HomeMy WebLinkAbout0517.091-
Hov.mber 21, 1991
HOOORil.ElE CITY COUNe I l
Pal. Alto, California
lSi WIIVEHSITY ~V[NUE AMENDMENT TO PLA~i'iED COMI1UNITY ZONE (Fe 39741
Members of tne Council:
Report jn Brief
This report and attachments relate to an application for an amendment to the
Planned Ce>mmunity ZlJne (PC 3974) at ;SI U~i·.'ersity~ The ar:iend'ment WOUld
remove the requirement fo\'" only Ground Floor Retail uses for this propprty.
Background
ne Planning (omission conc.eptl.lally approved this application en October 9,
1991. In thefr conc~ptual consideration, t~e Commission modif;e~ the public
benefits to note that retention of the historic building was ill significant
b~"efit and requested that ~taff show the new street trees and sidewalks as
conditions of approval and not public b~nefits.
The Arc.hitectural Review BlJard recommended approval on October 17, 199]. The
ARB recommended adding four condHions rehted to rever-sion of the zoning to
ground floor retail if (atastrop~;c destruction of tne building should occur.
and treat,ment of windows, dlJors and 501 ar control (see staff report dated
October 25, 1991).
On October 3D, 19'91~ the Planning CO!l1'r.ission on a 4 to 1 ilote with
COllll1issioJ1er Cullen opposed, recommended approvai of the PC lO'rle ili1endment.
The minutes of this meeting are included in the tity (ounc1l packet of
November Zl, ]991.
Analysis
Information on the proposed amendment ;s contained in the attached October 25,
1991 staff report to the Planning Commission which includes excerpts from the
application, the Negative Declaration, minutes of the ARB meeting~ and minutes
of the 'nitlal Planning Commission review.
Recolmler.dation
The Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission and staff recommend that
the Council approve and adopt the attached Negativ~ Declaration, and approve
00:517:91
.--
th! prop~sed ordinance to amend t~e Plann~d Community Zone No. 3974, subject
to the findings and conditions 'iste~ beTow.
fiNDINGS
l~ The project will havE no significant effect on t~e en~ironme~t.
2. The ZSl University site is so situated an1 thi! e:dsting Categoty [II
historic building ;s of such a design and char~cter. inc1uding limited
display windows, an ele.ated floor abov~ tne street leve1 and interior
column lmpediments, tnit the app1ication of the ground ncor retail
requ; rement f 5 not appropri ilte and does. not provide suffi cient
flexibility to fully utilize the structure.
2. The proposed seismic upgrading .ill result in public benefits not
other'fl1Se attainable by app1ication of the regulations of general
districts, combining districts or otner City regulations, in that the
b~ildin9 will bt vo1untari11 upgradej to re~uce pcte~tiil har~ to life
and prcperty as a result of seismic acti~ity.
3. The use or uses permitted and t~e site de~elopment ~egu1ations
applicable w1thin the district ar~ conSistent with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, and existing and potentiai uses on adjoining sites
or within the genera.l vicinity, in that the P'!anned Community District
will maintain the same permitted and conditionally permitted uses that
nO\l{ apply tiithin the Downtown Com;;:erci a1 and Pedestrian combining
districts.
CONDITIONS
1. Sefore occupancy, applicant will assure the preservation of t~1s
bu;ldin9 by comp1eting a partial seismiC upgrade of the building so it
may not present a life s,fet~ problem.
2. The Exterior facade and the first floor interior? specifically
IT.aintenancE' of tr.-a ceiling height and cla.ssical features of U1e 'lliiluHed
cellings, shall be preser~ed and maintained in its existing form and
character unless mod:fie~ by an amendment to the PC zone.
3. The a?pl~cant shall, ~ithin six month~ from the effecti~e ~ate of this
amendment, at his own expense and to the satisfaction of tne Publit
~orks Departmer.t staff, replace the sidewa1ks a10ng both University
Avenue and Ramona Street for a distance of 55 feet on University AVinue
and ]}O feet on Ramona. Street. lhe applicant may insta11 decorative
sidewalk, .s appro,ed by the ARB.
-4. The app1ica.nt shall? \oIithin sh months from the effecti'.le date af tbis
~mendment, pro'llide ten Class II biCYCle racks to be placed in tne
Downtown area as deSignated and appro'led by the Transportation Di'IIision
staff.
CMR:S17:9! IIIZ!/~!
p: \~r\enr2SJ!,If! Page Z
/\PPLICATION
CITY OF PALO ALTO
DEPARTMENT OF PlANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
250 MAlo4llTON "''oIf .• PALO ALTO.Ck94101 14'5)329~2441
<D APf'UCANT AEOUf ST
c:::J HISTORICAl REVIEli BOAAll
CZl E~IRO~tKT.l.l IH"I,CT A$S£.SS.~Eki
c:J mN1TrCTUilAl REYlEW BOAAD
c:::J US. '~!T
c=::J HOr.E IMP~OV[MrHT REMODEL EXCEPTION
c::::J VAAl"''' E
c:::J PARCEL MAP
c:::J SUBDI"SION
c:::J SITE AHa orsl"
200£ CAA.'1GE
fllE NL.M.8fR
FllE"lII'" 9-EIA-;J.'1
® APPLICATION f EEISI
mls) :[):-o-o. 00
REmPTI '11-If 'i';;J.
@ PROPEJrTY LCCIil1()N
ADDRESS Or SUBJECT PROPERTy
ZONE DISTRICT :t-: -vw
)5) VA\.J~..uIi'-J AvE.:
( pc -317 '{ASSES SOR' S PARCEL ;"'aER
4 REOUESTED ACTION
.ESCmTlO'< OF REQUmEO ACr!QIj __ -+P.l..C ___ ?,"""p"'l--'e"'-_-.!..(~~to.'IL'''''';!<~f-l:e~ _________ _
-,---,----.".----..,.-------_:_---
lp Re",;..)e r:f
---------------------_: __ :_-
® PROPERTY OWNER
FWlE ~~ PKilNE __ :. _____ _
AO~£SS __________ _
CIH _______ STATE ___ ZIP ____ _
I HUE-BY CEIH[F" TKAT i AM THE OOl~ER OF RECORD OF TMt: PROPHeT'{ DESCRIBED 1~ Be::: 13 MOVE AND THF I ~.PPRDI'E Or
l'rir .ACllON R[OUrSTm H[R(lN.
SIGAA11JRr OF "",EO
DO NOT ~IT( BELOW TH1S tINE
7 ACTION TAJ<EN . IlIoTE 0£C1S10' ~ ARCHITECTURAL ~"m BOARD~ r~~=======il~~~~~ __________________ ~ ~ 'L.,..II<; C .... lSS'OIi f------+---------B :~~OO~:;I1""TO. f------+-------------:-:-:.:.::::=:--.=.
c::l D1R~CTOR or PlA/4NU,. .
8 VOOR NEXl $nO.
c:::J APPL' to THE BUILDING INSPECTION OlPARTKE~ (OR C1HER CRIGlHATI~G O£PARiKEN1) FO~ YOuR PE~JT.
c:::J rrHOI~S ANC CONDITIONS ARE ATTACHEC.
TKE FRru£C"T P\JST CO~lV ~ilTH THE REQUH!EMEKTS OF All APPUCABlE CITY CODES AND OROHIANCES.
-
I
:
I
I
I
1
;'"
-
1.
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO
PlANNeD COMMUNITY WNE
FOR 251 UNIVERSITY A VENUE
Background -PC Ordinance 3974
SEP OS 1991
O[PMttMlIH Qf P,~.lNN~NQ~'"
CITY OF PUG ~lT~
9/-2C-·'?
'11-E IA-"J.CJ
Ordi.,ance 3974 unanimously adopted by the City Council on August 6, 1990
changed the zoning for 251 University A~nue from CD-(GF)-(P) Ie Pc.
Ordinance 3974 is attached as Item 1.
These provisions relating to 251 Univenity Avenue were adopted in conjunction
with the PC Ordinance for 529 Bryant and consisted of limiting the future deve lopmen!
of 251 University which would otherwise have been allowed under the CD ordinance
for seismk: upgrade and historic preseMltion bonuses. By foregoing these bonuses the
Applkanl was reducing potential expaJUion of 251 Univenity Avenue by 3300 square
feet. This 3300 square f •• t apansion Io<s was provided to offset the approximately
2500 square feet expansion anowed 529 Bryant Street
Among the findings of the City Council for Ordinance 3974 was that
251 Univernty Avenue was a historically significant building and t.'18t preSCIYdtion of
251 University Avenue is a significant public bendit
2. Requested Removal of 4050 Feet From GF Combining District.
Ordinance 3974 did not address 'he uses of 251 University Avenue. The
purpose of this Application is to seek '0 amend Section 3{.)(1) of PC Ordinance 3974
10 remove 4OSO square fcc' of the approxima'ely 6500 square feel of ground floor area
from the GF combining district. The 4050 ree' are located on the DOrJ", ... , co",er of
University Avenue and Ramona Streets and constitutes the principal facade area of
hislorical significance.
We arc requesting that this area be removed from the GF combEning district
because the design and historic use of this area prevent ja use for re~ai1 purposes.
Since 1906 the building has served as a bank and financial service branch office for an
but one year, which one year use was a ntis-take and failure. This is descnbed below+
3. Historic Development and Use of 251 University.
One of the first buildings constructed after the 1906 Earthquake was lhe First
National Bank of Palo Alto, a "modern" brick and stone "quake and fire-proof' building
at the corner of University Avenue and Ramona Street. It differed fioel other
buildings on the m.a.in street because of a roanded corner entrance and each window
was shaded by striped canvas awnings. It was one buildi"g in a block constructed by
C E. Childs, president of the Cooperative Land and Trust Company and pfCsiden' of
the rust National Bank of Palo Alto which he founded in 1904 with $30,000. The
..... V>
-''''' 1
-~~:i""-"=":"I.F",,,,,,,q;·,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,-,,,-,~ .. -,,· ,'-~., ·&~L· ',,;,"
>~/.-~~~.'~.·;f ... ,--~ .. :' . -
'--.
-
buildings were in~endcd to house the bank and other busin ... :, on the first level and
offices on the second le""¥cl. A music store was kx:.::ted in the storefront space ner. to
the bank (where Pudlcy'. is now located) and the first telephone office ill Palo Alto
was k>catod in the rell!. The building occupied. strategic po<ition since City Han was
located right next door OD Ramona Street.
In 1928, the First Natior.al Bank of Palo Alto consolidated with the Ba".l< of
Italy (Iater to become the Bank of America) and the building was remodeled at an
expense of $8(1,000. A completely new facade was placed on the building which was
descnbed in a September 21, 1m newspaper article, 'The architecture of the building
is Spanish with sru= finish and tiled roof, hannonizing with the prevalent .tyle
adopted in the newer buildings of the Palo Alto business district. An omame ntal
cornice is a feature of the enerior. The rounded corner entrance of the Fint National
Bank has been replaced by • bronze entrance on University Avenue. AD windnw
frames on the lower 5to%Y are to metal." Still today, tucked under the eaves, and cast
in stuero are medallions with the symbol of a sailing ship, the early corporate symbol
of the Bank of Italy later Ie> become the Bank of America,
In 1942, as the Bank of America, the building und~lWent a."\ enlargement and
remodeling program. Tne building was e",ended thirty feet on Ramona Street, (forcing
the Palo Alto OIamber of Commerce 10 move its offices up to the Circl.), the staiIway
was mo\'cd, new ceilings. and floors were installed and lobby ch(1D.ges were made
including the instaDatioc of a 23 foot long marble counter for bank c"'tamers.
R L Cody, Vice President at the time of construction indicated that the addition was
necessary to accommodate jncTeased business. from L"te Permanentc magnesium plant
and Moffet Field.
In the 1960's, the Bank needed to expand again. It planned a "Superblock"
project created by closing the aOey behind the original building and combining the bank
site, an old Safeway Store site, a parking 101 and an old police station (formerly City
Hall). Two high rise towers and an under~ound parking garage wDuid be constructed
on the site. The project was placed on a ci~ide baUot and voted down i.1 early 1971.
Finally in 1976, Bank of Amer'.ca v.cated the building for larger quarters on
CJwper Street at Lyton where jt remains today.
Newspaper articles and photographs 8rc attached as Item 2.
In 1976 when the Bank: of America vacated 251 Universi!y. it remained vacant
for two years, despite active marketing of t11 e space for lease.
In 1978, Wright and Compatl)l Realtors leased the spare as its pr.ncipal Palo
Aho office location.
2
"--"""------
I
I
i
!
~: II .,
•
. _ .. -.-~,~----
After liffie more than one year, Llte Sp3ce was leased as the: main branch of
Stanford Savings and Loan ksociation which rem.ir.ed in pD$$ession until about
April 1989.
The present owners acquired th~ property in late 1987. At lIlat time, Stanford
Saving:: had a lease expiring December 31, 1988 and due 10 its financial difficulties it
was not possible for us to obtain a commitment from Stanfmd Savings and LoaD. to
exrend its 1eue (in 1987 and 1988, management for Stanford Savings and Loan was
required to report :u Federal Regulators and by 1988 an acting President was
appointed by FSUC due to the near insolvency of Stanford Savings & LoaD}.
In 1988 we agreed to lease the space to Royal Medallion for the sale of antiqw:
carpet.! and art. Royal Medallion was to occupy tite space immediately after Stanford
Savings VlIcated the space.
Stanfora ~ remained in the property untIl about April, 1989. By Iune,
1989 Royal Medallion began operating its retail store. The store proved uruu=fuJ
and this became clear after only • few months of operatior_ It is important 10 nOle
that Royal Medallion u owned and m.naged by local, successfuJ, experieneed retallers
with another operation on University Avenue for over ten years and which is one of
i'alo A/to', lop producing retall stores. By October, 1989 (after leu than six months of
operation) Royal Med.n;"" souglil to vacate the property and 10 assign its rights 10 •
non-retail user. At our request, Royal Medallion corresponded wilh the Zoning
AdminUlralor inquiring whether the space could again be used by • non-retail user
because the space had disronf~ued non-retail use for less than one-year. Under
Ordinance 18.49.040(b)2 R"Y3l Medallion argued that a non·retail use could bo
resumed.
The Zoning AdminUtrator advised Royal Medallion that only a retail user could
lease the space under Ordinance 18.94.040 concerning non-conformi."g uses, a!:d based
on the intent of the OF combining district of Ordi"ance 18.49.
Copjes of relevant portions of Ordinances 18.49 and 18.94 are inciuded as
Item 3.
Roya1 Medallion continued to operate UIlSuccc~fo..liJy at 251 University UajtU
September, 1990 and offered th~ space for lease unul its departure.
Since 1990 we have offered the space fGr lease. Despite vigorous efforts, we
have had no offers from retail usen for the space due to its physical limitations and
unsuitability for relail purposes.
These physical limitations are easy to explain and relatc to the historical design
and use of the building.
"", . .., _.""
$ i
3
/
I
~ 1
!
When the building was COrutrudO<!, and through its various modifications, it w ....
!ntended to be a grand, cIzsslcaI bank building of 'Substance and prominence. h a
result the facade and entry of the building are of large scale. The front entry and aD
windows aJnng UniYersity Avenue and Ramona Street are elevated about .. feet above
.treet and pedestrian leYeL One may enter from University only up 1."'ee step".
Along Ra:nona Street there is no entry to the space and none can be created without
destroying the ~oistoric character of the building, and even then the entry could not be
handicap a=ible. Handicap acceSSlbility is presently kx:ated at the rear of the
building adjacent to the City parking lot
The interior or the bank spac<: is of • grand scale, unsuitable for retail. Ceilings
are about 16 feet tan with intricate vaulted areas, ornate and clas.-;icaL
These design features and the height of the windows from the ,treet level make
retail display impossible and result in this building not being suitable for retail.
We have tried unsuccessfully. Our allowing a retail use in 1989 was a grievous
mistake which destroys the Yalue of the building.
Ha 1 we not ieased 1."" space to Royal Medallion, we would still be allowed &
non-retail ground Dooc use without requIring this PC Amendment because in 1986
when the CDC-(GF}-(P) Zone was adoptO<!, the non-retail use existing in the space was
grandfathered as a perpetual non-retail use.
W. goofed badiy to lese this exemption.
4. Re~uired Pc Determinations... Proposed Uses and Pubpc Benefits.
A ReQuired Pc District Determination.
Ordinance 18,68.080 requires that the Development Program Statement
include information with re:;pect to tbe three determinations st.t forth in ]8.68.060
which are evalu2Ited below.
(a) Existing Zoning Will Not Allow The Prop"'ed Development.
The property is Iccated in the CDC Zone and the Pedestrian and
Ground Floor Combining Districts. Because of its inclusion in t."e Ground floor
Combining District and because the non-conforming exemption provided by 18.49.040
was lost wben an unsuccessful retail u..c.e mistakenly leased the spacer a non-retail use
would not be aDov.'ed to OCc.upy the space.
Since 1906, the space has been used for retail purposes for only 15 months and
tl"ois use failed.
(b) creation Of Public Benen",.
In order to obtain approval for this PC Amendment, the Applicant
will provide the following public benefits:
(i) We will assure the preservation of L'tis bwJding by
completing a substantial seismic upgrade of the building so i1 does not present a life
safely problem. We have initiated considerable SlP.lcrural work during the building"
vacancy which upgrades have been reviewed by Fred Herman. The Building
Department is aware of our structural upgrade plans. This buildi!lg suffered some
damage during the 1989 earthquake.
(n) We will install low-flush toile'" !lIld controlled faucet!'
tJuOl!ghout the building as a water conservation measure.
(ill) We will replace the two street trees recently removed
by the Publi< Works Department due to the poor conditions of these trees and the
damage they caused 10 the sidewalk.
(iv) We will upgrade the rear handicap accessible
entrance, making it of high quality.
(v) W. ",ill provide ten Class n bicycle racks for use
downtown as designated by the Transponation Division.
(c) Consistent With Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use change is consist.,t with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.
(d) Notice of V"s \"';ll'jn the PC District.
The uses within the 4050 square feet of the bank area will
be allowed to be used for non-retail purposes' and shall not be subject to the GF
Combining District.
.... .,
-''''' s
11IIYIRC'IIrtJ1EIiITAJ. DOCu-€.ltnS. -~AL.O Ai. TO [ 1'-2
[W,jRO.'UHL ASS[SS'UI WR<SI<Ht
!>aU fir ~'" <1\ • •
M~",,, or Project .lSI ,'WI \fitS-ITt
g." .... t Zo.I.; co,-p.", C_ ........ i •• PI .. Dnlgnotlo., ________ _
.\/>.1Ie •• ': III... 'I'd' eAUl
t.dd ..... ~o U1&,<:. " rC'St!!~(\/"14
'}:>O Ito.-\ ~c:..-_
.\/>.1,,,<1,. fo., p~\.. Itl\<> .,"'1"1
I. [lIStiNG SITE
Poretl IIop
ARB b.,1ew
UR, UA
Owner: Yes lie
1""ltRl ~@fi1§ ~ @
SEP Q 5 1991
~[.mM["T 01 P,'~NING -. -.
