~e way that coler
works with it.
I havt no comme~t on parling as t do ~ot fee1 cognizant of all the
permutations and combinat;cns to make a comnent. I thin~ this is going to
be • beautiful addition. One more t,ing is that I do not f.el terribly
upset about th~ fact that thtre are no open)ngs planned at th€ Park,ng lot
J sid! of the all.eYlliaj. It 1S not tnat long an 11leywa.y. we have lots of
areas in P,lo Alto wher. you w.lk past solid w,lls that I find f,r Ie,s
comfortable t~~n what this w~~1d be. It is not a great distlnc~. You
have ~ front entry that is set back and it is a place where you (an .~ip
in jf things are a problem.
Ms. paAasa: I strongTy support all of Shirley's cOlTl'l'lents. r will not
repeat them, but ~ill elaborate on a c~uple of items. One is the
potential for retail here. Don't sign a building that does not work fo~
retail~ Don't get yourselves into I corner where the signage lS not going
to work for retail. nh is a: new bul1ding, not a retail retrofit. This
is when you make the changes that make this bui1ding work fo~ retail,
whether or not you have retail in the end~ but not as a retrofft, and not
as a signage problem. Those tnings ~ave to be thought out at this paint.
That was the problem ~it~ the City <ights building. It was .n offit.
building, and they they tried to ~~ke it retail. Signage was really a
bear~ [am sure you would love to have i flower shop and all these things
that would ~ake this work as T!tail with tenants that .ould be tnere
foreYer, and all the little boutiques that would be open at nignt. That
is great if you can find those people and make it work. I support retail
and 1 support making a bu~ldin9 function so that it can function for
retall and not close the door ~n that, but you are going to ~ave to figure
Qut what makes a building successful. J think retiil would be really
important. and w~at you do with tn}s build~ng has to maKe it possible for
ret.il to function here. Shirley had some good suggestions.
Another thing that reta;; 1leeds is de-livery space. It is iii good th'ng
that is a one-way street there, because they have that whole alleyway for
del h'eries, and there are always truc«s parked on t10rner. One sees a lot
of trucks parked on the entr,)' to the parking lot. so 1 Go not lIIant to los.e
that opportunity for trucks to park that does not interfere witn
passige~ays. They are 9~ing to park there whether or not it is a
commercial loading zone because it 15 so easy without going into that back
area by the par~ing lot. I did n~t see exactly wnat was happening there.
Let's not ellminate that possibility.
If I understand your description of the parking, e~ery time you hav~ a
project, you come up with some creative way of dOing it. It is
wonderf~l. Parking is realiy difficult, and you seern to have corne up with
il soluUon that 'Worts for this paF'tic:u1ar building on this site and the
allotment of the 36~un;t spaces in Hlat Digital area. nat seems to make
ser,se here. The property that Marn i was conc.erned about, as you pointed
·14-
L
i
I
I
-
out, lre RM-30, ~ct commercial lones.
Archil,ctUT.TTy, I Tike • lot of the things that are h.p~ening with this
building. Cowper Str •• t Is getting to be , re.l1y strong .treet. It
relates to the ty~,s of build)ngs en that Cowper block. My concern vith
this building is Shirley's concern ~ith t~e columns. I think t~at 15
50meth1ng you could tate I look at and COm! back. J sup~ort basic
appro~al of this project, b~t with some deta1l to return.
~: I mo,e apprc •• l of this project with the st.ff condition, listed,
and ~nder ConCitfor. III firal architectural details. including mater~a1s.
eolors, downspouts, etc. to return. Those details would include a relook
at the colum~s, the material and design of those c~iumns, the rafter ends
and the p.rty w,ll design.
~: By Ms. Barnes.
WDman Speaker: 1 vou1d like to have a driwing of what they propose for
that piety ~.11.
Ms~ Lytle! Are we going to get into either ~ r hoits issue on this party
.:all or are we going to get into a J-onn Brooks Boyd issue on lytton party
... 111
Woman SDe,ker: The Tnoits building was a building on University Avenue
that had i big vacant lot next to it that ~as going to be vacant for who
knows how long. 1 felt strongl1 that at th~ very least, the score line
had to re1ate to what wa.s ha.ppening on the project~ lnd it never did.
Nothing was done4 J think they are going in tne rjsht direction ~ere.
The Boyd building wa •• ort of h.1f •• y pulled back but not complot.1y
pulled back. It was an lncomp1ete deslgn so1ution. 1h15 is pretty
strli9htf~rwar~, downtown, urban ~arty ~all. Score 1ines wi11 do it.
Ms. Wa~heit~ We nave not!d th~t t~e Dverbang is similar t~ What happened
at the Boyd building. Where they had the pary wa'1, there was no
o~9rhan9. so you may .ant to s~ow a dEtail of how that corner ~)11 be.
~oman Speaker~ rt is a little different situatj~n here.
Ms. Varheit: Also. _hen it gets to the bui1ding department stagE. they
~on't 1et the rafters come all the way to the party wall. So yo~ need to
work with th.t.
~oman Speaker: With the Boyd bui1ding, thei ~ere trying to imitate a
slope in the opposite d1rectten with the roof line. It ~as I different
type of architectural solution that did not work.
~s. Wil$Qn~ You ~ean the building department ~on't let the rafters and
the ~a~e go to the property line?
Ms. lytle: When the bui Tding is at the property 1 ille, the rafters and
eave carlnot go olter. The ended up naving to ,ut a nic.he Dut (If the roof.
1 realize this 15 a different shape, but there is enough simi1arit1 that I
am raisin9 the issue that they please chec~ with the b~i1dins de~artment.
Woman SpeakDr: There is i ~otion f~r apprcval with conditions, which are
-J5-
,
""c··
''0);:,
: ~
-
-
.11 the ,tiff conditlo"" but .,th specific .rchlteetur.l details
reti.lrnlng and,. strong support for retail Or. the first f1 Oor ilr'1d aSSI./r,ilnCi!
that the de'ign is supporti.e of t~.t retail. Also rlfter end details.
All of your dra~ings, the e1evat,ons and tn~ details, s~ow a ~uch more
sub,tant!.l rlfter end !n the det.ll.
Woman Sp2a«gr; 1 wo~ld li~e to amend that, because I am not sure that
rafter ends are exactly 'lll'hit lie want to er,d lJP .. d ttl.
Ms. DaRos.: Or. dent.l detlll .t the el.e. look at the columns ..
materi.ls and celumn redesign. Also the party .all.
"',S, Pb.:?er: We warlt to be able to go out on site and Took. at a fi'ir1y
substantia' ~anel of materi,ls. No spandrel glass, but you are not
proposing that.
Ms. Wilson; What are you doing for sun control? Are the drapes gOing to
be drawn .11 the time on the second floor? I see a pote~tiil problem
here.
Ms. Maser: The main fa~ade of the building is nortn.
ML Wilson: 1 d(}n't want to see developed ~ere what we ~ilVe across the
street at the ba~~ at 525 Uni~ersit1 Avenue, ~h~ch is the big opening ~ith
the c~rtiins drawn ~'1 the time. We rln into tnis wit~ a build~ng on [1
Ca~ino Aetl that was facing .est. They put in blinds and we thoug~t we
~ould ha.e this wonderful ,it.1it1. I think you will have a problem with
sun tDntro1. You did it on 25~ University AVEnue. You had tD come back
and put up awnings. I am not agair.st that. but 1 thinl you need to
realize that that is ~ reality here.
Mr. Baer: There shoul~ be I little more ~ature tree toverage, and we wi11
make that west section, the ground floor, with double-pane glass~ so t~at
is clear, but you have 1nsulztion.
tOisc~ssion about tne types of street trees)
Ms. Maser: One of the things that bothers me about the Thoits buiiding is
the calor of those bl inds. It looks very flat and uninhabite·d as you
drive by, due to t~at west exposure. I realize that darK b1inds ca~ thro.
off air conditioning. etc. but just studying the color of the blinds could
IJe one possible approach if you want to avoid putt illg awnings on the
building. In this particular design, I feel they .. auld be detrimental.
Ms. Barnes: It roakes a differenCE, too, if there are computer screens
where t~e light i~ shining in. People are much ~ore sensitive to the
degree of light when tney are working ~ith i computer screen than
otherwise. light that .o~ld ctherw1se be lct£ptab1e on sQrneone/s desk
becomes unacceptable with the terminals. r don't know who your potential
tenant is. but if they iTe going to be sitt ing at computers near those
west-facing windows, you ire going to have to de i lot ~ore screen\ng than
just the filtertd 'ight of the trees. and i~ ~inter, you wo~'t even have
that. People .il1 get up 2nd close the curtains when the sun comes fn,
and they ~iY or may not ~pen them back up.
Ms. Wilsgn; If ~C~ ~o net want to do awnings, you may need to thinK about
-J6-
I
1
,
~-;::
4!ti.
.'
" ; .... ' '.t/"
,
j
:1
I
I
I
I
I
-.-:
I retl architectural solution on Cowp~r Street~ whether it be an
architecturally construct!d a~~ng over t~at street. ar scmethi~g that is
tne quality of the ~aterials yau are USing, etc.
Ms, Batres: T~e awning ~ould help with thE summer 5un~ ~ut $0 wnu1d the
trees. J am concer~ed w1t~ the winter sun.
Woman Spealer: I will add that to ~y motion about I sun control ~olution on Cowper Street to be added when you C~. baCK.
MOTION PASSES: Is there any further discus,'on on this .otion? All those
in favor, say Aye? All eppcsed? That passes unani~us1y.
ErlD OF EXCERl'T
-17-
'.
.-'."
,,~, ________ ,""' •• l~~"--"~ _-.._,..,' ,
\ ...
'.
II.
z.
REGULAII AGEHDA
INFORMATIONAL M£MORAHDUM
ARCHITfCTURAL ~EYlrw 80ARD
May 16, 1991
531 CD~PER STREET •
D'S Archite,ts
91·ARB-5, 91-Ze-Cr, 91-EIA-OZ
PC Zone Change application to construct an approximate 11.00~ square
foot 3-.$to,-y office bun ding. ~ The park.ing requirel!le-nt wi11 be met
through the payment of fn-lieu fees.
ZONINu Existing: CD-elP) Cell'merchl Downtown with Pedestrlin Di5trict
Overlay
Proposed lon'~g: PC Planned Commun,ty
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
An environm!nta1 assessment recommending ~doption of I neg~tive
declaration is INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
PUBLIC NOTICE
~al1ed notices were sent t~ i'l prCDerty ~w~ers an~ utility customers
within 300 feet of the project s,te.
BACKGROUND
The preliminary application ~as reviewed by the Soard on August 16, 1990.
Minutes of the Au,ust 16, 1990, meeting are INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET,
O~ April 24, 1991. the Planning (ommiss~on unanimous1y to-C) recommended
conteptual approval of the proposed PC Planned Community zone cnange
application. Copies of ~he April )9. 199J, Planning Commission staff
report i!rid the Aprn 24. 199]. Planning Corrmission ~inutes are ftKlUD£D i~
YOUR PACKET. The issues of cor,cern for th2 Pl anning rorrrni ssiori rel ated
to tne potential use of th! g;ou~d floor for retail. the speciflc in-lieu
parking fee per space, and the relations~~p of the proposed SI50,OOO child
care contrihution to the actual c~i'~ care nee~ generated by the addtional
commercial square footage. Each of these issues will be analyzed in
greater detail when tne project returns fer final Planning Con~ission
rev;ew~ T~e Board's comrr~nts Qn the use of l11 or a portion of the ground
flooT for retail related us~s wilt be valuable in the final
recomm~ndations to the City (ounc;l~
DESCRIPTION/ANALYSIS
The applicant proposes to construct a 15,942 square foot tnree·slory
office bui1din9 adjacent to the Co~per Street alley e~trence to t~e lot J
parking garage. The 8,025 square foot site, located at 531 (o~er Street,
was occupied by I single-story 7~S08 square foot office building in poor
condition. Th,s bui~dlng was recently demolished in order for the site to
be us!d as a construction staging area for the two additional levels of
- 7 -I
@II
•
,
<,
parkfng to be added to t"'e Webster/Cowper garage approyeC' through a pri or
'l~nned Communfty IOn! change.
Tbe trldltlonallst styl. building will b. f.ced with belg! brick .nd l;g~t
colored precast stone and green marble accent eiements. Th~ first {1oor
will b~ recessed from the new property northern line allo~in9 1 planter
~nd a co~erfd pedestrian arc3de aTong the northern edge of tne ~ropo5ed
building. The front a~d rear of tne proposed buildin; will b~ set back in
order to allow for additional landstaping along the street frentage and
.long the re.r p.destri.n w.lkw.y betw,en the ~ebster/Cowper g.r.ge and
the project site. A third floor landscaped balcony overlooking tne corner
of Cowper Street and t~e driveway to the Webster/Cowper ~arage is
inchded. Relocating the planter. in. the southern pedestri.!!n wilHwaJ
entrance to the Webster/Cowper garag! will result in better pedestr€an
access by incrcasing the width of the'current walkway from il narrow 3 feet
to apprc)(imate1y 10 feet ... ide. This widening (If the pedestrian access to
the lliebster/Cowper garage occurs neal'" the rear terminus of the proposed 15
foot wide '~vered p~destrian arcade.
Tne existing Covper Street driveway to tne ~ebstet/Cowper garage public
right-or-way is Jl reet wide. In this 31 fe.t there is • S 1/2·foot
s'de~alk along the northern side, a i2 foot-wide drlving surface, and il 3
lJ2·fo~t sidewalk along the project site. Tne app1icant proposes to
dedicate 3 J/Z·feet of his property's nortnern prcperty line to the City.
and to grant a permG~ent easement for the l~ foot wide pedestrian ~rc~de.
The pedestrian !asment shou1d be increased to ]8 l/Z·feet because ~
portion of the proposed 4 1/2-foot wide p1antins strip between the
pedestrian arcade and the driveway falls within t~e ilpyli,a~t's property.
The i~p1icant has rev)sed the dTi~eway oesign in response to th~ Flanning
Commission~$ support of staff's reccmendations to prQvid~ additior.al
lindsc~pin9 and to incr~ase the ~idth of the S;6~Wi'l i10ng the northern
edge of the driveway. With i n U1~ ... i dened 34 1/2 foot p"u~ 1; c right -0 f -w.'ay ~
the applic.ant proposes to increa.s.-e th-e 'Width ~f the sidewalk. along tht
• nbrtl'lertl side of the drive ..... ay to 6 feet 6 inches, add a 4 l/Z·foot wide
p1anting strip along the northern side ... a1( and shift t::<e existing 22 foc-t
wide driveway approximately 3 feet 6 inches to tne south. and to border
the soutner~ edge of the driveway wltn anotner 4 foot 5 inch p1anting
strip between the drive~ay and tne 15 foot ~ide covered pede5tria~ arcad!.
A detal1ed en9i~eered site p1an shall be required prior to Plan~ing
CommiSSion final re~i£w in order to document the exact locati~n of
adjacent bui ldings and' property 1 ines to determine t~e final dimens ions of
the planting strips, drive~ay locati~n. and sidewalk along tne nort~~rn
e~ge of tne drive~ay.
Tne Planning Commission ~xpressed a strong desire that ,1ear glass be u5ed
throu9hout the project. This is of particu'a~ concern to the Planning
Commission because the ~roject is located in the (Pl Pedestrian district.
The pjanning Commission requested that the applicant and staff analjze the
feasibility of the pote~tial for retail use~ Staff req~ests that the
Board examine the building sections is they relate tG the proposed first
and second floo~ glazing. At present the height of the second story
svbf100ring and mechan'tal area will require the use of spanrl~e1 91ls~ or
a recessed soffit for ti1e top 4 feet of tha first floor ghzing. The
lower jO foot hi9h port~on of the first floor 911ling shal' have c'eaf
glass~ In additfon, the bottom 2 fe~t of the second f100r 91a!ing ~aJ
~e~~ to be mod,f;ed to screen the ~iews ~rcm the street of p~op'~~ feet
- 8 .
L
·71
. , ..
I l-, i
stlnd1ng D~ Jitting at those second (loor windows. Staff 1u9gest; th;t a7tern;tfvts to the ~$e of span~rel g}a$$ be explored.
S.,.us. thi, !s • Planned Community ~on. ch,nge application, the pr'Joct ~ill b. c.ndftf¢nt4 that fln,l det.lls. ~.t.rl.ls. colors, lighting, ana
hndse.pln9 of tho anti •• project ,n.ll return for Soard ".vlew, s~ould the tily Council 'pprove the project. _
The appli'.nt will pr.~ent mat.,I,)., tolar., .nd ll~htins detoil, at the ~e.ti·9. bttlil,.f tho party wall of the southern el.v.tlon ~lll als. b. pruente4.
RECOW1ENDATlON
Staff "COmm,nds that the AtchHHt"rcl R ...... e.'"d reco""'~od that lhe
Cit1 Council adopt tho .'S.llv. de,larati.n and 'pprov, the props~;.~ ?C lcn~ thang •• p~l!<.tl." subjett t. the following draft findin9s .nd
,,,.ditf,n •• The .. to'dillons :YO .ubJect to fUrth'r refinement 4."
!xpar:siof'1 Hs.ul tffl~ from t~e pub1 fc tu.Htrirlgs. ARB re\!1~lV .. ;,"Id futUre
inter •• Plttment.l concerns w~jth maJ 'ri,. dur!n~ the reView of the
tl'!9
1
I'lur(>d d1".ali1~gef CMstrlrCHof'l bh:n, d.nd tonct:ptIJ.a.l mail'tt:~anc:e: ilsrt!'gomel'1t.
FINOINGS
(a) Tne sit. is $. 'ily't,d, .nd the v" Or "'.s propo,.d for the 'lie
,r. of SuCh thora'terlstie. that the application cf th~ sener.l
dhtr-{c:t,S Qr combinIng dl,HriC:h 'lltin Mot prllvf(je suffident n.~jbiHtl t. 'l1~w the prcp~'td develOpment !n t~.t ~/). sit. is
lot.ted cn • P,-<!l that tho Urban V.st~n C.~itt •• na. ideoiifod ... Me. ".uld """,nce tho ",bin linds~.p •• Hh • throe'stoYy ~"ild!n~. rh~ Cowp~r Strtet orive~.y to the ~tbst.rICt.pey Sarage ha. ,1,. veen jdfnt1fj~d by tb~ Ur~an D~~fgn C~mmitt~e ~& part 4f a ~Pe~estriijn
Way' beginning .t lytt~" Pl, .. and .. tonOing to the "ebHer/CowMr
garasa wh~c~ wo~1d tl$Q b~nifjt tn~ urb4n landsc~pe by ~P9ra~ing and
ehon •• m"i; t~.t wo"'~ promote p.destri,n vit.lity. Th. tn-"'5!",,t t>lJild~{)9 ar)d' th~ Pi""Oj'(isfaM Qf" (overed. 'We1f 1ig~tl!-d pedes!,.-iilfl ~~~qd~, ~vb$tantfal la nd5Caplng O~ ~~tk $i~~~ of th~ driyew~J.
1J1'lJ,JrQ\'E'4 ~i!:oestrii11'1 acce-:a to the ~"bster/Cc',.;per 9.J)Qge, :and iI
"lo-ene.;1 ;idewaH (HI the i"!crU; sid'!t: of the a-riY!lofa,y proposerj 111 C~!'ljurrttton tilth the pr~Jec.:t COQ1d Mt other;dse .be accemmcd.te1 undtr C~~rent ~onjn9,
(b) Development of tho .it. "nd .. to. provl'iOns of the ?C Planned
tl)nrm . .,IoHy -di.strit;:t .... 01 re-suH in pUhlic benefits nc.t (lther",ise
ittainab1e by app7icat5cn of the r¢9U!at1oni of general dfstricts Of
CQmbining dist~ict:. Tr.e£e benefits inc1ude the ~pgrading of the
(pwper Street entry to the ~ebstEr/C~wper garige with a widened ;idewa1~, special paving treatment, lighting and li~dsciPlng. t ,oyere~ pedestrian a~cade, and bUilding scaie co~plem~ntar$ t~ the
urb.n landscape. The City CounCil has id&ntif1ed bot~ il1ey
improvements and' proltfsfon of a do'wtltolott'J child c:are facflitJ its
POssible benefits r~Q~irjh9 ~ajor iocenti¥ts. in additio~ to tnf l11~y a~Q other Site jmprOYeme~t1. tn! applicant S~.11 Co~trib~tf
SlSO,COO,OO to the City', Child C',-e Trust Fund to b. "od to",",
pro.,.iditJg .. child Ctlr! f.lenity in 0'1 nUt the dow:tltclottl 1i.tea.
,
\ -
•
''':~., ,
~-"i
•
. : r
'" :c; -'.
/
~<t ·it;~
.:.:c.~., ,
"1',." . . ~
, --.
(e) The use Dr u~es permitted. and the sfte development re9u1~tfons
applfcabl. withl. the district will b. consistent with the P.lo Alto
Compreher.slvt Plan, !nd wfll be compatible with existing and
poter.tfal uses an .djoJnfng sttes or wfthin the genera} vicin1ty in
that the pr~Ject ~fll ~afntlin the same ~ses w~jch apply with ~he
current CD-C (P) dlstr:c!.
CONDITIONS
-
t. Ffnal architeetural detlils fntluding materfils, colors. glazing,
downspouts, mechanical equipment, pa~fng materials. lightlng and
1andscape plans shall return for final review by the Boar~ p~jor to
issuance of a building permit.
2. The applicant sha11 grant 1 permanent pedestrian easement to t~e City
for tne covered pedestrian arcade and any landscaping adjacent t~ the
arcade that falls withfn the applicant's property prior to issuance
of a build;n, permit.
3. The applicant shall c~nyey 3 feet 6 fn~hes of 531 Cowper's northern
property line to th! Cit, prior to issuance of a buHdfnQ permit.
4. The applicant shall enter into a mainten~nce agr~~ment wit~ t~! City
to maintain all driveway related i~proveme~ts for a time per-iDd to
match the Existing m~fntena~ce agreement related to the ~
W~bster/towper garage prior and tomaintain permantently the entire
planter along the southern edge of He drh'ewaJ'. Tne-mainteMnce
agreement shall be e~ecuted prior to issuance of a building penmit.
S. The applicant shall ~ey t~e City an. 11".·lieu parking fee Df
$800,000.00 prior to €ssuance of a building permit. This fee is
based ~n $25 1 000.00 per ~arking s~ace for the 3'-spac~s required by
the additional square footage.
6. The applicant shall contribute SJ50,000.00 to the City's Child Care
Trust Fund ,prior to issuance of a building permTt.
7. The new street trees shall be Fistacia Chlnensis to match Exi!ting
street trees on th~ opposit! s;de of the street. The applicant shall
remove the eKistin9 Hawthorne and ,p1ant 36 inch bOK specimen trees.
All landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of in occupancy
permit.
B. Tne applicant shal J ,post iii performar,ce bond and ,prollide appropriate
insurance for all work proposed in the the public right-of-way.
9. A detailed draina;e plan snall be t"equired f'Jr rE'yie .... and approval by
the City Engineer prior t~ issuance of a building permit. All site
drainage including roof drains shall be connected to the storm drain
under Cowper Steet. A preliminary drillnage plan shall be submitted
to the Public Works Department prior to Plan~ing Cor.~fssion final
re'w'1ew ••
JO. (a) Project acce.s.s and' staging Inay Dccur only Or'l Cowper Street in
front of thE project. Ho construction and maintenance parking
-lO •
L
.,~ -,-.--.-~
\
(
'-;:.)
•
"
\
., .......... .
·-<l
'::r:
•
',.....\"q~-~
'-,.',,~.¢.
'~!1
'.
,
-1
j
1 ,
i
i
I
I
\
~':'---";'--..... ~"'.--: ... .'-, -,'
~·~~~~~~i--.. --"'
'.\ . . . . ...
II.
--
(b)
Cc)
Cd}
(eJ
(f)
permit. sh.ll b. issued for con.tucticn parking on Cowper
Str •• t, ucept in· front of the project.
