The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0174.093. , , ~ ~1>rAt___ " I ''''"'~ '". "" I • " - HONORABLE ClTY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Memb~rs of the Council: Report j fl B rl ef This report sL.!ITfTIarizes publiC, adliisory board afld (orrrtCission COllm1fnts. and recommendations on the Draft Downtown Urban Design PTan. It a1so r~quests C1ty C.ouncil review and comment on the draft plan. ana' recorTrT12nds City Council adoption. Dis.cussior. Afte~ fo~r years of hard wor~, the Urban Design Committee has p~oduced a Draft Urban DeSign Plan for consideration by the City Council. B~ckground informa.tion related to the preparation of tile plan, including a sUrmlary of c:onments recei\i'ed during pub1ic: outreach to downtown merchahts, property O'Irfners, neighbors, and review by the Architectural Review Board, the ~istorjc Resources Board and t~e Public Art Commission, is contained in the attached r~port tOo the Plannin9 Conm; SSTOI'1 dated December 4, 1993. Th.e P1a.nnll'1g CO!llTlission review€d tne Draft Plan at their meeting of December 9, 1993 and imanimouslj reccMe(lded adoption of tile pTar. by the Cit)' Council [minutes are included ,~ the Council's packet). The Utilities Advisory (omission reviewed th.: plan at their meeting of December 2. 1993 {minutes attached). Significant comments and recomrnendations of th2 Planning Commission and the Utilities Advisory Commission, ~hich are not already addressed in the December 4 Planning Commi~sioM Staff ~eport. are summariled belo.w. All of the various groups, boards and co~n1$sions ~hich re~iewed the plan expressed enthusiasm and support for the plan. Planning ComMission comments ENTRIES: COllcern was expressed tt1at Alma/El Camino Real should not be emphasized as an entrj to downtown. esp~cially in li9ht of the City's CMR:174:93 - -< stated desire to nat h". Alma link to Sand Hill Ro.d. The Mi<:ld1efield/uni\<ersity {!ntry se.e:ns. to work fine now, sc there ;s discomfort with th~ idea of empha~iz1ng higher d~nsity housing in this area. (Harsh) BUlLDING MASS: T:'e phn taUs about l'1ow building mass should b~ focused at tne corners in order to anchor intersections. Some concern wa$ expressed that mass \lces 1lCt always Coquate to an improved pi!destri an experience~ and that this plan S}-;O'JId. r.ot necessarily e01colJrag12 incl"eased building mass at the c.ornars. (Marsh, Cunen) PLANNED COMMUNITY ZON, PUBLIC BENEFl,S: The list of items, which might qualify as publjc benefits for Planned CO~Jnity Zone projects. need$ to be compared to the ori9i~al list of desired downtc~~ amenities de~e1oped several years ago. The plan should clarify that this list has a lot of things which wouid be '''dce; but would be very minimal ~ublic benefits in and of themselves" (Marsh, Cu1len) NE1GHBORHooD PROTECTION: Protection of residential neighborhoods needs to be emphasized Irore, 'IIith specific icus, in the discussion of transition edges. (Ojaj.::,; an) lmER FRDf'i JIM S.A.ER~ The Commission recei\led a letter at tile me-eting from Mr. Baer regarding his concerns and comments ~n the plan" The Commission agreed with Mt. 8~er that there shoulj be better emphasis of the plan as ~g\.lidel ine" rather Uun regulation, and that specific references to liddieoats (i.e., private property) should be removed from the plan. Staff also a~rees and sees no problem incl~ding these changes. UtIlities A~Yisory Commission Comments The CommiSSion gentrally s~pp~rted the Draft Plan and indicated t~at in the future they would be open to discussing ways to improve the