CITY H PALO A1.TC
'11-ZC-'t
9 t-£-1.4-;;I. '1
1. 51,. of sUe TOO 0 Assn .. ,', P ..... I N~. IlO-;lb-t"'O
1. Slt.~ h ownt'dX renttc1 __ by 1$I'Pl1C1rlt.
3. Exlstl"g OR of property of{'Le\ 4"'"
, Celts,)
<II. Total nufttler (If OCC-u~"tsfresf6e"ts IndIOf'~ f'r>r tM tl~5tlr.9
uso .j!£
5. PWlllbtr of u1st'ng Pln:{ng !P6Ce5~ hrtent of compact SPlIces __
Number 0' e.t sting bike SPlces~ C'ISS __
6. lliulftber Df exfst'ng strl.'ct"re-s I VNt. is tPtelr un ----
Will t"~y be MlIIOlfshd fGr thfs prOjlfCt? Tu__ NO_~
7. Sin ~, e~fstf"g strueturts. 1'\ OeD S, h
I. Cnnd1ttOtl of existing b-ulldings. S~ 1".+ 1\ sed ,. ~u~tr or ~er~occupftd units ~"~sfte. t{lA
•
•
10. N_., 0' '''"tol ""i" •• -llt •.. __ ....JN:.:j(.../~4!...-___________ _
I •. 'RO>OS£D 'POJECT
11. [leos;;: ri ~t t 001'1 of proJ~C't
1y!tlt" f,eet
n. lil.olltbt!r (If bul1dings proposed tJ/A
Il.
14.
15.
16 .
11.
Sf ... r pl"Opo,.d building' (In 'qU4re rut) Sgme <>1 at.Jbly
NUOIber or noo .. .t t ~&.l~~Sq ... re f •• t.,. uc:fl n •• r_.IoV(J":!l&a:!!",..,~e:;:<l:...._
....., •• t .f ,lto to ~ c ... red by p ...... nt "Ni. ,etl
Tot., n-.r ~f resfdents Vr NPl.oyees Upedfd' to oc:r.:up'y t ...
• ,ojoct ~l .f,.. bV'M"j ".,..l,.."'J .. J .
tJ/"A For P"!'s~dtntfll un:
I. Total M.~,. af un1'h, ____ _
b. "~r of units per .cn!. ___ _
(~ hpectltd S111u pritt! or .,ntl'!ly rent per '-llh'li un1t. ___ _
~. i 1st khds .r\d shr5 of r~tt:t bu1Tdf"'S, ___ _
It. Ar-el Oof us.a.ble outdoor prh'tte ope" space ptr untt. ___ _
f. An!1 of CC\fIfII01I OJ)tn space, ___ _
g. Prov1stor'l Df low/llOder.b hcOIIIe units:
1) Jilll't>er proylMeS h,. s..leo, ____ _ for I"'fnt. ___ _
21 Sale-.... d/o" I"1!nUI .,1'"1", _____________ _
lB. Totll nufllber of ~hfc'.s t.lpectfd diI , ly ffJr JlP"Opoud prcjfct ';~JeJ
WUIIIDfl'" 0' existing perk".,; SPIel'S lYathblt for t~ proposed
NUIfOeoI'" af nrv parting spaces pllnned' far the propou'<I
Cln. tJJA
I
·.'
131. lre toxic .,tu to be d1S;:haI""9!6? YItS • No,.X.. If ~S. ca.p'et!'
fOnt furnh~ by !u111Hn9 l"s~ct1on. --
o. EJllpr~hd .~"t of ... ter UUige C ... ctpt for r-esfdEnti,., dfo .... lop11t'nls of
fewe-I'" ttooa"' 4 IJn1h "'OC: louttd: 'n the foothllls):
I. _.tlc Igal/ ... 1'._--'-__ P .. ' u,," Igal/ool.I. ___ _
b. C_rcflll1ndusVI.l 19a1/ ... ,.I. ___ _ Pel~ uw 19a1/ool.l, __ _
c. Expocted fl,.. flow delll.d 19a1/oolo'_, __ _
Zl. s."'!)e' dhchlrge din,. (~'f'el" :;0 fh:tuT'!' unit'S on 1yl, _______ _
u. Enl"~)' U'W! fn(~,...tfOt'1;
hd1(lte t~ • .,LlfIts of elpected' eM'I"1Y ~st.
________ TIIe ... eo.
Electrtc ____ ~llft;
Pelt [l.otric _1Id_lV
'ftow wUl the fnergy be used1 IndiCite the wse1i .nd eql,;1p4llertt shu.
i. Space Huting:
Futl: GIS __ _ ITIJIt'--__
Sol.r ___ _
Helt P_. ___ _ To.' ___ _
Ell'<trlc R.,I'tence ____ 1:11 ___ _
Otllo' ___________ _
b. A1r Condftfon~n:9~
NIJl'flbeI'" of IIfIfts, ___ _ lou' Tonrll9'!' ____ _
fuel: eos, __ _ BTUIl, ___ _
SoT.r ___ _ Heo.t RecoY!'r.J ___ _
Electrl c. ___ ,..-lW, __ _
Ot ... , _______________ _
•
Type; ~ntrll S.1~t"~ ___ _ lndhfdual S)"stN'S, ___ _
Arc1~~T.tion lOOp 1 I.
(, other:
I~door Ughttng K~
J Outdoor Llgfltlng tV
CJ
Cooltlng 'V ___ • 8T1JH __
'" ~S "btOT'S MP
~ ..: ~frf9C!r.t'o' Tons er CII. ft. V .... -i X·,Ray COIIpw."te-r
~ ~ ) "Welder Other
\I
2J. .'r pOllution Missfons (Check appHclbh 8.MP'CO r"tgulatf<lns)
Come re la I Ind Indu,trlll only: Soure. Ind tn>o _________ _
~t ______________________ _
H, Type of nol .. t. bo go .. ra tod:
I. S.ure., ________ _ ""' .. 1. ___________ _
b, $ou,d-pro.f!og proposed~ __________________ _
ac,. Dr"iltM9! "revisions (NI/I sfte, ___________________ _
2" Amount of grading propowd (cubic yards, _____________ _
2.14 OfSpofttfon of tItivated fIIIIttrfal _____ , ____________ _
Son" CI, .. VII ley Water Olstrl<t, ___ _
SCX -
84) xre!::~.-X~I~."r,Pol1utfo~ Contral Dfst~fct
Cnrps _o~f~E~n:g~!~ne:,e:r~'::::::::::~ ___ ~_-~_-_-_-_-~~ __________ _ nU""rs_
/
"J. [N" RON.cNTIol OESeR! PTION
". P("runt ."d' dff"tctlon or 'Slope ef' grou~c! at sfte ____ =-N'I/C!Ao.... ___ _
I
)0. Is thh site 1n flood "'UN 1"'1', _____ .:.,..,::...;<> _________ _
JI, hfsthg trH'S ,nil bushes on site-(lht), _____________ _
... o~ (r,
12. T,...."I to be retAOved "1st! I:!:..,e s1 \.c. Ia..
!V~·N "",,~(e.. C*'I efeect hees
s...."e h.c.C" r<,t",CVe# ~ tie G±;j
13. t:'Ol'1dftloft of groul'u: (e.g., pa •• d, pl .. g~d, IrlSl:C0ft~dl t'""' .nd/or
bush-cDvered ,,'t.e'"'iIJ IS
34. hinh'lg b1rd and .",flUl life on sih, ___ ~),)=O:.:I\.:.e."'__ _______ _
JS. U!'IId' ~5es Idjacent to 51: t,,;
c ... .---eiG,~\ •• Type of lind lISe 'roesfdentt." cOIfIfIercf.1 otfter}_-,::.-_"_-'·_· __ _
b. Approxf..,U age of structUr"'fSj ITchttl'r;iurll
cl..,,:,,\ ..... '6 J ..... ~h
I
36. Nohr char.cter of' '~I {fnclt1de s1gnH'tctrtt ufstrng
U';Je.!' I/~jI ,4...~
."'IN.... by _-'J'""""'(f\=--_-"~L!A.!..<i''''f<~ __
~'''_, 8Jf.b/~( ( I
SDUI"CU ____ _
Jlt)re lnrcnn.I;tion 1IiJ,1 be P""E'ql,lf",d before IPp' {Clition ell'l be pr-OCtsse-d. TncMlj)' .... t~
.11 .... ·r!. lIIlly de-by your proJet:t. Can the Phnntng Dep.lrt.-nt if yOU haW'
t'j1H! st f ons •
--------...
follows:
OROIN1.NCE NO. 39 ) 4
ORD!NANCE Of THE COUNCIL OF' THE CITY OF FALO ALTO
Al'lENDING SECTl,O" 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO I' ~I'" R ~ ~.7 ::: [ill
IPAL CODE (THE ZONING },")~P) TO CHANGE THE CLAS . kJ::, to:> ~ Ij L~-,
CATION' OF PROPERTIES KNOWN AS 529 BRYA.NT S ET
;~"D 251 UNIVERSITY AVE"UE, RESPECTIVELY, F"OM -1;UG 201990
(GF) (P) TO PC G
, DEP'Rr"[NI Uf PlAN~:· G
.Iry OF PAlO 1,1.'
The Council of t(..e city of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
SECTTQ~ 1. Section 1B.08.040 of the Palo Alto Mu~icipal
eoce, the '"Zor.ing Map", is hereby a:r.len'::ed to changa the zoning of
certain properti.es kno .... .". respecti.vely, as 529 Bryant street and
25:. Ul"'.ivcrsity Avenue (individually and collectively, tte "subje:ct
property") from the f'CD-C (GF) (P) COIl"1D.ercial Do .... nto .... 'n-Cor..munity/
Ground Floor/Pedestrian Combining District ft zone classification to
the upC Planned Community District ll z.cne classification. Said
properties are sho·,.m on a map attached he ret.;:> as Exhibit "AII and
incorporated heI'ein by reference.
~_~g'_ION 2. Tr-.e Ci'ty COl..lr1cil hercbi finds · .... ith respect to
the s· ... l::ject proper:'y that:
(a) The 529 Bryant Street site is so situated, a.~jd the
'Use or uses Froposed for the site are of such
chcracteristics~ that the application of the geneL
al districts or co~bining districts will not pro
vide sufficient flexibility to allcw the proposed
development, in that the site has ~ narIC~ !rc~t~ge
and a sisnificant depthr as ~el1 a~ intericr stj.~C
tural impedj.-"ents that are not comh.:cive to ground
floor retail uses.
(b) L;evelop~ent of t.he subject property ur'.der the
provisiC>rJs of the Planned Co:n:munity District ... ·ill
resul t i 1"'. public benefits ['.at ot.heI"'\o.lise attair;-::.~le
~y applicaticn of the regulations of ga~eral dis
tricts or cC;;1.bini:ng districts. T:"€:se ter;€"f i ts
include:
( 1 } The provision of pedestrian
oriented improveI11ents to thra
Cen,--er PI-z.a ~
and ~ctiv:ity
"ear-by Civic
[2} Tile pr~5e!:"""\.·ati(Ji1 and Ie use of a Category II
historic building at 529 Bryant Stre~t and a
category III historic building at 251 Univer
sity Avenue.
(3) A redc.;.ction of the C:c::velopment potential in
the ao· .. ·nto' .. rn area resulti~g in less traffic
and parking as a result of the eli~ination of
1
---'''-~''-------n Fr
, .
--,------...--~
the potential for 3. 3:}0 additi~naJ square feet
of usable floor" ar~a at 251 University Avenue;
(.:) The provisior, of street trees, tree grates ana
alley i~provernents_
(5) The provision of recycling conta':ners for
do .... -nto ..... n busiTlesses.
(c} The use or use;s perlIlitted and the site development
regulat-ions applicable .... ithin the district shall be
consistent with the Palo Alto Co~p~ehensive Plan,
and existing ~~d potential uses on adjoining sites
or ..... ithin the general vicinity, in that the Planned
CC!l'J:1unit~t District will l7',air,tai" t~e sa::.e pennitte1
and conditionally pennitted uses 'that no,,", apply
\oIi thin the Do .... ·ntot,.,ln Cc.:nnercial and Pedestrian
Combining Districts with respect t.o both proper
ties, as ~ell as thos~ uses that no~ apply ~ithin
the Ground :Floor Retail Cop..bi:ling District~ .... ith
respect to 251 University Avenue.
SECTION 3. Those certain plans, entitled ~5~9 B~ya~t-
Developed by Jin Saer--:>.E.S. Architects &. E~ginee_'s'l1, date=
May 13, 1990, and those i-as built n plans fer 251 Gniversity Avenue;
entitled "Bank of Anlerica Building", prepared by Bank Planning
Associates". dated Dece~e:r 21, 1~i6, a cop:r~ of e-;;.ch 0; ~:hich is on
file in the Planning Department, and to whi~h copies ~eference is
hereby nade .:::oncerning the full particulars thereof, are hereby
collectively approved a~ tho:::: Develop~ent Plan for tli.e subj€ct
properties, ~urs~ant to Section 1;.68.120. Said Deve!Dp~e~t ?la,
is approved for tte follo ...... ing uses, a-nd subject to the z-ollc.,i!lg
conditions:
( 1) 251 UnivE'rsit'w' .t.:"",!:)1Ut?. ?!1e usp-s per;:,itted
hereby shall be tr.cse '.,.:ses ;en-,itt€..:l :'r, t,l..e
CD-C (GF) (P) zc~e.
(2) 529 Erv2.nt Street. 'It;e 1..:ses permitted bereby
shall be those uses pe~itted ~n the CD-C (P)
zone.
{b) CO!"1ditional l':ses.
(1) 251 University ;:'V8?"Jue. The uses .... 'h:ch may be
~ermittcd in the zonir.g dist!"ict €.s~abli5hed
he!'eby, 5.ubject to obtt inir.g a t;se permit
therefor, are those uses conditiDnally perlT',it
ted in the CD-C (GF) (F) zone.
(2) _~2 __ ~~r,_;; ________ ~tre€t. ~he uses .... ·hich re,ay be
perTIitted in the zC:-JirJg district establishe::i
her£t:y. SUbject to cbtaining a. 1.:.se penr'.it
-.' ......... -""-~-~--------
"
therefor, are t~ose uses conditionally pe~it
ted in the CD-C (P) zone.
(e) Site DeveloD~ent Rea~~at~~~~
(1) 251 University Avenue. The site develop'M.nt
regulations governing the subject property
shall be in accordance with the Development
Plan, and 'w.'ith the site regulations estab
lishec for: the CD-C (GF) (P) zor:.e. provided,
that in the case of a conflict between the CD
C {Gf} (P) regulations and the Develop~el't
Pl.:lrJ, the Deve.lcf:nent. Pla-:-; shall control.
Notwithstanding section 18~49.06D (b), no
furthl::!r expansion of square foctage shall be
allO\ried at this s1 te, excepting only sq".;arE::
footage ",hieh. in the j L:dgnent of thE! Chief
Building Official, does not increas~ the
usable floor area, but is necessaI."Y to comply
~ith state handieap access require~ents.
(2) 529 Brvant Street. The site develop~ent
regulations governing the subject property
shall be in accord~!";ce 'Io'ith the DeveloD!r.E"nt
Plan, and ..... ith the site regulations S!-;'ta~
lished for the CF-C {P] zone; provided, that
in the case of ~ conflict betw~en the CD-C (P}
regulations and the r~velopment Plan r the
Developr;,ent Plan shall control; prov ided r
however, any land~,caping: i~prove:;;er.ts proposed
to occur witr;in t:,e '311ey st.all be s~lbject. to
final ARB approval. Not'lo'ithst~nding Section
18.Ji9.060 (b) ~ the propert}~ roay be developed
to a maximum b~ilding size of 45,600 sGuare
feet and a Floor Area Ratio of 3.~J:l.
(1) 2S1 ___ Pn_J_y_sLr5l. tv ;:'.~ .. e:l\..:e. The pa.::-king and load-
ing re~uirements SQ~erning the 5~tject proper
ty shall be in accorddnce with the ap?lica~le
regulations of the CD-C (GF) (?) zone.
(2) 52_9 __ 9·,. ... y_~nt street... T."'l.e {:a.!:"king and lcadir~g
requireraents governing the subj ect property
sh~ll be in ac~orda~c~ with the De~elo?rnen~
Plan and ..... i'th applicClb~e regulations of tr,e
CD-C (P) zone; provided, that in the case of a
conflict bet~een the CD-C (P) resulatio~s ~nd
tr.e DevelolJment P11~r -t.:-::c D-=:-,'-elC'p::;ent Plan
shall control.
(e) Special Reau ireJ"lent.:;. 'Jhe follo'~ 'Lng cor,'~ it ions are
rnac:a special req'.1ire::1ents GOldit:'·.;.:.ing the approval
granted by this ordinar:ce:
3
·,/
------"'------,----
(1) The developer, at its 0.......". cost, shall desig."'J.
and CCTjstt1Jct· certain improvements to the
Civic Center Plaza in tl'".-e tC1.'"1I:I of the can
structi·=,n of steps, pl2.T1_ters and s€ating arE-as
on both sioes of the pla~d fronting Bryant and
Ramona StreetS. Project design shall ~e
coordinated ~ith city staff, the Urban Design
ce>:mmi ttee and the .ARB prior to City C,,:.uncil
approval. Engineering design and CO~"truction
shall be coord.inated .... ith the P'Ll.::::~c Works
Dep3rt~ent. The cost for th~se Civic Center
improve~ents need not excee~ $150,000. Ce>ns
truction of the irrLprove::~ents shall be co""plet
ed or devaloper shall have entered into an
agree:rr.ent -with the city and post.ed security in
a form acceptable to ~he City Attorney ensur
ing cO:::lpletion of such work in a timely man
ner, prior tc occupancy of 529 Eryant Street.
(2) The developer, at its own cost, shall contrib
ute $40,000 to tt:e Penir.sula Conservat.ion
Center for use by the DOy,'"tcMn Znvironr.!ental
Actic'D PI"oject to previae funds fer recepta
cles,. dl.:.':-:.psters and ocher iter!'.s necessary to
impla=ont the recycling program crganized for
the Downtown. The developer shall make this
contribution p~ior to occupa~cy of 529 Bryant
Street_
(3) The C!evelope:.-, at. its own cost, shall replace
all street trees on B:=-yarlt Street bet;..'een
University and Hamilt',on AVe,jues; and shall
provide tree g~ates for all street trees on
Ram:ma and Bryant Streets bet· .. 'een University
and Hamil ton Avenues. Peplacement of trees
and provis ion of g-::-ates shall 1:'02 subj eet to
the approval of the City A::-borist. ':he cevel
oper, prior to E-.Jildi:-~':r P=:-mit application,
shall s'.:br:1i t a st.reet t.ree ~rc't.€:ct iO:-1 pl'::-I
satisfactory to the City Arborist.
(4) Developer, at its own cost, shall Les~~face
the alley adjacent to the subject property.
Developer sh.:ll f'..:'rtt-.Er be required to resur
face the extension of the alley' frc-:-:l its
property to the edge of the public parki".g lot
behind Long's Drugs, if a penni t to co,\struct
such inroroveI!le.'lts ]-,as not been grar-.ted to
another ~e~son on or before 18 DLcnt~s fro~ the
effective date of this ordin~nce. Developer
shall file a bond or other type of security
satisfactory to t_~e City Atto.rney to -=T1SIJre
cor.,oletion of this ext.e:".sior. .... -ithin three (3)
mon~hs after said 18 nonth period has ended.