No double parking
shall b. penoited
Aveoues.
or queing of trucks cr construction vehfcies
on Cowper Street ~etween Lytton and Hamilton
Cowper Street sh.lI b. open to two-"ay triffle ot .11 times.
The Cowper Street driveway to the Webster/Cowper garage shail be
open t~ tWO-WiY traffic d~rfng constructf~n of the building. No
project access and staging Shlll occur in this driveway.
The Cowper Street driveway may be c70sed whfie the dri~ewdY is
be~ng reconstructed. A sign shall b! posted indicating that
vehicle access to the ~ebster/Cowper garage is on Webster Street
and pedestrfan access is on University and Hamilton Avenues.
Pedestrian access to the Webster/Cowper garage from Cowper
Street shall be maintained at all times. This can be
accomplished by completing tne covered pedestrian zrcaoe prier
to beginning any work (111 the drtvetWilY. .
Ttli' connections to the underground utilities and storm drainage
c-n Co' .... rer Street shall be coordinated in order to red, .. ce ti1e
construction impacts ~" Co~er Street.
All materials used in t~e public rfgnt-~f-way shall be selected from
the approv.d list provided by the Public Works Department. While
tne paving materfals used in t~e covered pedestrian arcade do net
have to be from tne approved li~t) the materials used' in the arcade
shall meet Public ~orts Department standards.
-II -
E
i'
-
Citl' of 1'010 'Rlto v .' .
TO: PALO ALTO PLAHMING COMM1SS10H PREPARED BY: Robert E. Haley
OAT<: AprIl 19. 1991 fILE NO.: 91-ze-Ol, 91-~R8-6. 91-El~-l
f!~Jtcj INfO~TION
UKat;on:
A~plicant'
P'roperty Owners:
RtQuested Attion:
P ROJECT SUMI9-RY
531 (o.per Street
Palo Alto. CA 94301
DES Architects & Eng;~eers
399 Bradford Street
Red.ood City, CA 94063
Premier Properties
420 Florence Street
ralo Alto, CA 94301
Zone Change from CD-C{P) COrTllnerchl Dowr.town
District, Pedestrian Shopping District to PC
P1aMled Community Distric.t
The applicant proposes to changE the loning of the parcel located it 531
Cowper Street from CD-t{P) to PC ?1anned Community in order to construct a
three-story lS,950-square-fool camrnerc{al office b~ildlng adjacent to the
entran~~ of the Cowper-Webster Pirking Garage. The project includes i co¥ered
pedestrian arcide and enhanced pedestrian entry 1inking Cowper Street to the
public. Th~ new bu;ld~ng ~~uld replace l s1nglt~stcr~ 7~5CC-sQuare~foot
commercii' buildin9 which has been de~'ls~ed. TMe proposed proje~t includes
no parking. but the applfcant ~as offered to pay an in-lieu parking fee of
S20,000 per space for the re~uirej parking. In addition to the pub1ic
benefits ~f enhancing the garage entrance, the ippli~ant ~rop05~S to
contribute $150,000 toward's the cost of a d1ild care facilitj in the downtO\lo'n
area.
R£COMKENDrD ACTIOH
Staff re,ommends that the Planning Commission adoress the issues raised in
tnis report. conceptually appr~~~ the proposed Plan~ed Community zone cnange,
ind forward the applicition to the Architectural Revie~ eoard for review,
SITE IKFGRMAT!ON
Pilrcel Size; 8,025 squa~e feet
120-03-56
PCSRSl J C/bh Page 1
1
.'
1
'-;~~-'
<,-.',
•
· ··.·~;;:i:;;;.:·:·.:,;> .
_,;~~fi .....
<xiotlng Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan
o.slgn.tlon:
Existing Lind Use:
SUTrou~ing land Use:
Histor'y:
Mandatory Action Date(s):
Envfronmental Impact
ASS'E!!5Sment:
AllALYSIS
Protect Pescript;on
CO-C(P) Commerci.l Downtown District, Pedestri.n
Shopping Combining District
Re~lcn.l/Community Commerci.l
~acant Site {Previously a 7,50a·square-foot
cOlTITIerc; al bui lding}
Horth:
South:
East:
West:
520-526 University Avenue. retl1]
buil di ng;
Commercl.l office building;
Webster-Cowper Gar.ge;
Garden Court Hotel
Preliminary review by tne Arcnitectural ~~view
Board occurred August 16, 1990 (summary minutes
.tloched).
The .pplic.tion w.s filed on January 15, 1991.
A Notice of Incomplete Application was issued on
February 14, i991, and the application was
deemed complete on Haren 15, )991. The Planning
Commission must hold a public hearing within 90
dil,Y5 March 15~ 1991. If the Planning Cotmlission
acts favorably in its initial review of the
Planned Co~unity application, the development
plan shall tnen be submitted to the
Arch1t!ctural Review ~ard for review. The
develop~nt plan, is approved by the
Arc~itectural Review Board, is then returned to
tne Planni~g tommissfon for final Planning
Commission review and recommendation before
submittal to the (ity Council f~r final action.
An environmental assessment will be prepared
prior to the Planning Commission's final review
of t~e proposed zone change.
The applicant proposes to construct a 1S,950-square-foDt three·story office
building adjacent to the Cowper Street all ey entTilr!ce to t .... e Webster-Cowpa-,
Parking Garage. The SI02S-sQuare-foot site, located at 531 Co~per street, was
formerly Gccupled by a Single-story. J.5nS·square-foot office building in poor
condition. This buildlng was recently demolished in order for the site to be
used as I construction staging Irel for the two additional levels of parking
to be added to the Webster-Cowper Parking Garage, zpproved through a prior
Planned Community zone (~ange. The plans do not provide for on-site parking
PCSR53IC/bh Page 2
I -
due to the praximity of tht project to the public garage. Instead. the
applicant pi~poses to pay, 5ZO,OOO in~'ieu fee per required space fer
constructing parking elsewhere within the assessment district.
The Traditionalist style building .ill be faced with beige brick and light
col~red precast stone with mlrble accent e1ements. The first floor ~;11 be
recessed 181 feet from the proposed northerly property line •• 1100ing a ll
foot planter and I is-foot-wide co~ered pedestrian arcade along the north edge
of the building. The front and rear of the proposed b~tld'ng ~il1 be set bac~
approximately 3 feet in order to allow for additional landscaping along the
street frentage and alon9 tha existi~g Tear pedestrian wi1kw~y. A third floor
landscap~d balcony overlooking the C~rner of Cowper Street and the drive~ay to
the garage is included.
The project will result in an improved visual entry to the garage and better
pedestrian access by inCr!iSing the ~idth of the current public right-of·~ay.
dedication of I pedestrian eas!ment. end expansion of landscaping and sidewalk
improvements llong the realigned dri't'e",·ay into the garage. This 'Widening of
the pedestrian access t~ the public parking garage occurs near the rear
te~inu$ of the ~ropo$ed IS-foot-wide to~ered pedestrian arcade. T~e existing
public right-of-way to tne Webster·C~wper Parking Garage fram Cowper Stre€t is
31 feet ~ide. In t~is 31 fe.t. thore .'isls • 5j-foot sid ••• lk .10ng tn.
northern side, a Z2·fo~t-w;de driving surfaCE, and a 3j·foot sidewalk along
the project Site. Th~ applicant proposes to dedicate an additior.al 3! feet of
private property t~ the CitYr and t~ grant a permane~t pedestrian easement for
the JS-foot'wide pedestrian arcade. ~ithin the widened 34j-foot public right
of-way, the iDPlici~t also proPQses to install improvements i~cluding a (j
foot-wide pianting strip ilong the northern side~alk and increase the driving
surface from t~e Existing ZZ feel to 27 feet wide.
Parking Garage Entry Design
The Transportation Oivisi~n has determined that the existir.9 ZZ·foct-wide
driveway is id~~uate and '~E~t€S no problems that wou1d warrant ~id~ning.
Therefore? staff recommends that the driveway net b~ widened to 27 feet and be
k.e)l.t iot ZZ feet "'ide bJJt st." fted t'l tfi~ south 3t feet i.S proposed by the.
app1icant. Staff proposes that the remaining 5 feet. which are prnpos~d to be
used to _'den the drivewiY9 insteid be used' tD inc'rease the width of the
existing 5·foot-wide sidewalk and t~e proposed 2j-foot-wide planting strip
~long the northern edge cf the drive~aJ to an a-foot sidewalk and 4i·foot
planting strip. T~i5 change .ould allow the dr;~eway to ~e bordered by a mGre
traditional width sidewalk and planting strip providing i superior urban
amfnity and public benefit including enhanceme~t of the pedestrian experience
along both sides of the drive .. i../l' entrance. In addition? the University .!.venue
prapertie~ backing cnt~ the alley may be more encouraged to open their
buildings onto the widened sidewalk and planting area resulting in ;ncreas~d
pedestrian activity and bette~ des'gned fiCldt~ on both s,des of t~e drive~ay.
The applicant proposes to enter into a maintenance agreement to maintain the
arcade. Staff recommends that the applicant ahe ~aintain all of the public
PCSR531C(bh P.ge 3
, :
•
. ">:
~-
-
improy~ments re1ated t~ the ,'ley up~rade for I period of time to match his
existing maintenance agreement to ma'~ti1n lot ~ (apprcx1mately 15 years).
In-iieu Parking Fe? Prpposal
A. BackGround· Statys of Existing Downtown Parking OeficH
Between Augu.t IS, 1986. (effective date of the CO zoning
regulations) and September I, 11;0, approved projects added 28,101
square feet of floor area to the Downtown area (refer to the
attached November 9, 1990, Downtown Monitoring Progrlm: Sixth
Report for Relevant rabIes). ThiS additional ,quare footage
resuTted in i 13-space increase to the parking deficit, bringlng
the total deficit to 1,613 spa,es.
Two projects, i.e., the PC lone (hange for 529 Bryant street and
the modification to the PC zoned Cowper/Webster Parking £arage
(Lot J). have be.n approved since September 1, 1990. The project
at 52. Bryant Street added 2.560 square feet of floor arEa and
resulted ,~ an in(rease t~ tne Downtown parking deffc1t by ten
,pac.s. The PC zone amendment for the Cowper~ebster garage .ill
add two leyel, of par<lng .,d 156 additional spaces. The nEt
effect of these two projects will red~ce the Downtown parking
deficit by JSS spaces. In summary, changes in the Downtown
par~in9 deficit between S2ptemb~r 1, )9S6 and November 1. 1990.
including all appro~ed projects I show a reduction of 143 spaces in
tne Downtown parking deficit.
B. Parking Requirement fQr th~ Project
Based upon a total project size of 1~.9~C square feet less a
credit for existing square footagE {1.S0a square f~et) &nd
applicaol! exemptfons (4nO square feet). the net new ad~itional
b~tlding square foctage to which the ~arKing prevision requirement
is applicab1e is 8.034 square f!et. At th~ rate ~f one par~ing
space per 250 s~uare feet, the required nu~ber of parking spaces
is 32. If t~e ultimate bui1ding size is eitner larger or smalTer
tnan 15.94l square feet, tnE requjred number of parki~g spaces
will increase or decrease it tne rate of one space per ZSO square
feet.
t. The On-Site Pa~\in9 ~lte~nltj~t
PCSRS31C/bh
An early version of this project included pro~ision of parking
spaces on-site. lne proposal inc.luded: (a} atceS$ to the !'lew
undergrQund parking via I connection through the basement of the
Webster-(owper Parking Garage; and (b) the provision of 29 parking
spaces, 25 of whic~ would be re~uired for the propos!d building
square footige and three additiona1 spaces that ~~uld ser~e is
replacements for tnree spaces that would be lost in the basement
of the Webster-Cowper Parking Garage.
Page 4
-_-. __ '"' ________ i",
.'
i
j
I
\
:
1
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
o.
PCSR531C/bh
Preliminary discussions regarding suc~ ~ ~roposa1 raised several
cont~rns about t~e oVfril1 utility and icceptability of the
proposed parking arrangement. The four gro~nd leve1 spaces a10ng
i ~idened dri~e~~y creatt ~perit1~nal 4nd ~esthetic concerns and
the five spaces in t~e transition area between tne project and the
existing parking garage Significantly rEduce the existing
landscap~ buffer and p~~duced operitional problems. In addit1on,
it seemed evident tnat persons who Might no~ally be expected to
I,jse t~e below-gro JJnd spaces in the new project, would' 1 ikely
choos! to use any aVillable publ tc (J-hOl.'T 1 'rJlit) spaces in the
Webster-Co.per Parling Garage (basement and ground level) for
snort periods of stay. due to grEiter convenIence and ease <If
actess.
The pr<lbable 10wer utilizition potentill of t~e pr~po~ed new
spaces, the operational probl!ms issocilted with some of the
prnposed spaces, and the fire and building code complexities
issociated witn the linkage bet~een the basements of t~e proposed
project and tne ~ebster·towper Pirkin~ Sarage, coupl€d with the
immediate proximity of existing ~v41'ab1e parking, gave Tise to
consideration of p~ssibly subst1tuting an in-lieu parling fee for
the required parking spaces for the proposed project.
Park~"g Availab,lity
Ths proposed project is 10cated directly across the street from
p.r~in9 lot H with 97 sp.ce, for short ten> (Z·hour limit) public
parking and immediately adjacent to the e~isting fi~e-1evel
Webster-Co~~er Parking Garage with 158 spaces (basement and gro~nd
floor) for short term ()-hour lim1t) public pirking .vi'11b1e to
anyone 9 and 260 spaces (<It permit parking (~nlimited time}
~vajlabl! only to downtown empl~yees who ha~~ a valid p~rking
pen<it. While lot H is typic.l1, full during the peo. mid· day
period, the parking spaces in the garage are somewhat les~ than
fully ~tilized. The public spaces on the ground floor are always
in use, ~hile substantia' ~s~ of tne basement tend~ to occur only
iro~nd the naon-time pe~iod. T~a floors of p~rmit par~in9 are
al~ays well utilized? ~hile the roof ~ontinues to be sig~ificant1y
under utilized on a re9uTar basis. Typical1y. there have been a
total of 40 t~ &0 public and permit sp4ces a~i;lable f~r use.
There is a current approved project for ~hich construction will
sotln b~gin, wliich ~i 11 add two additional levels of pukin9 to the
existing garage, thereby creatin9 an addltional )66 spaces it this
particular location. For a peri~d of )S years, these spaces ~ill
be leised for pri~ate usage for b~sinesses in the area. After i
p-eriod of IS years~ the City will take <l\ier control ~f these
additional spaces and administer them in a similar m~nner
{p~b1ic/permit) to the existing ~crtion of the garage.
Whi1e it cannot be stated with certainty t~at existing and f~ture
parking supply is sufffcient to fully meet future parking demand
Page S
,\
\ ..
\
,
1
-.......... '~ ..... 'r-. • . ~ 1
L
PCSRS31C/b~
I , -
in this immedi.te ire., the lno.ledge of what is lnown to be
taking r1ace and some ~nderstinding of what may occur in th!
future-leads to in inevitable conclusion that the imbahnce
between parking supply and demand is &nd will continue to be more
itLlt.e in other areas of the dO)ffltown~ jh~refore. rither thi!n
requiring t~at additional parkin9 spaces of probable low
utilizition potential be proyjded in an area where parking supply
;5 re'itively ample, l ~roposal for an in~lieu payment to b~ used
to provide addition.l parling .l.e.here in the downtown parking
assessment district where parKing supply. in Te'at~Qn to parking
demand ;s more ac~te, nis considerable merit.
In·]ie4 Pjrking Fee A1ternative: CUrrent Staff AS5ion~ent
The Downto.~ Study established the direction to develop in~lieu
parking provisfons that would provlde certain projects with the
~ption of paying an in-lieu pir~1n9 fee rather than prov1ding the
required number of parlfng spaces on site. The general intent Is
that such previsions be limlted to spec1al situations ~ere tne
small size, ~nusua' configuratio~, special features or historical
character of the site was such that imposition of parking
requirement. would preclude development. Sectior. lS.49.100(d) of
the Palo Alto Municipa1 Code specifies situations ~htre in-lieu
parking pro~,sfons would be a?p11Cl~le.
At prese~t~ stiff is working en the deve1~pment of an Qrdinance
that would establish i mechanism to enable the City to collect,
retain ind dispose of in~lieu parking fees. Such in ordinance
would also establish an appropriate fee to be collected and
identify the intended u.es of any fee. thu, coll.cted.
While the propos~d prDject i~ being consfdered is a PC Zone, an~
theref~re not farmal1y linked with e~isting in~lieu par~in9
provisions or i future in-lieu parkl~g ordinance, some of the
jnform~tiDn being devel~ped for the ordinance ~ay serve as a
useful reference point in f~rtner rev1e~ and considera!ion of the
proposed project.
The proposed proj2ct includes i provision for the paymEnt of the
sum of $2a~OOO per pa~ling space for whateve~ numher of spaces ~re
required and not ,cro¥ided (In-sHe. The proposed project as now
defi~~d (15,950 square feEt) with 1 requir!~~nt for 32 park~n9
spaces would result in a total in-lieu fee of 5640,000. If the
u1timate bUllding size is either larger or smaller than 1)1950
square feet, the reQuired number of parking spaces will increase
Dr decrease it tne rate of one space per 250 square feet and the
total in-lieu fee will increase or decrease accordingl).
Current efforts to evaluate the cost of ~rQ~iding addit,o~il
parking within the downtown parifng assessment district in the
context of prDbab1e implementation scenarios indicates that:
Pag. 6
. \ .
\ .
\ ~ . . .
.~ .
...J
,
I
j
,---
:~'.'-.";5 .. ;<.j~. ,-1-." . .' "-.',.--
.' M --"
'-... <: a" _._ .. W".-.}'<"~", ... ,,-~~ '-.-\ ~ .-~
-
I. If the future parking is provided in the fo~ of i parking
garage built on the site ~f an eX1sting City pi~kin9 lot
(~ebster·C~wper Park~ng Garage model)~ t~e in-li~u fee
should b. ;n tne ringe of SIS,nOO to S10,OOO per sp.ce;
b~ If the future parking is provided in the form cf o~e of t.o
le'ole1s of under9rou1'ld parking in conjunction with the
dey~lopment of a )lri'rate site (250 Un;\lers ity Avenue model L
the ;n-l ie" fee should be in the range of $25,000 to S3D,DOD
per space.
These estimated costs are ba.sed upon ... 'anable data from six
parking structures located in and around Palo ~lto and inc1ude
conSideration of the following: a) actual c~nstruction costs (not
estlmates) adjusted to curr~nt year d~'lars; b) no land CGsts; cJ
rep1acement of any disp'.ced existing s~rface le¥el parKlng; d)
the const'!"'a.'ined arid tigflt na.ture of sites ir, the downto'ln a'!"'e.a.;
and e) some provision for administrative costs~
F. Use of In-lieu Pir~in~
The concept af an 1n-lieu parking fee, is that fees will be
collected and accumulated and used to fund tne pro.dsion of
additiona1 p~rkin9 spaces .ithin the do.ntow~ p~rk'n9 issess~~t
dlstriC:t. While it is unlikely that in·1ieIJ parKing fees 'Will
generate sufficient mnnies to separately fund a new parking
facility, they tan be used to fund a po~tion of ) new park)og
fadlity, thereby reducing t"e burderl to the assessment district.
Whi1e the location of any such future parking is not defin1tive?
the areas of primar) need appear to inclUde one centered around
lots R, P. and N, and anotner centered around lots G and E, This
fs based upon consideration of the expansion of the existing
Wp.bster·Cowper Parking Garage. a preliminarj under~tanGing of
possible changes it lot K, tne importance and c~~plexit} of uses
for Lots Sand t, and the existence of t~e Lot Q Garage.
Furthermore. while the City ~ay one day bui1d an additionil
parking st,uct~r~ s,~i1ar to the Webster-CQwper P.rt'ng Garage, ,t
is staff's present i;sessment t~at it is more likely that
additional parking will be devfloped in conjunction with pri~ate
deve10pment of pri~~t! ~ites and/o~ par~i~g 10t air rights Similar
to the 250 Univers;t~ project and lot Q Garage? as such
pub1ic/private opportunities aris!.
G. s,unm'larr
PCSR53lC/bh
Staff supports the proposal to have the City accept payme~t of an
in~'ieu parkir.g fee for the requir~d number ef par~ing spaces fer
the propOSEd' project. l1o",e~e,.? based upon staff's understanding
of the information available at the present ti~e? an in-lieu fee
of 125,000 per spac., rot her than tne HO,COO per space inc1uded
is part of the prcposed project, apPEars to mQre iccu r ately
Page 7
•
•
; ,.
, ..
,,';~~
.--;'",''' -. ,-., ..
~ . '~-.' = .. ;y"
-
represent tne current ~ilue of tI'Ie cost that Ue City ~in iike7y
incur at s~71e future datt when; accumu1ation of in-lieu payments
ire used to f,nance the tosts of pravi~ing additional parking
spaces 'k'ith1n the dO~TltOl,,'n pafiing assessment district.
B1cyc:1e Parking
The proposed project includes the provision of six Cliss I lockers. The
proposed location of the bicyc7e storage lockers within the same service area
is the trash (~ntliners is not satisfi~tQry and should be modifiec~ Sttff
recollil1ends that four Cliss III (Hitch II) bicycle storage racks be provided
for use by retail an~ office visitors; two in ciose proximity to the ~a~n
entry to the building and two 110ng the Cowper Street frontage.
Within the Webster· Cowper farking Garage, in ciose proximity to the rear of
the proposed project, there are ten eMisting bicycle storage lockers, of which
only four to six are ever in use t lS well as eight Class II tRack III} bicyc'e
raCKS, the use ~f which is minimal. GiVEn this current excess supply of
bicycle parking racilitles in very clese proximity to t~e proposed project,
stiff re'o~nds that consideration be given to substjt~ting an alternative
means of lieet'!"t9 the stora.ge iocker emp10yee bicycle par14ir;g requirement. The
recommendation for adding visitor racks at D~ near the front of the buiiding
would not change, however.
The substitute empluye! bicycle pariing proposal is to have the a~plicant
pr~vide and install ten Class lJr (Hitch II) b1cyc1e storage racKs it
loc,tions to be identified by staff, ,long University Avenue in the downtown
bus,ness district. These racks would be the same as the inverted U-styTe
rackS that now exist along University Avenue. and for which there is i need
for an increased Dumber. Tn1s substitute proposal is intended to replace the
s'x bicycle storage lockers sh~ for the pr~posed preject, but not the
related recommendatien that four Class III (Hitch el) type bicycle storage
racks be provided. for ~se by retail and office ~isitors, in close proximity
to the main front entry to the proposed building.
Public Benefi ts
The applicant seeks appr~val ~f the additional 8,000 to 9,000 square feet
abo'1e wh.at -..rould be allowed under the current CO-C(P} zoning by pro'doing
public benefits. based on urban design a:nenities and i $150,000 contribution to
a Building Tr~st Fund for future development of a child care center to be
develo?ed near the downtQ~n. Both alley im?roveme~ts i~d the provision ~f
child care facilities were recommended by th2 Temporar~ Committee on Downtown
Design and Amenities as possible bfnefits requirin; m3jor incentives. A copy
of portions of the January 30. 1981 T!mporary Committee on Downtown Design ~nd
Amenities Report on Commltte~ Recommendations and June 8. 1987 City Council
~inutes are attached.
Other public benefits related to urban design amenities inc1ude tne fol1owing
items:
PCSRSJ1C/bn Page S
L
,
-
I.
2.
3.
4.
The creation of a lS-fo~t-wide (o~ered. ];ghted pedestrian 3rcade
along the southern edge of the Cowper stre~t driveway running all
the way from Cowper Street to the Webster-Cowper Parling barage.
The relocation of i planter at the entrance to the garage will
allow for safer direct pedestrian access.
lhe proposal also indudes the-addition of landscaping along both
sides cf the Cowper Street driveway to l~t J ar,d the straightening
and ~idening of the dri~eway from the existing 22 feet to 27 feet.