appearance of necessary ut il i ty structures i r. the dawntown" New lighting for the downtown area is a utilities CIP item to be implem€nted in the near future. Careful consideration of the type of light fixtures used \rIo'ould be necessary. Next Steps Staff is recommending t~at the City Council adopt the Draft Urbdn Design Plan .and direct staff to pro{juce a final plan incorporating cotm1enls receiVed t,y the pub,ic, boards and corrm;ssions and the (ouren. The City Council original1y approved a budget of $25,000 to produce the Urban Design Plan. Th~t money was used mostly to Day for the services of a consultant, who facilitated the early meetings of the Committee and produced a CMR:174:93 2/18/93 p:I,Cl'lY1lOdp,.",.. Page 2 - -------------,-~ number of the graphics in the plan (the remainder of tne graphics .... ete produted voluntarily by Rooert Frank. of Ole jJrban Design ClJlIII1ittee). Of the total $~51000. approyimately S4,300 rem~ins. Staff bel i21{PS that this amount is sufficient toO finali~e the document in the following manner: finalize graphics wfthout making significant style or content chinges (all gra;:"h1c5 fn black. and whit~); Proouce firl3il co't'e-r art ir. two (:olorsj Inc:crporate c"-ang£s based on C()l'1"ments receivoed frnm the public, boards and commissions and (ounc)1j In-house xerQX printing~ lOCO copies. !f the final document were produced based or. the above, lt would look Ysry s1milar to the draft in tet1TlS of Quaiit}, anc! content. Howe-",er, due to our current·~Qrkloadt the staff resources necessary to finalize the plan (incorporate comments, word processing and grap~ic5 layout}, ~ou1d net be available for si;( months. Staff 'Would ar.ticipaie relea:s.;ng the final plan in lite sunmer. Recovrnendat ion Stiff recclTInends Hat the Ctty (ourl-cll; ]) Adopt the attached Negative Declaration of envir0nmenta1 impact; 2J Adopt He Draft Urbin Design Plan; 3) Direct staff to produce the final Urbar. Design Plan~ responding to COlB'!'Ients received from the pub-Hc! boards and com; ssions and the Council. Respectfully submitted, CHR: 174:93 ~-: ,1:~£--I~ WmETH R. SCHRE rBER )' Director of Planning and Ce".",unity Environment 2/18/93 Page 3 . ~ '.'0 ~-.----~---.--~-------------~------------"'!!f'~-• Attachlnents: -..... ' . -- Ne9iti~e Declaration Pluming (omiss.ion staff report of 12/4/92 w'ith attachments fxce"pt of ARB minut., of 11/5/92 lnd 12/3/92 Excerpt of Utllities Adv~sor.Y COimtiHior. Minlltes of 12/2/5 Letter from Jim Baer daied December 9. 1992 Dr.ft Urban De';9' Pl," (Council Members only) cc: Urban Oesign Committee Chor: t:::eenan Jl. B.er CMR:174:93 2/18/93 Page 4 • ... ---.--~-- ., ." - Environmental Coc~mef.ts -City of Palo Alto Pr·:,jec.t ~es.criptiGo/Tit1£: Urbil1} ___ nPt!s'i9~ Phl'\ fc,r C~t't .of Pc..\C ~ltCl-,_ ni~_E1~ provides a set of pub1ic a~d pril;'ate g'Jid€lines for imQ_.r9s_tQ.9 ___ Jr,oi'.! U5e and _ character _Q£J;!owntown Falo Alto . .A.lso inc1u_Q_<::4-i!inJJJ.Lplan is al1 jmple~e~tatiQn section de-scribing ootel1tial~_Qnf..nachj€'ving the con.;;:eiJtc;; and obi~_~JiX~_~ __ _ li!l.de .. n!lJtl:iL!f:Ji.l:ej1d~. ________________________ _ location/Address: City of Pj,l!;t A1!.Q. aerreral1y the downto_~_r:L ___ E.!'n~n"t_ bounded bi Middlefield RoaJL. Alma Street. Fcrest Avenue andlittQ.D __ ,l,vEiliJe. Sponsor-jng Agency/Ap,ollcant: ~ill ____ ..Qf Palo Alto. Oe[lartrne~t of _pJanning and CQmmunih fnvironmftllL ,~ddres~ a~ld Telephone of Applicant: 250 Hamilton Av.