Alley pavi~g ~aterials shall be as 2pprovcd by
4
. ---------..,.,;
11
1
1
1
1 ,
( f)
. ' ..
the ARB, limit~d to materials 0:1 the approvE:d
list of the Public ioiorks Departl'!'.ent.. Get:ail.ed
plans of orainage, tClpogra:;;,h:y. e:levati o~s c f
lids and grates, flo· .. -lines, x;::aterials and
cross-sections shall be reviewed and approved
by the P1..lbl ic Works Departr,E::1.t prj or to Build
iJ"1g PE'nnit app.1 icaticT"I •.
(5) The req'.J.irea Housir:g Mitigation Fee $~jall be
based on construction of <5,600 5~~are feet,
a~ th~ rate in effect as of the date of Cour,
eil a?prcval of this ordinance.
(6) Colors, materials and archite('tu!"al co;;'tails
shall be subject to final ARB Clpproval prior
to Building Permit application.
('7) The developer shall provide for t-.. 'O sho .... ,ers
· .... ithin the 529 Br.l"ant Street develop:-.ent to
encouraqe pe~estrian and t;icycle use.
(8) The ceveloper s~all replace curb and gutter
aloJtg the Eryar.c street frontage of the 529
Bryant Stree~ property p~ior to issuance of an
occ'l.!pancy permit. .
(9) The building at 251 University AVeI\i.l.e shall be
subject to the provisions of Sections 16.~9.-
060 and 16.49.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Coae, as a significant building 1:-. the dOWTl
town area. Said building shall not be de~ol
ished Except pursuant to ':.hE: provisior,:> cf
section 15.49.060, and shall be rnainta~ned in
accordance ~ith section 16.49.080.
D~vel oornent Sc:'edul e, CC!"lstruct ion of imnro-"Et:lents 'To:::---5.19 Bi-ya~E----5treet shall be cC7:1pleted and the
project ready for occupancy · .. ·ith~_n t .... elve (12)
,,",o!'.ths .::fter COWJ71enCener,t. thereof. Co~pletion of
the resurfacir.g of the alley cxt2~5ion shall be in
accordance with subparagraph (e) (2) of this sec
tic.1"") •
Prior to start of any ·.;ork in tr.e public ri.-;ht-of
way, the developer and its contractor shall attend
a preccnstructiol"l r..eetir-,g • .,-i t.r. P'-.lt;lic Horks and
Transpo~tation Division staff.
SECTrOt~ ~.
project will have nc
The City Council t.ereby finds that
significant effect on the environm~nt.
this
SECTION 5. This ordinance shC!:11 be effective on the
~hirty-fir5t day after the day of its adoption.
!HTRODUCED: July 16. 1990
PJ..SSED: August 6, 1990
5
•
\
I
11OES! NOlle.
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSE1lT: Fa%.t:ino
ATTEST'
L.a-~?......,,~~
AP PROV E D AS 'ro f :::J},:H:
':X-u ,"" _~"L~_
Sr. Assistant City };,ttm:nc.y
S .... 'Cj7/25} 9tJbdc
6
•
· .
....... -------.. -~,.--------'-.----------6l , I
FROM CITY AITORNEY J
July 24, 1990
TRE HONORA8LE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
RE: P.evised ordinance Rezoning Property at 251
University Avenue and 529 Bryant Street to
Planned Copmunity (PC)
Dear Members of the Council:
The attached ordin~Mce has been revised in accordance
..... ith Council actio!'l taken at your :meet.ing ot July 16, 1990. The
changes include the following:
SHC:bdc
1. }..dding provisions relatinq to Civic Center improve
ments as a required public benp.fit.
2'. Adding provisions req-..lil.'ing paYJllent for rec:J cling.
3. Adding a finding that preservati~n of both build
ings is a public benefit~ and adding provisions
relating to tr-,e historic pr-eservation of the build
ing at 251 University Avenue.
4. Deletin9" the rcqui r€!nent that U',e base:':',ent of 251
Universlty be sealed.
5. Adding 2. pra".risicn to regl..l ire alley 1 andscaping
improvements to be subject to final ARB approval.
6. Changing the allQ~able time for co~pletion of
it:prove:rnent3 at 529 Bryant to 12 ::-:onths.
7. other minor cr.anges ne::essary teo effect the forego
ing ch:3.nges.
Respectfully sub~itted.
~C-a.", R
SUSAN' '-,1'. CASE,
senior Jssistant city Attorney
CC: Bill Zaner
June Fleming
Tony Ber'J'1etti
Ken Schreiber
Jim Gilliland i
i~*
)
I
;X." :""r" , ---";"-
.<. --
----'-';" -.
.' "
: .::
-E LOCATION"
L
-
A IT ACliI rE~r A
"-\.
•
p ,
-G(F ." "1l;:.~i
"~
--1""
)
I , ' . ..,
-
J
• I
i,
I ' 'H , I
.,
, .
I·.·.
"f ..
li
It
\~.
V
..
I
~. , , , , , ..
: , 1
.. ' "
,
\
\
~r ~'--,,'
! '.,
L
"
-
1
I
... ,: " ;:::.. .....
" r
i
I ,
/
"
I
L
-
r-
I
. .., i
:'-..... -----
L
L
.. ,
,
~:-----------------:-
I I .
I
I
L
L
./:~
tlr
til::
! t:..".:,_. _, I::l ~==-~I fiI,~ i ~i .. -...
• \
:.:>: '.---
"
L
-
ala . . IZ::i AN
PALO ALTO, CAL1FORNIA. FRIDA, EYENINC. SEPTEMBER ::;, ];Z8
!B~nk ~f It~ly wiifHave 6pe~inf·
lIn Remodeled Home Tomorro~
.... C ... OE or ...... ;7 ~."'O~lltel 8.~1< 0' 1, .. ,,. Budej." .... I u"' ...... ,11 ... ~ .. " ... "d R,m"";1 IV ... t. C~ ...
I,CIo .. 0' .. P'l"'~ .. "I ". "II""II~':I 111 .. ~"DI,,: UCU"'"" til ,fll'",oo" '''ll "'1"1... "'1 U •• jilt
I"n •• 1"':-1' GII,~L.I • .or 'hoI .... ~II • ,II, L. I .. p' ... ,o,,"!; cillur, .,. ........ '
L
• \
I-
/
I
i
i
I
l
City of Yalo )lIto
J.. 0 .. o~ 10:1'50
TO: p~o A~ro PlANNING CQ~ISSION
PREPARED BY: James E. Gillil,nd
DATE: October 4, 19~1
REPORT I~ BRIEF: 251 UNIVERSITY AVeNUE: Application for an amendment to
Planned Co~unlty zone (PC 3974) to remove the requirement for Ground Floor
r.tall (6F) u ••••
Env1rQnrntnt" Ass~ssmgnt: A He;at1vf O~cliration wiil be prepired for t~e
second Planning Commissfons review
Zone District: Planned Community (PC 3974)
File Nos.: 91-2C-8, 91-EIA-29
APPLICATION INFORMATION
Applicant:
Type of Application:
Cates:
SITE INFgRMAlION
Jim Baer
War. and Fr.idenrich
400 Hamilton Avenue
P,lo Aito, CA 94301
Amendment to exi.ting Plonnod Community
Zone (3974)
Application received 09-05-91
Application complete 10-05-91
Mandatory Iction deadline ~
(legisl,tiv, action)
Owner: Ji~ Baer
Ware and Freidenrich
400 Hamilton Avenue
Falo Alto, CA 94301
Assessor's Parc.l Number: 120-,6-100
Comprehensly. Plan Designation: Reg;onal/Community Commercial
[xlsting land Use: Commercial
Surro"nding land Use: North:
East:
South:
West:
JG\lf'9I\AlSIVNUCS
Parking lot, Senior Center,
C01T"mercial
C(IITlmercial
COlTIrrerc i ill 1
COITITIeTC i a 1
]0/04/9]
-1-
•
.:--------
EKistin~ Zoning:
Parcel 5ize:
PC Phnr,ed CO",""ity 3914
7,000 square feet
PROJ£CT INfORMATION
Project Hi story
T~1s site was zoned Pianned Community (PC) on August 6, 1990~ in
conjunction wit~ th~ rezoning of S2~ Bryant Street. T~e fol1o~ing were
included in ttle dev~lopment rec:uirem€nts for the propert,) at 2S1 Univers.ity
Al,Ienue.
Pgrmjtted and Conditi<lna' Uses: The permitted' uses; and conditional
.sos are the sam. as required 1n th. CO-C (r,F)(PJ (Co~.merchl
Downtown with Ground Floor Retail and Pedestrian combining
districts) ~
Site pevelopment Reg~lation5: No further expansion of square footage
shall b~ allowed at this site, except s~uare footagE that does not
increase the useable floor area, but is neces5a~y to comply with
state handicap acc~ss requirements. This provision remo~ed the
exception to floor area ratio (FAR) regulations listed in Chapter
18_49.06~ of th. Zoning Ordin.nc •.
SpeCial Requirements: As i sigr,ificant historic building in the
downtown area, tke re9u'at'~ns re;ardin~ demolition and ~alntenance
were restated.
ApD),tat1on Sthedule
Planning Commission Con(ept~al review: Cctcber 9. i991
Architectural Revi~w Board re~iew: October 17, 1991
P1anning Commission f'nat review: o<:tober 3D, 199i
City Council review: November IB, 1991
Project pescTiptign
Removal Qf the requirement for on1y Grour.d Floor Retail uses for the PC
zone.
~e'opment Schedule
Since the change to the PC zane will not result in any p~ysical changes to
the property, nO development schedu1e is stated.
MIALYSI51I55UE5
The only issue for the proposed amendment to the PC zone is the
apprD~riateness of the ground floor retail requirement. This building was
originally constructed after the 1906 earthquake and .'$ modified
JG\l99J\S~IVNI.PCS
10/04/91
-2·
•
~
I
,,-
.~:. -
significantly In 1928, and again In 1942. Until 1988, the building had
Always been occupied by il financial institution or a s1mihr office u:'>e
s~ch is , real estate office.
'n 1988 Roy.l Medallion occupied t'e space for the purpose of sal.s of
antique carpets a~d art. Un~er th@ Zor.ing Ordinance regulations, Chapter
18.94.040, at the .olnt of occupancy by a confonning retail us., the
property looses; ts non~cQnrorming status and from that point forward only
those uses permitted In the Ground Floor Ret.11 (GFJ zone are .ll •• ed.
Royal Medallion "as since vacated the bui1d~M:g and the app1itant has
indicated that he tlas not been able to lease the spac~ fer iny confoning
USI!'.
Staff believes that the building at 251 University Avenue is unique and
that removal of the ground floor retail requirement is acci!ptab1 e for the
following reasons.
1. The design of the buildi~9 is not conduc(ye to ret,'l sa~a~ and
marketfng due to tne limited ~;ndow display area and the ~i9h
window Sills. which do not allow pedestrian ~isib;lity~
2. The 1nterior of the bUll ding is :1evated above the street
level, approximately tnree steps. which ~o~s not encourage the
desired pedestrf;n entry to the building.
3. Replacing or Significantly remodeling the building to
accommodate reta" use is not advisable. Although this
building is only a Category 3 historic struct~rel it occupies a
very visible location on Univ~~s\ty ~venue. fhe arc",tectural
1nt~rest of the building and its stature make an important
contribution to the Do .... ·ntown streetsc:ape.
4-. 't.Itdle the 1ntericr of the building is not covered by its
nistoric description. it is visually and hfstorically
intere~ting. The interior of the building is of a grand scale.
with ceilings about 16 feet tall, and intricate vaulted i~eas
that are ornate a~d classIcal. While this interior is
appropriate for a bank~ it ~ould not be appropriate for most
retailers, .ed woul1 prob.b'y be eliminated If the building
~ere in genefi1 reta" U5e.
PUBLIC BENEFIT
lhe applicant is prcpos;n~ thE following public benefits. Staff conc~rs
t~at these benefits are sufficient for the proposed lone change
lIIOdification.
1. Preservation of the bui1ding will be assured by co~pleting a
subst~ntiil seismic upgrade of the building so it does not
present I life safety problem. This will be done witho~t
10/04/H
-3-
-"--.' -----
2.
).
II'lOdify1!'lg the tllJilding through the City's exem,ption ,proctdlJres,
wh~ch were disallowed in the ori9t~a' adQptiQ~ Qf the PC Zone.
The applicant will, at his own !xpenst. rEplace the s;dewalks
.long both University Avenue and Rarnon~ Street for a distance
of 55 feet on University A,enue .nd 110 feet 00 Ramon. Stre.t.
lhe Public ~orks Department ~as \dentffied thi$ project as 1
need.
The applicant .. ill pro .... ide tel"l Clan II bicyc1e neks to be
placed' 1M the Downtown area as designated by tr,e Transportation
Ci'.iSion. lhis is an improvement tnat the 'Trails-partation
Division stiff have identified as deSirable.
C~PREHENSIVE HAN COMPLIANCE
T~e uses and site deve10pment regul aUons within the Pc. Phnned COl'lll1unity
district must be determ1ne~ to be consistent with the Cornprehensi~e Plan.
the objective of t~e Comprehensive Plan considere~ most pertinent to thi~
proposal as follows.
Urban Qesign: Promote the orderly ar.d harmonious development of the
City and the attainment of the most destrabl! land use and
improvements through the review of ne .... development.
Urban Design: Prom.:Jte visl . .lil environments which are of high
a!sthetic quality and vlrieti~ and con3iderate of eac~ other.
Historic Preservation: Encourage private preservation of buildings
whfc~ have historic or ar~hitectural interest.
Environmental Resource: A reduction 1" the potential for injury and
loss of life and the possibility of property damag~ (through remodels
to current code and ~eism1c retrofit).
nNOINGS
Not appl'cable for an l~itlal re'lliew.
RECOMMENDATI ON
Staff recommends that the Pianr.ing Commission conceptually approve the
proposed Planned Community ZOne change, and forward the applicatiDn for
Archit!ctural Rev1~w Board review.
AUildmenh
Application with Attachments
Location Map
JG\IWI\sJW 1\JNl.PCS
10/04/91
-4·
•
-------,--
tOD~es S'nt To
Architectural Re,lew Soard
Jh. Sa.T
10/04/91
-5-
, ...
· -.
,r .,
':~f.'.
itE:~.:= __
liTE tOCATION
529 BRYANT STREET ."",
ITE LOCATION·
251 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
" NOR1K
L
s.
6.
7.
.,-,
;}~ :,. --;"
":'"t' . .-
C·-,
The applicant shall, within six months from the effective date of this
amendment, rep1 ace four street trees on Ramolla Street adjacEnt to the
site and install tree grates for the replaced trees to the l~tisfaction
of Publlc Works Dep.rt".nt staff.
If in the future destruction of tne building should' occur by IIny II1fans
except ordinary wear and t~ar and depreciaticn, the zoning shall re~ert
to I requirement for ground floor rettil.
Tne applicant shall, within six months from the effective date of this
amendment, replate the front doors of the buildlng with more
historically rele~ant doors as appr~vEd by the HR8 anJ tne ARB.
B. Tne applicant shall, ~;thin six months frnm the effective dote of this
amendment, remove the mylar film on the second floor windows and ill
windows sha11 remain transparent.
9. A~y future addition of solar controls to the windows, either exterior or
interior, including but not lim)ted to awnings~ blinds. drapes ind
window appliques shall be subject to ARB approv.l.
\
'it;.w:a{><: .JU~
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER /'
Attac~nts: Ordinance
i.ocatioil Map
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
PTanning Commission Staff Report dated Octobe. 25. ]991,
with attachments
cc: Planning Commissfon
Arch1tectura) Review Board
Jim Baer, Applicant
CMR:517:91
,,~ \;In-\a.r2Slloll1
11/21/91
Page 3
"
, ,.
1
j ,
j
ORDINANCE NO.-=~-=~
ORDINANCE OF ThE CO"JIICIL OF THE CITY OF PAW ALTO
AMENDING 5E<:'1'10N 18.08.040 OF THE P}.W ALTO
MUN!CIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) BY AMENDING THE
EXISTING PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING DESIGNATION OF
THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 251 UNIVERSITY AVENlJE TO
DELETE THE REQUIREMENT FOR GROUND FLOOR RETAIL USE
The Cou~.::11 o~ the City of Palo Alto does OROAIN as
follows:
S-ECTION ,~ section 18.08.040 cf the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the ·zoning Map~, is bereby amended by amendinq the existing
.pc Planned Community· zoninq desiqnation of certain property known
as 251 University Avenue (the ·sv~ject property·) to delete the
requirement for ground floor retail use. The subject property is
shown on a JIlap attached hereto a.s E:rllibit -A-and incorporated
herein by reference. The existing-PC zoninq designation and
de.velopment plan for the su}:ljcct property end that certain property
known as 529 Bryant Street was enacted pursuant to Ordinance No~
)974, adopted Auqust 6, 1990.
SECTIQ~. The City Council hereby finds with respect to
the subj ect property that:
Ca) The 251 Oniver-sity site is so situated, and the
category III historic buildinq located there is of
such a design and character, incluQing limited display
windows, an elevated floor above the street level and
interior column i~pediments, that the ap?llcation of
the ground floor retail requirement is not lippr-opr-iat.e
and does not provide SUfficient flexibility to fully
utilize ~e structure.
(b) The proposed seismic upgrading of the building will
result in public benefits not otherwise attai~able by
application of the requlatio~s of general districts,
co:mbining districts or-other city regulations, in that
the building will be voluntarily upgraded to reduce
potential harm to life ana property as a result of
seismic activity_
(e) The use or uses pennitted and the site development
regulations applicable within the district under
ordinance No. 3974 and this ordinance are consistent
with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and existing
and potential uses on adjOining sites or within the
general vicinity, in that the planned community
district will maintain the same permitted and
conditionally permitted uses that now apply within the
downtown co~ercial ~nd pedestrian combininq
districts.
1
SECTION 3. Those certain plans, entitled a2S1 University
Avenue--Oeveloped by Jim Baer--D.E.S. Architects" Engineer5-,
datfl!d May 20, 199:3, Il copy of which is on file in the Plarminq
Department} and to which copy reference 1s hereby made conc~rninq
the full particul$rs thereof, are hereby coll~ctively approved as
~n amendment to the d.evelopment pl~r. for the subject property
pursuant to section 18.68.120. said amendment to the develop~ent
plan is approved tor the tollo'Winq uses, and s.ubject t"o the
following conditi~ns;
(a) Permitted Pies, The uses per.mitte~ hereby shall be
those uses permitted in the CO-C (P) zone~ as of the
effective date hereof~ If, in the future, destruction
of the build in; should occur by any means ti:xc:ept
ordinary wear and tear and depreciation, th_ uses
pennitted hereby for the s-ub~ect property shall be
those uses permitted in the CD-C (GF) (P) ~one# which
include a requi~ement for qround. floor retail.
{b) Conditional Use.s. The uses 'Which may be permi'ttec:!
hereby, subj~ct to obtaining a use per:it therefor,
are those uses cOT,ditionally pencitted in. the CD-C {P)
zone, a& of the effective date hereof.