Staff recommends that the dri~eway not b~ widened and the
1 alidscapirtg and the ·.,idth of the northern sidewaH: be increased.
There is c~rrently no landscaping relief 1M the walkways along the
gange dri 'teway.
An enclosed refuse and recycling area wit~ excess capacity in
order to prcv~de recycling space far some of th~ adjacent
properties is proposed within the rear of the building.
The proposed three-story height of the ne~ building will help
screPM the Webster-Cowper Parking Garage. The view of the garage
will soon dominate the pedestrian exp~rience along this portion of
Cowper Street, unless the height of bui~dings in front of it is
inc ... eased.
The Planned Communit$ Zone Change application is required to follow a process
wheraby it is given preliminary review by the Planning Commission_ The public
hearing, sc~eduled for April 24. 19;1 , is intended for this purpose and 1S the
subject of this report. Should the Comissicn act favorabl.1 at this initial
review, ~re detailed design plans are then submitted to the ARB for its
recommendations. The devel~pment plan, as approved by the ARB, is tnen
returned' tc the Planning Commission for its final reYielll and' recorwnendation
before submittal to the CHy Council for final iction.
Prior to making a final approval recommendation to tMe City Co~ncil. the
Planning Corrmission is required to l1ak! specific determinations regarding He
project and to approve an ep~ironmental determination, speciftc development
program statement, development pla~ and de~elopment schedule then will become
the basis for the site-specific re~u1ations to be applied within the proposed
PC Planned Community zone district. An est;matec timeline for t~e processing
of the application is as falTollis:
April 24, 199]
~'Y 16, 1991
June 26, 199]
July IS, ;991
P(:SR53 1 C/bh
initial PTanning (olmlfssion review
Architectural Review Board review
Final Planning (omission revteilll
City CounCil review
Page g
-,
": ,: :"j":~:~~.::,.
::;W;~i<·-·
';;.-,-;'. "i;-.-.:'.-
L
..
Comprebensive plan Compliance
T~e .stated objectiVe.s of the CDm~rehensiVe Phnls Urban Design Policies and
Programs are is follows;
a.
b.
Preserve Palo Alto as a cruthe erwfronment where people can li'lle
and work;
Promote the crderly and haN!{Jn;C)us de'r'elopment of tne Cit.! af'ld the
attainment of the lI',ost des1 rable hnd use i!'1d improvements through
the review of new development;
c. Promote'VisUoi1 enyjronmtrlts ~hich i'l"-e of high aesthetic quality
and 'Variety, a~d considerate of each otherj
d. Encourage ~a;ntenance of trees and p1a~tif'lg of ne~ trees;
e. Identify and maintain the smaller scale visual features that gfve
character to Palo Alto and 1ts neighborhoods.
Etch of Ue obj-xtives are satisfied by the proposed' project creation of a
pedestrian arcade environment and -humanization-of the public garage entry
through landscaplng and pedestrian improve~~~ts.
Rele~ant Urban Design Po11cles and Programs are as fellows:
Policy 1: Maintain the present scale of the City, but modify those
elements which by their massiveness aTe eve~elmtng and
unacceptable.
Program J: Discourage massive single use~ tnrough limitations o~
height and density to protect ~urrounding uses and
community values.
Program 3: Ceye10p visual design standards for new and expande~
development.
While the square footage of the proposed project is greater than allowed under
the CO-C lone, the size. architecture, and arcade areas contribute to reducing
tne sc~le of the public parki~g garage ~nfnd the proposed project and making
the entry to that garage more enjoyable for the user.
Policy 3:
Progra. H:
PCSRS31Cfbh
L
Promote visual aesthetics through tree planting. landscaped
areas a~d remova1 of visually dlsrupt;Ye el~me~ts on major
City streets.
Encourage the use of street t~ees and planting in the space
between street and side~alk rather than unrelieyed concret~
paving.
Page lO
, -
Frogram 15: Create llin1-parf:.s, ped'estrian mall, promenades, open sp:.::e.
ind neil where pedestriirrs ",auld' have right-of-.. ay over
autor:fI)b i 1 es.
A major feltu~e of the proposed PC District is the cre~tfon of I pedestrian
ircade ind arcade driveway. Considerable cpen space is being creited by tnis
project, centered Dn the creation of a strong pedestrian en~ironment .
.E.gploymgnt
Among the objectives of the E~ployment el~ment of the (o~prE~e~sive Plan
relevant to the proposed are the fo1)0 .. in9:
i. Keep existing b{Jsiness healthy and attractive;
b. Have industrial and c~mmerciil uses fn Palo A1to be clean, Quiet,
and otherwise compatib1e with the residential character of the
Clty;
c. Have design standards for nonresidential developments consistent
and comp.a!lble with an appl icabl e el ements of the Comprer.ens ive
Planj and
d. Encourage the provision of child care factTities.
The proposed project will add to the health and attractiveness of the DQ~town
retail en~lronment lnd will provide cornm!rcial space which strengthens retail
vitality at the Eastern Edge of the Do~ntQwn+
More importantly, the project contrlbutes catalytic fu~ds of $150,000 for i
child care c!nter in or near t~e Downtown+
Transportation
Among the objectives of the Transportation element of t~e Comprenensive ~lan
id~anced by the proposed project ara the follo~1ng:
i. RedlJce park~ng c(lngestion in the core Do ... ·nt:>\Iffl.
The safe, lighted attractive pedestrian irc~de should encourage parking
Dutside the core of H,e Downtown by making the Webster-Cowper Parking Garage
~ore inviting and pleasant for office ~orkers and shoppers. The pro~ision of
in-lieu fees will facilitate the construction of off-Site parking in an area
~ere it is more needed.
~RE~C~O~MM~~~aATul~O~N ________________________________________________ _
Staff recolTl1TlEnds that the Planning (omission ada"ress the issues raised in
this report, conceptually approve the proposed Planned Community zone change,
and forward the application to t~e Arc~itecturil Review Board for review.
PCSRSllC/bh Page II
-
,~-.-.-'---
r;-.~ :_.,_-:-
FINDINGS
Not appHcable f(lr an fnithl review.
CO!!DlTIOHS
Rfcommended conditions will be prov;ded for the Commission at final revie~ of tn. application.
ATIACttlE!!TS
location 'Hap
August 16, 1990 ARB llitiUte-S ar.d Informational Kemorandurn
(xcerpts from the November 9, J990 Downtown ~on;t(lrin3 Program: Sixth Peport
January 30, 1987. temporary Committee on Downtown Design and Amenities ~eport
June 8, 1987. Cit, Council ~in~tes
Map of UnfVfrsit1 Avenue Assessor District
C(lrrespondence: 3/15/9) letter from Roberta Enterprises
4/4/91 letter from Girden Court Hotel
Application binder .nd plans (Commission members only)
COPIES SE!!T T~
Architect"r.l Revi •• Board
DES Architects & Engineers, ;99 Br.dford Street, Redwood City, CA 94063
Premier Properties, 420 Florence Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Chop Kee.an, 700 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
PCSR531C(bh Pige 12
'L
f
\
I
-
'c-
2649 •
11)0\
sITe loeA TlON
GRAPHIC AnACliMf~i DATE: 4-11-9' SC~L~: 1"· 200'
TO STAFF REPORT FILE NO. 91-ZC-1 9'-A?~-6 91-fIA-2
PROJECl: PrcpDse:d lene Change fr ... ;; C\)-c(p) to a PCJ..=---I
511 Covp~~ S~reet
L
-
NDRTH
\
Ii
\
I
• \
i
j
I
I
~rd"fectllr~11
I~e\'fe", ( !~~~ __________________ ~_li_II_"_t_e_s
A. ROLL CALL
Board Members Present~
Soard Members Absent;
Staff Present:
B. APPROVAL Of MINUTES
Thursday, August 15, 1990
8:00 A.M.
Council Cor.ference F<oom
elVlC Center
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo ATto. California
Marn; Barnes
A i no da.FZosa
Mic.hae-l Lyzwa
Shidey Wil son
Jon Scf1ink.
Nancy lytle. Zoning Administr.tor
Vir~lnla warheit, Senior Planner
H'
1
~, 1990 Minutes: Appr~ved. 4·0, ~ith the fcl1ow~ng change:
Page 12, Item IIl.J, last pari9~aph: Ms. Wilson reworded 1t to say
-Ms. Wilson .ttended the city countil meeting on July 16 and felt
that it was val!able, as there was need for more communication."
!
-
Augyst 2. ]990 Minutes; Approved. 4.0 1 ~ith the foll~w;ng cnange:
Page 79 [tem 1 (250 UnivcrsHy A .... e!1ueJ, flrst lin€' s~o"J1d read:
-Ms. Wilson wanti!d to see .a tr-ansitio~ ba.l.J at tha circular pa .... ing
patterns .•
c. ORAL COK~UNICATIQNS
D.
, .
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
APPROVALS: The Architectural Revle~ Beard lARB) decision or. the
des1g,' of the project ;s a recolT'll'lendation to the Director of
Planning .and Community [n .... ironment (the Director), who makes tne
final dec;slon. Unless othenwise stated by the ARB or the Director?
project approvals generally incorporate Project Revie~ Committee
conditions ~s recommended in t~e Information Memorandums.
(HAr~G£s: Any change to an a.pprcved design plan must be resubmitted
to the City for a.pproval. Resubmittal of .a project may also be
08/16/90
.J .
2.
3.
4.
I s.
: -
... --
-
375 ARBORETUM ROAD ap Oil Corporation
St~nford Approvil Required
This Item was cancelled.
700 HA.~SEN WAY
frank K!"'ei5
9C·~.RB·135
90·0·12
90·ARB·124
Install iii" additional free-sta.nding sign at an e)(isting cOI!'.rr.ercia'
build ing.
APrRO~ED: 4·0, as proposed.
900 HANSEN WAI
frank Krefs
90·ARB-125
Insta" an additional free-standing sig~ it an existin9 commercial
building.
AP9ROVED: 4-0, as proposed.
511 COWPER STREET
D.E.S. Arc'itects
90-AAB-132
Preliminar) revie~ of construction of a ne~ three-story commercial
building with underground par(;ng.
This project wa 5 prese:1 ted by the i~ct,; teet, T om lin man_
6oar~ comments were as follows; Mr. lyzwa ~ad great concern about
the parking situation. He ~a5 told that in tne preliminary set of
~lins, t~ey were short 11 spaces and that there ~0uld be no parking
for 8,000 square feet. He cannot support i project that is not
parked. A parkfng solution is a f~ndamental issue to the planning
and tlie deslgM of the bUildi:'lg. Generally, ~e (eH the biJilding loIas
well thoug~t out, and approved of the proportions and shapes. He
did feel that the colors were very gloomy, d~rk and depressing. and
need fi.H, .. ther study. He liked He open arcade and feels it is oil big
public benefit.
He expressed the idea that they were se~ing the same type of
architecture over and over in Palo Alto, and would like to see more
contemporary deslgn that is not so (onservative or Victo~lan.
Ms. Barnes agreed with Mr .. Lyzwa's parking concerns. She shared
PubliC Works' concern over having access from i public parking lot
into I pri~ate one. Inasmuch is that is probably saving Mr .. Baer a
lot of headaches, she felt he owned the city more parking spaces
than just that reQvired by the square footage. She wanted to see
tMe paTking generated by the building met and e~ceeded. She liked
OBjl6jSO
-5-
I
t D'
6.
7.
-
t"'-e design of the building, t"'-e slate Inaterials, and
~olors. She also apprcved highly of the arcade as a
and felt it should be'ma~e llv~lJ wit~ a retail use.
building needs to be scaled down to IT'.eet the par~ing
t"'-e proposed
,publ ic benefit,
Basically, the
r,,!quir~1'Ilents.
~s. da Rosa 5uP?crted the 9~rage connectlon to the public par~ing
garage. She li~ed the form of the bliilding and the arcade concept.
She fe1t that the bUllding would appear too somber due to the color
selectf~n; the materials, however~ were acceptable. She was in
support of the project if a'l the zoni~g issues can be resolved, and
felt it ~ou1d be of great benefit to t~e d9wntown area.
Ms. Wilson strongly supported Ms. da Rasa's position on parking.
Consideration ought to be giv2n, if t"'-e applicant is gi¥en access
into his parking area from Parki~g Lot J. to i future breakthroug~
into the subseQuent lots dt the far corner at Hamilton and Cowper ~c
tnat all that space could be accessed. Ms. Wilson is i~ strong
suppcrt of ground-floor retail on the Cowper Street side of tr.e
building. She liked the traditional architecture very muc~, byt was
not happy with tne colors. She suggested red brick, sDmething mare
lively. like -F2deralist Red.·
Mr. Baer Moped that the message from the ARB to the planning
corrmission would be that the board's concer" was root with the scale
of tne project but with the inadequacy of parking downtown and I
concern tnat this project ~ot lncrease the parking deficit.
Ms. da Rosa liked the scale of the building, feeling that it is
appropriate in its location and is b~lanced by the hotel. She ·,.Iants
tne ar(h;tect to pay close attention to the mechanical syste~ O~ the
roof and views from the hotel.
748-750 SAN ANTONiO ROAD
Tim Walker, Baycor
Colors, materlals and sig~age for previously GPpra~ej remodel of
existing ind~strial butiding .
. ~PPROVED: The color and material sarnp1e-s were approved, 4-0.
Signage shall be presEr.ted for re'lief{ and apprc~aT by plir,nir.g staff
prior to installation.
4J46 EL C~lNO REAL
Carrasco ASSOCiates
Architectural details and final landscape plans for previously
apprc~ed, 12·unit ~ondom;nium project.
APPROVED: 4-0; the colors, mat~rials and architectural details ~ere
approved, wit~ the following conditions:
08/)£/90
·6-
f
----------
....
. .
-
II.
INFORMATIONAL XEKOItANDUK
ARCHIT~CTURAL REVIEW BOARD
AUGUST .1', 1'90
REGULAR AGE1II>A
5. 531 COWPER. S'lllEE'!'
D.E~S. Architects
90-AP.B-132
preliminary review of construction of a new three
stor.! c01l11llercial building 'With unc.ergrC'""u,d parking
ZONING
CD-C,F) Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian
combining District
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ~SSESSMENT
An environmental impact assessment vill be prepared at the
time a final project application is filed.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Mailed notices of this meeting .ere sent to all utility
customers and property o~ers within 300 teet of the
project site.
DESCRIPTION
This proposal is to construct a three story building with
underground parking. accessed from the underground level of
tbe adjacent Cowper/Webster pub] ic parking 9arage~ The. ne· ...
:building is a traditional architectural st.yle .. ·ith brick
face, slate roof and terra cotta columns and accer.ts. 'l'he
first floor of the building is recessed on the north side
to provide a 15~ vide pedestrian arcade leading to the
public parking garage.
The ne~ structure is set ~ack 5 feet from the ~orth
property line along the entrance to the qarage to allow for
the addition of 4 on-street parking spaces and realignment
of the drive_ay to the garage. The nev underground garage
include~ 27 additional parking spaces~ ~ut 3 existing
spaces are being lost for the garage entra~ce~ for a net
increase of 2t spaces underground. The additional 4 spaces
:being provided at street level maxe a total of 28 new
spaces.
ANALYSIS
, .
\
The proposed building is a handsome de5ign~ yell suited to
its downtown location and co~posed of quality ~aterials~
The proposed pe~estrian arcade leading to the garage is an
important amenity; as is the straightening ot the auto
-~) -
L
,
l
I
d H
-I
I
-
entrance to the garage and the provision of four additional
street-level parking spaces. However, these on-street
parking spaces can only :be accessed by drivers ""ho h.ave
gone into and are exiting the garage, and there is some
concern that parking' along the major ar:-cess into the garage
~ay impede traffic flow.
Given the locaticn along the access to the public parking
93rage, ground floor retail in the building could help to
enliven the garage and create a safer, friendlier
environment.
It is noted that the Public Works Department does not
support the proposal to access the prh~ate garaC;e through
the existing public qarag~.
In addition to increased squar~ footage (FAR or 2.16 where
~.O is allo~ed). there are several other aspects of this
proposal which do not comply with CD-C(P) zoning
requirements. For purposes of ccmparison l these are
outlined helo .. :
1. One handicap parking space is required I but it
cannot be provided in tha underground garage, bec~~se
the entrance to the underground level is is not
handicap accessible.
24 The 17,362 square feet being proposed excee~s tbe
existing development of 7508 square feet by an
additicnal 9654 square feet. The p~rking require~ent
fer this increase in square footage is 39 spaces k
where only 22 spaces are heing provided.
3. The garage pl~n sho~s over sot compact spaces
where only ~5\ compact spaces are allo .. ed.
4. Four Class I bic}"cle ~arking spaces need to b€
provided.
5. If cffice space in the building exceeds 10~OOO
square feet, one shower needs to be provided.
-14 -
7
November 9. 1990
PLANNING COMMiSSION
PliO A1to Ca1ifornii
0iy of Tolo !lIto
, 0 tOz IO;':5iJ
, ... ~O ...... 10. ( ..... CC-NI"
OO~TOWN MO~ITORING FROG RAM: SIXTH REPORT
fSEPTEMSrR 1, 1989 TO SEPTEMBER ), 199P)
Members of the Commission;
This is the sixth report on Do .... ntown de'olelop:'T1ent trE":'lds since fiJ'1al ilctic)r'l \lias
tilll:.fn on ttl~ DOw!lto· .... n Study :by the City CCHmc. ; 1 on Ju.11 149 HS6. These
reports are ma~dated by Comprenensi~f Plln policies thit require staff to
~nit~r trends in the Oowntown area, and periodicil1y report en th€m to the
Planning Commission and City Council (see attac~ed Comprehensive ~li~ po1icies
and' lIlap Df the C01Tlli,eTciiiLl DOllllfJtown lCDJ lCf1ed district cf Downto~ P,10 .A1to).
MON!TO~!NG PROGRAK
In response to these Compre~ensive Plan po'icies~ staff has f3tablished I data
bue for all parcels if! the CD District. If! a.dciition~ s':.aff hu dHt'!lo~~d a
monittlring system on development approyals. "iactncy rates, .sales tu 'ie'o'enues.
prevailing rents and trends in US! composition.
DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS
Between September )~ 1989 an September I, 1990, no projects ~ere approved tnat
added new floor a.rea to t~e D~wntc~ CO Oistrict.
Betweln August lS. 1986 (effecli~e date Df tne CD l~nin; regu'ationlJ and
September 1, 1990. approved prcje~ts added 28.202 ~QUiT! feet ~f floor area to
the Oowntown Area. Tabh J sho .. s .11 pr:::ljects Ippro~ed in DOlomto","n Pale Alto
between September 1, 1986 and August 3l. 1990 tnat resulted in changEs.in
floer a,..u.
OTfl!l
Gl
ll/I/IO
f'9' I
~!
'j
" I , !
1
I
I
-
A
TABLE 1
DOWNTOWN COM~ERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
1965 TO 1990
NET TOTAL
PROJECT FLOC~ AREA
fLOO. AREA OF APPROVED
pROJ[C~T~ ______________ ~A~PPwR~0~V~ro~ ____ ~pwR~O~J~tC~T~5 __
As of September I, I'SE
53] Cowper
520 Ramon.
210 Un I ve r. ity
151 Homer
. 314 lytton
247"75 Alma
700 Emerson
43l florence
JS5 Ulli~ersity
401 Florence
619 Cowper
2S0 Uniwersi ty
Su~total of Projects
9/1/8a to 8/31/89
671'~
400A
65
(9,750)
(7 I 3)
1,150
4,000
2,500
4,958
2,407
2,108
20,300
18,202
3,311,076
e,025
E,205
7,455
33,000
S,290
9,550
4,000
5,782
24,B33
2,407
2,208
4],500
3,340,278
No new approv.'s occurred between 9/1/89 to 8/31/90
Tot.1 .s of 8/31/g0 3,340,278
These projects wer! approved during t~e Downtown ~oratorium. but they ~ere
not fnc1uded in the Do~to~n [lR ·Pipeline P~oj~Ct5.~ As a TfS~1t. they are
counted toward the 350,OOO·sQuare·fcot expansion cap_
Parking Exrmptlo~s
Comprfnensfve Plan Policies on Oowntc~n Palo Alto 1150 require the monitoring
of parkin~ e.emptions. permitted in the CD regulations, tMat contribute to tne
unmet parking demln~. [These polfcies also require re-e~aluation of t~e CD
District parking exemption when the appro¥ed parking exemptions reac~ one-ha1f
(225 space<) of t~e 450 'pac,s Identified In t~e Downtown Study EIR as t'e
~inlmum ~umber of spaces neces3ary for I ne~ public parking garage.]
DTMN
GZ
11/9/90
Pag. 2
•
~ I
,
I
.-------.--,
Table 2, below. shows 111 ~roj!cts'approved in Downtown Pale ~lto
September 1. ]985 and August 31. ]990 that resulted in changes to
street parking inve~tory or the parking deficit.
TABLE 2
DOWNTOWN PARKING DEFIC!T
SEPtEMBER lISE·SEPTEMBER 1990
NET PARXIHG
PARJ<ING A INCREASE
PARJ<ING PROJECT TO PARKING
PRQJFCT PROVIQED BEQU!REO EXEMPTIONS DEFICIT
As of 9/1/85
210 U"iversity 0 0 I
555 Lytton IZ 12 0
247·75 Alma S 5 0
700 .Emerson 16 16 0
431 Florenc. 0 0 10 10
] 55 University C 0 20 20
401 Florence 0 0 10 10
619 Cowper 9 9 0
250 University 131 C 103 (,81
Total 173 145 41 J3
NoU: No ne" approvals occurred bebeen 9/1/89 to 8/31/90.
A Seismic. hiztoric or minor expansion fxemptions
B So~rce: Downtown Report Summary
bet""een
tne off·
DEFICIT OF
DOMOI/!<
PARKING
], ~oOB
l, 601
], £01
],601
I. 601
], 611
),631
1,641
]'6'1
1.613
1,613
C Parking at 250 Un1~e;lfty Avenue has 52 spaces of public parking on l~veT
-A· and 69 spaces of pri~ate ~arkin9 ~n leve1 -8.-
T~o projects. i.t .. the PC zone change for 529 Bryant ind t~e modificatior. to
the PC zoned It'ebster/Cowpl!r Garage. hive been approved since September 1.
]990. The project it 529 Bryant added 2.560 sQuare feet of f100r area and
resulted in an increise to the Downtown parking deficit by ten sp~ces. The PC
zone amendment fer t~e Webster/Cowper Garage will add two levels of pir~ing
and 166 Idditional spaces. The net effect ~f these two projects will reduce
the Downtown pirkin; deficit by 156 spaces. In summary. changes in t~e
Oo~town parking deficit between September ]. 1986 in~ November 1. ]990,
Sncludins all approved projects. will sho~ i reduction of ]43 spaces in the
Oowntown ~arking deficit.
DTIIN
GZ
)]/9(90
Page 3
"
, I
i ,
l
I
\
\
\
•
I.
-
---
,
TZXPO:V_~Y' CCH:MITTEE OH DOi-inTO·"': ..... D!:SIGtr I_""D )J·~E~;-!?IES:
Ja~uary 30, 1987
Introduction
On !{~y 19, ~;S6.r \o,·he.'1 the. City cOl..::r;cil \"<='5 t'o!':.pJetiT!.g its
actio."! C."'l the D,y.tI".tm,-:1 St".2CYI it e.sta;:'lis~cd tr.e T':i:r;~~)':Jr,:!:ry
CO!,":..;'";1itt£~ o:/. PO''''2tO',m D,:;sis;n ;:nd .:a .... "Tl~rtitiE"s. 'Th..s ptl.t"PQ~e of
th:L~ Co:tL~ittee ~,':3.5 to develClp 2.~e:.nities and b'-.::r.efit. crlteriCl
<:lr:.d a":'Jtl!:'o:o~i:it~ ince.r.tives ':or futl.l-:-e ',,:'roj~ct.:; i"1 t.~.:
Do',,-nt;;'rn Are;) ;':~'1ich cOuld be ;oe.rr.,itte,:i"-to ~:-:C22j the r:e.-.,:' C.:J
CO:;;Le=--ci~l Dmm'to ..... n zoning r('gulation::. (pl:"i .... ~ri1y flo,:,!:" ZZ"'::=:
"mj p!."oje.ct size li~ite:ticns} in retu:::-n for provLsic,"l cf:
5p~ci~1 ber:efits.