§n ... ·:o. SUr noor,--_P_~.l~_ A_~ (A 94303 (4151 329·2440 Appl kation f(j:": NfA ____ _ (e.g., zoning cha~ge, subdivision of property. archHect!.Jral re'dew. etc.) Zoning at Project location: Various Fee Re-:e i pot ~b.: N,' A _________________ _ N01!CE OF DET[RMIII,~TION Based upon re .... iew of th.e project fiioes. the urld(,r~igr;c,j membEr-of He P1anning O€partment has concluded: IX) Kegative Oechriitior.: The project has no significaDt environmental impact. No En~ironmental Impact Report i~ re~uir€d. The rca~ons fo~ a Negative Declaration c:re: the pTan pr.:;vidcs only gwid2lines and suggestions intended to be used in evaluating future public improvement and private development prOjEcts. ~hile the pl~n is inte~ded to inspir'e and er:c.ourage actions cors.~!otent ';tIHh the idr:~s prt:~,ent~d. :".0 specifiC projects ar-a-mand<ited. AriY individual p'Jbi it Or' private projects resulting from this plan will be e¥~luated for environmental impact at the tjme the sp!clfit project is proposed. [I The prDj~ct may have a significant enviror'.r.Jent.:.:l ir:;pact An Environmental Impact Report ~ill be prepared. ~ rV··I' Planning Depariment Offici~1: v1~,l'\._--~~>tL~£r~.-·---- .-' ~ /J Planning Dire... ~~I< _____ Sd~~~ __ w D,:;.te: l../t!·/1~c~-__ _ Date; The project has been denied. Date: • - .••.. , "'1 D~ce;r.ber 4. 1992 PLANNING COMMlSSiON PalQ Alto, (aliro~r.ia DRAFT DCWNiQWN URBAN DESlGN PLAN Members of t~e Commjssio~: Project Description Tr..i.s report surrmilrizes public, advisory board ind corrmisslon comments and recQ!II!1e-ndations on the draft Downtown Urban Design Pl an. It aha requests Plarlning Co!tJTIissior, review and rf:commf!ndation(s) on the draft Plcln that will be submated for C,ty Council consideritiQn and final action in ·January 1S93. Background In September ]9B7, fo11~in9 completion and irnpTementatlon of the Downtown Study in 1986 a"d City CounCil policy action on the Downtown Amenities Comjttee recomendat1o!'!s in mid-1987? the City (ouncil appointed a ten-member Urban Oesign Committee (UOCJ t~ prepare a Downto~ Urban DeSign Plan. The Council's objective was t~ ha~e a design p1an for the Downtown Ar~a that wo~Td gtlide future d!~eloprnent and identify apprapriate plJolic improvement within the context of pre~;0{Js1y appr-tved pol icies and regul at. ions for the Downtown Area. The vl)lunteer Comitte! met extensively ave:" a four-year period in c'2''felop~ng information and ultimate1y concepts and graphic il1ustrat:cns Hat wou1d be incorporate-d ~ithin the draft Pl-an. This draft Plan was co~p1eted and distributed fer public review in August 1992. Subsequently, members of tne Urb~n Design Committee and staff m~t and discussed the Plan on six occasions in October 19~2, with Yarjous Downtown interest groups, tncludiri9 merchants, property owners, other business owners and nearby neighbors. Ov,=r 70G i.otices were sent to the~e indi~idua]s and bUSinesses announcing the availability of this draft Plan and the date ard location of the six outreach meetif1gs. In addition. the draft Plan was reviewed by th~ Publi:::: Ai"t Commission, Historic Resources Board [HR8], Architecture Rel/iew Board (t',RB], and Util Hies Ad~is.ory Commissi~n [UAC). Al1 Boards and Commissh"lS who have re ... iewed the Plan to date, endorse it enth~s1astical1y. 12/04/92 Page I ' . r' ., j , , ~ I I i I , : 1 I - .. -.. The draft Downtown Urban Design Plan i~ intended "tQ er.ha~ce th~ quality of downtown and ens~re that it retai~s its appeal and attractiu~.~ Tne draft Phn emphasizes that it 15 ir:ter:ded tQ guide downtown de ... ~lc::pme~t and amenities and is Ii.Q!. intended to be bi11ding or regulatory in nature. The torm'i'tttee forwards the Plal'1 with H~p. hope that it ... j11 i<1!