(e) ~peve'opment RegulatiODs. T,,-'le site develop:!Dent
regula.tions qoverning the subject property shall be in
accordance with the amendment t~ the d~velopment plan
approved by ~~is ordinance, and with the site
development regulations established ~or th~ CD-C (P)
zone; provided, that in the case of a conflict between
the Co-c ,P} regulations and the development plan, as
amended} the developlIIent plan, as amended, shall
control. Notvithstanding Section 18 149.060 (b), no
further expansion of square footage shall be allowed
at the site, excepting only square footage which, in
the judgment of the Chief Building Official, does not
increase the usable floor area, byt is nacessary to
comply with state handicap access requirements. In
addition. tbe exterior facade and the first floor
interior of the building shall be preserved and
maintained in its existing form and characte~.
(d) Parking and Loading Requirements. No change.
(02:) Special Regujr-ement§.:. The followinq conditions are
maoe special requirements conditioning the approval
qranted by this ordinance:
{1) The developer shall, at its own cost, within one
year from the effective date of this ordinance,
complete a partial seis~ic upgrade of the
existing buildinq so that it may not present a
life safety p~oblem.
2
---' .... 'PIiII"'.llJlIl,
(2) The developer shall, at its own cost, replace
the side'Walks along both Cniversity Av·enue and
Ramona street for a distance of fitty-rive teet
on University Avenue and one hundred ten feet on
Ramona Street ~ The desiqn of the sidewalks
shall be as approved by the architectu~al review
board and shall be installed to the satisfaction
of the director of the public works depart~ent~
Said sidewalks shall be replaced .·ithin six
months of the effective date of this ordinance~
(3) The 6evelop4!'r shall, at its own cost, provide
ten Class II bicyc!e zacks to be placed in the
downtown area as desiqnated and &pproved by the
Chiet Transporta.tion Official~ Said bicycle
racks shall be installe~ ~ithin six months of
the effective date of this ordinance~
(4) The devel0?er shall, at its own cost, replace
four street trees, and install tree grates for
such street trees, on Ramona Street adjacent to
the subject property. Replacement of the trees
and provision of the grates shall ~e subject to
the approval of the City Arr0rist and shall be
completed within six months of the effective
date of this ordinance~
(5) The developer shall, at its own cost, replace
the front doors of the building with more
historically relevant coors, as approved by the
historic resources board and the architectural
review board. Replacement of the doors shall be
completed within six months of the effective
date of this ordinance.
(6) The developer shall, at its own cost, re~ove the
mylar film on the second floor ~indows of the
building, and all of the windo'Ws shall remain
transparent. Such removal shall be completed.
wi-thin six months from the effective date of
this ordinance~
(7 J Any future addition of solar controls to the
-windows of the building, either exterior or
interior, including but not li~ited to ~wning$,
bl inds, dr-apes and -window appliques, shall be
subject to the approval of the ~rc:hitectural
review board.
(f) pevelopment Sched~le. Construction of all work to be
done pursuant to the emendment adop~ed by this
ordinance shall be completed by December 31, 1992~
SECTION f. The City Council hereby finds that this project
~ill have no significant effect on the environment.
3
911119 b6c: 002m92
SECTION ~.
comm2ncement of the
adopt i on •
INTRODt'CED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
city Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
This orClinance shall be
thirty-first ../lay alter
APPROVED:
Mayor
city Manager-
effective
the date
on
ot
Assistant City Attorney
4
'lll J9 b& 0020J91
Director of Planninq and
Community Envlronmant
C, .
tile
its
...... "_ .. ~r
~ !
. r
.IJJFi~~~
c: SITE LOCATION·
529 BRYANT STREET
:.' ..
SITE LOCATION·
2S1 llNIVfRSlTY AVENUE
fitp of palo )lIto
" 0 lell: I02~O
PAlO ~TO. CAUfORNJA '''JOl
TO: PALO ALTO PLANHING CO~ISSION PREPAREO BY: J. G111nand
DATE: October 25, 1991 fILE NO.: 91-ze-s, 90·E!A-29, 91-ARB-145
PROJECT INFORMATION
Lpcat ion ;
Appl icant;
Prap.rty Owner;
Requested Action:
PROJECT SU!!IASY
251 UniversHy AveraJe
Palo Alto, CA 9~301
Jim Baer
Ware and Freidenrich
400 Hamilton Avenue
P,lo Alto, CA 94301
Jim 8aer
Ware and Freidenrich
400 Hamilton Avenue
P.l0 Alto, CA 94301
Planned Community Zone Amendmont (PC 3974)
The applicant propose, to amend the existing PC ,one for t~IS property to
reMOve the requirement for only Ground floor Retail uses for the property at
251 University Avenue.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
St.ff recommends that tho Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
adopt th~ Negative Declarlt;~n and approve the proposed amendment to t~e
Planned Ccomunity Zone Change.
SITE INFORMATION
Site Information Ind addition.l analysis is contained in the .ttached October
C, 1991 report to the Planning Commission.
Preliminary review by Planning Commission on
October 9, 1991. The Planning cOlllnission
conceptually approved the amfndment removing the
reQuiremfnt for grour.d fleor retail uses. The
Commission modified the ita!f recommended public
benefits and conditions t~ include r.tention ~f
Page 1
10/25/9]
Mandatory Action pate's};
Environmental [~
Asses:;mgnt;
PU811C BE'NEFIT
•
the historic facade and interior first flDor~
These changes are shown f~ the public benefits
and co~ditlons of this report (minutes of the
meetfng are attachEd).
final r.vie~ by Archlt.ctural R •• i.~ Board (~~B)
on October 17. 1991. ihe ARB recommended
approval with the addition af four conditions IS
outlined in the .n,lysls section of thl. report.
The .ppllc.tion w.s filed on September S. 1991.
.nd was deemed complete on Ottober 4, 1991. The
Planning CommiS$i9n held a public hearing within
90 days of that date~ as reQuired by ordinance.
The Planning Commission acttd fa~orably in its
i~it1il reyie~ of the Planned Community
amendment application, and referred the
develop~ent plan to the ARB for re~iew. The
dev€l~p~ent plan was approved by the ARB, and is
now being returned to the Planning Commission
fc~ final re~iew and recommendation to the Ctty
Coune; 1.
The item is t~~,tativelj1 scheduled fOf Cit.t
Counc11 action November 25, 199J.
An £nvironmental Impact Assessment recomnending
i Negative Declaration is attached.
The primary public benefit of this PC amendment will be completion of the
seismic upgrade of the building. in conformance with the 1985 Uniform Building
Code, by December 31, 1992. It shou1d be noted that this a voluntary seismic
u~grade and not m.ndated by the City.
In addition, the app1icant .ill preserve and main~ain the exterior and first
floor interior cf the Category III historiC bui1ding in its existing form and
character unless modified by an amendment to the PC zone.
A!!ALYSJS
In their review. the Arch1tectural Revie. Board agreed that the building
design allowed far ver~ limited retial potential, hcwe~er. t~ey were concerned
about the loss of retail vitality and pedestrian assets in this key location
~n the downtown. In order to minimile this loss, they felt that conditions
were approprfate that wou1d allow pedestrians visual access tQ the interior of
the building. They al.o f.lt that the historic and archltectur,l charocter of
P.ge 2
10/25/91
' .
$
r
the building should be returned by replacing hlstoric.lly in.~proprlate
~odificatipn$ that have been made through time, such is t~e fro~t doers and
the mylar f11. placed on the second floor windows. Th. ARB took this position
;1nce the basis of the i~pli~ation was preserving the ~u11ding as I histor1tal
and art~itecturil asset to th! downtown.
T~! ARB added conditions are as fol1ows.
1. If In the future destruction of the building should occur, the zoning
sha11 revert to-i requ irement for ground floor retai 1 ~
2. The front doors of the building sh.l1 be replaced with more hl,toric.11y
re1e.ant doors as approved by the ~i.torlc Resources Board (HRB) .nd the
ARB.
3. The .ylar film on the second floor windows shall be remo,ed and .11
windows shall remain tr!~sparent.
4. Any future addition of soTar controls to the windows either exterior ~r
interior, including but not limited to awnings, b1inds, drapes and
~;nd~ applique. shall b. subject to ARB approval.
COKPRE!!ENSIYE PJ..M!_ ... C .. O:.~P~boJ.!~AN""C",, _________________ _
T~e uses and site d~ve1opment regu1ltions ~'thin the PC P1anned Community
district must be determined to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The
objectives of t~e Comprehensive Plan considered most pertin~nt to this
propo •• l are as follow •.
Urban Desfgn: Promote the orderly and harmonious development of the
('1t)' and the attainiTIf!rlt of the most dt!sirabh land use and impl"'o'llements
through the review 0' ne. development.
Urban Desjgn: Promote v1~ual env~ronments which are of high aesth~t1c
quality and variety. and considerate of each Dther~
Historj: Pre5ervation: Encourage pri'llate preservation of buildings
which ha'lle historic or architectural interest.
En'rlTQnmental Rqource·: A reduct:on in the potentia' for injury and
loss 0' life and the possibility of property dam,ge (through remode1s to
current code and seismic retrofit).
RECGI!MENOATIOH
Staff r,,,mends that the Planning Com;sslo" reconmend that the City Council
approve and ~dopt the attached Negative OeclaratlQn~ and app~ove the proposed
ordinanCE to amend the Planned Community lone No. 3974, subject to the
findings and conditions listed below.
.:~1 Page 3
10(25(91
f' ,
.-~ ..
flHP1HGS
]. The project will ha .... e no sigilificant effect on tile environment.
2. The 251 University site is so situated. and the existing C.tegory III
historic building is of such I d€sign an~ charicter including l'mited
di~pllY wlfidows. a~ elevated floor above the street le~el ind interior
col~ impediments, that the appiicatfon of the ground floor retail
requirement is n~t appropriate and dees not pro .... ide suffic.ent
flexibility to fully utilize the structure.
2. Tlie proposed seismic upgrading will res'Ult in pubHc benefits not
otherwise attainable by application of the re~ulat;ons of general
districts, comb1n1ng districts or other City regulations, in that the
building will be voluntarily upgraded to redu~e pote~tial harm to life
and property as a result of seismic activity.
3. The use or uses permitted and the site development regulations
appl1cabh within the district are consistent ~itn the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, and existing and potential uses on ~djoln;ng sites
Dr wjthin the general vicinity. in that the Planned Comunity D~strict
will maintain the same permitted and conditignally permitted uses that
now apply within the Downtc~n Commercial and Pedesl~ian combining
districts.
CpNpITIONS
I. By December 31, 1991, applicant shall complete .eismic upgrade of
the EXisting building in conformance with t~e 1988 Uniform
Building Code.
2.
3.
4.
The exterior facade and the first floor interior, specifically
maintenance of tne ceiling neight and classica' features of the
vaultEd ceilings, shall be preserved and r.aintained in its
existing fo~ and chaiacter unless modified by an amendment to the
PC zon •.
The applicant shall, lIIithin six months frorr. the ef'ective date of
thj$ am~ndment. at his own expense and to the satisfaction gf the
Public Works Department staff, replace the sidewa1ks along both
University Avenue and Ramona Street for i distance of SS feet on
University Avenue and 110 feet on Ramona Street. The applicant
may install decoratfve s;de~a1ks as approved b) the ARB.
The applicant shall within six months from tbe effect;~e date Df
this amendment, provide ten Class II bicycle racks to be placed in
the Downtown ~~ea as d~signated and apprDved by the Transportation
OJ v is i on .s ta ff.
Page 4
10/25/91
.i
I
i
j
I
I
I ,
!
5.
6.
7.
.~
The applic:ant shall 'aIIi~hln silt months frolT~ the effective date of
t~i$ amendment replace a maximum Df four street trees on R~mona
Street adjiicent to the s; te and 1nstall tree grates for the
rep1aced trees to the satisfa~t;on of Public ~oris Department
staff.
If in the future destruction of the building should occur by any
means except crdln3ry .. ear and tear ;and deprechtion, the zoning
shall revert to I requirement for ground floer reta1l.
The applicant ,ha", within .i •• onth. from tho .ffective d.te of
this amendment feplace the f~ont doers of the building with IIOre
hl.to,;c."y relev,"t doors as .pproved by the HRS ,nd the AR~.
s. The applicant shall. withIn six months from the effective date of
this amendrn@nt, remove the mylAr film on the second floor windows
and all windows shall remain transparent~
9. Any future additi~n ~f s~1&r controls to the windows. either
exterior or interior. including but not lim~ted to awnings.
b1i"ds, drapes .nd w;ndo~ applique. sh.11 b •• ubject to ARB
approval.
emct!1ENTS
Ordinance
lcx:1t i on Hap
[nvtro~mentl1 Impact Assessment recommending Negative D!claration
Planning Comm!.sion staff r.port dated October 4, 1991 (with .ttachments)
excerpt Planning CommiSSion minutes of Oct~ber S. 199J
Excerpt ARB minutes of October 17, 1991
COPIES SENT TO
Arthitecturil Review Board
Jim eaor
Page 5
10/25/91
•
\
,
~' . . ,
.'
I
I
I
I
1
1
-
OROIN~~CE NO.-=~-=~
ORDINANCE OF TI!E COUNCIL OF THE CITi' OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECT!ON 18.08.0'0 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONIIIG HAPj Bi' AMENDING THE
EXISTING PLANllED CO/:MlJNlTi' ZONING DESIGNATION O!
THE PROPERTi' I\NO'"N AS 251 UNIVERSITY AVEmiE TO
DELETE THE REQUIREMENT FOR GROUND FLOOR RETAIL
USE
The Council of the city of Palo Alto does OR!:lAIN as
follows:
S~CTIQN 1. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
CCQe# the ·Zoninq Map", is hereby amended by amending the existing
·PC Planned Community· zoning designation of certain property k.!"lovn
as 251 University Avenue (the "subject property") to delete the
requirement tor qround floor retail use. The subject property is
shown on a map attached hereto as Exhibit ·A" and incorporated
he:-ein :by reference.. The existing PC zoning designation and
development plan for the subject property and that certain property
known as 529 Bryant Street ~as enacted pursuant to Ordinance No~
3974, adopted August 6, 1990~
~~. The City council hereby ~inds with resp~ct to
the subject property that:
{a} The 251 University site is so situated, end the
Category III hi,..teric building located tl",ere is o£
such a desiqn and character, includinq limited ~isplay
windOWS, an elevated floor above the street level and
interior column impediments, that the-application of
the ground floor-retail requirement is net appropriate
and does not provide 5ufticient flexibility to ~ully
utilize the str~ctYre.
(bJ The proposed &e-ismic upgrading of the l)!.dl~inq .. ill
result in public benefits not othe~i5e ~ttainable ~y
applicatic~ ot the regulations of qeneral districts,
combining districts or other City regulations, in that
the buildinq will be voluntarily upgraded to reduce
potential harm: to life and property as a re&\,llt of
seismic activity.
ee) The use .or uses permitte~ and the site development
reql.llations applicable within the district under
Ordinance NOa 3'!n.c and this ordinance are consi&tent
~ith the Palo ~lto Comprehensive Plan, and Rxistinq
and potential uses on adjoining sites or ~ithin the
general vicinity, in that the planned community
district will maintain the same permitted and
conditionally pE:I"lllitted uses that noW' apply 'Within the
downtown commercial and pedestrian combining
districts.
1
9Jl«!,,1HIc-Qmo:m_
,;.-
gCTION' l. Those certain plans, entitled "251 University
Avenue--Oeveloped :by Jim Saer--D.E.S. Architects' Engineers",
dated May 20, 1990, ~ copy of 'Which is on file in the Planning
Department, and to ~hich C09Y reference 1s hereby made concerning
the full particulars thereof, are hereby collectively approved as
an amend:r:ent to the dEvelopment plan for th"! subj ect property
pursuant to section 18.58.120. Said amendment to the development
plan 1s approved for the following uses, and subject to the
following conditions:
(a) ~ Uses, Il'he '.lses permitted hereby sha.ll be
those uses permitted in the CD-C (P} zone, ~s ot the
effective date hereof. It, in the future, destruction
of the building should occur br i!lny mear..s except
ordinary wear and tear and depreciation, the \Jses
permitted hereby tor tne subj ect property shall :be
those uses permitted in the CD-C ,GF) {P) zone, Which
inclu~e a requirement for ground floor retail~
(b) Conditional Uses:. The 'Uses 'W'l".:ich may be permitted
hQre~y, subject to obtaining a ~se permit therefor,
are those uses conditionally permitted in the CD-C {P}
zone, as of the ef!ec::tivl,! date hereof.
eel Site Development Regulations. The site development
regulations governing the subject property shall be in
accor~ance with the amendment to the development plan
approved by this ordinance, and with the site
development re~~lations established for the CD-C {P)
zone; provided, that in the case of a conflict betveen
the CD-C (P) regulations and the development plan, as
aI!'\ended, the development plan, as amended, shall
control. Notwithstanding section 18. 4!L 06C (b), no
further expansion of square footage shall :be allowed
at the site, excepting only square footage which, in
the judgment of the Chief Building Official, does not
increase the usable floor areal but is necessary to
comply with state handicap ~ccess requirements~ In
addition, the exterior facade and the first floor
interior of the building shall be preserved an~
maintaine~ in its existing form and character.
(d) Parking and Lo~t~_eg\liremer1ts. No change ..
(e} Special Requirements. The following conditions are
lJIade special requirel:lent,s conditioning-the approval
qranted by this ordinance:
9110104 bOc 00203112
(1) The developer shall, at its own cost, within one
year from the effective date ot this ordin~nce,
complete seismic upgrade of the existinq
building in confoI'JlOance \rr'ith the 1988 l1niforJ:I
Building Code.
2
•
j
!
I
'I
I
I
i
(2) The developer shall, at its O'tln cost, replace
the sidelJal;';'s alonq both t'niversity Avenue ar.d
Ramona Street tor a distance of fifty-five teet
on University Avenue and one hundred ten ~eet on
Ramona Street~ The design of the siaewalks
shall be as approv2d by the architectural review
board ~nd shall be installed to the satisfaction
of the director of the p~lic works department.
Si5id sidewalks sh3ll be replaced. within six
months of th2 effective date of this or~inance.
(3) The: developer shall, at. its own cost, provide
ten Class II bicycle racks to be placed in the
dovntown area as desiqnated end approved by the
Chief Transportation Of.ticial. Said bicycle
racks shall be installed within six months of
the efte~tive date of this ordinance.
(4) The developer shall, at its own c~st, replace a
maximum of four street trees, and in$tall tree
qrates for such street trees, on Ramona Street
adjacent to the s~ject property. R~placement
of the trees and provision of the grates shall
be subject to the approv~l of the city Arborist
and shall be completed within six months of the
effective date of this ordin&llce~
(S)
(6)
(7)
The developer shall, at its own cost, replace
the front doors of the building with more
historically relevant doors, as approved by the
historic resources board and the architectural
review board. Replacement of the coors shall be
cOl&pleted within six months of the effective
date of this ordinance.
The developer shall, a~ its own cost, remove the
J%iylar film on the second tloor windows of the
building, end all of the windowS shall remaih
transparent ~ Such removal shall be completed
'Wi thin six months trom the effective date of
this ordinance.
MY future addition ct solar controls to the
windows of the building ~ eitner exterior or
interior, including but not limited to awnings,
blinds, drapes and 'Window appliques, shall be
subject to the approval of the architectural
review board.