~~~~c~~~~~~~~!~~o~~-,,~~r~c'~;aI;;~d c,~~;r ~;~e~ ~~J.!;~.~~.~n;:c~~~:-,.
..:''...'.11 rcr.-..;(ittee r~pur~ Zelle·,is t"Z':!is e:·:e;:u-:::js·~ '3'':':,,:,,2:;:",-'.
1. C~::;e~·~l: 7~e .~.::'.3.'1itie::; Cc'.":"_~it+.:e~ ':O;::'",:sec! C:1
fi~-t~o?portl1"ib.e::; :for 1..:-,,2 DG,,·r;':c-·,!.-~ 2,-:-·:',:: I
?3rtic112arly in ter:s of rotE~ti31 bcnsfi~s ~~~
a':::2nities~ since "Ci:.e DO'.,...r::toi<~:-l stll-5.y a:::drcsscct t' .. :JO::;':
::Lajc,r par;cing an':! traffic iss:.:!es.
2.
) .
?rov.J_ s ~'0E.._ of ~ne f tt:~.~ es.s~_~~~ __ ~;2.i~_J __ ~_:;:,.~.n ~': .. L~"'::
T~-= cc:mwittc-e fC'L:;:d tnat r,.I,aJ(.'r b~.,€!j~s, e.g ...
provi$ic:1 of a full ~;srvi.c~ £o';'d 7:arl':!:2t ur o::"sit:!
child ca-='~ iccilitics, ':::01.11d r,~t t·a 0~t,f.ir,,,d i";rcC'l
0.5 to 1. ilocr area ra.tio (f.=-.P.) bOn:.l5·~5 0:: $;::,2.11
increases in the CD i:listrict 15,0)0 S,T-la::e
f"ect/2S,080 square feet proj~ct siz.e ii::nitaticr.' .....
Provision of Ot-her Benefits c:.7'tj .,,\!!,:p.~itie:;: T:'e
COIr.:tr.lttee .believed :r.a-ny oth~= t.y~s~ile11·ities ..
{e.g., provi3ion of d~corativs plenters, benches
and a .. mjngs} could r.cs-t effectively be obtain::::!
through e:..::i:.-cin:] ano. pessi':':1y expended (P)
Pedestric.:1 s:"lopping Cc:niJi!li:-lg Distxi-::-t c.o:sig:1
guide:lincs .. ~men,j~eTlt.s to exi:;.ting crdil,a':lCeS, c:
t!1rcug.!l relatively SI:1at-1 incentive;:;., i.e., FA:::?:
bonus~s U? to 0.5 to 1.
--':..
.,.:,. .... <.~~
...;,;' :...;.'C ... ,· ..... ' '...::""":.:.-'._._--~-~-..
-
5.
~te'1.d fo:=" a DOl.Mt:C'· ... "J1. Grb.!n Dc.d.crn Plan: Th2
.o:oi::..'!':i'ttc.e conclud.ed t.."':l.at;. pl'ovi~io~ cf amc!"lities
end b~nefits could not be realized effecti,'ely
t.. .. ithout the CJUidilnc~ of a canc:eptual urban d-esign
plan for the Do\.'ntc,m Area~
{iro~ ... th Allocation for Prote-::tc vi Sp'ecial Benefit:
Cc,uncil o.riginallr <lir-e=t.ed t.hat lOD,OOO sql':~re
fe:ct .of ti:e 350,000 oTu.!:re f~~t ~ro~:th li.1jljt ic.r
t!",e D':;'",,"l1b::;;1.'n CO Ci::;t;:ict DC! ~lloca.ted t,:>;:" p=ojE.c"'ts
;:;0''{idi:17 spcci-al ~cn-2'fit. ':'~-= COl""-.I'"':'.ittee .:gre~s
'.-ith the city council tl:z.t 'l:r.",,-1.0':1,000 squa:t""e fect
allocd'!:.ic-n for proj.ects pro",;icUng speci~l benefit
i.3 inr:ee::i a ;'reS:Ervel'l :r-a':--J .... in~ tba ..... a Tllimi't" for
5~j::-h prr)j~cts~ The Cc::a.:1itt:.ee also believ2-s t~at
:-:c:·clification of the 100, COO srr.Jar-a foot allccatio:1.
could be: ccn:;iderE!d att-::!! .. co:,tpletion or. a.n. u.d:;z7l
d~sigJl pl2.n for th·-=:: DC"l;·"r.":.'='-.. 'n <:.:-~<:. (S.:!e
~~ ~3~~~si~~::~J~ i ~,~ ~'~;;;~r~"-~;~l1s~;~ilc~=\i~:;i~~ ~.;!
t!~i:} body of this r~2crt.,
'fl.::.. ~ ':,·c~:Jj.:; C-:."! r(;!co~tJ:'!.f;;..r'..<1a,; -:"0;;$ f.: 11 i i": to four
c.:c-r..~j':7i~;:.: 1) Be.!le.iib-; ~e~'11irJ.r~g };ajc:;::: L'lccmtivl:s;
::J .r>::1~~::L:' "'.,v:! il.v.a.""Jit.3.:...:: I:-:;,q:jirir;> :·!iiior !:-tc"",,t.i",",c.=.;
3) :ri1':'':.:I~iv''';'; ~.~d .-:) D·.::>.';, t. r:"..,-ll L.·z:.b.::n. Dc.sig::1 ?la.'l4 in
:'~l;.r'J".i·.:.1:i·L,g .) i:.s <::·~cc::u:-.'.9nd<..it.i_.:-" .... ", f::.:c city COL1~lcil
,".::-'~~'C\'z!.r i·h.:;, C,-. .':;,::-.i~t~-:: ~:l~l'I':'s t.o -:;!~.';:::'1a.o:;iz<:' t~at it.
:;'~lL~-::-'!E.~ .GG,-·,r::c·,·i;"1 is a vil.:';l "::-:.:!::::i!1e.,:;s di.:::;-::-.::-ict ",nJ t2.a~
;.:21rl:"" ::.':'~~-.""lt-tu:litir::; i:lre ?~s$i-"j~.-: :.. .. :) ... -e!"<~·:2.11ci!"',:; t>=.
Do'c.+,'!:r;·.·.'.1 ,\!.·":-:a ·"it:":..1...li::. a~:cin"3" to t.~~,:; p,,".!.kin·;; a:-.:d t...::-,;:ff':.:::
pJ..+c:")l::>t'S <:.<:.l,:::'r~·'::$E!cl. in thE! s,~~!:-:t.C-'",·:l. s":.u.::::,J' 0
1. .~~L~./J~ts ilcgl...:irinq Ji£j~J_lJ.0~~i-='~-i:!_~: T;'os.:! ~re
h'::::10.::: i t.,S \'-:llich the COl"':'.,T,ittee b~J.i0V~_S; s~o":.lJ.d
~ll~lify fo"!.: ince:nth't:'s {,.-,r bO:1us',;:;;) i;, t~,e. CD
Co~::,;;,"!"ci~l Dot,·:r.to'Jn Dl.strict. ?ll02::r-in~lL:.d.e:
·L :. £:..:.11 !';SrviCD 1,')00 ,.,..:-.!.-;:2~/'p,:>=rua.:oe:-,!.ly-s.i te:i ..
f:Jll-ci::ne ftJ..Ln<.er's ?t;'l:k;.t;
:'0 Chil':! care facili.ties;
C. Offic€'. space for corn'":..JtdtY-'!:;E"·~ing.
r,0n-.r.:=ofit o~g2..ni.:.~.tio!ls 'Jit:h li:::'lited reVE!~l..:e
sou::-ces;
ll..ddi C:io:1al parking' or pz..z.kin-; facilities;
4:'..1 !e.y inprOVemc;lts; a;-,d
t:. Yii>:c-:l use ce.velop:r;;cnt::; i.nclt.:d.ir:g ho:....ls i:;.]·.
•
\
I
j
\
I
-
2. Bene-fits and Am.e.nl tie~ !'.€:g'J.irIrq Hin~ r.!"',-:-entive~:
3.
These are ben~fits wbich the Co~~itte~ believes
are o.f substantial vZl.lu~ to the DD;.rntc~ .... n Area bt.:t
~hich can be obtained throu~h s~aller ince~tiv€s
or through. r'?.quire~c.nt.s. i!r.posed on ine.ivid;~al
project::;. Tbey i:1cl'Uoe:
a~ P~ovision of ~rt i~ public pl~ces;·
:0,
c.
d.
Reter;tio!"l. of the l)is~orical chare::te::'" 0:
buildings;
Increase-i:t -e. ... d i!:,",p;.:-,~ved t:.s.e. of public open
s.?-3.ce;
Provisio;]s of pL!blic rC2itrco.::~: and
e. ?rovisio!"'! of cri'!1'·:i--,:,t !':>'J.:-,.t'3.ir::s er-d. p'.J::-,lic
Zou:1.tain~.
I:"'..c,=.nt. i v,'?~ : r.l..';"'~ C-.;ni':'I-: t t 'C ~ "t ;-::,,:':':'.~,e'.ds Co:,;., .... c i 1
:;':i'pro-:~~.:!l of the roll::;~d,r.; i:1c>~~':iv.es \-.':-.ich .;c'..llc
Le applic.J.blC! io!' pro~ccts pj.:ovicir.g the
afor~n~ntioned ~ajor.I)~neZits (9.g., a iooJ s~ora
0: c~il~ c~re facility):
a. I"r-c·,.:iCie a 11i;her :'?'R br.,n'.lOi tj2.:1 t:.r.e o. 5 ~o 1
c,d.gin3.11y ~t':;S"e=. ~ed :b,f Co .... r.cil;
b. !,:o5ify '~h~ PC ?l?-t',ncQ CC""!:'.::"_':1i~y zo:-:e c:la"'J"e
proce£s. A iir5~ 0\~~e '/~uld e~tablis~ basic
.<;ite ae/elcI'l;::-,'::;1t r.-~r;'Jir37,,;!.'"lt.S ;;;,:la U:O:°~.s. "i°he
!O-'2'::on::i phas<2 o,,.',:ould CO;"1.stit'..l-:'; [cr:;131 c:esi::n
a;".9rcNal;
c. Intcrpr~t code~ Co;;::] proe.:..::;.:; pr.Jj el;t
C>opplications ... ·ith s'Jftich,;~t fl..:xibilit~, t:J
re.El-e.ct. €-'stablished Q'tJjO-ctiv~s f,':)!:" -the
D01,.'T.';:,o,",m. Area; c.:-'!d
d. Provida p~blic tinancial ~ssist~nce ~or
projects affering.sp~cial benefits.
4. tir.0a.'l DcsJqr. ?lan: The cc~!"ittoe strongly
S~mes tr.at o.:::portu.nities car.r:ot !:'e iicaximi-lc:J
for the. Do>:mto;.;n Area lolitho:;.t the gui::!a."1ce of a
c':J:"'lc€!ptual l!rban design pJ,an. S-:.lCll a ,r;'lan could
-c,!"ovide guidelines l ~ .... ith vis:,u,~l il1ust:.raticns~ i:-.
deb~r.:-Lini:1g apprapriat'3: loea'cions for ai1\eni ties,
project b€~etits and public parking. Its
P;,.~~',:,).r~ti~n could ir.volv~ ~dni::1!31 p;J::'lic fl..::ld'il"'lg
bv '1ra".;ing on tal€"t~d r.c5,:lUrc~s availa!::lle. •. ,it:t-,in
the ~or.l![".:J.r;ity.
rIo
-
The ~ain bo!y of the repcrt of tbe ~~~P0~~ci
Colmtittee on eo'..i'ntown D2si;n ar~d a:me."1itics a.?pearc
in the following sacticns.
princi'oal Findinqs
A. General Findinqs
Thrcughout its discussio~s o~ pot~D~ial ~~~nities ?-r.d
be:1~fits for ths Dovnto~ .... :t 1.1'Z::!, ir.c.ivicual C0!n:;"1i-:':t~c
members c·fre.n l~ad. cIiffere:'"".t · ... i2WS. c;" 'th~ t:./"t:·..-:~, of
bS:1o:?.fi ts appropriate for the D:: ..... n"'..:o· .. ·:-! .~::ea. £v=n ".!i t.h
individual vi';:\lDoints, the cO:::'"u":'itte:e ..... ishss t?
cmphasio:e that it al",,:ays r,:::e=hecl .l. conse":",.S\lS ~"";"''''":1 it
clisc'.l.ssed the potcnti2.1 C-F~O=tLl:.:i.tie·,,: ·, .. :-:.ici1 e::ist fo,,=
Dow·ntolrm Palo ;1..1 to. :r{any of tI-:cse cppcrtuni ti,,=s fccus
on an u:-ban design plan ·.,:h.i-::h is di5r.l.ls~~d in a !,-!:c..:
se,::::tion under ·'Reco~~e!1dc:.tio:1:;. 11 T;"les~ Co:'~.ll1.l.t. "t.-:-.?:
disc.us::;iuns <31:;;0 ;zckno',,·1'"'~0" .. d th~ 1.l>1iS'..:e ;:'l.:J:l vi .. t:-:,!.
que.li~ie.s ~';hic!1 exist. j';! D:-",:'l'CQFn E'.:1,1~, .",lto. 'i'l:'~
CO:7"_"!li tt:ee r';:CQ!i.U't\ -;:;.ca ti ,:,0:'.,:;; I t:~I'2:-~' f "):, .. c. . ... i .Go:l 't ':"> bu ~ :.ri (;:;->
tn~ very p05itive fCUj""";~C1tic:1 Cot ';:.11e e:ds·~i:;':; ~"ita.1 it~r
0= t1:.e Do.,mto~", ... Area. '1"'['"-= Cc'~:~~i':.t~.e i;:; ~\'lare th.:tt '~?.:1l~
corr:~,tl!1itie.~ of the size of !'<:l"2o Al":u ,,",':l1.!ld be :r; .. ",t
desirou.s to n.:-.ve cent::--=-l b'..1Si:-,:c5:o'; ei.stric c:::; 02}.:.n~'J1.~':'!13
~'.J.ch vitality and offe::-~·.'1'; s·..i:.::n o;:p,=-=t'.1ni·::,y f.'J:-furt..!:c.:
en..;anoe·,ncr. t ~
Tt,~ CC!.l!Jlittee discussed. vit.il ::<:,· ... c .. , ... .:=.1 lc-:-al c::.v·~:r;,::;~'.·sr
the: ~casi!::lility of o~tai!"Ji:!3 :;;;ajcr \.~2n~fito;~ .e.g. r
-provision of a full servic~ £,:.,'cd r.,ark<.:t 0= (..:hild c-ar~
faciliti~s within a c':';:-""lerci.:tl prcj2ct. 1:1 <:;-.. ~';.1i\:ic:'1,
staff contacted a ;'1''''~''':''''''C~-0::: T·~:.s:t Co:::::;'; citi~s, !l1.c:-.s~
F'articu.l;;!rly seattle, to de"tE':';'1ir..~ thl"?; ~a'~rnit.uc..::. a::
incentives (i" e., d;;:vclo~""8:lt ~C"C::S~5 or r~gLllatio.~
.exceptio~s) thi'lt are ncC'(!ssary in o:r·de";.-to obtdj n s:':ch
be:1efits.
'I~e findings frcm both 5':1<":::''':2:'':· \:.:;rC:' ide:1tlcC'..l.
projects ~U5t be of E~bstan~j,~l n~£r.it~~c (i"~", th~t
tb~y be of greater sizE:! th-!:1 25, DGO eq,are f2~t i::1
floor area a::1Q ru~.\';c fA.t{ :bo!':.u~'"3.S greater t.hc::.n 0.5 to 1)
in '::>rder t<"~ bQ: able to afi"ord "",'rite-affs ll for U-.e
aiol:ementioned facilities. 1." .:.ddition, the develcpers
stated that it sne';.ll:i neVE!r ~")C <:!ssl.lJ:ed that. all
cO:1U!1Ccrcial office project:~, l."=,g~rdles.:::: of .c;i::e, yi'Z.ld.
SUfficient p=o!"its to offset "belo.'! !r,ar;:;:et" or
"non-prcfit n on-site. type fC'.cilitic5.
There.fore, the "Ame!'lities" cc,,~dttee "'iisht::::::; to
(!:mpr.asize that 'Withi •. the fr2~~\';:.J=k oi inc~:1ti-.;cs
criginally suggested by t~e City COLlncil l i. c .• a
r;;aximum bonus FAR of 0.5 to 1, ';'''ew 1M.jar be:lsfits ",-:-.:J:
•
c.
u.
a~e~ities are likely to be ra31ized in the Do~ntc~n
Area ~ithin three to five yca~s.
,rovision of Other B~nefits a~d A~e~iti~3
The. COOl'littee fO'L!:r.d that :t:a ... y irctportant but relatively
slI".all amenities in ter.ns of t~~eir CQst, are already
identified in th~ (P) Pedestr ia:t Sho??i.l'lq ccr..bining
Oistrict g'.lid~lines. The Co::;...,i ttee als,:) fOl.~nd tl":.::.t tbs
(Fj Dist.rict guid~li!"::~s cC"'lld ~-:! s:;r';:l]'.:hr;;u"d in
certain c.zeas. The CO!l'::-nitt'i:e did ::01: lOCuS on ! .... hi~!l
s-p-ecifi:; el.e:;~.ents of (P) Dis.',:,-:-::'ct gui~eliIies co:..:ld
either ~e e:-.'pancetl 0r ',l?ce Z',c;-a G'.;!f":"nitive 3:. or,::!:'!:r to
obt~in ~ore d~enities.
On ot1"lE2-::-2.1il,;;nitit::.:, e . .;., pt<:"""is:!on o! drinki.:'1g a!\:i
pub~ ic ::-o~ntCt.ins 0:.-1.l.s,.;obl~ 0;,:,-=' s?.::ce J ~h.e Co~,,::i ttee
!o:~.""ld that SHC3 ~~,'.efit.:;; ;::0',,11.:1 b;; clJt~i[!::C: by orf.t:~ri:-:.g
~!0;i;. !~~~~~i~l~e~;':c~~f 5.;~ Z. ~~O~~~l~~~.; ~~ ~~; i~~ ~=':ll~S Ij. 5 t.e
15~QC)/23~GCa sC::..l~re Zoo": ~r:::.j :.:.c'-: si<::C! 11',dts.
A3 ~~ntiD.,ed £~zlie= in t~is ~c,o~t, t~2 Cc~~ittR~I~
~'~~~~i~~~E?t~~l ~'~~~~O~~2'~?·~~~o~.; ;,~'_'~~~:J t;~~!-~~~·~· ~o -J-llg
?=c,::~~::;,j ·od"1.t~ 1':.~ ur'::>an c.=~~q;} Fh:;~ ;. . ..:.~ c:·usi..al i:;:-f...:t1..i~"~
::::;por-tt::!j tic:;; for the l:'m,,],,tc-;';n ;.r~-'! ,-,'~re t . ., !:le
achi~,:~:L
D·~v(>l,)?~:l:<..,t r'f a:l; I..:r!;.'~:1 r..j<".'.'.'iiS'-:1 p:r.:::n is c.i~,=us.sed L1"C-::·.::
the C;;::-.77,';' t ta€:. I -.; :-~ca7:i7iIt-"'t'\,~ ~ t i -:.:!S •
In COl~r:.;;il '5 ,:'riqir.al uir€:·cti·"'~ to l:!':C" 1T.~::-:-,Eniti';31'l
cc,rn'-1l.i·~t,;e. it. st:!pulat€:d th:;.t 100,OC':1 E:.:;u,::..r\? f<3e-t of
flocr ar~,! b<; .::.11ocat-erl to fl~tt'r':l Do· .... r:tcr,,·n .!="!:"oj-::.c-t::.
rro".r:'~i:-:q 1T::;~;C"cic;l" b2~efit. ("Th~ !::2:~o::::it5 .. ,.~::-~ to 1:';
c~fir.,-,d ::.:{ t.r...=: Ca~l':"'li-t:t.-~e.l 'E'..; C..--,::,:-,,~t.;;'i::e disc-':'5sed
this 100,000 s~~are foot ~llcc~tic~ a~j a~recd with t~e
city co·,"o.r.cil t.h<.at thi;; a.llo;::a"c:i=.'l t,'<":S <t "reSE:l.~\re."
r:l:.he~ t:.an a "li-rnit." :Ei!Y .. '(';".'.z .. -, it alsC'J 1:'~li€-""'E:d t~:~2t
a::1 a~.?!"o?riat~ ti:n9; -roi" tt.e Cit:l to c.::;,,,:;i2er ~odif.t'iniJ"
the lOOJOGO $t;,u?,re r.:.ot ~110':::.atio:1 I,:>;:: 9rojects
prcviding ~p~cial benefit would te after completion of
a Do\.:n'-:c\:n uJ:b;;:.n d~sj g."'l p!;,.n.
COl":'mittc~ rr,2::r,.!.:.Jers cUd not f0'';'.:S di~':-:.1ssic,:"'Js on. likely
near-ter:!l srv·.:t~ for th~ D':;·~:"'c;c,-,'.-n .=-.re:l but 0:1 s~\!eraJ
occasions ]oc~l develcper~ and staff di~ discuss
expected tr;;::,1ds.
•
G·
---).
,
-
'Xhe cOZlclusion fro:::!. these brief discussion.::. is that U:'?:
Downto.'7l Area ""ill not vitl"'J.es:s c!e'lelop:neilt c'1'..:.rir:g t:.he
next three to four years co~parablc to the a~~unt of
approved for the Dovntovn Area bet~een 1980 a~d 1985.
The cited ~easons are:
1.. Dovnto· .. ·n land costs., partic...:.larly in the core
ar.!a, have not adjuste~ suflicicr.tly dOI,,'nT,.J~rd to
reflect the neW o:1-.:;:ite pa~king req:l..lire;;:ents (ll',d
the n.e~.'r 1.0 to 1 FAR ps..r..:i tte:o: ... .'itni!1 the CC:;:-'2
CD-C Subdistrict.
2. ~he new CD District reg~]~tions, part:cularly th~
~:oremention~d parJdng a:;::! FJ..R reg-.ll,atic:l:3 1 in
the:r.selves do not encourage S':..-c-.:th.
J. The office rental m~rket in Santa Clara County h~s
bee!1 ralQti .... cly so:i;:: in ':.hs: 13s"t;. y.::.:?'.r 2.:';:1 th€::;~
l7:srket cor-,di-;:ic.:'.s r.3ve :bee., =-:-.fl:2'(':t~d' in :Jo·,,;r.':c,':."1
Palo Alt0. As a re~u1t, S~~~ rece~tly ~~~:pls~0i
of fica b:.lildings h",.vc EXP'=:-i.::-;":.c 2:'1 .:;:1 ::; • .'~~
abs:n-ption rates than thos.c e~·~p~ri<;nc~j b.f
}:uildir.g.s: conpleted one or b:a years Earlier.
4. Ths 15-8-5 federal ta;;.: l .. qi ~!ctiC':1 'dill fur'...:l:l~_·
rc<:3:uce'tbe tace of office c1':'".'o::lo::',=:'e:.r;t .:J.~ a rt::;ult
of re.vh:ed dep::.-ecia~ioi1 s:c::,e{":~le-;', cli:oli~'2.t':',:",·!l . .::[
s~~;ial c~pital g~in ~~x ~a~c3 e~d ~li~3~=t!.c., cf
"~as5ive~ lo~s d&du~t!ons :or re~] ~,;t~tc
investments.