-pire p7'l\1ate action, rathf'r than demand it. The Pian can become a catalyst fer advocacy for public irnprovemer>ts in the Downtown. The Ccmittee aCKncwledges that the Plan -captures some ideas and COl"rct!pts. Most concepts 'Will undoubtedly be modified, slightly or radical:y: in their later d'e",elopment. Some of the liHimate goa1s are likely to be accomplished in ~aJs that were not en~fsio~ed ar antiCipated by the (olTl"/llttee. TherefQ~, the PTan should be vie"·-ed as i tool and reSQurce. rather tha~ a requirement; an inspiration rather than a regulation. Staff and the ARB are cCiTITlitted to being very f1e);ibie and open rninde-d in their app1ication of the Plan. The Committee intends the Plan to be fluid and realizes that the indi~ldu~' va~iables relating to any 5!ngie prop~rty or situation will hav! a great deal to do w~th the ult~mate 1~si9n sO:ijtions, and tnere is a need for creiti~ity and responsi~eness to those variables. For the Plan to be succes$ful it should to be embraced by the property and business owr.·~rs, not forced upon them. Implen-rentat1on is ex.oE"l:ted over-the long rather t"~I!l the short term. Things will occur whfcn ...,i11 -date-th2 doct.:ment and H shc·l,!ld ne\ler become a constraint to inllO'r'ation. Tha.t res.ult would be contrary to its ;ntent and purpose. Summary of Cpmmgnts and RecQmmendations or. tnt Plao To date, RIOst members of the puh1'ic !nd all of the advisory boards and ,omrnissions ~iYe been ~ery supportive of the Pian. Cr1ticisms ~ave focused on se\leral areas~ Use of the Phn Some indh'1duals, part~c.ul.ar1y the major Downtown property owners Jim Baer and Chop Keenan, have expressed concern tnat ~tGff and the ARB will use the ?ian as a regulatory device rather tnan a guideline for improved ql.!a1it,)'. M~·. Baer is satisfied that th~ Plan ... ill not be misused jf it is adopted ...,ith a set of instructions to staff and t~e ARB not to use the Plan as a basis to deny proj2cts with reference to it. Also, he ~ould prefer that the reference to the liddicoat's building be deleted. Hr. Keenan has requested t.~at any reference to pri,vate property and architecturt: be remo~ed from the Plan in order to prevent another layer of -zoning~ fer t~e Do~town. Staff has gone to some length to assure these property owners that the document ltIIi 11 not be i.tlpii€d rigidly. but it is understandable that they will require City Council assurance on how the Plan will be used before they are comfortable. -L 12/04/92 Page 2 - Jihile staff and the ARB il'1tend to be flexible i~ applyir,g the guidelines, it carmot be igrjored that publ ic spa<:e is famed iind framed by the bU1ld~n9s '",hid surround it. This is a fund;j,mental principle of urba,; dei~gr;. Deleting all T€fe-rence to private prQP€rty would eliminate the three-dimensional quality of this Plan; which is a primary c~ncept being forwarded in the document. Furthennore, .... hile thf: major property owners ate to be campI imp.nt~d f~r t~ei1" many successful contributions to the DC'III'ntown. it must be adnowJedged that many ARB app11c~nts ire not familiar with the urban fr~mework of the Downtown and would ber.efit frGm a document which articuiates cormlUnity ex-pectations prior to design;ng t~eir project. The ARB reviews hundreds of smCi11 applications eve,! yt;'u, oftentimes 'Working with unsophistic;.ted appl~(:ants after th,ey have invested in plans. Currently the onlY m€thod for relaying cOrrrT1'.mity expectations in advance of the project design is for staff or