(f) Development Scbedule. construction of all work to be
done pursuant to the amendment adopted by this
ordinance shall be completed by December 31, 1992.
SECTION 4. The city Council hereby finds that this project
viII have no Significant effect on the environment.
3
'110]4 l* OOlOlPl
SECTION'S.
commencement of the
adoption.
IIITROOOCEO:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ASSENT:
}.1ISTEN'I'IONS:
ATTEST'
city Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
•
This crdinance eh~ll .be
thirty-first day after
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manaqer
effective
the date
Assistant City Attorney
tllCn~ We: 00lQl9'2
Director of Planning and
community Environment
" .
LOCATION
E LOCATION·
-~ .. -... ',--,
L
-""--,"-
" NORTH
. -~.
'~-".
0';'
\ 1
" \ • ,
4
i -,.
i , ,
i
1
j ,
I
j
I
J
fnvironmental Documents· City of Fila Alto
fNVIROllMEN,Al ASSESSMENT
Project OescTlption/Title: Application for a zon1~g map ,mendment to
remQ1ie the ritCl1l1rement for Ground Floor Retail (GEl use fQr Ue Phnn!d
CQrtrnunity lene {PC 3974) at 251 Unive:rsity A .... enue __ _
251 UniyerSjty Av€nue
Sponsoring Agency/Appl iCiI'nt: ...>LJ.!.jim ..... B"a"e!...r ___ _
Address and Telephone of AppTica~t: c/o WarR an~ Freidenrich. 400
Hamilton Avenue. palp Alto. ca 94301
Application for: ~Zo~n~.~C~~~.n~g~e~ __________ . ___________________ _
(e.g., loning change. subdi .. isioTl of prc.perty. arc:flitec.tIJra,l review, use
perma)
Zoning at Project location: PCl974 Fee ReceIpt No.: 91-4S?
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
Based upon review of the project files. the underSigned member of the
Planning Department has concluded:
IXI Negati~' Declaration: The project has no significant envfron~nti'
impact. N~ En~ironme~tal lmpact Report 1S required. The reasons for
a Declarat~on Ire:i" the attached project description. A record of
the project action is available for review at the Palo_ Alto Planning
Qn.!rtment. located on the 5th floor of (itv Hall. 250 Hamilton
Avenue. Palo Alto. CA.
CI The project may h ..... 2 iI significant environmental impact. An
EnVironmental Imp.ct Report will be prepared.
Planning Departm.nt Offichl: J? .. £ AlI'LL£!
PlanT,ing Director: xe.~Sd~
The project has been approved.
T~e project has been denied.
Revi sed 8/1/79
Date:
Date:
Date:
File No.: 9!-EIA-Z9
",
•
•
_ ~ ___ 1 ------::
The app1icant prcposes to rerno~e the Exist~ng ground floor retail (Sf)
requirement frlJm the Pla,.,n!d Community (PC) zone at lSi Univers'ity Avenue.
The e~ist;ng building is I category III h15tO~ic building that was
originally constructed in 1904. Significant additlons and a remodel in
1928 resu1ted In the basiC de,.ign of tho current buildi". This building
was designed to house the consclid~ted First National Bank of Pale Alto and
the Bank of Italy (l'ter to become the Bank of America). The design of the
building was 1~tended to match the required strength and fortress
appearance of i bank. The first floor was raised three to four feet above
the sidewa1k.. wfndolJr.'s ilTe not designed for ;sp1ay of merchandIse and views
1nto the building are limited. Thes. factors limit the buildings
suHabl ity for rethl IJses.
The project is located within the Univers,ty Avenue Assessment distr\ct. A
change in the zoning f~r this building will not have an impact on p2rki~9
as the building has historically been used for offices and fi naodal
services. Additionally. Dffice ~ses generally generate less parking demand
than retail uses and the assessment district allows for i blended parking
rate of one space for 250 square feet of fl~or area regard1ess of use.
Th.c! rezoning wl1l have no other significant impacts on the envi'onment.
'---.. ~ .. -. _._---
"
L
-
•
. " ..... ",":"~.~-" <
·71
,
., -: r
! ,
~' ...;
-.~ ,
·,~c·.
'1i
,
L ,--,
"
I
I
'-
,
, , Old Bank of America ,-
Th, r~:!!'~!['o~ A~~,,:'a 1~'n~,~t~'ls.~I'~rloYt or
bL,H!C:1l1,a: .:t1l:mu-rsH)I A"enue and Blrl" of Arr:e;.c,,', Contlnenl",!
R..monoi Slr~ In P.a.lo Aho hl.~ Sen'lce Cc., \.,,11.0 brCl'''':r.rd. the
bl.-"tn 50ld by Ibt b .. nk LO D,)~n a"nk or ,'&'rnerl(:01 tn.illdl~' 'S.h~.
MolY .iii s..u.~lIto devtloper. The ccmmenLed .... 'her. iI"~C'd If Ihe
saJepn..:e .,.'U rrpvrtf'dly Im,ooo !u,u!dmr h~d tieton. liOk:! 10 May "1
M;ay de<"lmed to Tl"Spcnd to In· ,,1It'Ss 50," He dt("llne-d (D c"m~"i11
qUlrin .. b.out tll~ ,pi.lns for th.:: funtuer. ., ."" • '., _ .
bOllldll"lg, but iirchlteq B",b Hum!>
~rry hu 'ppl,cd for a bUlldm,
pumlt LO Lns.talJ .sfll't't rock on the
s .. -:Qnd f1cor -"",,,II,, and CellinI:.
Ik·rry' ... p~lu:...ilior. M ... mf'lo the'
~ ropo~...,j b .. ul.:jot.'r ,u· BanI>: PjanrllOi!
":''''»'''':loItes. wh,<:h h .. 1i th~ •.• HTlC
S"u.>lh!o .a.ddrll!':..5 &5 ~1.y. 180 Har.
The b~nk bUIJdlrll: JI 251 UnJvl.'r.
slty ,I,.\'~ ~a~ fr:'I1"J.llned unoecl.Ip.,1:"d
su~ce the b;:nk mov~d to IH ........
qu...r"'er!i on lyl,on A"",11U'" La~t
June The (J~d banJo. bUI1:::hn~ ~iI~
.a.bc.u;t )8000 :.qu ... r(,! rttot (.J( nOCif
"p .. ..:e 1M ''''''0 Slon(:s and') pllfu,tl
bas.emenr, bor Dn ... e.
&.r.k Plann.in, AuoCI;ltes .1$ re
modeli"., .. ,portIOn of t~iI' o"k.
b UI1 dlr1i; 011 5~O Hilmlilcl'l Ave ..
Polio Alto, (or a branch o( 5.lna
8.u1, ... r,. 5.l\linas and Lo .. n JIui.oel
Conutted Jlut before "001'1
to<oIY. MolY ... jl;l"e pliln~ t.:l reHore
the bUIJdlna;: to JU on,rnill c.;,.,dJ.
tlon With iold·le.f fer. b.:nil. ten
oint not tl!l selt('t~. 1he k(Onc!'
!lear 'llilO be n!!novilted for oUI(e:..; AlI<)ll.
:., ;p·d '"t ....
UniVe-r5lty Avenue
bank building sold
Thli' B_urk (Jf ArrH.:rll:a bUlldlno; .. ,
tJn'lIl'r .. I!)' A~'L'nu ... no Iol"mun ... ~U"t"c'
In P~lo ,.a.110 h~:. .bet-n :!told. but Ihe
b,lnk Ui ... ·llhhoJdmi tht: n .. m<:-of thl:
tluye p~nd:ng cJos~ of ot.·s....rov.-and Jil·
m;: uf thl.' d .. T(!,
The suc:cs:!oful bid n:pon.ed::t> ....... s
~300,OOO, S50,00Q more-t..'"I..rM the ..t)'W1i
prlc~ Orll:' o( :!'le 1.I.n:.uccesw.J.i b~dOJtrs
oi:"m:~ $27:\,1NQ
Ttl<' cu)l,jlnlj; h .. io) bt\.'n v ... c.rra )Inn
Ih .. b..rnk mu\' .. >(1 to Ih I'll:W 10111: on.
L~·llon ,,\'I'nue 1 ... :>1: Jl.ln~. Tht Un",'.t'f~
,;tlo' A\·ot.'nu,," buddmg nola. olbuul ]8.1),)()
~uar~ feel (IT floor sp.ce l1'1 '","'0
)Wr'l':!o and 01 p.lnl.d b.;u.tmenl.
Tnt' blink bulldmi r~m"lnl'd o,m
w.;llIe-d !.Ioul &rr.k of AmerlC'oI pur'
.:hol~ Li1~ ;.rdJacl.'m b"lldmg, whICh
1-... .:1 b~n ~,~~l"d. oInd mcorp..lr.Ilt'(I 11110
Lr\t; b .. n.km~ <if'!:! •• There 'lIot'rt: r .... poit
,-.j'\' :.lX bid) on Iho:' property. It h .. ~
"';j it'd 01 hOI'l .... t:t' c;n ;:n~:.l:r:.HY .~\\.-
nut r. _,:) •. ~. _ ..... _
I.4HlI. CH' ..... Dlet. ~ r ...
.,..,..,..~ --~ .. ~ ~<OJf.._'*l~""
"-_~atlae
..... .AJ.I.o:>~..ru.o .......
----__ ItJ--..",. ,.ra·~ .. 1..CCoIII'U:I.II ....
1"IIoII1t<ri.bu-.. __ .... 'ZIIiLC'
~-.~r..IIoo:III • .. --nwc--..~ ....... ~
'" l.UI ......, ,_ UICI ~
IfIr,....~,.&nd~
.... ~()I'I ....... -
II. ,,~ IUW, .n"""",~ h..iol .......
_"Ile:::_~I~~o.IllU"",~
bo-flIo ".~ ,M.e. ~""~O'CI, ,,.;JCI
..,"":'OW'luI~"""'~,... .. ~:::~-.J •
.:a.. hI' _ ",,,, ... , Inc "'"'~,
ol:J.*'Ttll 11&1 .. ~':P"'.'i !"'::LIIUoeI lI.II ...
-,~
~ ~ ...... 1:"-<1 ""'>J'QTt d 1"'-1>
lI< ... d 1<61'1 a~l~t • ..., •• ,"....., I'l&.o n.
"""Ui ............. a: ~~~ ......
d __ "_,. "'" .. UI'tlI""lI,",-to..
~ -~ 41l<J , .. ,. LO''':N q...,..
~"~ "",no alr\I_ ."""' ...... _IIn--l1~_
-w,"":/>t <::<t1~.''''n 0.1 til.a n.
:..-~ .... p.~"",.",,:~" (;<>d1 to.
.... ~ -.?~Ic> ... ~"" ,"0 .. ' ~... ."~
C'~Jc~ IaCI"t ... ~ ~<:.""1~&'. ,~ 1:.11.""
~OJ" U1~ ""'n-uoJ ,( ~"""".oJ "~ .... 'W-L.
2ir1f _"'~.J.\,.-
.~.--
•
---_ .... _--
P.A. bank
extension
settostart
"",' .-: ;-;,,-'" -.
{:'~~{;'.
-,,' ,-:/:S~'~";.1~ '.
~;{t~~ __ ~ _.
, I.
I , , ,I,
'I • . I ).1,
T
-
0)
c .-
""C -.-
~
-0
o -
~ --~ ~ -
~~ ~E3 ._= c~ c!!§)
it , I . , . .
~ -
Q :'
; I
:
-
-----;I:S-. ':9=-o=)()-IS .49. oeo
for planning app<QV&.l QC • build!n be r.ow oonr •• ldential !qUO~ 6x>tage in tho
CD district. this l7D~atoc 1 remain. in effect 6x <:ne (1) year while tte ci ty
undertakps a at . t requlatione ~d be: appropcla.te in the OJ district. The
moe.toei' extended by tho =nell Intil such study i. <XlII!pleted ond app&"OIlCiate
r 1001) are ilIpl""""'tad. (~. 3696 S 1, 1986).
CJ~.Q4O)~ ~t1on8. Tho lI"""ral regulations .. t fOrth below st-ell
.spply ugtIJut the CD district ..
(b) !blaonforl'lng Uses. My use existinQ on tho effective dote oE an C<dina'lCe
applying the CO zone or applying the GF C<>I'bining district to tho ",opert'l where su::h
use exists w which, ~ior to tilat date, WI!UI a lawful conforming permitted use ~
conditional use opft"ating Slbject to • a>nd!tional use pmnit, sholl be deomed to be •
confonti.ng Wile. SIJch t.mes shall be permitted to rem:del, ~ oc n!!place !lite
improvements on tho ..... site wit.'lout neceSSity to comply with site de""lopnent
.<&gUlations for oontinuol _ &-'XI oocupo.ncy by tho ...... ...... My such _ling,
i~t or replace"""'t st-ell result in increesed 000<" aroo, height, length or any
other incAase in the size of t."le i~t O"1ly pJrsuant to the exceptions to flooc
area. ratio r-egulations set .fix'th in section 18.49.C60. For purposes of this aection,
an existing use i. defined as.
1. A use beirtg OXldLX:ted en the effective date of an Ot"dinance applying the CD
zone cr applying the GF eont>ining district to the ~rty where such use exists: or
2. ~ use rot beillg CX)I'"ducted en the effective chte of an ordinance applying the
CD zone IX applying the GF COITt:Iining district to a p:'OpeC'ty, if the use is t..emp:)r:&rily
discontinued due to:> Ii vaca.ncy of six (6J ITOOtns oc less hefon! the effective dlte of an
ordioance applying the CD zone oc applying the GF corrbining district to the p.-opecty
w'!"ere such use existed. If !II use is d&emed existing p.lr81J8nt b:J this sl.bsec-tion, but
re!TBins discontinued for twelve {12J consecutive !I'Onth..s, it shall be con.side::'ed
abondoned and I1'Dy be replaced only by a conforming use.
(c lying Facilities. OlOpter 18.94 notrithstaooing, • n<n<Xlmplying
!i.cility exis on ~ effective elate of thi6 chapter and .-hich, when built, •• a
complying facility, 11 be de"""'" to be complying. SUch. facilit II be
permitted to be remodel oc ~placed with:lut necessit 'i with site
developnent regul.4tion,,~ ~eling, imtX"Ovement p cement shall result
in iocr-eased floor -srea, h!1I1ht, oc any ot . rease in tre size of the
facility <nl.y p..Irsuant to the exc-eption& _a ratio regulations set Eot-th in
section 18.49.060.
(d) Prohibition itted ot" am::Htionel, ftll
be oonduc::ted in such 4 , !"ezat'd, or ~y
recognized offans ' characte(""istics, inclu:hng jon of emission of
dust, g.8, a, noise, ft.mel, cdors, vibration.s, Plrticulate tter, chemical
compo I electrical disturbanc'8, }-u..~idltYI t-e4t, cold, glare, or n.ight hnination.
-83.4-( VB7}
1
,.---_ .. ----... -.. ~ .... ~
'c) A to a:' t1Iplaoed by a <Cnto!:minq ...., IIhall
not be _ishee!, rd 'te ex eny pt%tion of a building, the .....
of >bid> changes f ng to a sMll rot t!\et1!&f"..er b> use/l
es""'1X to te & oonf~.... (Ord. 3048 (pet ,
18.94.040 !b>cm ..... ,rq~. (al On BT<'f site Moring f&c:ili-
tie. ftlued at 1 ..... than me t:!'>OusaM dollars, any ronaonforotinq UN, other
than .. :uidential use, >bid> is dia<ent1nued r:r. ~ or: otheNise ceases opera
ticr& """ use of the site fa:' a pttiocl of six ..,.,tl1S a:' 1a>ger !!hAll IDt be ... SJDed,
:eestabUsbed, or ccntinued, rd all aubGeq'.>ent use of sud> lite ard facUities tbereon
shall oonfoCII to this title.
(0) On any .i te root subject to lUl:>ge<:t.ion (a), • l'<lnO:lnfor:ming use of facilities
designee! and ccnstrU<:ted for cau:esidential ~ which is dis<CntinU<Od <X ~
or: otI>erWise c:eases opention and ..... of the site for: a period of me ~ « IIIOt"e
shall root be roe..-d, and &ll subsooquent use of SIld\ sit<! and facUities the""", shall
oonfOCll to this title.
ee) N:>twithstanding the pravisims of Section 18.94.030, or: tbe pravLsiaul of
S1.1bsec:tiCNJ (a) azd (h) of this sec:tiOrt, in fI1"'f ","sidential district ... ronresidential,
nona:nfotliling use oecupying facilities odginally designed rd ~ruetA!<l for residen-
tial use whim is discxJntinued or abandoned IX otherwise ceases op>ration and ..... of
tbe site for a period of ~.inety day" <r 9n!ater shall rot be CDntinU<Od <X nan .... JOed.
and any S\lbSequent use of the site and facilities shall oonfoco to this title. 'this
provision shall rot be oonst;.:ued to ~t a change of CMlership or: _"""'"t of SJd>
ncnoon!~ ..... , provided, that any cessation of operation of the use is solely in
oonnection vi th the tnnsier of ownership ex _......,t to 1 specific:ally designated
person ex entity rd is solely £ex the ~ of ~lishlng fI1"'f tn.nsf..r of title,
equipnent, opentia>al O><1tro1. or similar I'UtpOSeS. Nothing c:ootained in this ~
.c:Uon shall affect the :-i9ht to aa.\ntain or repla"", on ofn"" use as ptOVided in
Sections 18.25.070(a). 18.27.070(4). and 18.29.070(1). (Ord. 3048 (part). 1978).
~!:i~':!:OS:C~ ~ aar--Haintenanc and ~ of fac:illty. cilities
"""'Pied by " tD\<X!I\formin;! use pormi tted by this a.apterr.,!~~=. iubject to
the follo..ing Pr'"",.,:' l'ia'lS 9OY'!rning mU nten.anoe, repai rs. alte ratio replacement:
(a) Nomal ancI roo , rraintenanc:e of any structure the p.JrpDSe of prese:-ving
its existing condition. retaJ;!!i''''l id tear or >"ysical deprecu-
tim. or o:t!i'lying vith the be permitted.
(1)) Incidential alteration s.""ll ~~Unoi'tted. ptOVided the value of tl>e inci-
dental al ter"trans in any ooe-yeor Od """"",, twenty perce..,t of the value
of tl>e facili ty prior to sud> •
(c) 5 tructctral
to AC'07lI'1Cdate a
(Ord. 3048 (
L
-
otiens or enlMgerrent of the fa 't-Y shall be permitted ally
use, or when made to ~ly wit.."" requirerents of law.
-161-
I
i
t
,
!
r
-
HCERPT
pjanning Commilsior. Ki~utes
251 Un}versity Avenue
October 9, 1991
AGENDA ITEM 3 251 UNIVERSITY AVENUE: Application for an .mend.e,t to
PI.nned Community one (PC 3974) eliminating the
requirement for Ground rl~or Ret.il (GF) uses.
Environmental Asstssrnent: No Si~nif;cant Impact. F1le
Nos. 91-2C-8, 91-EIA-29.