IiI. ;:'~co:l1mendatic::s
Tn.'S! foll0·,'/in;r s~cticns cesc!-ic~ t~l= cc:-::~:itte2' 5
rec'-;',T:::1end.:J.tio!'1.s in the sa1t.e se~.l':.r.c~ as they appe:,-.r~'d i,. t:t~
executive s ..... !rllrca=y ..
The k'";1~nities CO!I~.J:dtt~a: ::e:fil"1es thBse b~:;'<2:fib:; :!s 1':'~.1c:>e
that a=a net o!'".ly importa:lt in tc~.:~s of th~L.; pctc~ti.::l
contrib~ti:m to Do"'''l1to'\>:n Palo Alto 1:. .... rt. t.:.ho$€ t.~.~t. <!:.-'"
of sufficie~t ~agnitude as to r~~uire substa~tial
incentives in order to be .zLchi",,·~·.::d. (Se.e ~t.tachc,.i
Appendix for e::-:a:wples 0::: e~tinated coct~ o.nd c::-::pccted
returns of projects providing ~,ajor bt! •. efits.)
1.
· ... ·.·L
Full se!"Yice food TC1.a:::J.'.et: 'I'be }l~~enitic~ CO:-7,:-:.itt€@
stror:.j~iy-endorses a :fuil se.:-vice food ~2.I:J.:et
(i.e" 3. :narket selli:r.9' fres~ 1T'.eat::;. poultry, fi.:.h
~nd prc'::uce in additio."1 to P2.c}:21'3cd stapl~.:;) or a
permane1"l'tly-site.d. f'Jll-time :rar::llet"'s l-fC\.rket as a
majQ.!' Downtown benefit. 1.s a rE!oSult, t.!1e.
Con-:mittee beli~ves tha.t a future d~ve:lop''',I2.:1t
proposal inc~udihg such a .food !l'.,"Irket should be
revie:""ed in a ~ery po:;itive IT1~.nner by the. City.
--
In ten:ts of impleruenta"tio.:-., it is pr~s~.l::J.cd t~<J.~
such a. proposal ...,'ould boe. 5:t!.bai tted as a :-C Flar.ned
COtmlunity zon~ char.ge in order to allow it
sufticie,1t fle:.c:ibility regardin9 5ite develop:':"€:ct
requlaticns. SOr.le of the potential e:xempctio:1s or
bonusec. .necessary for S'.lC~1. a proj~ct are included
in the ., incentives" recorn...'l'Dended by the Corr ... ··d ttee
and are described in Section III-C of thi~ report.
Howeve-r, one conditic·n of PC .zone cha~g~ ~pr-roval
i!:. ce:'.lor.stration of p.:.blic bCr.3tit. Hence,
ack.~c·,'l1edgreent of a i"oQd z.arket as a public
~enefit fe,r the DOi-mtm .. ,.'l P.rea could cn2ble <l
propc~al ,,:1 th a food i!".arY.:~'t '.:~ !n~~t this
condition.
(One develope.r l-laO C'!;?peared b~fore th<~ CO:;1mi ttee
predicted that/ soon2:'t" or later, a full s~::.-"ice
food r;,arket should loc'.i.te in DO· ... !'1to·..,'n Palo _:!.l:::-.
f:o":,,iever, t~e c1evelc:?~:i...-aJ so 9::-ed5.cb ... d 't,;''3.::' "'.':ch a
:..,ar).::et 'Ii.'c.'~ld, :If ~:::o::0;-r.ic r.€ccssity (la::d c~.;.ts,
rents (\;;d pa.=king cC'st.sJ, Ci'.t('r t:::) ",,:1. "-t::)-::,r::<;>.1="
~~!";.et <1!"Jd • ... 'ou,ld r.ot Co:":',p2te, pric<::!-.... ds~r wi.t:!
largs1.-supeI."'l't'.~r!;.~ts locat":!cl a\;;':.sid~ of t.h;
Do .... nto~,'" ~"\rea 4]
2. On-or off-site child car~ faciliticG: The
A''!',er:i''tTes CC"-J:'.ittL"-.e -rc'c':';;.me:r'v.2.s. t.hat. on-c::-
0ff-~it3 c~ild care f2cilities b~ co~si~ar£d a
J:lajcr Pl1blic b-=neflt ir. terr"s ~f l~--:-':'L.:rc p!"oj!'cts
offe::ii1g ~cch facilit':.(.<;;. 'Th~ ;"';;·~l1itioE"s C:CC7,:!!.tte8.
hea:rd r~.pl·esenta~.:.ivcs frc:::! Palo Alt" C':':-:'-f.u . ..,ity
Child C.;.re C?ACCC) .:::1>::1 f1.'0:;\ Pedo .i.Ita Cnild C':-:::-=:
Task Fo!."c~ ur.dersco-=,; t:--.c d~::::icis:;-,cy of c'hild C3re
fGciliti~;;; i:l or ne~r t'1e ::,:,:,",,"n':.c-;,.'11 l:r~,'"1. rel.::tiv-e
to the need for S":'C:l fa.::.ili tics.
Therefore, the AA,eni ties CD!'Hl'li ttee j:::;
reco!L_~endation is re~:'o~lding to this ne~d by
cndorsin-:1 pZ'0vision of c:-lild c;o.re fa.:::ilitie~: ?~ a
I!:najor bc=n~fit;' in f\,,;.tL:.r·= LO~'!.'-l'tO'..':1 c.evelopi:".s:"t,
prop03als.
Most likf'!.ly proc",lrF'"i':",ent of s ... c:'l f~cilitie5 •• o:..:ld
be through appro .... al of a PC zC!"1ed projec..:t
inclQding ~~ch facilitie~. Tte precess a~d
demonstration of public b~nefit ,,"'ould pnr~llel the
proc.ess described in th~ prev5 ¢:..lS section for a
tood mar!cct.
3.. Office soace for non-p~v--f)''.: ('1r.:;~niz:,~ti.~.~~.: The
COJ:1l:'1i tte.e endorses provisic,.-, c f Ca~!ilLmi ty-~cr':i~g,
non-profit organization~ '~ith lirnitpJ revenue
sources, e.941 the Peninsllia Conscrv~tion Cen~er
or the palo Alto Housing corpo::-aticn l in f'ltUI,.·e
Downtow.l CCI':uT1~;.-cia.l p.:-ojcct.s as a r;;ajor public
benefit. Such spaca could be provided at
•
i
~,
,
'.-j ,
> i , I
I
___ -,~~~ •• !fI'rt" .. O:<,""> _~ __ "
belo~-~arket rents for qualifying no~-profit
organizations. It did not specify which types of
non-profit organizations would constitute ~ Dajor
public bencflt~
)'dditional parking facilities: The Ce:r.~ittee
believes that future projects providing parking
above the amO'Jnt required ....... ould be contributing a
~ajor be~efit fer the oo~~town Area.
An urban de-sign pla;'! ~"'o',Jld be an i!:'p<:!'tant as.::;e:t
in guiding tbe design a."ld location of such parking
facilities.
Alley ir.!e.;::_<::,v~_r.te:lts: ='h~ C;:'l::; .. ~.itt5:e cx~r,,".sse5
substa~tial support for alley improve~ents, e.g.,
pedestria.n orie~ted fa~ade I<lociificCttions a!'1,j oth~r
kind.<; of aest}-l.etic itnp::cv-2h1ents, as a T.lL:tj 0:-p1...:bl ic
benefit. Itel::.:o b'ali;;;,:.re.s Ul3.t sllch i::;-o=':)\l02;:,lCl"'.C,,:;
cai1not occur, in 2.'1 inCl"2m(orltc:::l ll1u.:'lncl:,vit:2.,:;:.!t t!,~
guida:lt;~ of an ur::'an c.~s:i;,,!"l pl.:::.n.
6. £'l:b:ecl-""lse o.eve.1 opm?n~~i:1C'_l~_ci!1q b01.1sinq: ~b,8'
~""'"ne.nities co:<.:nitt~e ::.onsiders :rd;:c<.l-u~e
de·.r~lopmcnts, ~'hicb ir:clude r.::::u:;ing, to Z,Q najo:=
contr-ibl. .. :tors to Do ..... n"tow,"1 vit.'!lity and a::o 2. result
should be ccn::;idE:red a :m.::.j<-:r b~r:efit.
In its discu3si_on of mi~~d-u5e projects incl1...:ding
hO:.Jsir1<J. the cO~'1\itt;3ie ~.id not ciscuss ap?rc,?riate.
s=ale~ density 0:-CQ3t of s~ch housing.
'l'!"J.e } ... jne::;i-ties co:;ur.ittee: defines these bCr)sfits as thos\:!
~.,;hich could or.3.ke a 5'..lbst2;.ntial cc·r:'t:!"ibution to D:;;·"nto::n1
?2.10 Alto and ",hich could boa. o~ta incd throu-;h. e::.:;.ansiorl
of the (P) Pedestrian Shoppi~g Di~trict dasign
guidelir.es, tr-.rougn amend.'n'!!nts of existing ordina::-:-:::::e5
2.nd/or throt.:.gh provislo:;. of a relatively sr!1all FA...~
bonus, e.g., a o.S to 1 bo~us.
Examoles of thoase bcnc:..fi ts a::ld sug r:3'ested means of
obtaining them are:
1. Art nin __ oublic:: places: The Amenities Cc:n..~ittee
recol"i'Jtlends that the Visual ;'.rts: Ju~y continue to
exclore fItethods of secur-in.g art in public pl.:tces
fro~ private projec"';.s and t~at it submit its
findings and re~on~endations to ~he city COUncil.
2. R@tc:1tian of 1::lU] laings of higcric and
archit.ectL!rc:r:l intere:st; The ~""1-=nities cc~.~littec
endorses the recent.ly approved provisions to t.he
Historic Preservation Ordinance r~'hich a.:;surp..
retention of significant histor~c b~ildi~qs (i.e.,
r
\~
~-, . '~:~~~-~.'-;':
'.
•
i
I
I
~
-.
3 .•
-."
buildings in Categories 1 a~1 2; ~nd ~aint~~~~cs
of all designated historic buildir.gs (Categori~5 1
through () in the Do'oolnto',.m Area.
Increases in and lmoroved use of o'.;blic o':)-en
soace: The J\:":teniti;s co::unittce reco::,m-:ldsCo'.lI".cil
enaorseI'le:nt of Fu1::Ilic open space contriv:Jtio:ls by
private projects as a valuable benefit. The
C01':l..!nitte.e belie'l!3s such b~nelil~ could D8 obtai:1~cd
through relath"ely 51'!1all (Le., u.:' 1.:.0 C~5 to J.j
FAR bonuses. T~e Corr..."nittee al~o believes t~<Jt_ .:.r.
urban d€:5ig!"J. pIa!'! coul!! estcbIi~h prop~r
guidelines c'<t design 2;.:"',d location of suc:a c,o..:n
spaces in order to :.::lax:imi:e t~~ir be:1efit to the;
pUD~ic~
4 ~ P\.:.blic Restroo',ns
5. Drinkinq FO'..l.!1t.air:s a:,,:d ?u"::>l:'c .::'o'J.:;t..:-:iJ:s!
Cc.-:t:!!.i ttee ir1er;~rIic.::-tic.-lOrtl~", C--2,1~;-! i t:~~ c,f i ".:~:-"~:::;
~ at".d 5 is si7:'.ila.::-to "pl.i!:ilic. O~:;;'>l :.p:.c;:." in t:::::::'.~
of pcter.tial cont::::i.!Jutic'ns to t:'e Dc\·:nt<::-.'~1 !U.-C:1.
A small b~r\u$ could boe. gri.l.;'\.te.d in ord;;.r t,:) <:.;:,:,:!..:.:1.
such a~E~itie5~ The Co~~itte~ al~o b~li~~c~ En
urban de.sign pla:-t cculd e.s.te.'blis:l. ~f':€cti'f"1
guid~lines for s~c~ facilities ~~d a~c~iti~s.
:;:"be } ... il:eni tics CO!!'.::r.:' tt.;e reCQ~ ;;-:~nd.s. t:-;.;~ t. C;';'):1cil £:~.:!..;:.t"s'~
the follo~ing incs~tives~ Tt~S3 i:~~c~ti~'os ~c~lC
~=ovid~ the ~eans for obt~i~ing ~~~y o! t~e ~~~efit~
r.ecot:'Jt'.e"ded in p::.-evious sC::t.i~:l;;.
1. 7J3. bo,'l1.':s: I:-~e co;:" ... "'!',itt.,~e bel':c"".:!::.; t:!1at 3. 0.5 "Co 1
F.:a::..~-so;-1..:S wculd bc sufiicie:1t in orCel: t~ c~::ain
such s.L'·J.ll bc,:"lefits a;;d aJ':C:::-litic", as f01.lntail-,S ."'!""lj
various. forms of public ope:'!: spec~ cescribC!d in
Sectio~ III-D. How8ve:, ~~jor be~cfit~, e.q.~ 3
full se::-"\t'1.ce food I"1c:::-j..:et., .:0':.:-1 d F8q:'.li:=e
cubst~ntially g=eate~ i~centivc.s. ~h~n ~n increased
'FJ-... "q wf D.S to 1. As a l.-e:''..llt, the C;:;w,lj,it.t.cc
reg-Jests that th~ City COLJ.l~cil. i>1 tlcting N' -:'h,~sc
reco:r.r.\endaticns, co::.sider e.~:;:,t'ovLlg a p,':)licy tr-.at
allows greater flexi~ilitYT in tcr~s af fAR, for
future. project03 in tr.e Da.\r:lto\~"n Area ti:.at pro .... iCi.::,
roajor b2nefits, e"g~1 a food ~nrk~t~
2. HodifX.~r:'~.i..!h~ ______ ?lar:E,.cd cO~\llmni tl_(RS:) ___ ~-prccs':;5:
The cCn',-mittee. ~C;" .. ;10·.'1ed';E!s th2.~ pt'o~;ect$ o[:ferirJg
Jfl,).jc,r ben~!its or 2:;-.J3:1it.ic;;; uould hav~ to go
thro~gh the Fe zoning proce$~ so th~~ th~ 1~2 i5
tied to the zarling and trle :!:::E:ncfit or a::-.!;:-J.ity l"il1
not be lost. However, tl"'.e Co:,:,::nitte~ rccoJ:".:r.e:ncs
the.t the PC process be n-.ocHfie:.d so tl"'.at a
prel imir,ary revie~ to cstabl ish U'_s zoning
•
-
~ .
criteria is ra:::le. ce.rl:.--r.)rt, t..€',fc!'e the detaile1,
costly oevelointl,e"t plans e::re re:r.Jired for t:1.G.
fi~al PC approv~l.
Code/P'"-.1blic Horks re·:ruir'!!-::':er.ts: The Com. .. dttee
believ2s that -",hat is i'":eeded is not. a IT .. , a i\ri!"lg' of
the cod'E!slt l:n.lt flexibility in ir;terpretatio."1 a::-Jd
tacili tation iI"l. gettir.:g thro';,.lgh the approval
process. As a re$~]t, it 5~gge~t~ that
ce:,a:""'Clf.>:.::.ts in1cl~;c.j i:"l t~,~ ?l::1'::f=C>S c: re"Ji<'?;' .. ':'::',),
p:-oject applicatio."":s -~c-:.d to b';! ,a-.. "are 0: ::r:.<:::
spe.cial g~a~s fc:...-Dc,-.,;:1to ... ·:; a:-:.:l vork cOQP=.:ati·~·aly
to facilitate the i::'.~l~.<:oar:!:~ti~:'l o'! tbes~ ;c-':lz.
This is ~'jre Df a ?rc~: E::;'\ i-:Jr 5;:0",11 p::.-oj e:ct.'S t.n::.:\
for larger O:~2S. ~'h~ ?l~n~i!lg a~d Buil~i~g
Divi,':;.ion$ a.::'<:!. alr~~dy ('':l:-,~ic.-;ri:ig a .. ;ay of
coc.-C:inating the P":r":'1:t CO'.~71t~:.-to s-:;:r-ec-:t'.li;-,,," ·..:h~
~p?l::.val proc..:s-!:i. ~.:.'Q';:::~d t.:liz, so~l. ':"h.,;:. c'.;, .... ::-:.i:.i:·_·?
rec.:;..:.u-:mer.C:s tr:~t a.n c·:c..i:-·J·:S~i.~.;1 c:::-·:;ta.f:C ?2!·.--:-,.)::->
. !".ould be as::; ':sn:<-::i. to 25::'':'.'::;:::: L·:··r:r..i~::!""y c~::; :-;~~ :.:--.
~ . .l"the:.:-a:.:;plic"r.ts ':.:1 :-J::-:aL ... ~~··; ::-c.::t.3.:--.e-nt:
i"for.::lation fro::! <::'P?::-:O:~=i:lt.-=-5-:'af t ;:]:1 t::"f:
p=oc~55ing of their =esp~~tjve a~plicatic:13.
4. ~o.;,---=,_'S..~.lic fi~s:~! C':'t.y ":1.~:t"tici.:!=,c:::ic·;"'.:
sho~ld ~~ten~ to a~si~-:'~n=e i:1 fi~a~cir:; O~ i~
:rr,3;~:iT,g pu';:>lic irr.p:::-c .... e:::.-;;;1·.:.S C::l :=.:=:::;i;;t ;:.::.j 0:
i2.~="i',;.i~s .
In t!le. P ..... renities c:;:r:-.;:o:ittoo:::,a' s ~2.r,y C:i~';ll:;$':C-:-,s of
app:·opriats b~;-::efits an;:} u'".:'e.:1itie.:;. ':or tnQ [:.o ... ·, .... t:C:l
~=Ea, i~ e~?erie~ced s~bi::::a~ticl c~ti~is~ [O~ p~te~~i~l
o~portuni~ies in ob~aini~g th~sa b~~erits but i~ also
e:,:p-=::::-ie:1CE:.::I n.t:.c:'l frtl.stratio:---, in ~")'.: :=.-einq .:-.!;:·l-g t::.
suggest h~w such a~enittes could c= sho~!d be pl~c~~.
Such a t.:sk ";as beyo:--.c'I tbe p1.l=vie:.r of t.ji;; CC"·z.:":litt~e'.:;
sco?e of ,,:ork~ .
. ;s a re~ul t, the Cc;;~::ti t'.:,:;~ n::t c:1ly l.!i.::':.~s ..... 0 =.~i:---.fo:::-c~
its ca-:.:li-== stat-£l'".~:,ts en ~:-,~ "';'':~ t.;-.d .... -cr-.-;.:its of. ~:1
urb.an desig:1. plan fc-r the D.Y . .';1-:.0· ..... ' ';leii D!.it j t a~ ·S"::I
wishes to sug0est a p:oc~s~ a~d ~cope of dev~]c?i~g
such a plc.n~
Ttc ~enefit5 of a ccn=eptual plan ~=e ~ulti-fald. Ie
\·.'ou10: idc~ti::'y and F·r()",.:id<~ guida:-,c~ for t.~e ;::::-olJ(!r
place!':1.e:-.t of aL":le.nitics. }'-,.5 or-e eX:::':l1pl~, pltlcir.3' a
fou::-.tain 0:-plaza in C-:1~ loc~tiDn ::'i!y be r.·,0;-:it
~pprop=iate Grid res.~lt in -Oene.fits to ll"1~nj, ·""~"H:;:!';:-?~ in
a~othe= 10':.Jtion its bc.n~:'it t~ tr.o: corr-.l:.u!1ity l"'",::.y t·~
ni!""lir,al. Placer;v~nt and d.asigo c·f ::;~.rkin·:l fecili1: .. ie:;
are particularly sensitive issue::;:. A desig:"l plan \i::nll"j
p=ovide excellent guidanc~ to ~ecision m~kers on ~~~ to
•
. -
mazirdze t.ne b~nef"it~ of £t.:.C·'l f.:;ili':.;.e:-; .. : .... '_'--=
~ini~izi~~ t~e potential nE;~ti?~ c~lcct~.
In tc:n:s of process, t~Jc _:-.~c=:-;iti.l?s C(.rr,>:',i '::.t,~c
that Council direct staff to d~v~l~p an ~rba1
\<:0:-;':' program fer s;,.:];;;s'='qiJ.cnt CI':;:J.'1~il 2ppr-ovalo
",",eric program ...... auld:
re -:')::.:::::::,.r;;.'i
d::~iC::l
5'_::;-:, ~
1. sp€:::ify t.te co:r~C-?:-''':''l<:'2. i',:-:o~!~~"';$t,,=IJ ~,i:::, J.--;:~;"-! 5_;::':
~?ac~"ric) ~~tu~~ ~! t~~ pl~l:;
:,!o :L6C;::1~.ify t:'1e basic :::-18::t;.=':t::-; 0:-~\::..::l ::t ~Jlc·.:1, .eo::].,
:~c£tlon quidclinAs fo!' 2!~!nitias; ~3~10:'
gui~~lirle~ io= ~lJc1 1:;;ra1i~~; ~nd ~o~i~~ ~~i
::'~C:17.;:.,:-.n guideli;-;€.'.::. f::;,_" iu':·...::-::! p:;':.<:i",:;-J ~,-:i_~:i::
~ 0 L:~s~ribt:!: thz f~:::u:~t fc:: S:Jc!1 c: pJ l.:.'l '_·:,i.::~~ \:!.. ,i.::.ri
in=l.~d~ a vis~al p=:·=e~~?~i:;,~ cf ~~~ 1:':3~::1
,;,-' i 1e15 !'\'€cS;
I! :::U";'S",Cf::-:' t:"2-,"':. a t;;'~;-7, :'::.::::c: c.-:--.:::;'.:.i ,:: ,~i: ~ :::::-""~"
.::ter-,is,·n. t.al-e.,t .eJ;(.~. 0-:2,-:2: : 2_'>-2:::-S 'J:: '..:-.: ~ '':'':"'.::i •. '· i ~
p:..-e?r:.:!."'~ t:jo? desig;l ~l~.-j; ,:":-~.l"
:: 0 S[''Scify -t_~:~ li::.~i"::Bd oo.-Z'': __ <1: {.,E, ;>."<15 c : ~':-"":1."·
i.e., for ~o~~ul~~n": ;rf~~iG ~S~~~~2:.=~, .".~,~]~:~
f2..cilit<.:t.c':' :2!"'","i..:-?:: ,:.~.-;, -r--;._. ,:;,>/ :;',~:::'::'~.!":;:'~ ___ :C::'},.'