ARB members to verbally articulate thes:€ concepts. This method is unsatisfactory and creates undue tension in the process. The verbal cOlTlTlents of an ir.di'Jidual staff person or ARB member are oft€n interpreted to be that ~erson's cpiniun j rather than i community expectaticn. On the other hand, an illustration in the Urban Design Pliln can be ..... arV. a thcu$and 'Words· in explaining to a less sophisticated ap~lit:Qnt the bef'lefit of, for example. d€signin.g pedestrian distr",ct building corners (p.age 59) or putting a "base on the building" (pages 60 and El}. Traff,c Nearby reSidents pxpressed concern over increased traffic int~ the neighborhoods, particularly if Alma Street was made increasingly pedestrian oriented and con¥erted into a boulevard. Measures can be taken tc visually de~emphasize the automobile without restricting automobile traffic flow. Tree plantings ire an example. Pedestrian crossings will e'Jentually restrict auto~bile$, however, and It should be acknowledged that the Alma Boulevard concept is a long-range aspiration and that furtner emphasis ~n pedestri_ I conr.ections, de emphasizing through traffic, will need to be accompanied in conjunction with m~As~res to address the neighborhood concern. The intermodal tra1'lSportatior. concepts ~oio/ being discussed in the -Dream Team" effDrt, to eventually be introduced te ~itizers in the Comprehensive P13n proce~s, will need to address the neighborhood concerns over traffic. It should be noted t~at until societ~ r~co9nizes. through indi'Jidual lifestyle choices, the full cost of automobiles on -quality of life,~ there will not be a complete resoiution to this concern. HOlJllev€r, it cann~t be expected that people will ever use their cars le~s if planners and policy-makers do not provide options to the automobile. The design of Alma currentlj ljoes riot pro'Tlote intermodal transit. Pedestrian access to the train and bus statiQn is dismal at best. Bicyclists are not enco~raged. Therefore, i~ order to provide better choices, consideration of potential options will require thorougp e~aluation in the Comprehensive Plan process and support from th€ neighbnrnoods. 11/04/91 Page J '" , ~ •...•.• ! i - Numerous int~rests expressed frustratfo, o~er the perceived lack of a~equate park!ng in the Downtown area. Some ~ndividua1) asked why ~Dm~ sites wer!!' ider.tified is b!?ing suitable! for parking structures while other pot.er,tia1 !lites 'tiere not mentioned. Ttlese sites were se-lected due to their ad~quate size, configl..1ra'tion a.nd TOC2:t10n; ho ..... evoer. it is not the intent of the (orrrnittee to reduc'i!: options for parktng solutions, but In:stead to suggest opportuniti€s. It was learned duriFlg the DO\o,'ntc .. 'n outreac~ that the Chamber of (omm~rce ~as a parking committee ~orking Qn other ret'OMnended solutions to the parking deficit. T~e Urban Design Plin is not i~tended to stifle those pri~ate efforts and would recQrnmend that tne City remain T€ceptive to any future proPQsals. Some members of tna public suggested that the draft P~an emphasize the need to expand and improve transit. particul~rly in the context that impr-oved transit a,1d a healthy Oownf;own were mutuall1 supp~rt1'Je item~. The COlmlittee recogn1Zes this fleed. In fact, the "Dream Team" effort, which receivEd inspl~at;on from the Urban Design Plan 9 is intended to work toward emphasizing 1ntermodal transit fOT the Downtown. The ideas of the ~Dream Team" will eventually be 1r.trodue~o into the (omprehensive Phn process. SOFA bUSiness owners sugg~sted that the Draft Plan provide