No st.ff comment ••
CQrrmissione-T Marsh: I wondered if yaLl hi'.oe ;any coment on what I see as a
precedent I that is, the repl,cement of a sidewalk and the inclusion of
bicycle racks llsted as I public benefit of • project. I do not ever
recall those •• being public benefits to justify. project.
Mr. Gilliland: Nonnal1y, we would not have required s1de~ilks to bg
replaced in this location, because there is no actual construction being
done with the building. It is the intent of the city to replace the
sidewalks in this ar~a, as it ~as been done, 50 we ;nclud~d it as a public
ben~fit r.ther than the cltl's paling the deyeloper. The bicycle racks ,re
spread out throughout tk~ do~to~ ar!i. I feel that that is apprDpriate~
and it has been Y5ed as a public benefit. Similar thin9S have been used
for publlc benefit. before.
C~mmls$;pner Marsh: What evidence do w! have t~at there is I need for the
bicycle racks?
~l]iland: It is I request of the transportatio~ division. There are
a number of bicycle racks in the downtown area that ne~~ to be replaced.
CQmmiss~oner Marsh: What fs the cast?
Mr. Gilliland: Class 2 is, bicycle rack thot i. co •• red, .lthough I don't
know t~at .e will be able to locate .11 of them in '"e •• th.t .~ll be
covered. Th.t is opposed to a locker, which Is Cl.ss I.
Cnairman Huber: I will now open the public hearing. We .i11 hear first
from the applicant.
Jim Baer. 532 Channing Street. ~a'o Altg! [want tD elabor.te on a couple
of items in t~~s application. First, we differ In an importlnt respect
from a conversion fro~ ground floor to non-grDu~d flo~rl an approval that
took place last year and was one that caused frustration for staff. That
was located in the block between AI .. and High Street on the south ,ide of
the block. There. u,i! circumstances t~ilt Ted to hearinss were t~a!. a
non-retail user was put into occupancy based on certain inforsatlon that
had been g;v~n to staff~ J aD nGt sure whether tkey C~~ before the
plannfng commission. as well as the city counc'l~ Upon clOSEr rewiew by
.taff, it became apparent that in fact, subsequent to the ldoptlon of the
ordinance in 1986. a retail user had b~en in occupancy for between one year
and IS months (.taff can correct me if I am wrong), lnd thot 'taff had not
been told this when asked if they could put in In offlet , •• on the ground
floor. An office use was then put in. cruting I le-;al problem of how to
-,L
' ; > '.
10/09/91
-l-
--:.~ -'~~ .. ,
':~~;:.
"'-;
'~.'.'.' ;~¥::
-
~vok~ Ulat rtgl-It that sUff consented to. based on misinformation. It
cre.ted • deb'te at (;ty (ouncll. They said that we re.lly need to be
ci~Jr thlt t~at 1s not hov this should have been do~e. They said, ~You
need to COM to 4,15. 111 out )lour cards. and say. we need to amend that
ordfnlr:c:e, l>eca;.lse we Ire asking for a reT ease from i use.· The way to do
that Is with • PC.
Prior to that cir,~stance ha~1~9 taken place (and I am not sure whether it
was tnro~gh ~y application or t~rou9h a letter to staff not included in
thi~ rep~rtJ. it became clear to ~$ that we had made an error. No~ lat me
back up Ir.~ give you I chrcnol09Y of e~ents. We wanted a contract to buy
this building in the vinter of 1986. At that time. Stanford Savings and
loan was the gro'Jnd floor ter1il1'lt and had been fl)r soml:! period of time.
They had I lease thlt txpfred Oecemher 31, 1988. They were ~n~ of the
early CaliforniA slvin;~ ind loans that had a f~deral regulator apPointed
to superYis~ it beC1US! of neir insolvency. lt was an extremely difficult
I'lanageme;'lt tOo del,l w1thl ind we started apprcact,ing them early on to
inQu; re if they were going to exte,jJ the1r 1 ease. ney caul d not make
decisions, and it wa~ cltar that tne federal regulators could not make
deci~ions, so sometime early in 1987, we wrote a lease to an established
business in PaTo Alto, Royal ~edallfo~. who lfe one of the fi~e strongest
in sales volumes of [lur retliler$ downtown, to lise that s.pace~ They
occupied the space in April Dr May of 1989, and Stanford Savings needed
s~e period of time for extending their use space beyond December 31,
1988. ~ile they found anotner locatlon. Eureka Savings acquired them, and
they are now it 301 University Avenue~ Had the management b~en ab1e to
:flak.e deciSions, it wu clear that this was in error for them to give up
that space.
What was not clear to ~, and frankly, because this was the first bUilding
[ had acquired on U~iv~rsity Avenue, were the ramifications of that ~ind of
an error on our part. J did not know how to measure, since I had no
leasing experie-nce on University Avenue, whether we should have come claser
to December 31, 1988, continue to market the building for a non-reta~l
us.er, just by not being aware of how tragic it would be for this buildfng
to convert It to retail, lose the e~emption that ~xisted under the
ordinance, had we not gone to retail use. By October, 1ge9, six months
after Medallion had gone into the 10cat10n, a letter was written to NancJ
lyt1e, ask)ng if they could sublease to an office user. ] told them that
t~ou3ht tney had l~st that ri9ht. At that t1me, there were staff
meetings. 1 attended OMe lII!itn George liilTTlerman and others on behalf of
that tenant. George explained that it would not work. It is ~nfortunate,
because the whole physical aspects of this building are ~nique. That i~
l.id out quite cl,arly in the staff report. The ground floor and the
wind~s are about five feet from the sidewalk level, with a front entry
that is about thre.·and·o·half f,et on 0 tilting plan, that slopes back to
the rear so that hand;cap access occurs It the rear parking lot but cannot
happen at the front entry. It is not a divisible space. We haVE been
vacant for 18 months. We have had no offers nor any retail interest
,xpressed. That is at a r,ntal los, of .bout $100,000-120,000. Reven".
for spa(, li~. this is S!O.OOO to 512,000 a mont~. So for 18 months, we
ha .. e endured considerable hardship, not that that is an element of this
applic,tion. But the physical aspects of this building .rE unique in the
downto~ by ~irtue of its 1906 historic structure a~ I bank.
let me give you another piecf of background. Since there ire two
jO/09/91
-2-
".
" :;,.-'0-
commissioners not sitting wher. this decision was ~ade with rtspeet to the
529 Bryant street ,ppllc.tlon, S29 Bryant Street and 2Sl University Avenue
were processed together igainst staff~s recommendation for this rfison. Wp
were adding 2~500 SClLare feet to 529 Bry-ant Street, and we dtd not .ant to
~ake parking the issue at that building. So What .e offered to do .as to
forego any pxpansion rights at 251 University ".venue. There were
4,500 square feet of expansion rights at that locat1on. 1n the end. ~t was
crazy. We gave ~ore public benefits than we had expected, and thEre was a
w11d debit! between staff and comm1ss~oners and others. On I 9-0 vote, the
city council approved the 529 Bry,nt Street Pt app11catlon, which put.
11.1t on ex~an5i~n rights for 251 University Avenue. and did not require us
to close the bas-ament , 'WhIch we had volunteered. which WiiS another
4,500 sQu,~ feet. We ~ad hoped to provide an Immediate reduction in
square footage downtown and forego future expansion. We do not hav~ any
future expansion plans~ What that means is we 3re not left W1tM an
obligation to seismically upgrade the building. So one of the benefits
offered here is that we will proceed with extensive concrete and steel
reinforcing of the structure so that this historic qwality is ma1ntained.
The city council and planning commission both had findings that .SJ
University Avenue was historically si;nificant. Th£y did not debate
.hether that meant it should be chang~d to a Category 2 from a Category 3
or not, but said, It is cle.r that this I~06 building looks like a 1906
building, and the fa,ade has not been substantially changed.
So those two pieces of background information may be ~re than you need.
hGpe this 1$ not a c~~trcvetsial issue for you.
Commissioner Marsh: Would you discuss I little more the ki~ds of outreach
you ~ave made to try to lease that building or rent it to a retailer i~ the
past 18 ""nths?
Mr. Baer: The building has alternatel, been listed with Cornish and Car~y
and Coldwell eank~r for periods. Cornfs~ and Carey are the dominant
brokers in terms of exposure in P~lo Alto, although they ~appen to net be
as strong in retail as they are in office uses. Coldwell Banker has done
most of the bringi~g of tenants from outside the Irea for retail purposes
into th! downtown, partly by virtue of their being a fellow who ~as head af
facilities at Stanford Shoppfn; Center for Macy's na¥ing a huge amount Df
contacts in the fashion industry. He leased most all of tne s~aces for us
at 250 Ur.iversity Avenu! and has done another half dozen leases on
University Avenue. So he was on it. By controiling as muC'.h University
Avenue space as .e do, we Qet ~nsolfc1ted calls, and we also haye our own
sign on the building currently_ We get a h.lf dozen c.lls • week from
that. e~cept 1n slow perfods. T~ey are primarily calls about office space
dOh~tOwn, but not retail v~ry much.
CommissiQner Marsh: 1 am pretty well convinced of the unsuitability of
that location for retail sates operations , but the one possibility that
does seem reasonable would be in eating and/or drinking estab1ishment. The
Brltfsh Banker's Club in Menlo Park Is in a building of similar vintage,
and it seems to h~ye been a very long-term, ~ery successful business. Do
you have in response to that?
Mr. Baer: We did have a couple of restaurants come and look it it, but
could not find it feasible because of tne pl acement of col umns which cannot
be changed. The size is too smell to create a full kitchen. There is
10/09/91
-3-
~:~~'+~,;~. 0-;
-
-'.
another one, .hlCh 1 r we-ha::! Irtembers of the downtown re:tai 1 cOITlllLJnity here
to address, wh~cn is that it is I tough one. If a stu~y of the downtown
shclirl'ed what is llissin9. ""hat we continue to h .. ve is .... ery fragile eateries..
We wi11 se! more of that as lease ,yeles ro1l that peop1e could not be
brought t. market. We have growth of sOmEth1ng like 75 restaurants in the
dcwnto'lrl'n now, each compt;:t~ng for I dollar volume which has not greatly
increas~d for mouths to feed and doll,rs tQ sp~nd for netess1ties.
Comrniss1oner Marsh: S~ you are saying that the downtown would not
nece-ssarn~ see another eating and drin~.in9 establishmt'nt is contributing
to vitality.
Mr. Bat:r: We worked very hard at 250 Univers1t~ Plaza not to P!Jt in ill
major, prepared-food eatery because of .Znd Street or Pearl's or Ramona's
or the Osteria or La Trattoda, ill within that vicinity. By the way,
urban studies show that there is a radius for lunentime eating for office
workers that Is not very expanded. From our ~wn exp~rience, we mig~t see
that in my office at 400 Hamilton. If you •• re to take a poll, people do
n~t walk frDm there to Lytton and Emerson at lunchtime. People near
Emerson and tytton don't \lialk toO Hamilton and Bryant. There is i
circumference that 1s somewhat rigid with only oeca); onal expansions of
that radius. So we ha~e been open to that use but hav~ not had users who
found it cou1d meet their needs. I am not sure that is one that would make
our neighbors happy. either.
Commiss'9Dtr Christensen: One of thE things staff talks about is the
fa~ade and i~terior being maintained. Is there anything in the PC that
says that has to be true? I can understand that if he puts mone~ into
upgrading it, it lS more likely, but is there anything in the PC for 529
Bryant Street that really regulates that?
Mr. Gilliland: There is not t particularly with the interior of the
building. Normally, we do not exercise control ov~r the interiors.
Mr~ Baer: We would certainly be willing to agree to maintain the fa~ade.
We would nnt want to put staff to the burden ~f what a fa~ade easement
would look like, but we could certainly create I condition that said, we
are going to preserve it in that ~istorlC shape. The way we would get at
that wculd be to maintain the-hei9ht of t~e ceiling. I don't know that it
would make sense to say that at s~me point down the road, you would not
want to be able to move a column in that interior without staff or
commissfon approval, but we would absolutely welcome the notion that we
MOve this further ilo~g with a statement of preservat~on.
Commiss10ner Glazier: Two years ago, it was your business judgment that
that was an appropriate site for retail when you leased it to Medallion
Carpet. Pretty quickly thereafter, you realized it was a mistake. Well
before the 529 Bryant Street application came before the city council, it
was very clear to everyone concerned (although [ was not tnere) tnat that
site at 251 Unlversity Avenue w~s going to be zoned Gf, yet you knew there
was I very significant prQblem there. Why did you let that go through?
~aer: A very good question, and is J explain the reasoning, I think
you will ~nderstand where we were sitting a year ago. It was in the summer
of 1990 when the PC for 529 Bryant Street and 251 University Avenue .as
adopted. The SF existed, so we could have asked. in ~ur application, to
10/09/91
·4-
-
further complicate it Ind havE the Gf removed. It wasn't as If it was not
i~ plice. ]t WiS that we made no request for I use cMange? so w~at existed
at the time was the GF. We did not request it. The reason J did not
re~ue$t it at the time and why we ~ad tne experience, even further, that
this w.s not appr~priate for retail, is that we were just completing 250
Universit, Avenue in the summer .nd fall of i990, .nd if ln,thing was 90in9
to create the stimulation for the likelihood of retail to plop into the
next ",crller, t~a.t would. In the SUlITI1er I year IgO, [ fl.l11y wou1d ~ave
expected that the acthHy at 250 would have created excitemerlt for i:
restaurant Dr retatl user. It is ~ard to mpasure ~acancies in the middl!
of I co"structfon sit!. 250 Un1versity Avenue was a very intrusive
construction sHe. So in tne SUITIT\eT of i year .ago, I would have thought,
wel', we are sitting vacant partly because people want to wait and see what
2S0 University Avenue looks like. Hobody wants to Tease whil~ there are
barricades ac.ross the street from them. What we ha'f'e had, now, is a year
of no construct1on exper;ence, or very little, and I fully opened
University Avenue, and still n~ responses at all in that year. So while [
would h~ve been hopeful a year ago that reta11 would have come to us, it is
now clear to me that It Is this .lte.
Commissioner S1az'er! What do you estimate to be the cost of the seismic
upgr~de? [s it somet~fng th.t is required by some clty ordinance, and is
the upgrading a condition of this report, or is it just kind of an
amorphcus publ1c benefit t~at we halle no way of trac.king?
Mr. Bafr; There is no ordina~ce requiring t~at, and it is unlikely t~at in
tke hierarchy of earthq.uake u~gradirlg being Ilade lTI,andatory, you 'WDuld have
unreinforced masonry. There is a pretty big school cf thought in Palo Alto
that would come ~ll ahead of what is a reinforced c~ncrete building, even
though the reinforcement is for the periods 1906-1930 ~r SD. when it went
through sOQe upgrades. So the city does not nave an ~rdinance requ1ring
any upgrade work fn cor.ju~ct;on with the placement of any tenants. We ~ave
done substantial upgradin~ to the second floor since 1987. We fully expect
there to be a condttion to perform life safety upgrades. So far, we have
spent about $25,000 on some concrete walls. I would expect it to be
another $25,000 or $30,000. It could 90 som.what high.r than that.
Commis s ; or-er SC~_1'I'i i dt: Wh at does the se 15m; c upgrade enta ii ? Have your
engineers looked at it enough to tell?
Mr. Baer; Yes, we have a very clear idea that there ire really four ~alls,
twu north/south and two east/west, that anchor into the basement and come
~p through the ground floor. One or two of those walls ~eed to continue up
through the second floor. Right now, It has a basement and a 16-foot
second floor. What it ~as was a concrete structure on concrete columns,
and you did not have s~fficient shear. Of course, -mile ~e have opened the
first floor roof and and done r~of tiebacks, we are doing a lot ~f
nailings. In the second floor, the worst of the proLl~ms is that in the
years that the Bank of America made renovations, there was a concrete wall
on the second floor that has no wall underneath it because they removed t~e
concrtte wall on th! first floor in order to create a passageway f~r the
bank. So right now, the most unsafe condition i$ that we have a concrete
wall on the second floor o~er air.
Commissioner ~nmidt: So the seismic upgrade wo~ld not require that you
c.omplete1y change the look of U,e main first story space? The columns
10/09/91
-5-
J
I
1
I
could stay a~d the cElling work could remain?
Mr. Satr: Absolutely. We ha~e done two walls tnat are going to need some
pretty artistfc patching to match the upper portions. The crown moldings
we cannot get in wood today, so we will t1alie to nave nand' craftsmarsh1p on
those.
t9mmission~h~idt: Wou1d it be your intention to keep the i~terior of
that first floor space looking about the same wit~ the tenant you get?
What if the tenant said that he wanted to char.ge something?
Mr. Bagr: We would not allow i complete change. I do not ha~e photos of
"What it looked like ""en Stanford Sh"ings "as the occupant, b!.lt they had
the f~11y raised ceilings. We ~ould not E~pect this to be a banking or
savings and loan institution.
~mmissloner Gl!li!£: Who actually proposed the public benefits? Was it
the applicant Dr was it staff tnat proposed and irlentified these specific
public beoefits for this application?
Mr. Batr: It is i hybrid. There were some street trees which, for health
r~asons, were reil1cved on Ramona Street, and we wlll replace those trees; we
will do the seismic upgrade, because that supp~rts tr.e preservation. We
will put in bicycle racks, and part of that is because the experience we
had at 250 University A¥enue was that whether there is i need demonstrated
or simpjy the desire to nave rea~y mo~e accessibl~ hitch·to racks throughout
t~e downtown, we (auld certainly make that happen for much of University
Avenue. Right now, it Is sporadic. As for the sidewalks, I dfd not
propose that. Jim Gilliland of the planning staff and Ji~ Harrington of
Public Works and I have had some conversations, and it is clear that we
would 'have M obligation to do that. There are some pretty bad sepal"ations
in the sidewalk on Ramona Street, and we would certainly upgrade it to be
more consistent with the look at 2S0 Univer$ity Avenue , if not that c~lorl
that kind of sand blasted, scored pattern which is more contemporary than
what the city would do.
tJ>.mmiSS;QTH!r Glazier: I would like your reaction to this c.orTlTlent. It is
clear from the report, as well as fro~ your comments tonight , that if ... e
were to approve this, there would be a pretty significant economic benefit
to you. You have talked about a 5100,000+ loss of rental income Dver the
past 12 months, and issum1ng that ~~onomic tcndlti~ns continue as they are~
that could continue. Your rent for an office use could go up quite 1 bit.
If I lo~k at the public be"efits assDcfated wit~ th~s, just from an
economic standpo1nt, relative to the amount that you would be getti~~ from
this, they ~ou1d seem to be a little low. The public benefits are not like
the situatiDn where it would co~tribute to a child care facility where the
p~blic cl~ir1y bc~efits. Some of these public benefits seem to be
benefiting the applicant in terms of making it a nicer facility, is much as
they benefit the public at 10'"9" [ •• a little coneeroed that the public
benefits here do not necessarily track ~eri well to the private benefits.