<!E-Sis L:;.".:-rC:! •
....... ·-r,r'clu-=-i ...... :l the c,·.\~1.r_d_tt:.-e~ ""~s;--,~:::; tJ -:.:...:.:.~,_;-:'.;::-~>-; ,: .. :>.':1: ;~~_,,:, :_·,:.:;;".~s-co.:,· {."_,",!",,-•••• _ ••.. ~ ~_':"'''''.: _'--_0_ ., ___ co "._ .. __ ...... ,:,)f '-·~:,;-:;,~:.:·_,..:7:i'::_::,:-; ~.?: ~ .:: ;:'..:-!'--
art: ~;:v:.il'~bl~ :0:;: ':.1'-,.:. 0~·.;::-,-::Q';,"'.1 2.',"t.-::'~ 3"'":...,,,,-':~'.'l }.; t',:',.:::.
de~Jel{"'J:?~.;~.,t ':'s >:e::p·:cct::'cd :d-.:hin 't:;',e :'.:=:..~~ -;:",,":l _"' ~~":'"",'" f::;:-,,~:'} -:'~:<o
C07;",7i.',i-r.t8.a sc>::: t.~is-?S. __ j7):::i as a ;.::s\~ w.::;r;-:''':'='::.~.<:-7.:1,17: ':-c" "'.:'''::
;!~,;r t~o c~~:~~~ ~~i: ~~~_:~,;;~S~~~.z~~,~~~:~~:: =~;~ i~'~'~:\~~~~~ _~~Z'~,~ _~ "~~"'_':l
d·~sign c>ppo:-t.;.,:ni t:.cs 0
JO!1li NO!~~~~'~';\.1
CEAIRl"'';'':';
7a;:?aR.~.?,{ ci::::r~':IJ."I'::::2 eN r:Oh""!r:o,:'.'"}[ D:::S .~G'r r
Lis-:' 0:: C'a:"".:1itt.ee }~'::.r;-j:~::-s.
cost cf H.;ljQt' ':\!i~enitie3
.. '!~ ... ~J[f[ $
-"
c:. Th'!:: TEMPORAR't COr·lf11TTEE Ol'i DO;'.'l·>iTO~·n~ Dr:.slG:\' ""~~) !diE::;'l1'I[:~
RECCI1M£ND.&.TION RE C::JD(lR.sEl':~i':r 02 (1) f'O.sSfBTE---;;-:-~~.~~iY1 A.~-D M1ENITIES -FROji FUTurE --DC'i·iI~TG,.,1H prOJECTS... {2T~ I )'i"'fS O"f!"N~£s !'i£CE.s~,Ai,Y TO OSl'HN Silc':i fEr;';:J:-'Ti s, f,T'T{}-T
A f't:0C£~S TO PR(.h ... E.E.D i.Jll'r. P~~RIj,-~---C~-f-ADT~~:-~=;~~
UREMJ !)ESIGi~ PL~.i'J (CilJ~: 293: 7) (:1('}2-11 f -
loiOTlON: Council Nember-Co~b mova-d. ~eCO,'"ldeo by P.:!titU'cci,.
to adopt staff recoffirncndation as follows:
1. Ta~e the fOllo· .. ·:no actior.s en the ~:J ... ·.'1to"·:1 DC<;it:]:"1 ar::-::;:
Amenities Committe~'s recc~rn2ndations ~eg~rdj:'g tEne!its
c::.:ld alrJeni ti'E!s:
aJ Approve the list of abenefits requir-ing major incen
tives· ezce:pt foC' "offi.;:e space fo[" nonI-'!.""ofit c.''''-g<:
nizations,· and rct",ln the list; Clna
yr"'
57-31 G
5/0S/37
\
. ,
• ii,
-
MOTION COHTHWED
2.
bJ D.irect the Archit.e.:-tuca! P.eview Beard (ARB) to
expand th~ {Pl Pedestri an Shopping Combining
District design: 9uicieline-s so that future develop
ment pt'oposals would bE' encouraged to p::ovide siJch
benefits ~nd amenities as art in public places, pub
lic open space~ and p~blie drinking fountains.
The (01]0Ioli:'19 actions on the' eoo'oo'ntoillrn Design and
A~:~nities Comndtte-e's recommended incentives:
elJ Cor:!:ider a higher bOrlllS than a 0.5 to 1 FAR on
fL.: ture Cownto'oo'(j (PC) Planned COiT1mun i ty zoned proj
ects on a case-by-~ase basis, particularly in those
situation~ ~here it can be demonstrated that pt'ovi
sian of special bene-fits require such a bonus to
offset the co~t of pcoviding the benefitj
bJ Considet'" an oz;dinance change to ttre (PC) Plan;"1ed
ComrU.l"j ty review prOCess to allo,,", conceptual
de'~elopillent plan 2[lp:-oval pt"ior to ce'.-je'", of
d~t~ilcd d~sjgrl pl£~s for final action;
c) Defer condder.-C'ti::-,.'1 in modifYU'lg cod~ c:nd other:
ordinances .ffecting Do~ntown p~Qjects, e.g.r
ili.pn.nleillent to building facades on iC'Jleys, until
2ftl?r <;in llrbOln Design plan is pccpaced a:)d c:doptc-d
!:'o tt:at design policies .<l.nd pr-iol:itie.:> are clearly
defined befo~c s~ch nodific~tion is considered; and
d} C~n~jdcr appropriate public financial assistance for
pu::'lic jlrlprovcments afte .. -cdopLion C'f an Urbdn
Design ?lan so ~hat pciocitjes are then e~tcb]iEhe~
on irrproverncnts reC;;l.liring \TaC10t.!S forms or public
ass1;5t .. n-::::e.
3. Diro('ct staff to:
<!l ContinL:e prepera t~un of an Urban Dt:sign Plan .. ork.
[lrogre:~ .. thOlt is cor.sist,ent .... ith the fl"'c.me .. o;rk S119-
ga~ted by the ~'~enjlies Comrnittc€~ and
b) Return to lhC' COlJnciI for approval of a \'10[';:: pro
<:ca:!l, afler in['l~t is o:btained fro~ the ARe, no laU.'t,
tlliln S('ptem~er 1,. 1987.
57-317
6/03/87
,
\
i
1
•
_:<
.... <;:''¥.
... _1" .. '-~
•
i
I
-j
. I T
J
i
I
I
I
!
I.
I
" .. ".
. ,
MOTION cONTINUED
Further, endcrscment of a ",'ork progrilm designating Uwt
the pl<!!n be prepared by a tllSt-~ force of .. 'crk~blc zlze
and ""hich includ~s memD-er-s of the local d,,,,sig:"l corn~un
ity,' me~bers Qf the community at large~ £n~ r€present~
tives from the Planning Commission, Architectural Rc~iew
Boaed, Historic Resources Board, and yjswal Arts
Jl.lt-.y ~
Council Member Renz~l was concerned to some de;rce ~bout th~
mQ<JificaUons to the PC :ZonE. She was "dJling to e~plo!"e Lo
see ~hat forln they. mi~ht take.
M~yor ~oolley asked staff fcr clarification. S~le unJ~r~tood
Coun~il ~~s giving dir?ction to set processes i~ ~oticn. ~~J
the recomm~ndations ~ere far [rom fien •.
~lanagE'c of Planning ProJE-ct Ge~)cge Zirr"J~rn=-n. SOllO tll~'. ,,'dS
core-eet.
COII'1cil ;':ernbec .~.?n~,:·l .... .Js co:-.ct2("ri(?d eiOch f.".:"'.'€ i:l~nc 111 21'
itt:!rCJtiv~ prccE~>5 ~er.t .J (l';i?:::;::;~g-c that CJle ""..3~, l/,cf!r:,Jj to
.'3nt to at;·re~. ",'i,ercas ~h(> .,,"as II,ore inclin.:'c to 1'3nt to tii,5-
.:lg,rce •• ;jtb som.:! cf t",e reC,)ITt~'<:ndati~ns. Sr1':: \;,:,ntc,j 11""r
conc\:rn on t!-.e recc.ed ,S,:;) it "as not. a s:.;r;:ris= ',.n':-,l t:-.~ It'?;11
return':d. .she \.,oas concerr.ec in r-eg..3rc to trJt' rc /i':',:jificc
tions about maJ;j,-Jg cQln!T1it,'2n::'.'7; to squ.:?:rE: foo::. .... l:;C.5 ;:;s ::::,p<.:
ciilc trod.: offs, if Cot.!'lcil \"E-r:t with t::-e g<:n'-',021 lc::'CiJ c(
the r-~com~end~tion before they sa~ a rcal cn-tha-yrQund VIE~
of ... Jlat they I.ere go:;tt1rq O'i1:1 .. 'hOlt its ir;:iJi1cts il'ig:-.t be.
S",v,"r<'ll questlons ~~;rc ralse.d at the Sludy Sl?~~i')11 ah<:)l.;t lile
fO~d Illarj.a·t~ and silt:' rr;nl.:lin<2d cor.ci:rn,~J tile Li(;r;I<:'JeapJlics
SIIO,del l;;e lo.:~ked at closely to S,"':! If l~:e ']rea Cl'j l'.'arl'"ant ,],
public Inllcstr0€nt in a fe,oct .rnad.€t [,:orC lh"n a"i otrJlo'e ..leC"a.
o[ to .. "I'l. I,t presEnt, they had a r.ir,oh r'G;::.~ldlicn cf s':::lic:"s
in DOlmt<J .... ,j, vut ;::"H:~ dia l J Ct D!21ieve U-:.;!t [:'\';;-ltc,.n ,,''=5 goi;1g
to be ~ magn'ii!t fc'r s"2'"licrs in the futllre, e~::! trey migilt ~C'e
a conver~ion to ~o~~~€r (amilies.
AMEt-iDMENT: CO:..Jncil ['le~ber Levy 1'lolled~ seconded by
Bechtel, to add to staff l'ecom~cl'ldation ,10] the follo· .... ing,
• ••• including safe9u~rd!..> to r:l2intain pe~estria."l !".calc a:'ld
feeling concerning fo~d m~rkcts_·
COUI'lci1 r·ler.!oee Levy said the City fo<.;n(i In th~ f'~~,t m::;st.
full-scale food stores regulred a'l .3.rr.OUl"lt of tlo,:'r-sp"cC',
~ar~house space~ and par-king lot space t~~t ~'as too large to
re-ally fit in thl.:' Oo\ .... nto~>'rI area. He .. 'as cc'ncerl1ed if trJey
S 7-3 H
6/08/57
--.... 7--l .. "~ 1II."""I.~*.tWliii~) " .... "" , .-
.~.;.
-
.-.
•
~.
l
focused single-rr.jndedly On a food market, t~cy rr:ight t!nd 'up
with so~t..!thi~g .'hic!) would not .... ork .... ell. ,,!s.c. if th-=
,",cojeC't fcliled <IS a food mark€t. the), migr.t be teft .... ith il
jClt:~e fCicilitj' [rJC l::.cme at.he, use~ It. .... 'as lleCeSS.lcy to
m,JJllt.lil'! Ule pl?d"'~tc'iQi1 !:cale '.d'1ich tr1e-y attc;r:pted to do in
00wIltown in ev~rr other way.
council F--lcmber Kleir'l ag:rced looIith the thrust of Council
11embec le .... y's t:Min);;inQI p<!Irticulacly his comments in tne
Study ~essicn, and also ... ·ith Cou:'lcil ":~mb€r Renzel's COIl1<
ments; however, the ame~dment seemed entic~ly inconsistent.
rt the langu<!Ige \o-.'a5 added, he believ-ed a fLtll-sendce ioed
(!'.",rlr.ct .... ould be. an impcssi!::lility in the DO .... i<t.o .... n at"ea. fje
h~a not s~en a full-secvice food market consistent with th~
pedestrian fe~ling in the area. As he undc-r-sto:;.j earlier
comrn..:nts, tne real Jssue I.·as ... t"!~thec the Eu!l-set", .. ice food
~ark~t w~s such a desi~able g05l for the community that th~y
... ·ct·e ... iIlin'] to m.:ake .si<Jnificant s.olcdfices. ,'t mot'co appco
pr-i..na ~I71cf1dr;;cnt might b ... Council r,eed'ed te· reex.;JlT:ine the
need tor the project. DO\,:nto""n b~fore grar.ti~g any speciJ'l
in::~nl:.iv.es. He ... 'ol.l1d not. vote for th~ amerjdni'.~nt en th~
floor~
Cou:.:iJ :';er;,!.,.er FJ~t'ch'3r hdd Simllill.4 Ser1t.lments: to [ou~,cll
r:<;.>.;b::( Uein. "i:'Ollistic.'lIl~·, a ~CC>CE::-y st.c,re ... ·itllin the
pede5t.ri£n ~c~le would end up being a higl'-~riced, specialty
str)'.:'e .;/hich did I',ot deServe any publlc subsid z' t,y yivin.;
speci&l incentives.
~:.afor I·,'oc·lley Cl.si;.cd if (c'uncil r1eedc-d the kir1d of refir"1ed
guid.:.nce 1.h~t ev-enin';l or at ~ later point.
CI1",iei;,3n cf the 'ler.:Ilorary COr:"mittee on: Dow"rt.o .. ~~ C.esi:]11 a~:::l
,oI.8e'11ties JO~ln NOl.·UlIil-"!:y beli£v<:d that t)'pe of re[ir1crr:ent
"oJld (:OP.lo:! at. !l later point; prcbably part of the Urban
LH?si.g'1 proces.s Sllould Councit endorse tha.t, arid ceC'tiJirdy
!:pccifically .,.'hen ~,ortlt:one i;I·:-tl:ally Io"ent in • .-itt"! a rcop':'sal
[or ~ tood mark~t.
riayo,:, ~';··.:>clle)' bel:l.e'~e,j Co"r,Cll ... as
lCl!din.;) SO.lleon-=: into goilig in loIith
Council M~mbec~ had C'cservations.
conc.e;rr:ed
2! pCopC$a 1
Cow'leil H~m~)er Levy
the Jist of "',ajor
t.llat COI."H,ell .. '~ulci
<lsked if it was 3pprc>p[iate to
Inc~ntiv.;s or ~a.ke a ger:-er-al
lJte staff to return wi~h what
fr15-
sonle
pull from
statement
the,/ co:,-
~'i~l"~H' ~·joclley clarifit:d Qth-et; tr,a~ eli~ir.ating the office
spdce, Council .... 25 appro'.",ing tMe li.:it of tleneEits rEquiring
Major Incentives.
57-319
6/0B/81
.,
i
i
I
-
council. Memu<er Lev)' a9(e~d ~itl'1 Cot.:nr::il t-lembcc t<l~in.
Count.:il could -eith.ec say a full-sen'ice [,;),::,r! m-3rk . .et '''':0$
imposs.ible! end to delete it, c:: could 52.'1 they only ",';:,nted
te-have it if, in t.~,e trade.-elf be.tween. pedestrian. Cft!'H2rliu.o;:s
~nd tt'\l:! !t'.~tl'.et, Cou<lcil could protect the ?eeJe-stt"ian "m~
nities, .... ldcM he feared rr.i-;~.t be an jmpos$i~iliql. Ho,-Ievee.
th~ p·ucpvse o[ his ~meno'lll~nt ~:as simph' to allo .... thl! food
mar"~t to stay lrl. but to m~b~ it clear Cou,"'lcLl oid not '".'ant
to sacrifice the pedestcl~n scale.
Vice /0]03),,0[" Sutodus "read the definition of CI full-.:;erilice
(000 maC"k~t to mean it .,,'owld !:ell or provid2 fresh mC'~tSf
poultry, fish and produce 1:1 addition to packar;ed st.::ple.c.
He .... as l'1ot opposed to t1"l(;t and ... ·o!.dd t'dthec riot !:,C"C' modifi
cations U'lat ,,:ouid eliminate a store that did eXc:Jctly th~t.
Council Membcc neirJ. sa id thece could !:1e .G:) cL-Jecti,()n::; to
t'I':;: detinitic'i1, bl,.<t the Drobl~rn ..... a.5 the recQ[~[n~ndJtiC:tll
lIcLoL'e toW'rlci! spok.e to that slOt"C' LHld~r t.IJC he.:difl'J ot
-Ben<='fits ti:elluicing Najoc Inc-.'r;tivE's.· Jhe C;uc""cion 10.'.:'5 ric.;,t
whether Councl.l ... CJflted :such a stoee t.':Jt .,:t,at tll~y .... 'ece
"dlli.ng tv do to get it. }i,~ a~su:t'~d J1"lothe:::: .·,.C'~d im;:llcit
in the .(i!co".m(!("",d.3tiort ",,'as ".:ifforda.ble.· .:'C ~lr:.J~~_.e,t p.:::icr:oj."
Deleting ltem 1.,3: f'ioearrt COLJr,cil "'0:; bc:lck i:-, a r'CL.t::-<'!l [,::>,<,i
tioll, not irldi<.:ati'lg .. hiJt their positl.C'iI '<:cL;l(! t·:; it !il,:Clr il
proposal came befo~~ Council ~n6 they co~ld e~ploce at that
time 'Whether the~' belicv~d the de",,:! r;(edc-c SCOr;,2 ty;:>e ot
pu~ljc b~nefit subsidy.
SUBSTITUTE AI1SNDKErlT: Council l-Js-r:-.1Je,r-r.lt:in J:::)ved.
secol'1ded by ~oollel'l to delete 'la LOt -I-.pp .. o;:e tt:e li:5t of
banefits reqUJrlng m~jo~ i~c~ntives" e::cppt for ·office
.'$~ace for nor.p:-ofit orga .. li~ations" o?nd "a full '!:;ez-vi!:e food
.1ha['.I:::~t/~e:-lI1anci"jtly-sited, fuJl-tim;: f<H:m:-rt:s rnar-.kct.-
Mayc[' ~oollcy did not ~ant anyone to b~ misled inco
bc-lievjng Council \,.-as ... ·holehecirl€'oly 1;1 ~u.c;"-:'t:'t cf a qroc,=.ry
slf,:Jr-e in tll~ Do''''rltOlo-'n. 6t emItting t,i;e It,=:T, CCL.ncil \<'as
rJ()t:. pre'sC'nting to anl'O;'le an e~hau£tive list. .so that did not
mean tI'.at s.c)meor.e cO:.Jld riot go lrt .. 'jtr. .a ;? r-:.:: pC' sa 1 .... ~dch
included a geccery store. If they ~an8ged tc go in wit~ t~~
kind of proposal th~t fit the di5C''U.s.sl''.'l~ it ;.;o'.Jld be some
thing Council ~owld WdMt to considec.
Council ~Jembec fletcher ~ouJd ~ote in fawo~ c( the sub£ti
tute i.H!1G'ndment b~t did not ;"'21Mt to !rJ. ... ~ the lm t?t',",,SSlO,1
Council ....,ould not 1::')01, tavo['."bly upon an ilt>plicetJ.on. Und(>!'
IILA.l ot the cepoct attached to OjR:293:7, it ~sdid,
-••• the Comrnj ttee believes l/1,at a fl:tuL'e dc'.relopm('nt pro
pO$al, inclu,::'ing .such a food nlar/:et sr"lo1.l1d' be r-€I;'ie"'e,j in a
, ,
57-320
£/08/87
-
very positive'Ifl,l!1nec by the City,· and s~e .:lgreed ""ith ttldt
stat.~mcnt but it ",:as a Inatt'er of degree of ...,hethee they wen:
si"'JI!ng .a. food mar-k.~t out of ceinQ especially .... o.r:thJ' ot
gl"CJt incentives. The iricenti~e.s k.lould be i(1 C"ont.r:adlction
to tllo! 9uideliri";$ set lip alter the D·::)·.:ri.to· .. ·n St'Jjy~
Council ~I~mbcr B,""n;zel o;upported the st.icstit<.Jte amendr~e_"lt
.'hich deleted th~ t ... 'o a.r:eas "",'here she had be-con j.1DSt Urt·:-O:"!:"
fortable wit'1 the idea of trading L1ses for space, She di·:j
not see ho ..... to ensure the uses contir.ued. In rea lity, if
th~ ~pace ~as built a~d the uses could not sur-vive, the City
could end up being forced tQ a11o'ol" otner uses into those
sp(,]CE"s. They "'ould not ha .... e the amenity and ... ln some sens(.? ..
.... oul ... j I~d~~ cheated C'thec prcpecty owr.e.rs b:t giving the
bonu~>es to people .... ho provided sO!":1-:ot.hing st)ort ten: but.
ended up ~ith a l~ng-l~rm s~ace~
Council Mcrrbct" P.c:::titucci opposed trle ~ubs:it~te ar:,endrt;=nt.
Ful! sC'c';lice miyllt not b~ achiE:\lable~ but he b.::llE:Ved it I<IJS
\<lOeth ... hile to h~~€: tr,e ,,'c,ecing as an ir.centl\,o; to attract
SOIr:C ideas and pcQ.c'Osals. The p.r:o?o5als could l;;e tU"neu
dO""~1 it CO-i.Jncil dId not like the ideas, If til",:!, did not
.1-jJ,t'C'C to peD~5tri<:!n .J;::erlitic!;, if it ... ·,35 in til~ "C'U~l'~ JOC.;l
liCII, it: it 10',,:> ttl~ ,.;r·:-r·lg .. ,ropo::..:!l, if it ... ·~s n('t. ~conarric
ally (ea3ible. Tnec~ ~as suffiCIent evid~~ce th!t th~ food
m.J("~~t .. 'JoS a cOr"JeCC"I"l: e:nc to be-lete it did r,ot ']1· .. ·(' COl.;11Cll
:Hl opportunity at arl J' time to see ~[Iat pc,:'ple c!!~e l.:p I<dth.
r~!~ Co~r~ittea ma3e a geod faith reco:~~~~dation, and Cou~cil
ShCLltd leave the wording i(1.
F.ayor i;,:oolley clarifled the list ..... as not
Delet.ing l1"1o= j teoTi ci;J not "·ea.n Council had
opt10<lSI but had sent a signal of conce["n~
all-inclu$llo'e.
closed of( 1 ts
Cd'll:":.cil tl(.'~I,ber Patitucci did not agree ... ·ith U;3t ll1teC"preta
t10r1. II·~ uelielo"~j Ce,unr.-il uas se:;dlrig a ,"~ssa:Je It did n(lt
WJllt to sec the kind of· ~ropo3~1. Council might see reco,~
il1~;,d,jtions of things not on U~e lise, t>l.;t a:-:yt'l.ln.g that r.au
bcurl on t~e lisl as recom;~e~d~d by the Com~ittea Jnd tur~ed
GO\O'I'~ he intE'rpr~tcd to rea,., CouClcil ... as not ln~;:-C"~ste::i.
Council ··tember R<:r'"zl?l said two point.s c.::r;;e Olit at the Stl.!d J'
5e5~ion: One, the ,\merlities Commit.tee did not. In'"·est.ig.3te
clos~ly ~hcthee C~ not DO.Jnto .. n ~3S differe~t feem any oth~c
nei~hborhood with respect to Ileeds f~r 3 food market. T1lerc
had I...,ecn pre-vl-;:'uo; testirr,o.'"l)' to t~at eltect .. t·ut bd5ic~11y
it ""as r.loce or less taken as a gl\..-en by the Committee WIth
SOIHto! eVJluation.; .)ncl two .. the PC ZDne ... ·as available thrC"i.'gh
out the community for people to come in ~ith creative id~as
to 5011,1": commur"1ity problems a"d, at the same tlme, ["equest
t)ell",iits foC" th"'rt:5clve5 ~s trade-offs.
·'L
57-l11
6/Ud/'::7
:'.' <";c"
•
,
i ,
i
I.
".
" ..
Council Mcmbec 8~chtcl shared some at ~ouncil Member
Patitucc~rs concerns ~nd pointed out one of the lss~es pro
posed .. as a fuJl-tlftl.? cr permar1cnt facme:'s j'l";ar~,i2t ... and a
!ull-se('vice market did flot necess~rili" have to be a huge
jumbo Safe ..... ay. The o.'lly danger if the language .,'·)S left in
""'as Council should he careful not to send a message to a
poten t ial develope r tha t Courtci 1 .'Quld de f in 1 tely approvf:'
the pr-oposal.. Srle referenced tr"le past housing incentive
",here, jf a: de .. -elor,er provided <1dditional aiforde;ble units
Council ""':luld a 110',,' ~n increas-e in rlum:bers of unlts and a
prC'j~ct on El Csmino i',\~t .. :here a: d~\leloper ju~ped thrc.LJgh
hoops foe a year: before Coun.cil ultimately turned him co',on.
Council Membe~ Klein agreed with Mayor woolley's interpreta
tion. Council was not sa:.ring it \0'.35 oppoSf:!d to the ided of
thec~ bein~ a food macket. The Question was whether Council
\t',J~ committed to the ldea the l1;a,rk.et r:Jnd their c<.1pitalistic
eC(Jnomy .... c:-re "ot ",'ol,"king; and l th~refore, they should pn)
\lide some type of big incer:tivs. He vas in favor of letting
market syste~s .. orle L;r"ltil it becar.:e absolutely clear that
gcv"'eclllllent neederf to .step in. He clJd not bel ie.:c that .... as
the case al'ld was con'ce(lled .'3boLrt the integrity of their
s},st.;m. He did not ""ant to send false signals to developers
.... hen. there \oIas a strong post.ibility Ccuncil J'dg~,t not be
willing to give the ir.centit'e or-subsidy upan · ... ·h.ich pla'"Js
..-ere based. If a proposoll included a full-soen"ice fo.;',:! ",ar
~et a~d \oIanted soa:e trede-c,ffs, Coui1.cil .... ould consider it.