guidelines t~ improve the appear.nee Df automotive service businesses. These 9uld~lines are presented on pages 53 to 55. Sm!ll~d\09 Expansion One archite,t suggested that the PTan advocate incentives for improving smaller businesses by allowing modest expansions. This concept could be explored as i fonow-up ordinance. A Downtown amenities bonus. simPar to He seismic bQ,1us, could be-made ivail able relatillely easily if the policy makers so desired. mservation The HRB, in endorsing the Draft Plan, urged greater emphasis on historic pre~er~ation in the final document. The Committee and staff are very receptive to suggested wording for final publication. NL:6rm,dwn 11/04/92 "ge 4 I 1 J , , t • i - ., ..J" -, Stoliff received a comment from a represer:tat i ..... e of the newspaper irldu~try who feH that the discussion on newsracks, which focuses on I""epairing and utilizin; the existing public ne~srackst appears to eliminate other pos.sible .arrangements fot newspa.per d~spl ay_ One of the fo11.o"" up assignments te this Plan ~ill be to revise the tity's newsrack regulations. Because there is a legal frame~ork ~ithln ~hfch cities can regl~'ate r.ewsrack~, staff does not want to precltida any reasonable alternatives prior t1 thorough staff and public review of t~e news rack regulation issue. Therefore, staff recommends that the COrMission should nClt ,·iew. the language in tne Plan as excluding other optfons. Staff Re;opmendation Staff recor.rnends that the Planning CO!'1l1;;sion recommend to Cit)l (oun;il ad'optlon of th€ negative dechration trod endorsement of the Urban Design PTan. RespectfuTly submitted, NANCY MADDOX LYTLE Chie£ Planning Official cc: Urban Design CQmmitt~e Chop (eenan, Keenan Land Jim 8aer, Premier Properties AttachmenU: Hi storie Resources Board Mlnutes of November 9, 1992 Archit~ctural Review Board Minut~s of November 5 t 1992 Public Art Commission Minutes of October lS, 1992, ItIHli letter fr"om John Montgomery. Ch2:ir- Draft Urban Design Plan (previously distribut~d) NL:.tr.t! .d ...... 1-. .. '. 12/04/92 Page 5 • " ,,1 I, -" MINUTES 1 S November 1992 The meeting " ... s called to order al 7:48 AM, Members Present: Marl Marcintk, Linda Scot! (arrived during ice", 2), Monty Anderson, ]un McFall, and Neil Heyden ' Members Not Present: Elizabe~h Kilt.s and John Baer Staff Liaison: George lim merman Council Liaison: Lanie Wheeler J. REVIEW OF MINUTES: The minutes for 1114 were not available for review. 2. DRAFT DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN PLAN: Board members elaborated upon comments at its last meeting and provided addi,ional nev.' comments, MOTION. Beard endorses the Draft (jrbaa Design Plan lind encourages an overall greater emphasi, on historic preservation in the final document a!'l.d consideration of th.e follouhng comments: 1) CO!)C€Tn th;i! ne'i.~ structures not create a false sense 0[ historic identity 2.1 recognize the .historic value of street.scape features such as the unique flar~n)r:.," in the Ramona Architectural District and sLiggest a foUow up comminee identify and study features 1r.'orth preserving 31 concern abeut the Alma ccrridor and including it in the plans ".-ilt! EI Camino Real becoming the "edge and. greater linkage betu:een downto'Q,T., To-;..·o &. Country and the Holiday lI!n 4,1 CLarification of \\'hili! the historic inventory is, hm.,' many present oo'(\:nWil..