Mr. Baer; I am not sure I can dispute that. I would like to engage you
philosophically. because I think it is of importance to other commissioners
to express views that I need to deal wit~ tn this arena. I am in agreement
witn thE principle that Conanissioner Christensen espouses regularlY, which
is t~at ... e don't -.;ant tc; be put in iI position where zoning is placed for
10/09/91
-6 -
I-~
f
I
l
i
t
t
I·.
j
1
~
sale. We want to see a connect'on of t~e benefit to the property, so
therefore, [ was reluctant to come in (and we cln debate about where those
are appropr1ate or not appropriate and whether it fs fer sale ur whether
the publit benefits are tnose prescribed by council and COrm1fssion is 9\lod
planning). but tnis was clearly one where it did not ~ake sense to me to
~cme 1n ind say. at what price? Frankly, if planning becomes, what is the
economic gain you are receiving, and that becomes the measure by which we
determine what lIIe Isk by way of pubHc benefits, it is a dange:"o'oIs one for
"" oppllcant, certainly, and it mlght also be for planning pollcles.
let me get to the second lssue. It 15 ~ard for ... , 100ki'9 back at 1986 as
I junior developer in ~y purchase of I second or third property downtown,
to say, I real1y ~ade I mistake, and It is the nature of tne mistake and
the ~arm that it does to rr~ that r~sults in the modification, not th2 price
1 am paying for rel ief. I made an error tnat we did not know th! magnitude
of until 1988 ar 1989, just is ether users have~ Now we get into the leg~l
aspect o' t~at, which 1. th,t • body of la. (and I think we do this very
well in our planning) is to tak! inta account what are the broad principles
of law that we are trying to apply to provid! sufficient guidance far staff
and the applicant to be able t~ be in complfance with the law. Also. what
Is the reasonable flexibility we want to bring into that 1a. to be abl. tc
look at the circuillstances that 1ead to the ability to be able to p'("ovide
relief f~ that. That Is different than .OB .s the level of .lcoho1 in
the blood t~.t makes driving 111ega1. When we 10 projects, particularly
those in a commercia1 setting, because each piece of property has its ~wn
set of problems, you try to put together t~e fabric of what is th. best
fair result~ . ] ani rully sensitive to -Ani I getting away with something?
Am [ being treated differently than another owner might be treated)' 1
think the council's d.1iberat;ons on the building between High and Alma
made it clear that, In fact, H was even s\Jggested ,that it come in for a
zone change for a PC. It wou1d have been granted t but they wanted to send
a clear message -dOIi't tread on your staff with dishonest representations
that lead to tne result of a changed use. Tne alternative for me wculd be
to come in (and staff and I talked about this· Ke.n Schreiber and I did
before I submitted this) was that wouldn't it be crazy to put commission
and ~ounci1 in a position of a zone change'? We could come in and ask for a
zone change. re~¥ing the EF as spot zoning. Or come i~ for i ~dification
of the GF tnat saId, the .ap is now altered for any building that h.s
ground floor on a building that has hist~r!cal significance where the
windows are four f~et or greater, that kind of hybrid drafting of 50mst~ing
tMat catches more than just our building, but gets to the point we are
trying to rais!.
[ don't know whether [ have ta1ked myself into. further no vote, or hiV!
presented some reasons. I felt it was important to explain that we rea'ly
~ade an error. I really wish [ had not made the error. It is not good for
me and not good for the downtown. I am very sympathetic to the notion that
we aTe not giving I lot to t~e pub1ic in tnf~. and I am open to hearing
t~at there might be more tnat we cou1d do for the public, but tOU can
understand my desire not to have put myself fn a position of writing a
check to everyone's f.vorlte charity unrelated to the physlc.l Qualitles of
this bui 1 ding.
Commissioner Glazier; let me ask you a philosophical question in rlsponse
to that. If etonomic times were not as tough as they are~ particularly for
thl retail environment, couldn't yeu think that perhaps retail use could
10/09/91
·7·
, ,
;
i
-
work there? What I am asking is, arenrt the toug~ economic tfmes just as
much a facto~ fro ~akin9 you think you r.ade ~ ~istake as it is just a
general planning issue?
Mr. Baer~ I do not have th! crystal ball gives a good answer to that. r
genuinely think. the reason this does not come with staff trepidation (and
FCs ~ause stafr trepidatfonj It is a nO-Wln for th!m). They are constantly
9'::11n9 to gft Questions like, did you ask enough, did you asle. to':) ll'1uch? Is
thi! I perfect policy? And ~hy this was not troublesome fQr stafr was the
fami1i~rjty with the rea1 physical character cf the building g01ng back to
1989 when ft was first raised. I do not ha~e an answer abo~t whether these
are tough retail times or not. Tn~re certainly have been a number of
rental spaces, probably I dozen at least, on University AVenue this year.
whic.h ""ere restaurants.
We are ten days Dr two week.s away, and I had hopl!d by tonight Uat we would
know whetnei we are able to preserve t~e 9S0 square feet at (o~er and be
ab1e to dedicate that to GF. As J said before the planning commission and
the city council that the issue is, we have a building with a full building
reQuirement tnat ha~ no other plac.e where they can get that many square
feet i~ the downtown. W~ have been negotiating like crazy. through the
los.s of a general manager, reQufring H.at a new general maftager do the
space planning. and we are about to receive the space plan saying that J
really want you to leave me that 950 square feet, whit" ] would put into
the Sf, not just for a few years, but put into the GF bec.ause that small
space 1n that location across from El fornai~ could work. I am hopeful
that by the time I am before you agair., we could add that as a condition.
I am only saJing that I am really trying to be i s.ens;ti~e party
underst.nding the needs for, balanced GF in the downtown for .11 of our
goals of vitality. Staff. of course. says donlt mix the t~o properties.
But I do work hard to make ~y buildings work and to please ~y neighbors and
dec1sionmakers.
COlllJllssioner Sch"llfdt: It is my understanding tt1at if we eliminat~ tk SF
requirement, you can still put retail or a restaurant or anything else
allowed in the dc~ntown commercial area anyway. So if a retailer were to
c.ome 41110ng in a month ~ho real1,)' wanted that space, yeu could st111 leise
it to tnat person, and go back and forth between retail and office t etc.. 1
asked t~at questic~ of Mr. Gilliland taday. and that is my understanding of
what is correct.
M~. Gil1il~nd: That is correct.
Commissioner Christensen: Sn you are will ing to accept a ht;ade and an
interior easement or maintenance requirement?
Mr. Baer: Yes, I a~.
C~airman Huber: Seeing nO other speakers~ J will close the publfc hearing
and return this item to the planning commiSSion.
(orllni ss10ner Chrjstensen: I do a~ree with staff that if the aspects of the
building that we are trying to preserve remain true about the building. it
is appropriate to lift the ground floor retail requirement. My concern is
that t~ere i. re.11y nothing about this. the way it is presently
structured. th.t r.quires that, The fact that he put money into the
lO/n9/9J
-8-
.--' ........ -~
.. --.
'-
<.
I'C~
, ,'~~ .~.
i
l'
~ :
-
se'smic upgrading is nice, but it st~l' eou1d mean that, down tha road, I
tenant ct)ulc! come l'cng~ iilnd t~ilt reQui rement is gQne, and tile tenant \liants
to do some things, so why not ch,nge the building? So I would like to
stick in a requirement tnat p~etects the outdoor fa~ad~, certainty, and
even ~~rhap$ tne 9roun~ floor high eeilin~$ and ornate and C1ISS)CI'
features of t~e ground floor space.
Commissioner Mlrsh: It seems to me that one of the awkward aspects of this
application is that ~t has c.ome ,n as I PC, whi~~ requ~res some SQrt of
public benefit, rather than as I zone change. Jim spoke to t~at fn his
remarks of I few minutes ago. Clearly, t~e precedent for coming fn as a PC
was set when the buildi~g that he referred to on Un1¥ersity Avenue more
tow.rds High Street was oea1t with by the council some sfx months or so
.go. This building I. following that pr.cedent In comiog to os under the
guise of a PC. J think that has tnrow!'l SOir1e awkwardness into this
setting. I would pr.fer to b. abl. to look at t~ls b"ildin9, Instead of
asking ~yseTf whet~er it satlsfi.s public benefit requirements, ! would
rather ask myse1f, is this an appropriate building on which to impose a
downstairs retai1 requirement? I th1nk that i5 the more relevant question,
so I am going to pro~eed on t~at basis in respor.ding to that question. J
do want to say that the experience ~;th the most recent retailer at tnat
site liIIas not necessarily iIIn indication of whether-retail tan wor'k there or
not. That was i very specialized retailer ~it~ extremely c~stly, elegant
items that were "ot likely to attract your average passerby en University
Avenue. That dces net mean to me that some other retat1er rnfght not work
there, ~o~e~er, 1 am ~on~inced that it is a narro~ g~oup of ret."ers. 1
don't t~ink that the spac" given th! historical fa~adet 9iven the fact
that the front door js recessed, 9iv~n the height of the windows and given
the sta1rs, would be appropriate for someone who ~as selling products. As
I s.id in t~e question ?eriod, the on. group of people that it might be
appr~pr1at~ for aT& eating and drinking e~tablfsh~nts, and primarily,
~rinkir'!g. So the question: am left ""ith. is. on balince, am J prepared to
press the app1icant to keep look~ng until he find~ a retailer who c~n u~e
that sp.ce, given the fact that 1 h.ve already defined t~,t potential user
in a very narrow group, and gfven t~e fact that these kinds of users are
already prevalent on University Avenue and given the fact that t am
lnterested in ke,ping the historical elements in that building. On
balance, I come down ~n the Side of allowing the developer the ch~nges that
he is seeKing.
I want to speak for a moment to tne public benefits that ar~ listed. I am
very comfortable with making the deci~fen that ground floor retaii is not
appropriat~ for this building, 9'~~n the reasons abo¥!. 1 wi~h ~e co~'d
leave it it that, but to the extent that we need to look it pub1ic benefit,
J think t~e public benefit Is • seIsmic upgeade, aod s,coodari1y,
preser~atio~ of a historiC building, wh~cn Commissioner Christensen has
.lready s~o<en to. Bicycle rac.s and sid.wa1.s should b. conditions of
this project~ It if is n~t possible t~ ~ake tnem conditions because there
~s not any ccnstruction 901n9 ant then stick them into public beneftt~ but
I don't ever want to see t~ose things listed as I public benefit again.
Those ire infrastructure items. Those are not public benefits~ We never
want to get to the point .here we Ire willing to trade off things that we
shoul~ be providing as a city infrastructure in exchange for benefits to an
applicant. I think that is just not appropriate.
Fio,lly, I want to s'y that this fs the last of t~ese kinds of applicatIons
10/09/91
-9-
.-'-~--' .. "
•
f
I
I
I
I
'~~';;'
regarding the ground floor that I am ever going to support. I don't think
there Ire any o~her buildings downtown in the retail only zone that cannot
aatntain retatl. These few historical buildings that we ~ave addressed
have some very good reasons for them, and I am comfortable ~1th it. but
this Is the end of it. I hope that we do not se. these kinds of things
come in agafn, unless of COU~$e we trigger the vacancy rate that is listed
'" the ordin~nce as releasing buildings f~om ;round floor retail.
Commi$s1Qner ~1a2i'r: I re~ognize that from I planning perspective, therE
are a number of difficulties with this slte. I also recognize the
applioant's commitment to dOing the right t~lng for the town, In
partitular. recognizing our commitment to the retail vitality of tne
do~ntown ITea. What! am the most concerned about is what Commissioner
Marsh alluded to at the end. While I .ccept that there .re some historic
preservation aspects to this building, I am afraid we cou1d be setting a
precedent here that might b< somewhat difficult to defend later on. There
.re other $it~s in Pila Alto that may not be is historic but may ha~e other
equally, if not more compelling, reasons that make retail difficult. If
the price for getting out of SF is so~e concrete, some trees and some bike
racks, it i5 a slippery slope t~at we go down. With the caveat that this
is the last one we want to see~ given the difficulties of t~e Site and the
obvious historic preserwation benefits, I feel okay about it and! will
support it, but] am a little afraid we may find ourselwes in other sticky
situations regarding this in the future.
Commissioner Schmidt: I a~ree with the summary of ~hat everyone else has
said. I, too, 1m concerned about the precedent set, and hope that we do
not see any nlore of these projects. Hopefully, the historic buildings have
been addressed now through this. I would agree with Commissioner
Christensen's suggestion to require that the fi~ade and basic d!sign of the
first floor interior be maintained if we grant the release of the GF l~ne.
C"'airma~: I think COrTlTlissioner Marsh has hit it on tne heil'!d in that
we sfmply do not ha~e the me~hanism to deal with a simple lone change,
where that may be appropriate, so we are real1i here wit~ some forced
public ber.efits to accomplish what should be done in a much simpler way.
M.ybe this is somethIng we should t.~e • look at .gain.
In terms of the use of thi! b~ilding Itself en the groLlnd ncar, I1Y friends
on the Urban Design Committee have taug~t me that it is these types ~f
buildings and windo~ height~ that ari! not gnod for generil retail use~
They may be good for iI restaurant or bar, but that is not general retail.
That is almost spotting i structure for a particular use, and we have never
w.nted to do that. So 1 .m going to <upport the PC with the public
benefits as soon as Commissioner Christensen drafts the appropriate
langu.ge for the fa~ade and for the interior.
MOTION: Cnmmissioner Chri$tenstn: I move that we appro¥e this r~quest for
changing the grcund floor requirement, but I, like Comrn1ss1oner Marsh,
would like to see the replacement of the sfdewalks and provision of the
bicycle racks ~ade conditions of approval rather tnan public benefits,
unles, the city ottorney h.s • problem with th.t. I agree th.t repl.cement
of sidewalks and the furnishing of bicycle r.cks is something we do with
every single project that we appro'e. To suddenly make them Into a public
benefit --
10/09/91
-10-
~ .. -;y .. :{:\:~:.,~. . ~ ~%t~f/
-
I
I._s
I , I ~;
'.
, .
_______ ~ .. ____ ·_·c
Ms, Case: The only reason fl is not ~lde I tondition of approva1 is that
therE 15 no direct 'lflpatt that he h creat"tng p'hys1ta)1y that would
otherwise 1'2quirt him t.-o make those changes and additions. In a PC,
t'lo'Jllever, you have iI lot of flexibiljty, so I suppose we cou1d do it. That
Is why it was not dor.e that wzy, howeve~. There is n~t the same linkage as
there .ould normally be.
~mm~~!r Christenser.: In PC~? we do have al! sorts of cor.ditlons of
approval that .re condition. on the project that do not spelled out
specific.11,_
M •. Case: Staff li,es to think th.t all of t~o,e condition. have legal
basis, but [ am sure tMit it will not cause any problems. In 111 of these,
ft is understood that it is something t~e applicant has agreed to do.
Where we put them is not so important in a PC. But that is the reason why
they weir put ~r. one place as opposed to the other.
Commissioner Christensen; Perhaps staff could help me with the drafting of
the wording, but I would like tG require that there be a fa~ade easement
fe-r the o\Jts.ide and il requirern-ent for I\',iintenance of th~ ceiling hf.ight ir.noj
tlis5ical features of the vaulted ceilin9i of the fnside~ [5 that is an
easement?
Ms. Cast: Not unless you are 90in9 to require I separate, recorded
document, but if YDU just want it to b~ a condition of the lone in w'nlch
this building is located, we won't call it an easement. We would propose
tn.t the .xact 1angu.g. com. back to you ~en the PC Is brought back to
10"_
Commis$iQngr Christtnsen: That is fine. Then if for s~me reaSQn they did
~ant to .1ter the interior in some slight wait it could be a minor PC
approv.l, and I feel that .hould be an option_
~: 8y Commissioner Gl.zler_
MPTION PASSES: Chairman Huber: Is therE any further discussion on this
~ot1on? It has been moved by Commissioner Christensen and seconded by
COlTlllissioner Glazier that \fie approve the sliff rec.olMl:endation, inc.luding
the public benefit findings, etc. with the exception th.t Items 1 and)
under Public. Benefit sh~uld be labeled IS conditions of appro~al and that
there will be i second paragraph under public. benefits defining fa~ade and
interior control (If presl!'nation. All those in favor, say Aye? All
opposed? That passes on a 5-0 vote, with Commissioners Be~cham and t~l1en
absent.
Mr. Gilljland: That will go to the Archite,tur.l Review Soard on October
17 .nd i. tentatively scheduled to return to you on October 30th.
. --........ ---~, -'
10/09/91
-11-
"
ARCHITECTURAL RfVIEW BOARD EXCERPT
251 Un.iversity A'JenlJe
Palo Alto, California
Octeber 17, 1991
~5 Lytle: This is I Planned Community zone change. so ~cu are ~aking i
re~ommendation to the city council on the removal of 1 ground floor retail
restriction on tt,is P1allned COmDiun'ity· zone property. There I'!"'e no
improvements planned, other than a seismic upgrade, and it will rEturn to
the board if tf'lere ITe any exterior modific.ations. The recclTIIlend'ation of
the planning comrnissfon is to go ahead with this, conceptually and to
forward it tc you for c.ommer.ts. The only issue is the land use fssue.
Ms. Wilson: I am a little confused by what we are supposed to be dcing
~erf with an issue that sounds like it is a planning commission issue.
Ms. Lytle: The legal requirement of the P1anned Community zone change
process 15 to forward this to you for review. As the ground floor retail
l"tlate! to our do\tl,'Tltown and the design of the building, which i5 one of
the justifitations in the staff report for the pllnning commission. it is
the hlsterlc Integrity of tho huilding, the design of the building bei"!i
raised above the street ,leva!;on that would limit it in its use for
retail and personal services. In fact, the commission found that there
was o~1y one retai1 use that they could see It readily transitioned to,
and that is a drinking establishment. Other than that~ they felt it was
not ~ery suitable for eating or retail or personal services. You are
legally part of the process. There are no improvements, so in that sense,
you are right. There is no design on which to comment. But perhaps in
t£rms of the design as it relates to the use of the property. your
comments would be valuable to the council.
Ms. Wilson: But we are talking about a zone change.
~s. lytle~ torrett. It is a Planned Community zone now, so you can
consider tnfs an amendment to the existing Planned Comm~n;ty zone. One of
th! use reqUirements in that zone is the ground floor retail restriction.
Ms. Maser: In look.ing at that buiiding, it is really a neat looking
building and is a great presence ~n that corner. Right now t all the
bl inds are down bec3use there; S T!Cbody in there. and it looks very dead
,.d cold. It is net adding anything to the ambience of that
intersection. J would hope that whatever ~se goes in ther~, that there
will be seme way of .110win; the public at large to participate in that
interior 1n some way. and not have this blank wall of blinds ~hfch shuts
out the public from enjoying the magnificence of that interior space. I
don't kn~w how you legislate that. It is just a comment J have as a
passerby.
Ms. O.~os.: It could be a branch library.
Ms, M.ser: I notice that on the sec end fleer, it looks like they have put
in airrored or bronze glass.
Mr.~: It is Mylar, , preduct made by 3M. That is .11 that is there.
It is fer sun reflection, It is • sheet that yeu apply to the winde.s.
·1-
---.... ,"','"" ... ' -... ~-.. ~ ,?~~~':L
, 'ci-'::Ef
""'," " -' . ...::,:;---:",',
:f,,'j(,c
.,:.-. :..' -
Ms. Ma$er~ r think from tvery pfcture I have, the impression is that it
is bronze or I different cclor from the gi~ss on th! lower level. It
gives I very different 1mpress1on. Downstairs loo~s lite ,le~r 91i5S.