SUBSTITOTE Al'!ENDMEt.,'T P"_SSF.:D by a vote of 6-3 1 Sutor-ius,
Bechtel, Patitucci voting ·no.~
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED una~imously_
~~~r:'
'h
-
•
j
i
I l ~ __ CL.· --,. -.-~, .. ,,-"., ... >.
11111
, ou·c;
-
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
PARKT /w'G ASSESSME.H
VlST~ICT
PARKING LOTS ••••••••• ~
fI.$SE$SME).rT VI STRICT "",un
soU/mARIES
200 0 2ao 400 e ... : I
o /;'!j!.:5'ER CF PE~I.1IT PM:~I""G SPACES
o rHt..L NU~\SER Cf P-A;:"'.it.'G S"FACES
UJT C 'FARG,'iS SPACES RESE;<:','EV
F:';( F~:_O A ~ TC s::,""~ ~,;;: CEo,:=-;;
fErT
•
.1
,
1111l,~q
Mr. Kenneth Sc!rreiber
Pi a.nning Director
C!;:\{ of P<l]o Alt.,
2SO Hamilton A"en'.:.e~ 5th. Boor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: 531 Cowper Street Project
.:If ,:;rj_,,;'.~
UFPHOALTC
f~ ownr..:: t>i ;,;~e C;,1.l:o.'!.rl ~::'':'\l:"'~ H .... tei.. 1 !l'~:;::~ rc.r;,·,~."t"rl jim b,::.r·s plan for the
:-:'llUd~r..g <::l :;31 ":::--;'hiJ~r illi.0 ... "',ju1:j !'Kt {!j c;::~ .. lY 5ur~rt for ;.h.;: project.
~":'"!c'z!·.l!a:;:;-.'.:· ~):~;~~ •. ~.;.; -':,"::1 ~·~:"1:lu.d~ e:-:!;:-'II':t; ::..'-:~ 9"":-: r:{ !)(j';lInto~'1l. Moreover, his
t'1~ -br l.,."Pp::idi;-:~ t"l': J: .-,icw·.~!.' ii!'~ w";ing d ;m.--.;.j cU ~oed.'!Striiin v.'aIkw~)i to the
COW.fX::"-~Jv'c:bS,e:' p-arklr:g ia.w.:tg(;. '.l.lli hcnefit .aD tn~ rct;;.u !.'\.i;"ine.~ in tile
S1.!ITOunding art: <1..
Please accept J~m Bl:il!r'S ~rcposa:..
Nonn(1;~ L Rosenblat ..
Managir'b GeneroJ Partner
un
FI"~ H"I".d·~d iwec,t. (" .. ; .. , S['e~:
r;,.' c' ,&"It p.( a:, I" :-.,;' ,':':,',' I
.• ~~ •..
-"
-
:-:?MA<.<;t "~:"-:?-
73 J"
j-L
•
T/!'no:pcrarj Emp'Oi""ltrll $e"w'C!'
C.3r~r F'ldU:'!1lt.>fll C~'i:~'
, ., .. ~",..., '." '"" I, 'r:. :,', .:_ ;,:<
~-~ 'X , E :~~ "" ii" •• , •• :
:,0 •• 'J: .... r:. "''':'''
'\\-.0;'
March 15, 1991
Ken Schreiber, Director
Planning and The Urban Environment
City of Palo Ano
250 Haminon Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Mo, CA 9431l 1
Dear Mr. Schreiber:
'am .... riting 10 urge your support for Ihe project at 531 Cowper Street currently under
consideration by your department 'understand lhat the developer, Mr. Baer, proposes
to donate $150,000 to the Palo Aha cbld Care Trust Fund in conjunction with appr('val of
tIlese plans.
This contribution wooid provide a tremendous bener~ to child care in Palo Mo and
would ,l<aly be used 10 help fund the devalopmenl of a child C'lre center in the down
Iown area.
I know Mr. Baar's previ<lus conlnoutions to various projects have made a positive impact
on the community and am denghted that he has deCided to support child care so gener
ously.
I encourage you to approve his plans.
Sincerely,
/-'
Roberta Co"n
Chie' Executive Officer
Igeh
._-
,,""-',
',-',"-')'
~"."""-'. ." I;...
"', ~
" ,; L
.
...........•....
....J
L
AGENDA IT~ 5 531 CQWVES SlREE}: Concept •• , r •• ltv of on 'ppl1cltlo"
for I Pl.nn~d CommunIty lone c~.ng. fro-Conounlty
CGOneTtl.l Oo.mtown O,strl:t, to·t(P) to Planned
tOlllTJunitYt PC. in order to allow cOf1struction of an
approximatE1y 1&,000 square-foot, three·sto~y office
building with parking requirements to be met t~rou9h an
in-lieu fee. En~)Tonmental Assessment: An en~iTDnmentil
assessment will be prepared prlor to planning commission
final recommendation to the tity cD~nci1. Fi1e Nos,:
91·ZC·I, 91-ARB-6, 91·EtA-2. Zan. District: CO-C(PJ.
No stiff comments.
Cpmmjssioner Christensen: J need clarificatfon on tne proposed officE
lIS!S. Is it to be entirely an office blrilding? There ~!5 been some talk
about retail. b~t it 's not really mentioned specifically about i retail
use an the ground floor.
Hr. Hal.v: The underlying zoning right now is CD·C(P). The GF district
border Y"l.Ins right down the driveway to the Cowper-Jlebst!r garage. lhe
sit! is currently outside of the GF district. so there has not been a
staff recommendation at this ~oint that ~ou1d reQuire retai1 on t~e ground
floor.
Commissfo~er Christensen: But one of the things that can be specified in
a PC is uses, and how they can be divided up. In fact~ that is one of the
advantages of a PC. You do not hav~ to stiCK to the zoning and those_
limited uses. You can say 1 want 5.000 square feet of retail and
5,000 sQuare feet of this and 5,000 square feet of that.
Mr. Haley! That is correct, The underlying zoning currently does not
require retail on the ground floor. , Shff. at this paint, ~as no strong
feelings a~ut it. We do not see that the project would benefit greatly
by having retail ~n the ground floor. It may be difficu1t particularly
far the rear port'on of the bU11ding tc get i r~tail tenant in ther~.
Cha'~an MlTsh; 1 w,11 now open the public hearing.
Jim Baer, 532 Channing. PaTo Alto~ The materials t~at have haen deli~ered
to the planning commis$ion whi,h do not show up in the pa~ket consist of
42 letters from a nu~ber of sources, incl~din9 members of the C~i'd (are
Task Force and I few InErr,bers of the Urban Design Comit!.ee. We have
talked to 111 the members of t~e Urban DeSign Committe~~ arod
understandab1y, a number of them feel it is not appropriate for them to
write specificiiTy in support of a project. We have ta1ked to and
rtceived letters from wirtually .1) of the owners of buildings adjacent to
the property and on Cowper Street and from a number of i'eta;' businesses
and offices impacted by the proposll. T~at is not to say that there are
no difficulties presented r not by the concept of the buiTding but by the
impacts of construction from our e~¥erienc~ from Z50 Un,versily Avenue and
529 Bryant Street. I don't think th.t .any people on the staff and in the
Transportation Division will be surprised when lot J has is its ~ost
difficult aspect the disruption for nei9hbors and parkers during
constructfon. Even though t~is project is some ways off from our
Inticfpated date for construction. demolition is I noisy and unpleasant
experie~c!. As develapers, we need to do our best in communicating vit~
ntighbors. ~e have created some unhappiness on C~per Street again
betause 50S Ham;'t~n and the Garden Court Hotel are 1'1 very rec!nt
projects. There 1S some feeling thit this neighbothood has suffered ~ore
"Sill Ltn Ie
... J
L
than others fTom noisy con~tructio~.
Thfs project h~s been an enjoyable one that I want to ccmpliment stiff
on. We had origfnal1y pTanned on doing on-site parking. and that wou1d be
!ntered by haying an easement access through Parklng lot J, coming in
through ,h. undergrou"d portion. As erazy of tn. ph),slcal "peets of that
were, Public Works, Transpertation and Planning staff all tri.d to see jf
it made sense, because they t~ou9ht this project had merjt. What has
eva'ved from the leaders11ip (If Marllln Ove':"'W1Y in look; r'lg at the
difficu1ties ~f our p_rxing and the poor qua1ity of the plrking we were
,b~e to get Q~ site l this might be a good o~p~rtunitJ at what has heen in
the (0-( zoning or-dinan'e since its adoption in 1985. ihis might be the
right opportunity to see ~ow we would do in-lieu parking. The features
that make in~l;eu parking attractive are t~at there is abundant parking at
this end of town, ~h11e ri9~t now traffic stud~es show that there is some
surplus parktng. The staff report accurately says, w~o can p~edict wh,t
happens t~ree ~r fo~r years from now. Another PQsitive rea san for in-lieu
parking for this project is t~at jt is on a perimeter~ If we look at the
zoning and development p~s~lbilities of Cowper [ast, there ;s ~irtual1y no
development possib"ity east of Cowper. Those are built~out properties,
and fairly new on~s. They de not fall into seismic or historic c~tegories
which allow bonuses under the crdinance. That Ted ta the notion that this
.ight be'a good ti~ to shift funds through in-lieu paTking from th~
Parking lat J end of town to more in the core of downtown. It;s 4
1mport.nt to u~der~tand that ~hat yo~ S~~ before you concept~ally 1$ that
how do you arrive at an fn·lieu (ontributfon? The staff report clearly
po1nts out that surface parking can be between 15 ,000 and 20,000 feet.
250 UniYersity Avenue is $23,000 and was exclaimed IS enormously expensive
It the time. OUT experierlce is that it would s"ti11 be more expensive thal'l
most underground. but I ~ould not quibble with the not{on that
$2S,000-30,OOO 1S an appropriate range for expensive parking underground
in small sites.
O~e thing the staff report doe$ n~t make clear is that in o~~ proposal, we
iTe proposing two aspe,ts of in-lieu contributions. One is S20~ODO per
stall. The second ;s tnat in providing in ·lieu contributions, ~hen you
provide parking spaces, you are allowed a credit against yo~r parking
assessment fOT the number of spaces you ~a~e pro~idea~ at a rate of four
per thousand. So if you ~ave a 15,000 s.quar£ foot b'Jllding ind' you ire
~roviding 4C spaces. you are only going to be assessed on 5 1 000 square
feet. lO,OOC are free because you have met your parking requirement for
that. What we ar! ~olunteerln9 in conjunction with this applfcation is
that ~e not b~ given credit for any of t~e parking spates that ire ~ei~g
purchased through our in-li~u fee. let ~e give you some arithmetic on
that. I hope it is an exciting opport~n;ty for further in-1ie~, as well.
If we have i 20~year~old bond with Pirking lot J, and we assume that on
completion of construction Df this proj~ct, there are 15 years remaining,
and forgetting amortillti~nl is~ume 1S ptrcent of the bond remains
outstanding. W, are 19reeing to pay. over the next 15 years, we are
paying 75 percent of the cost of that parking stall in addition to the
S20.0CO. I won't belabor that na., but it mig~t be ~ore 'mportant ~hen
the ordinance is drafted. The notion is that we will do two things.
Offer I real dollar ~unt, SZO,~OO, about whic~ the commission and
council can debate, but also to 5J.y~ \Ire would o~er the next 15 yea.rs pay
a.s if we had provided no parking, and that is i 5ignificant cish
contribut;on over that l&-year period.
L
I
!
1
I
\
•
~~~jt,,:
,".,<> . ,
r
.... ~.
-
Anot~er factor that is important to state, since ~e have been t~e users of
the PC process in the downtown, and since there ~6S disa;reement betwe!n
the planning conrnission lnd the cit)' coun.cil over 520 Bryant Street, tne
last PC llat fn" .. o1ved private property, where the planning (omission ~ad
declined t~ accept S150,000 for plaza improvements. and the ,ity council
un.nlmou,ly not only took the 1150,000 for the plaz., but added .no,her
$40,000 to the Environmental Action Fund for the downtown. We fili1"11
91 ibly at ,t.ff leVEl .nd at appllCint level haYe said tOil urb."
amenities ire really not worth much. That was repeated throughout the
an.lysl, at 529 Bry.nt Street. In a doll.r .n.lysls th.t we have two
projects to report on, the deve10pment of the alley at 529 Br)'ant Street
~a, in excess of 1700,OO~. We ~ad budgeted S17"OOO when we began the
project. nlt real1), .. as throt.igh erroT'. It 'Was tru1.:t 1n He cos.t of the
refinements far underground drainage, relocation of ~tllities, i su~fice
that is ~orthy of both fire vehides and also acceptable for pedestrians.
It was not a trivial investme~t. At 529 Brjant Street, ~hat we ~ave
learned is that when you do a new curb and gutter, 'We know w~at it c:oHs
to sprink1er a bUilding on the inside, but now we are leirnin9 what it
costs to bring a 'Water m~in in through ln old stre~t out to the middle ~f
the street, and what sidewa.lk and llleyway work '-05t5. "The poin.t I am
trying to make is t~at wnen we look at the public benefit pack~ge heret
what we ire doing is, one, Simply a nicety, even if it is a costiy on~ -
the pedestrlin arcade. We think that will genuinely have an impact on the
cornftlrt and use of Parking lot J for pedestrians in both dayt ime ilnd •
even'ng~ creating the opportunity for that par~'ng st~~tture to be used
~rf far ge~erating retail and pedestrian ~itdlity. But that is not e~en
what I se~ as being more expensive than any ~f us WQuld identify. and that
is. how we do the landscaping, the sidewaHs. the llIid€'nitl9 of t~e driveway
and the reshapfng of the driveway. That is ~ot a concrete truck for one
da)i. There is S1JC" an 'nterp1ay of the utilities, the surface material!.
the landscaping and 1rrigat1on of tnose materia's in l ~aJ that remains
safe for the pub1ic, that it is iii sig~ificant investment.
Our hope for this proJect 15 to provide iJ beaut ifu1 building, a beaut iful
set of urban amenities, a pioneering, with the he1p of Transportaticn,
Pub1ic Works and Planning of ~o. an in·lieu process tan work to deve1~p
more parling in the core of tne dow~to~n. We will appreciate your support
ind your comments at this conceptual leve1 about ~hat things you think
might be miSSing, both in the projects you have seen before ~ou ~ith me as
an ipp1icant, or about this project.
Commis$,o~er Hir$c~: Comm1ssioner Christensen raised the issu~ of retail
earlier. What wou1d be the opportunity for retail. either along Cowper OT
the pedestrian arcade?
MT. ~aer: We did not vo1unteer it. w~ evaluated it~ and please
unde~st1nd that the c,ty tDunc~1/s extraction or requirement of th~
$150,000 or $190,000 had mort to d~ with a notion that the foregoing of
rttail on the gro~nd flooT .t 529 Bryant Street was a significant benefit
to the appHcant. To ~olunteer to go to retail i5 frankly all enonnous
cost at this location. lhf reasons for t~at are that this is a narrow and
d~ep s'te, and it is being ~Ide ~ore narro~ bJ 22 feet~ by virtue of the
wld.nlnq of tho .pace .vailable for drive.ay .nd landscaping, and the
pedestrian arcade is I full ]S feet wide at ground level. Tne prDblem
that you have in saying. let's tear off a piece of Cowper Street because
we ill enjoyed the bookstore when it was across frorn E1 Fornalo, and it
Mj24j91
·25-
--,,-srq
-
•
'~.;;~.
"!"t ..
71· -.
I
-. 1 ,
-
was 31 l'Iatural far thit e .... ening traffic tc flow into i retail 'u:;e. I
cannot deny that we could leise very wel1 tne 1,000 or 1,500 feet along
Cowper for a retan "". What it 1 ... e5 us wii.1 i, 3,500 feet of
rematr.ing 9roun~ floor space that hiS this prob1em --you have no Cowper
Street entry. Your entry is under an entlosed arcade, and for an office
1Jse, then .... hat )Iou ha.~e if yOiJ break tt\at ir.to three 1,OOO-fDot lH'IaS,
t~ey get a front door which is also their window. Sa it not suitab1e for
1 do~tor or a therap~st ~ho w~nts i ~'ndow in their off;ce and a deor int~
thelT waiting rpom. It is not usable for tne two-p~rscn law fjrm. We
have a fa)rly high vacancy rate throughout the do~to~n in those types of
us,s th.t h.ve the glazing .11 at the front entry with. 70-foot deep
sp.cP. that only has tnat window. So it wou1d be something we ~ould
resist. If we rin into I S,DOO-foot retail ~ser, we would find that
excit ing.
It is fm,p<lrtant f<lr me to put on tne record that Here is a miscoflception
about retail and sales tax revenue. Pedestrian Yltality is one thing. We
are ,reating that in tne Quality of the building. If we are looking at
the salts tax benefits of ) retail opportunity, this Sized fac~ will
attract a restaurant. ~;th our nearl) iO eating establishments in tne
downtown area, ~at we aT~ starting to recQgnize is that you ~ill ~ct ha~e
an i~crease in total sales for food. You will haye a two percent
redu~tion in sales tax revenue from all the other 69 resta~rants.
COmmiSSioner Hirsch: The landscape plan that I have before me shows
~idway back on the pedestrian arcade a lobby ~;th a elevator next to it.
Directly 'tr05S from thit. gojng towards ~arnilton, is a stairwell going
both up and down. Isn't that. n.tu".l break in the design of the
buil~ing so that you cculd have retail just along that portion facing
Cowper?
Mr. Bur: It is it natural brei~ if .)"OU arE not in the business of
marketing the rear. What we use 11'1 development atlalysis is the ratio of
square f~et of window ivail.blt to total square footage. We have a very
different formu13 if we make that break. If the plann~ng commission sense
is that this needs mo~e e~aluati~~~ aod part of the c~~ce?tual approval is
to take a hard lOOK at the retail access, I will certainly look hard at it
and document better for you what we see as a prob'e~. r de not mean to
trivialize this. We ~ive a genuine concern about it and had a discussion
with staff, although my application does not go into elaborete details on
tnis, and neither does the staff report. 1 would be willlr,g to do ~ore
homework for you so you can e ... aluate t"-.a.t at ordinanc.e time.
Commissioner CQ11en: ls the oc.cupant of this buildi~g going t~ be DEC?
Mr. Baer: No, it is not! Tnfs is too small a footprint for a user like
O[t.
Commissigner Cullen: [have a question about the quality of the brick
fa~ade. I am looking at the ~elley building it the corner of lytton and
Alma. The fa~ade was not really brick. They ~ere bri~k liles. and they
are popping out all OYer the plate, Are t~e brjck~ going to be real or
brick tiles?
~!; let me answer that in two pdrts. I do not k~ow w~at material
we could use if we were beld to the standard of what some of tne buildings
04/24/91
-25-
,
~:,;-."
I
'E~~, ,"
....... \.
~ .. ' .. ~ ·<:"·-:--t
, ~.;;
tr~/_; .
: :'-
-
\ -
on lytton lock like. We cou1dn't bu11d in ~oodj we couldn't bui1d in
steel, we couldn't buf1d in bri:k. M'y anS'Jf'er is that I do not k.no'..w'.
There are two ~ays of doing it -i rEll brick or a brlck payer tile. The
Guality of both bricks and payers va~y eno~ously in cost and makeup. just
t5 I bat~room tile can be hand crafted or it can bE machined. We would do
a job c~ns1stent with what we do on our other build'ngs. whic~ in~olves an
ablJndant 'in'lestment in the quality of the bun ding and its 'IJIaintenance.
By the way, that hUildir.g on lytton is being corrected right now. There
.re workmen there. It Is • fixable problem. (,en at 400 Hamilton, which
some of you d~ not like, that 1s a brick paver 11so. walking by that, you
can see it ;5 a very different pedestrian experience from the Lytton
Avenue b~;1djnqf ~hich is a ~ore w€stern bric~.
Commissioner Cullen: This may be a question for Mr. Martin. Is the chi1d
care commltment of the funds dependent upon strictly a downtown location?
The question. of finding land downtown might be problematic. We do hc:le
the commitment from th~ medica1 foundation for thi1d C4Te.
111"', Martin: We aTe 1.::l0ldtlg to dOI,'ehll this. contribution to that project.
COmmissioner tul1en: How are JOu going to deflne downtown? Just by the
outl ine of the dowr.tollin study~ which wou1d e.xc1ude the medlcal fQundation
site?
Mr, MnUn; 'We win actually be attempting to form a partnersnip wit.~
varfo~s finns in the ~rea. Basically the use of the s1Gts w111 depend
upon who jOlns the consortium, We ire looking at it in terms of a
downtown benefit, and we belj~~e that most of the employ~rs inya1ved will
be based dcwntown.
Cpmmiss;aner Cullen: Commlss1oner Hirsch has pointed ~ut to me that 1t
says in the staff report -in or near downtown,-so perhaps that otner site
might ~rt out, with funds ava(lab1~.
Chatman Marsh; In regard to potential for retail on the sit~. J am
familiar .. ith tne site, tla'oling lJsed the o1d building a. good' d~a..l. artd 1
certainly 19ree 'With you that there are some prob1ems there in ternJs ~f
lIa~fn9 it a retail site. Ho~ever, it i:s .a lIIery irnpartant ,elece of
frontage as to how that Cowper area loo~s and feels. I assume that WE can
desig(l. tl\at first flcJt" fi~ade in a l;iay th.at is ",ery pedastriaM-fri!.nd1y.
Mr. Baer: Since that was I concern, .e have already rfcessed the
building. Rather than its being on its lot line. ~e hay~ recessed 1t
three feet along Cowper, Interestingly, if you look at 499 Hamilton or
505 Haml1ton, there i! a 2-1/2-foot p1ar,ter for most of 1499, and there is
a strip alonq Cowper that is about 2-1/2 feet. We are providing three
f~et, ind it ground level, that is a lot of landscaping when it is i~
ground. rather than in planters. lI~tn tl'lree feet, you ~an signHicant1y
i1ter the pedestrian experience than khen the building 15 right u~ against
the Sidewalk fice. Since you can't plant in the sidewa1k. JOU are 9,ven
"0 relief from the building built tc the let lin •. W •• lr.adJ did t,k.
into consideration the importance of how to soften that froMtage to
Cowper.
Cnairman Marsh: Can we get some clear g1ass in the ~indcws?
04/24/91
·27·
,
.,,: I
•
'~;
$' -
. .-1
1'-'
-
Mr. Baer: Yes.
Chairman Harsb: Than~ you.
(onrrrissiooer Christensen; Since there is discussion about 'Working ... ith
the owners and tenants acress the a11ey. and you are talking about
widening the sidewalk "ith a planter strip .along there, ire j'QU
coordin~tfng with them in any way?
Mr. Bur: Yes, we wnl be. But at the same time, r will te11 you
honestly that we did not forewarn them. The blJilding most affected by
demolition is 541 Cowper Street. Tnere are therapists who have been there
for quite s~m~ time. J was n~t aware tnat there w~r~ therapists in that
buildin9, or 1 .auld ha~e been more sens,tive to their problems.
Unannounced re!'llO'I.a1 of concrete slabs is prett)' intolerable and' carmot be
planned .around. They didn't even get a vote on the timing. In the scheme
of things. it is tough to be a downtown builder. There ire so manj
opportunities to make mistakes in neighbor re1ations. That is different
from someone who is building an industria' building or even aiong f1
Camino Real. But with respect to the ~idenlng, ~e have lisa Steik is
~orking vith us pa~t·ti~~ and did so throughout the construction of 529
Bryant Street in neighbor relations. She has started that process of
bringing neighbors up to speed on what we are doing in Parking lot J
construction wnlch begins next week and with 531 Cowper. so we can at~
least be listening ahead of time. I am gen~i"ely embarras~ed. and I think
our checklist Df what to do as good develop€rs downtown nas grown to an
understanding of how much warning is needed for demoTitio~.