-n ~lruc!.ures are or the inventory (65-J, \l-h-ere they are Located I,inl.:ll!.:s.ion on report maps!, and ",'hat such design,,;on mean, RESULTS: S-O, _______________ City or P.310 Alto ___ _ ---------------- , 01 ... is 'aKl U ~""",_.....,_< .. " MEMORANDUM December 3, 1992 TO: All Planning Commissianers SUBJECT: ARCHlTECTtJRAL REVIEW BOARD MTh'UTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 1992 Staff \\-ill do a special delivery next week before the Planning Commission mee~ing to deliver the Architectural Review Board minutes of November 5, 1992 for your re...,iew. If you have any questions, please call Karen Kit at 329-2440. kk 121D4j92 Page 6 • \ > '! - MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF: CITY COUNCIL: ABSB..'lr: GUESTS: Pubhc An Commission 28 Oclober 1992 Palo Alto Cu.!Luni1 CeI1te:r 1 J 13 Newell Road John Montgomery. Grett:::hoen Riley, Jarr.es Witt, SU&al1 Wexk-..r Leon Kaplan, Jacqueline Murphy Unie Wheeler N .. ,cy Larki..1., Natalie Wells George Zimme:rman, Assistant Plann,n, Officw, eil)" of Palo Alto Planning Dep.rtment, Shirley WU'lOrI, Chair, tr1bon Design Com mittee of Palo Alto, ScoU Wilson The meeting was callc:d to oroor at 7:3~,M, Mati .... tft .ppro~ i>epUmber 1 m mllUlt.,. by RIley S«OD~ by MOWlornery -una w "'ous, Dljlft Downrpwn Urban Des; R n Plan Preoenbltion by Wil"", and Zimmerman inclLJ<ling plans and scherr.atics, ~ Uri>&n Design Committrr. wants to 'mprove the cIowntown aesthetic.o and mm use of p"blic art, otr.legic ooatin, eIemerl .. , interesting focal points, new ii,htinC, hillOric conn<ctlons and definc:d entria 10 Ch. area, Eakins commented that involving artists at the beiinning of projects. is preferable 10 installini pieces laIer, Mont&:omery will t""umit a letter to the Urban Design Committee wiL'> PAC', comb"'ed !COmments. F'mzpc4 area maps Maps. are in l.arkin'J poueuicn. Rile)' win eontact Larkin to discuss their us.e.s:. }I:"b1 k Ptnccru 3" Fjjmr Vinna hgNing A d~n will be: producaJ and presented at • public meeting to add ... ss the impact on L'>e neiahborhood. Vi"t has ,otten '11.'0 bids foe the liihtin, plan (52,600 and $1,600). Kaplan added that. Public Works ma)' be able to design a pIan. Ealcins suggested discussing the vu,dalism problem with the HUnlVl Relations Commission and the Youth Council Greg Brown Riley will write Ii letter of appreciation for Bro""''Drs work to re-store the. downLown pedestrian ief'ies of mural;. .as wen as a letter to the City Manager's ofr:ce for their contribution or supponing runds, ···:'L j i , i· :1 'I , t ; I, , I 1 i I, ! : I ! I - ., o fmtgu=rls pr an in Q!lhHC nli ers roil«tia.D Riley will cii5CUSS with !..aridn, PalO Alto Medic;a] Poundation -----.----~---.~-~--- ' ..... " Mtmtgomc:ry reportcC t~t tt-..e Dream Team is discus...~ing plans. to redesign the downto'l-',.71 train station. !O create a stronger pedt'::stri.an Iinlc with downtown Pa.lo Arlo, the tf'&in statior and S tanfOTd Shopp'n, Center. All Or!!inanoe Mcn"omery hu drafW • resolution 10 present to City Council usir,~ the orieiMl PAC ordinance U I lUideline. The r~lubo:'l encourages ckve10pen to incorporate .ut into project. and 10 ux the PAC as &." aovi",'Y body with ,e.pect 10 c!loi", of pi«:e'. Di.scuuion of erw::ou~ine participation. by awarding acknowle.deement for best public :art for tho year. . Coml"'lission would like art to be induded in more City projecl.5. No Aim CpnSermial Riley V<>lunl='cd to represent the Commission at the mwine 10 diocu ... the role of arts groups in the Cen~ta.i ~·entj. Commi:uion di.