The effect ~s these were treated liKe glazing material, is you look at it
from the outsi~e. I would hope t~at could be resolved, a~ you l!ase t~is
d~~stlirs spaCE. I hope you ~111 take I look at thit and try to bring it
back into an fntegratea, whole picture.
Ms WilsQn: 'he buildln; historically ~.d awnings on the opper floo ••.
You could take Qff the Mylar .,d put awnings back on.
Hr. lyl~l: ~at ts your purpose for wanting to change this?
Mr. 9ifr: We had what ~e considered to be a ~ery vibrant plan to
revitalile that space. This is pr~bab'y one of the nation's biggest
1m'estment brokerage houses. it has been a bank throughout most of its
history. They are going to invest stgnif1cantly in t~~ Quality of th~t
space. As far as we are conc~rned, it is the perfect use for that space.
A retail would be a very hard sell. We have been trying to find i retail
user for 18 months, and we simply cannot get over the ~eight of the
windows. It is i very strong. attracti~e, historic presence for a
financial institution.
Ms. paRgsa: Are they making any (hanges in the interior?
Mr. Baer: No. they love th~ ~istori' nature of th~ building. They w~u1d
liKe us to do a littlt cleanup on the entryway.
Ms. paRosa; I understand tt1at the ra,ade of the building ~as recolTlT1ended
by the planning commission to be preserved in an easement or similar
mechanism through the PC zo~e change conditions.
Ms. Maser: Is there any way we have any control over ~i~dow treatments?
That is an exterjc~ result even though it is an interior condition.
Mr. Baer: Th!y have ~o plans except for adeq'Jate s;gnage which will be
presented to you.
Mr. LYlJIia: Whit is staff's position on this?
M,. lytle: We have taken the positiQn that probably the bu1l~ing is
worthy enough of preser~atiDn in its current form and that tne or1ginal
design of the building Is SQ inhibiting to retoil that it prQbably makes
s~nse to relieve the Gf reQuirement. We are comfortable with t~e fact
that thare Is 0 public benefit fInding through the seismic ugrade and
building preservation.
Mr. Hise: That is what [W~5 going to ask you,Nancy. What \l,'iS the public
benefit, or was it just because it was a PC changed to another PC that
that didn't come up? I was surprised that it was not handled by a use
permit. I am trying t~ understand tnis. I thou9ht you would come in and
they would have I tenant, and we wDuld look at it like a use permit and
say, okay, we .. ill allow that tenant to come in, and then when it changes~
we .ill lOQk at it agaio. So I am som.wh.t surprised.
Ms. Lytle: The PC process does not really allow us to readily make use of
-2-
•
I
I
i
:~~ ...
-
,
.. -~-~ <---_._---..... -
amendment!. A PC amendment has the same findings is i new PC zone change,
rather than t~e ctlndit1c.nal Lise permit findings w~ich ire mor-e enabling.
We gr.ppled wit~ th1s public benefit issue, as afe the planni~g
conmission. CCJnsfderi"g that t~1s. applicatioil is in amend!11en.t to the
existing PC and ,o~s1dering that we are working with the process as it 15
defin~d, ~e saw the public benefit h!re as being t~e seismic upgrade which
they have agreed to do and the fa;ade preservation condition. In
addition. an interior fa,ade easemer.t, per se, ~cn't be an easement but is
a condition, faT t~e downstairs ~nteri~r ~as require~ by the pllnnlng
~omm15s1on. These benefit proposals are less strict than what we Expected
from new PC zone change appl'cants.
Ms. P~RMj: So 'What he is suggesting is not possible? ft. use pennit or
something li<. that?
MS lytle: No, we do not have that mechanism. I thin~ it is i ~ery good
idea and I think ~e need something different t but we do not ~ave t~at at
present.
Mr. Hi$e~ All 1n all, it so~nds like even t~ough t~e benefit is weak, a
co~p1e ~f those things were w~at I was going to sugg~st as a benefit. We
dun't usua11y hear what the public benefit is here. 1 have looked at a
couple of Pes now, and ~aybe that is d1stussed at the p1anning commission
level.
Ms Lvt1e: We gave you the plannin~ commission staff report so y~u are
aware of that. The things the commission said in their meeting were that
they did ~ot want these public works improvements listed as public
benefits. Sidewalk replacement, trees, they asked us to get those t~ings
out of the benefit column and move t~em into the conditions column. The
things they did accept were the seismic upgrade and the historic
preservation of the extErior of t~e building. plus t~ey asked for interior
fa;ade preservation of the first floor.
Ms. W;l$Qn: I am a lfttle confused because I t~ought t~is building was
part of the PC with 529 aryont Street. Why is it by itself now?
Ms Lytle: T~e reason it is here is because it was wrapped ~nto t~at
protess. The historiC aspect of it was used as a benefit in that process,
essentially. T~e seismic upgrade, t:Hi th~ ot~er ~and, is not. That 1S
inot~er question we had asked internally. Hasn't t~e applicant already
don. this? The 'ppllc;nt hiS admitte~ that it does se,,' a bit redundant.
The project wa' tied together with 519 Bryant Street, but the seismic
upgrade was not a require~nt. So we are going a little bit further, but
not aruch. I wish we had something like t~e use pe~1t mechanism. This
process 1s a little bit awkward for an amendment.
~~: This is a PC change to make a pe~anent change as long as
t"1s bu;ldi~g is stand1ng t or is it to t~is parcel? It is not like a zone
c~anget so t~at if the building burns da~nt it no longer applies.
Ms, lytle: It is • lone chinge. If the bui lding were to burn do""
without another Planned' COlTlTlun1ty zone change or a zone change to a normal
lone, replacement of that building would be .llowed. But yes, the ground
floor removal Is for the lif. of the building and as long as that zoning
applies to the propert,. If the building burns down. they would ha,e the
-.-.----~---
'-' -,-
·L
-,
right to replace tht improw~ments IS they were for continued use lS
allowed.
Ms. paEqsa: Can we changl! that and tie" it just to that hhtoric
building? It sounds 1 ike thlt 1$ tho whole point.
Ms. Maier: It sounds like I good pOint, A1"0.
~s. lytle: You could c.rtalnly add a condition that If this building Is
$omehow catastrophicllly destroyed, t~e SF wo~ld revert to app1y to this
property.
Mr, Baer; We would love to ~aye ground floor retail t~ere. We simply
have not been successful achieving that. If peoplE say, we will take it
but we want to pull all the windows down to the ground, we will say, no,
we ~re not gOl"9 to do that.
~r. tYL~a: The way I see it, we are trying tc justlfy a building fa~ade
Ind a building design with I use, and ~e are willing to go against the
zone t~ maintain t~e building appearance and tc relieve the hardship on
the applicant. That is the way we really need to focus on this. Would
someone care to mak~ a motlon?
MQIlQM: Ms. paRQsj~ I move t~at we recommend to the pla~~ing commission
or city council that we 3ccept this PC change, with the idEa that we are
interested in the historic preservation of this building. The window
glazing on the second floor is part of tne ~istoric tradition, and W~ need
conditions to br1ng this building back to its ~istor;c character. The
entry doors should b~ changed to something mor~ compatlb7e with the
building and that if th~ buildfng were to burn deHorn Dr have some other
cat~strophlc ~isastert tne PC use c~ange would n~ longer apply and the
parcel ~uld return to retail.
Ms. Masgr: Can J add one thing about the transparency of t~e windows at
the lower leyel? That that be considered in some way to opEn up that
gro~nd floor level visually.
{Amendment acceptable t~ ma<er of motion)
Ms. DaRes!: The preservation of the public's c"joyment ef this bui1dfng
is i part of being able te see into the building. Public enjoyment of the
,iew of the high ceiling wiil help offset the loss of 'it.lity contributed
by a retail user on tne ground floor.
~: By Ms. Mas.r.
Mr. lyzwa: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? That
passes unan1mously.
Ms, Maser: Let's say this recommendation goes ~n to the city council and
they adopt .11 these recommend.tions. That then means that that stuff
would be t.~en off of the upper windows. Is that right?
Mr, Lvzwa: Some"preservation and restoration of tne historic character of
the building is in order. I think. that 15. what we Ire saying, isn't it?
[n fact, that is what t~e planning commf~~ion said also.
·4·
n "
; j
1
i ,
Mr, Bier: T~e tenant ~as difficulty with $un coming 1n the windows, so
the~ have requested that th~ ~nter1or space be treated much l!kt if t~ey
were putting in w1n1ow shad!s. Is a windo~ shade in the purvSew of thE
ARB? They just want something to shade the sun.
Ms. Warbei1: On the second floOT. ] think yo~ could make a case that
~1ndow glass is an exterior material, and if they do something to the
other side of the window glass, they ha~e changed part of the exterior.
Ms. Maser~ It is a real subjective th1~9, because with that building on
th" corner of Hig~ and Universjty, they have white levelors that are fully
down almost all of the time. It .a'e. that whole building look very
austere ind impenetrable.
Mr~: That Is the alternative.
Ms Maser: Even though it is not an exterfor th~ng. it really affects the
exterior appearance of th~ building. lnat is ~here ! am a littlf
confused. How can we tell them when they ire try~ng ta screen the light
out of their hu1ld1ng from an interior standpoint, when it is an exterior
issue, l~d on the other hand, it reall1 does affect the exterior
appearance of the bui~ding.
Ms PaRasa: White le~elors ife opaque, and ycu can use ather colors such
as Silver, which helps. little bit.
Mr. ly,w., I don't think it is enforceable. What.ver you do on the
inside of the .indow pane Is not enforceable by the ARB. We could as. the
applicant t~ please consider a qualfty design ~Dlution and please listen
to o~r concerns tnat we voiced, for instance, on the Thoits Building~ ]
am sure that is the owner of the building, yOy would be the first not to
want an opaque, unattractive appearance of your own building with your own
tenants. Those are just concerns, but] don't think tnere lS anything on
the books that says we could enforce that.
Ms, Lytl" You certainly do not ha.e the ability thrCU9" the ARB
ordinance, but you could through the PC zone change proce-ss. ] think the
question is , is t~ere the ne~us or the logical connection between t~e
app1icants's request and the co~dition you are requirin9~ Certainly
removing the gT{)und floor restrictlon and ask.ing tner: not to blind those
gr~und floor windows is logicaily connected. We are losing the vitality
of having retin there on the first floor, but at least not to have the
1055 in terms of visible acce>s to the beautiful interior of the
building. So that condition, I think, 15 probably approprhte. legally.
Whether It Is enforceable Is another quest ton.
So you are saying you would ratner not haye blinds and would rather net
have the Mylar that Is there now on the setond floor?
Ms Wilson: ] think it is a problem, and somehow, I ~ou1d like to know
what their intention is and ~ave it return to ~s.
Mr. lyz.a: There you go. Something that would have been done in the
cnaracter of that b~lldjn9.
-5-
-. .,
M5 tytle: You could recommend a condlticn for solar co~trol on the upper
floors~ ~~th that $olut~o~ tG ret~rn to the boa~d for their re~1ewi
whether it be interior blindi~g wh1ch will affect the exterior appeara~ce
of the building, Dr whether it be the canopi,s.
Ms. Wilson: I would 5~gge5t tnat ~hatever tr~atment they ~o for solar
control on that bu1ld1ng. be it blinds, awn1ngs, whateve~, on bath the
f1Tst ar.d second floor come back as a ccnsent item j~st so that we know
what is going t)n. ind we ~ave an optfon to say. that 15 going to Took
hideo'Us.
Mr. Baer! Th~s ts really tenant drf~en. We rea1iy are not it l;berty to
do a~ything on the second floGr unless t~ey came to us with « spec1fic
request. They have not. So let m2 be clear. If I have to go back to the
tenant and say, you na¥! to submit to the ARB your sun shade plan, r am
not sure what you are going to get. They may 53Y, we are going to put in
this stuff, or we are gOing to put in blinds. What do you want us to do?
Ms. Wjlson: 00 you have I tenant up there now who is going to stay up
there'?
~r. Baer: They are in there on a seven·year lease.
Ms, Wjlson: I don't see that you have to change that up there now. I
just th1nk that whatever you do on tne first floor has to be compatible
with that and hopefolly would allow public .njoyment of that do.nstairs
interior space.
~r. Bter: So this is basica"~ a first f100r request.
Ms. Wilson: Yes.
Mr. Hjs@: T was hoping it was building~wide. That is what] was going
.10ng with.
Ms. Wilson: I don't think you can do that in the middle of a te~a~cy.
~r. Hise: It is a PC zone thange~ so you can ask for this ~ind of stuff.
~~. Maser: We are asking for benefits through the PC. So it doesn't ha~e
to be put O~ the tenant. The owner can take care of it.
Mrt Lyzwa: I would like the board to refo~u5 its decisfon, as it is still
confusing. What we need to do is to have the owner walk away from us
today with a very clear t.:nderstanding as to wtlat it fs that we decided and'
in order fot tne staff to keep its own sanity. Would someone please state
what It Is th.t we .ant in loglc.l tenos?
Ms, Maser: Cou1d we repeat the motion?
Ms. Lytle: The re~ised motion you hove discussed was to appro~e the
Flanned Community zone change with some additional (ondjtions. The first
was that the window Mylar treatment on the second floor was to be removed,
with an alternative solar treatment to be approved by the ARB. The
transpareney of w~ndows on the first floor was to be pre$er~ed by
disallowing blinds, etc. on the first floer. The entry doors were to be
-6-
-•. _ .• k-+.C...--_.
~.'
.!;Ii.
•
~,
~~~
:'.::-.,
i
I
-
replaced by • hi ,torltllly more appropriate design; .n1 • thIrd conditIon
that if the b,lldlng were cat.strophlcally destroyed, the ground floor
restrfctlon would return to the property.
J1!r~ Batr: Can we rully d1chte-the curtains that they elect to put in
their second f'~or?
Ms. W11sao: YOY ean put a~fng$ on the outside and t~ey won~t need
curtains.
Mr. Baer: We can't put awnings on there.
Ms. Wilson, You .. ill If YOlj have to.
Hr. Hfse: That is what we are saying. This is a PC change, and we are
now talking to the owner, not to the tenant.
Mr. Baer; If we are going to put blfnds on t~ose windows, it is going to
look lIke a fort-.ss. Vou are going to have full shade blInds, and that
is fine if that is what you elect to da~ It seems t~ me that we have
taken it frem not perfect to much worse.
Ms. Lvtlt: For clarification, the cDndition here is that the ARB ~ust
approve whatever solar c~r.trol is used in the interior. They do not nave
the authority through the ARB ordinance, but It is possible through the PC
zone change process to actually control that.
Mr. Baer! I am not trying tQ resist. ] am just trying to be realistic.
Ms. Wjlsqn: You are not providing any tenant improvements?
Mr. Baer: No, not on the second floor. They are in there in a seven-year
lease. Tney have done all the interior work. All we are doin9 is asking
t~e commissfon to put this financial institution on the ffrst floor. They
Ire doing beautiful int~rior desfgn themselves. ] am just trying to be
realistic about what I ha,e to ask the tenant to do. It Is iike telling
them they have to change their furniture.
Mr. Hise: It fs clear fr~m ~ur point of view tnat we arE tying this to
the own~~, not to the tenant. As a condition cf our approving your PC
changf. we are asking you to do this.
Hr. Lyzw.: let me try and clarifY this agafn. What we have done fs th~t
we are proposing to all o. you to get a change of zon~. What we are askfng
for in return is for a solution to return on the second level with sol.r
devices. We are not asking for anything exotft or s~per expensive. All
we are askIng Is to take. look at that shading de,'ce. ~e do realize
that this wtll take soma coordination between you and the tenant upstairs,
but there are perforated shading devices t~at are not very opaque that do
I wonderful service of scr!ening out the sun that will alTow a let of
translucency Into the Interior of the buIlding. So there are solutIons
out there, and I do not think we should be focusing In on something that
Is way more complex than we .re aSking_for. It can be a sImple solutIon,
and we just want to ~ave • comfort lev!l that ge!, we are gOing to have
the feeHng of retan even though it is not gOing to be retail. I thInk
you agreed to that and ~e are going to have a sense of comfort about the
-7-
•
-
second level t~at we w~11 not ~ave an Dp~qu~ wall. That is all we ~re
after.
Ms. Ma$e.r~ Let's ma(e sure that we are not just lD~kfrlg at the secor,d
level by itself, and t~at sornehcw, you word in there that we want the
entire building treated in i cohesive fashion in terms of the glazing
solution.
Mr. Lyzwa: Can ~e~ it least, as I board agree that this can return on I
consent calendar so that if this lS i !cheduling issue ~ith them, th~y can
proceed and ~ake themselves happy and us happy, we will let them come back
on a consent cal endar, ilnd we can mo .... e along witf; th1 s thi ng. I think we
have made it sound I lot ~ore complex than it is.
~~: Is this, then 9~anted with a stipulation~ because there is new
i six-wee~ cycle before W~ have i lone change?
Ms. lytle: Their recommendatiQn now is to be forward~d to the city
councn so they ha'"e recolmJended approvil of t~e conditions that 'We
spi!lled Ol.it. Then it goes back to the-plann1ng cOlTlllissicn for tneir last
meating in Octob~r. Then it goes on to the city council i" November. So
should their conditions be accepted by the council. you would just come
forward on t~e consent calendar with that solar issue immediately if you
don't protest the condition, or as soon as the (cuncil has taken actien if
you do protest it and are overturned ..
Mr, Baer~ There is I timing and schedulin9 is~ue. We n~ed to get a
response to them relatively soon. The schedule tnat we had set up was
soon enou9~ so that t~ey could ta~e occupancy in November.
Ns. Wilson: The schedule has not been interrupted. There is no change in
that. The soiar control issue you can be deiling with in the interim.
Ms. Lytle: You would need to go to the council and get tneir final acticn
before you take any steps.
~r. Baer: The council will approve t~isl and ther. we will return to you
so that we can corrmit to the tena~t about thesE lmpro'o'ementL
~r. lyzwa: Someone has to make i motion to void ~hat we initially ~oted
on. and now include ill the condit lens we officially ~ant included. Our
initial motion did not carry those conditions.
~OTION: ~r. lvzwa: ] would liKe to make a motion to have a superceding
~otionl w~ich n~w inc1udes ill these cond'itlcns we nave discussed.
~: Ms. DaRosa. I wUl s.econd it for tn! sake of discussion, but I
think that tvery item is. in tne original motion except for tne idea that
t~ey can return w;t~ the solar contrel on consent.
Ms. Maser: let us have Ms. lytle read jt again.
Ms. lytle: The Architectural Re,i.w Board action \s to accept the Planned
Community lone change per the stiff recommendation, with the folloWing
idditional conditions: the window film on the second floor is to be
removedj the transparency of the w;rld:lws on the first floor 1S to be
f
~. ;
,
. '.
-'-~----
preserved; III th~ windows Ire to be treated unifo~'y throughout th~
bu11dingi any future solar control on any floor would have to r~turn to
the Architectural Re~1~w BGard on the consent calendar. The second
conditfcn is that the entri doors are to b~ replaced to a ~re
hlstorlc.lly appropriate design doors. The third condition Is that If the
building nre < .• hstrophlcally destroyed, the ground floor restriction
would return to the property.
Mr· Lyzw~: The ~ote is unanimous - 5 to O .
. g.