CQlIITIlssioner (hrh-tensen: fn tI'le stiff report, there \Io'as discussion about
encouragi~9 those Icross-the alley owners and tenants to open their
bUildings ~p a little toward the a11ey tQ improve th~ pedestrian
e~perience. Also from ~y perspecti~e~ that improves tMe possibility f~r
retail on your side of the alley in your arcade, That is scrr~thing I
~ou'd like to hear more about.
Mr. Baer: Warren Thoits is the o~ner of the building that runs along
University Avenue, along that full stretch of the alley. He is currently
in the proces~ of retaining an architect to redeslgn their building. Most
of the buildin~s do have secondary deli~ery £ntrancts o~to the alley, One
of the prDblems w! kno~ from the ne1ghborhood and from Transportation is
that it results from parking in a red Zone, because of those rear doors.
But yes. ~e will try~ as ~e ha~e at l50 Univers,ty Ave~u~~ t~ ~Qr~ with
the ne1ghbors to create a more usable rear entry.
Chairman Marsh; See1ng ~e oth~r spealers, I ~ill clese the pub1ic
hearing and ret~rn this item to t~e planning ccmmissi~~.
CommiSSioner Hirsth: 1 ~as ~ne of the comrniss~onprs who ~oted against the
fees issoc;ated with the 529 8ryant Street bUl1ding, which dealt with
off-site amenit1es. 1 need to know from st,ff about the $150,000
ccntrib~t1on for child care. I am not opp~sed to child care. 1 1m not
opposed to the applicant ~fferjng to pay it~ But Jim 8aer is an
enlightened deve1oper, and if anot~er applicant. another developer (~me
forward and did not want to pay the SlSO,OOO fee, wo~ld that be a ~ark
against that applicant? I wonder to wha~ extent we ire setting a
precedant ber~ that this type of ~ayment, de.ling ~ith an off-site
L
04/24/91
·28·
"'~1.
~<:
71.·····
...
'.
'0"
i
'I
!
".
L
lmentty. fs now becoming standard, and therefore, precedent s~tting with
resp.ct to .11 proj.cts.
Ms. C.s.: This Is • PC. A PC r.quir.s , public ben.ftt. This Is his
offered public benefit. So~e mi9~t (~aracterize tnis is contract loning,
~Ich It is, and it Is baslc.lly our l.gal contract Ion. in t'. city. If
the ~ext de~eloper came in and said, I would like to get a PC lone, but I
do not "'a.nt to offtr anything, you would ask for something, I am sure"
Commf$s'gr.er Hirsch: I am sure there would ha¥e to b! some pub;;c
ben.fit, bot the concept I am talking about is the off-site public
benefit. Is that not now becoming th~ r~le, or can ene just loo~ to the
site fQr ~ublic benefits associated with thf PC site it5elf?
Ms. (ase; The PC ordinance i5 written so broadly tnat off site sometimes
seems like t~e only way to g~t a public benefit. b!cause no one ca~ think
~f anytning that 1S either ne!ded or th.t they would want to put on the
site thty are developing. That seems to be ~nat is happening currently.
That is _hy off-site contribut;~ns ire being sug9Ested. I don't knew tnat
there is any precedent. pes do not, in and of themseives, have
preced!nt. I do not think it necessarily needs to be thoug~t of as I
(~rrent policy of the city.
CQlmlissione-r Hirsch: In this particular instance. I assume it was Ii ..
volunteer ccmtr1blltion by the dev-I!ioper and was no,-I'1~ng that was asked for
by the city as a condition for st~ff support of this particu1ar proposal.
MS r Case: That is correct.
Chafrman Marsh: Conmissioner Hjrsch~ would you mind if I responded, IS
well, to your question?
Commfssi~ner Hjrsc~: Flease do.
~hainman Mars~: I would harken baCK to the report that is attached to the
staff report that was issued by the Temporary Committee on Downtown DeSign
and Amenjties. one of our more gracefully named committees in the past. I
attended some of thos~ meetings, Specificil'y~ child care was inserted
into the dGcument as being an amenity Uat wotJld be encourag'?-d downtown.
rn th! course of tne discussi~ns, jt was realized by those participat1ng
that child care probably could not be pro~ided on site. It was a major
I!!'nough. amenity that, in fict, were-it ever to be reil ized t it wvu1d ha .. 'e
te be fn a~ off-site capacity. That was stipulated in the report, so J
tbink that fs actually ~here the precedent was set, if there hiS betn a
precedent set. Tnat report was issued and approved by tne cfty cDuncil,
baslcilly stating tnat cff-site ~nit;es, 15 narrowly defined in the
reportJ would be acceptab1e as a p~bllc benefit downtown.
CommiSSioner Hirsch: Tnank yo~ for that. I do net want my comments to be
.isconstrued. I ~ave fi~e children and have been i single pirent of three
for four-and-I-half years when they were ~ery young. 1 know the-proble~s
of Single, woriing parents. J was just concerned about the pr!cedent of
this in tenls of wneth!r we are starting to extract fees from de~elcpers
jn unusual ways thit ~ight~ in fact, hamper other developers from coming
Into t~e ilru.
04/2 4/91
-29-
-'
, -,--
. .-1.
.... -,
-
(omm'$S'gntr CbrtstgO$en: 1 was one of the peop1t ~hG opposed the
original grant for the urban amenity of the cfw;c c!nter plaza. I do not
think thh grant is lppropriate. tither. In my vieil(, it is strictly
loning for sale. If you hive the money, good, you can get your zoning.
and if y~u don't, t~en ~aybe we Cinnot come up w1t~ I good reason for
giving you this extra 8 ,000 sQuare feet above ~hat was carefully
constructed zoning for the downtown. r really hive serfo'Js, serious
prob1em. with t'is.
chairman Mar~h: lxcyse me, but If ~e IrE out of the question period, I
wuuld l'Ke to go through the issues in an orderly manner in the way in
whic, t,ey ore presented In the report.
Commissioner tul1en: On Fage 4, w~en we ta1l l~~ut the downtown park'ng
deficit. the 5Z9 Bryant Street building added an increase in the deficit
by 10 spaces. That is on paper. The fact is t~.t t,e addition to the
garage ~as to provfde spaces that we actually needed for the occupancy of
that building. How ~uch gf in increlse in spaces actually occurred in the
two additional floors that Mr. Baer 15 putting iro in Pa~kin9 Lot J?
Mr. l-tali!Y: be1ieve it was 166 spaces.
Cgrnmissfoner Cullen: So the 1.3 reduction in the downtown parking deficit
II am trying to be realistic rather than doing it in paper figures), $0 if
we have 163, there is stil1 a real reduction fn the parking deficit of ZOo
Chairman Marsh: The first fssu~ elucidated in the staff report 15 the
parking garage entry design. The plan would tall for a 22-foGt wide
driveway, with an additional flve feet on t~e northeriy side of the aCCESS
for the lrea, is well is the covered wa:kwiY on the sQuth~rly Side of the
access.
(No comments)
Next is a discussion of t~e in-lieu parking fee proposal.
t9mmjSsiDneY (hri5te~sen: 1 would like staff to (o~ent on what 1 t~ought
was sort of I counter·proposal tD the staff proposal on the in~lieu
parking fee amount.
Mr. Qverway: The issue of 1n·lieu parking. to ~e. separates into two
parts. ome is whether you believe it is appropriate to provlde for that
opportunity, and the second is the value of those spaces, if you agree
that it is 9ufn~ to be done~ I have to go back and, first of .11,
understand nore prechely what I4r. Baer has added to the S20,OOO, ind
understand what t"at ~a"s ~n lerms of \o"alue. So I cannot cOlll'TlEnt on tnat
it this point. It Is obvlous1y worth something in oddition to t'e $20,000
that he bas suggested. He is correct in !tating that normally. pecp1e, if
they do provtde parl;ng, are not reQuired to provide an lssessment. He
YolunlaTlly assumes to pay that ass!ssment, which I believe he has also
don. on 1529 .1s.. That does amount to money which f10w5 back to the
oth!r property owners thrDu9~ the assessment district.
Chiirman Marsh: I WQuld assume tr.at for purpo~!s of tonight's discussion,
if we ca~ simpl, diSCUSS in pr1ncip1e the i~~lieu concept, we can ltave
the specific fee to be ass!ssed to a later discussion" This;s really ~
L
04/24/91
-30-
., -, ...... : ,: 1
r
1
-
conceptual discussion.
tommissio~aT Hirsch: 1 support t~e idea ~f in-1ieu parking. I think it
;s a great 'Qei. 1 am lQokiM~ it Section O. Perking Availabi1ity. T~e
staff COHlTlents here ref] eet what i ~aye felt to be true with respect to
the Webster/Cowper Garage, and I so stated when that issue (ame before us
with regard to adding two additional floors to that garage. My
drive~thrDughs it various times~ both b~fore. during and after, ref1ected
that there WiS substa~t~,1 unused capacit~t l~d I think perhap$ staff has
come around to that view as well, at least at this time. So I thi~k some
of those parking spaces will be available to this partic~lar project, and
the i~-lieu fee is, therefore, Quite appropriate.
Comm~ssioner Cul1~n: 1 ~ou\d echo that. ] 1m i 1ittl~ concer~ed abo~t
wher~ these in-lie~ fees ~ay be used. The staff report tills about other
prop~rties coming up fer reuse and about increasi~9 t~e parking
avallabiTitJ tllrougn the use of these funds. fs it real1y practical to
consider that, sInce so ~any of the p~operties coming up for redevelopment
~re small. a~d have a hard fnough time prDv~din~ underground parking for
their own reuse, OG you foresee tha.t IS a potentia.l that ca.n bt us.ed?
Mr. Overwav; I did not until I couple of years ago. What Mr. Baer has
done at 250 University Avenue woul~ be an e~ample of that, 1 do not know
~f that Cin happen someplace e1s~ or not. An example in my mind of ~bere
t~at ~ight have happened was the Thoits 8Yilding at 156 Uni~erslty
Avenue. 1n tneo~y, ~e could have reached 5~me agreement to put another
level under there or exhnd anotne-r level under ~i:5 blIilding and the
adjacent parking lot. Those kinds of ideas we just did r.ot consider
pre~iously. 1 don't know _hen they will become iv~ilable or wnere, but
hiving thi~ in-iieu fee and in a1oit'on to this PC, ~e are proceeding
in-house with the preparation of an ordinance for small properties that
Qualify for in-lieu also. We can then begin to develop U,e resources.
For instance, again on tne 250 University Avenue site, instead of forming
a new assessment district or blending it 'in with an existing one. YOIJ
cou1d actually payoff pal"t of the prir,cipal anj fund the n:st ~f it. lhe
city always has the alternative to us~ those fUrJd~ to build a structure on
one of their etisting par-KiM lots, also. Beyond tMat, r do net Ma'l'e much
sp.ecificity.
COlWllis~~or,er Cuilen: That 'Wouic be in i.'dditiOC'l to the assessment
district, ho~e~er, and would impact .11 of the property owners. Js it
feasible th~t tne city might something conSider taking one of the pa~k;ng
lots and putting underground parking in, rat~eT than byilding over H?
Kr. Ov~~av: I will offe~ JOY my perce?t'o~. The planning comm\ssion and
the city council are more informed on that than I am, but my S~nse is that
t~e value of the air rights Dyer these parking lots and the cost of 90in9
down just to gain one level of paT~in9? when you go do~, it gets Ye~y
expensive, and you actually lose some of the surface parking. lou cln
on11 rep1ac! about 7S perc~nt of it because of posts, 1a~dscipin9. etc.
It is veri ex~ens~ve to do so, and ~ou1d norma11y be done wlth some other
kind of benefit.
CQrrmhs;oner Cullen: 1 was not thinking of a structlJre, b\Jt just
underground parkin9 beneath a surface 1ct to ad~ to the paT~ing
ivat1ability. ~e can discuss that at lnotner tlme,
04/24/91
-31-
-~
;
---
•
-
-
Commissioner Glazier: I. too, t~f~k that in·lie~ parking fe~s are a great
Id... My only comment or suggestion would be thit in the staff report J 5'. It sU9gested that perhaps the per-spice fee might t. incr •• sed to
12;,000. It appears li,ely that the parking, when ~uilt, .ill be
underground. and the tnsts of that will probibl~ be more in the Tinge of
125,000. 50 ~y comment is that I would rather see it set .t $:5,000
r.ther than $20,000.
C9mmissipner Huber: Mr. Overwi~, when the in·llfu fees ire paid, and
there are probab1y in-lieu h~s settfng somewhere fn 2 bank right nairl/, c:1"e
there net?
Mr. Ovgrway: Hot fer pirki~9.
Commissiongr Huber: Suppcse these in-lieu fees ira paid, around
1600,000-$700,000, is that to be .sed only to pro,ide ne. parking spaces?
Mr. Ovfrway= It is ~y understanding that it ~as to be used fer parking
spices within the assessment district
Commissioner Huber: You could always pay off t~e old ones. My question
is wheth~r it 1$ only far new ones?
Mr, Ove~ay: It 1S for new ones.
Chairman Harsh; 1 alsc support the concept of in·lieu fees. lbls was
another Qn~ that emanated from the Oowntawn St~dy. We r~alized that
conjoined parking that serves a larger area is much more efficiently used
than requiring each property owner to provide their own par~ing. In some
cases, it is impossible for 1 property ovner who has a small partel on
University Avenue. for example~ to pro~1de their own parking. So the
in-lieu concept is a good one. and t am glad to see us using it.
Commissioner HiTSt~: I want to echo what Commissioner ~1alier said about
t~e $25,000. Mr. Baer mentioned S23,000 for an underground parking
space. That was my understanding of the rough cost at the present time.
T~at WiS in connection with the medical foundation discussion. So given
the fltt that whatever is done will prcblh1, be sometime in the fut~re, I
think i figure c10ser to S25,000 makes a lot of sense.
Chairman M3rsh~ 1 take it thit a spe~'fic number will come baCK to us
when this PC app1itation returns? (Yes) And you will figure that based
on what the applicar.t noted tonight regarding payment 1nto the assessment
district, is welt?
~s, Lytle: Th.t is correct.
Chairman Marsh: The next ttem at issue in the staff report is bicycle
parking.
tommissjoner Cpllen: J am hiPPY to see the staff recommendation that we
tat. this blcycl. pirkfng and put it where it fs most ~eeded, instead of
insist,ng that it be placed in a building ~ere it ma1 not even be ~sed.
[ tMink lt i$ important for bicyc1e parking to be part af the ordinance,
but we have to be practtca1 and real~stic about t~e demi~d for bicycle
L
04/24/91
-31-
,
•
I
(--:,:
j
I
I
-
parling and' the usage. So I am 'lien ~ap?)' to see this rethir,k.ing of the
bicycTe parking provision.
Chairman Marsb; The nett section addresses public benefits that are
p"ovided by the p!"'oject in order to seek ap~ro'olal of Ue additional eight
or ~ine thousand square feet. Tnere are a couple of those that have beer.
proposed. first is the alleyway improvements that are suggested along the
access to the parking 9arage. The second is the $150,000 contribution to
i building trust fund for an off-site child care ce~t~r. Commissioner
C~(istensen, did you have any further comments you wish to add?
COlTlTlissionel" Ct1ristensen! I do I:ot !'lave anything furth.er to say about the
child c.are contribution. Like Commissioner Hirsch, I do not have anything
against ch~ld Ciye. nor anything against employers downtown making
contributions to build child care centers. r do ha'ol~ a problem with the
way this process is ~orkin9 and the way in which this contribution is
being 9';v2n. I feel th-ere are. S03me issue~ being rais~d by this. 'lie-are
gofnS abo.'e the zoning as established in the downtown study. and I don't
think we should do tn.t ligntlJ. We should do it with c.reful
investigation of the benefits in'olol'oled. One of the things I have been
disappointed with in this discussion is that it does not really dea1 with
the issues raised by the downtown st~dy. Maybe we have f~rgotten _hj we
~ad the downtJwn study and why we rezoned the !ownto~n the way in which ~e
did. There are some important public benefits being provided, The alley
improvements are one. I wculd 1ik! to see more information pro'olided about
a contribution to retail vitility. Several ARe members talked abo~t this
being a good place for retail. 1 think it is a £ood place for retai1. We
are encouraging the retail people across the alley to open ~p their retail
spaces into tne alle1. taking more adval'1tage of what will be an impro .... ·ed
,Hey. 1 'Would see that as ill sigrrifica:nt benefit, if it tcmtrlbutes to
the retail vltality of downtown in t~is location. But I do object to the
monetary contribution to something that is not related to the project
it.elf.
Comissioner Huber: I have to coment on this, because as you know, was
the lone vote in favor of the Bryant Street payment. I do not s~e
anything wrong wit~ mOl'1ey payments to de'olelop the types of amen1ties that
we may need in or arou~d the downtown~ be it child Cire, SCUlpture,
landscaping, e!c. If we try to approach it o~ He bas is .:If a physical
connection. i.e., an alleyway or something like that, ~e ~ill short?y run
out of the kinds of amenities we need for p~ojects such as this. There
are on11 so ~any a11eys and so many lamp posts~ etc. It seems to me that
wh'1e perhaps ~e might need some significant touncil direction along those
lines, what we are really starting to do is to look at t~e o¥erall
downtown and SiY. ~e need monies to accomplish certain thingst and the
only ~ly we ~an do it is through this process, 1 process that innumerable
ether cities have been using for years, and we ha',;e not. So I think it is
an excellent concept and one that we ~ill probably be seting more and more
of,
Comm1s$iQner CulTen: I am surprised at Commissioner Christensen~s
comment I because part of the last portion of the downtown study and the
su~ary of it was that we were going to set aside approximatelJ
100,000 square feet for de¥e1opment that wou1d briT,g amenities of urious
tinds, and ~e a~sumed that most of the rede¥elcpment that would cnme in
would be PC's so that we cou1d control it very carefully. getting the
04/24/91
-33,
•
,
---'.'.' .. :1
,--..
t'.'
t.
! ,
I
L
maximum us. of the land and of the public .sp.ct of it. So I i1lI r.,11J
rather surprised to ~e~r w~at you are saying. J would echo what
Commissioner H~bfr had to say. The whole do.~town 15 a very sma:l area,
and .hat Is done In on. block arr.cts another block. I think this public
benefit ;s , ~ery definite ~s~ for the entire area, and I am very pleased
to see it c~~fn; through ~n this project, as I have on the others. Joe, I
voted for ft. too!
tOmmis~1Qner Hirsch; I do not want to l!ave Commissioner Cnristensen all
by herself. ] echo what she said before, and I share her fee1ings. J am
concerned. once aga;n~ about tne preced'ent-setting nature of .. "hat 'We are
doing. If we run into a proj~ct where we have no public benefits on site
that are associated with the project, per se, but a rather large
contribution which could be S250,000 tomorrow and S500,~OO beyond that, J
would look ~!ry skeptically .t tnat project. ]r. t~is partic~lar instance,
] think this ;s an exciting project. I am looking at the color rendition
of it, and I thfnk it beautiful, one of the best projects [ have seen in
downtown Palo Alto. The~e is a lot to be said for this projectj and Hr.
Baer is approaching it as an enlight!ned deveToper for downtbwn, and there
are enough t~ir.gs on site to support it wit~ t~e caveat that I would hope
t~.t the S150,000 i. not precedent· setting for proj.cts in the future.
COlTlTliU30Dtr Slufer: T~e publ ic benefits for this project speak very
clearly for themselves. As a citizen, I look at the rendering, and I.
think it is great. It is going to do a 1et for downtown. r look at the
child care issue as a compl~tely separate one. We .re not twistin9 Mr.
Ba~r's ann to do t~i$. He has volunteered to do it. The council and
commission on a number of occaslons ha¥e said that child care is a
priority. We have someone who is ~ilJing to help us out~ an~ I do not see
anythin.g wrong: with that. If it were i condition of development, w~ich
do not feel it is, ! would have a proble~ w;t~ it, but this is being
prD·offer.d by the applicant, and we should be ple.sed to acc.pt it.
Chifrman Marsh: I would simply reiterite t~e comments made very we11 by
Commissioners Cullen and Huber. ~en the downtown study concluded. we had
agreed that a cfrtain amount of deveTopment wDu1d oCCllr in the downtown.
At that time, t~e city CDunci] very consC:'io!Jsly made i -decision to hring
together t~e temporary committee to look at what kinds of benefits could
be ichieved in the downto~n. Tneir assignment was to look it the w~ole of
the downtown area and to vi~w any potential !quare footage that ~ight be
bUllt in that area IS i tool to craft the amenities and to build I vision
of what we wanted to see the downtown is a whole come to be. Very
specifically, in the disc~ssions of tnat committee~ child care was
~entioned as an amenity being soug~t j~ the do_ntown area, and was
specifically iterated in the report as being an amenity that would have to
be provided off Site, given t~e scope of what a child care center
requires. That precedent was laid out very clearly in 1987, and the
appl1cition we ir! see1.,; tonight was really sculpted it that time. ! am
certlinl1 very pleased to have it come forward. I find it to be an
outstanding public benefit. I differ only from previous speak2rs in on~
aspect, .h;c~ is that J 1m not ab~ve tWisting Jim Baer's arm a 1fttle bit
here. I would like to have some discussion th.t justifies the S)50,000
level and not som.thing higher, when this it.m comes back. It is
certllnl1 going t~ take more than that to build a child care center.
hive not seen that discussion yet.
L
04/2~/91
·34·
,,~ "
''''-.
r
-.
-
(0Im1sstonrr HirsCh; I also wou1d like to set some discuss~on 01 the
reta11 i.t th~ groun.d lel("el.
Chairman Marsh: The final area noted in the staff repo~t is the
discusSlDn of Comprehensive Plan compliance. The report 90~s en to urban
design polictes, employment ~olicies and transportation policies. Any
CD~nts on that analysis?
Comm issipner Cnristensen: 1 think it was just an effort to go through an~
pic¥ out all the Ones that were fa~orab'e~ ~nd we sort of ignored the
Compre~en5i~e Pla~ policies that were not in line with tnis. J tnink it
is okay to go through and say. it is not in line with this part;cular
Comprehensive Plan pol)cy. We accept that, ~ut to ignore the
Compre~e"SlVe Plan polIcies that speak to reduci~g employment potential
and maintaining low employm~nt densities just bot~ers ~e. It is sort of
set up to say. we thin~ this project is wonderfu'~ and we are not 90in9 to
look it any of the issues it raises. 1 don't mird approving the project,
and I support it as propc5ed~ but [ wou1d liKe to see us discuss the
issues t~at it rai~es. and not just gloss over them and pretend they do
not exi sL
ChJirman Marsh: Under the disc~ssion of public benefit. I wish to add one
more comment. J ~.5 one of those who voted against the contribution of
Sl9 Bryant Street toward development of the city hall plaza, The reason
did that was not because it vas an off~site improYement. 1 ~ave no
problem with off~site improvements, otviously. It was because r did not
think an additional extraction WGiS necfssary in tnat ca:;e. In this cise,
I certainly t~ink you do need a public benefit to justify the additional
square footag!.
W! haye gonf through the areas (If concern ."it~1~ U'rE staff report. We do
need an irdication as to whether there ;5 general approval of the proj!ct
as c~nceptua11y presented to us.
MOTION; COlTlTlissioner Hirsch:
illruiQ: By tomnissioneT" H\.lber.
so lI1ove.
MOTIQN PASSES: Chainl'1an Marsh: Is there 31'lj' furt"'er discussion on this
motion? 1he motion is fer general conceptual appro'ofal of the p1ans before
"s.
Commissioner Christ~nsen; Could r get agreement to some more serious
looking at the posslbility ~f retail on t~e ground floor?
(The lI1ak~r and seco~deT agree to include that)
Chairman ~arsh: All those in favcr f say Ay~1 All opposed? That passes
or. a. yote of -6. .. 0, with CO!ml.1ssior.er-Beecham absent. This. will nex:t go
back to the arc~ite'tural review board in May, and will return to us for
full plJnning commission re~iew on June 26.
~::--'--.
. --'.'-.~' -