-cussed the. possibility of purchasina a new sculpture to celeb ratA:. EilaI:I:I: Witt tried unsu.:ces.fuUy 10 remove the &raf!iti from the sculptu", and will research possible soIutiO!ll. J" Yew Art Com mj Won Report by Riley on Las Vegu" vt in PIlblic placeJ PfO&""". The plw of c"otmywy .00 Innoyatign in Art PnnEm The Commi...,., prese>1ed ktIcr. of appreciation 10 Kaplan and MUTPhy. The forum and tJIe dosoert reception for I aim Frobnmayer were beo.. weU-atten&d and -.01)' 5uccessful. A beu! 1.50 p!<JpI~ .!!ended the lecture. 1m wOIth of tickets wore wid for the """",tion at M>ry S""" PlBre'. home. 'The Commission h .... halana of SSS2 10 use f<>r the nut forum. Riley wrote • thank yOll nol<o Ie M>ry ]ear, Place Reports frpm Qf[t<;jalt Witt reported that be and Larkin er.joyed the tou, of SSG Lytton provided by the intericr desi~"er Ruth Sof"",.xo. Montgomery will ","d. letter of thanla 10 Sofol'Cllko for her involvement in the art in publi.: places. P(~' Wilt sent a thA.-tic: you ~ote to Frohl'1rTU,)IC1. v.~tt suggested that the Commission reschedul~ the 25 November meeting to 18 November. Meeting adjourned At 9:40 P.M. l092.rnin polg\!: .2 of 2 - -----------' ----, ~Ircbitcdll.--.,I Ifcvic\\' -.'.mrd EXCERPT -----c'~" 01 F'alc-t.k>...o------------------------------ MIN~TES Tr,ursday, November 5,1992 8:00 AM A. ROll CAll B-oard Me-moers Present: Board Members Absent: Staff Mell1b~rs Present: Thomas Hi se ,l1ichae1 lyzwa Jul ia Maser A~no Viero-da-Rosa Shirley Wilson rione Lorraine Weiss Jim Gilliland Counci1 Conference Reom 250 Hamiltnn A-.. ef1ue P~10 Alto, CaTifornia B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15. 1992 Approval cf ~inutes with m1n~r corrections (5-0-0-0) .. C. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ftPPP'OV~.LS: Thf ,lI:rc~Hectura:l Re'lie ..... Board (ARB) dec; ~iOfi on He design of the project is a. 'recorT'lTlendation to the Director of Planning and Communfty En .... irorl"TIent (the Director), ""no makes the final dechien. Unless otherwise stcted by the ARB or the Director, project approvals generally incor~orate Project Review (ommittee conditions as mai1ed to the appli-:ant:.s and staff conditi(lns as recommended irl the Information Memorandums. CHANGES.: Any c.naroge to an appro .... ed' dE'sign plan must be resubmitted to the City for approval. Resubmittal of a project may .also be necessar.Y if changes are mandat€d as a result of complying with Public. Works/fngin~ering OT other City department requirements. or any other applicable code or ordinance requirements. APPEALS: All major and minor project approvals are subject to an appeal f': \"'Rg~l "'Vll1r;j1105 Page 1 --.. ~--...,...~- -", .. ,- .. II. c NEW/CLD BUSiNf5S 1. 2.Il......!:,In1vers1tv Ayen~~.l Insta11 new sign to accommodate a new restaurant tena~t and repaint storef~~nt. The property ownpr has been requ~ste~ to appear at tnis meeting to aVOid enforcement action for modifications to the building facade witho~t benefit of proper 2pproval. PUBLIC TESTIHOKY: Teny Ca.rrasco -agrees with the owner's intent to repaint the green sponge pail'lt facade tre-atment of the street level but t!:> retJin the overall repainted building facade. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTIOM: ContInue (4-0-1-0j, Shirley wilson abstain!!d, with applica.nt t'O retlJrf"l lIIitn a complete, cohesive and cr!ltive solution that recognizes the facade is a whole wit" details. of signage and color palette. Suggestions fo!" tne applicant ir,c1ude: another finisn for the gr€en 5po~ge-paint factde treatment ~n the street level portion of tha building front and highlight the building med.llions. ---....,.) 2. Downtown Urban Design PJan: Re'/iew and rec:omnendation to City Council. PUBLIC T£5TI"ONY: George Zimmerman, Nancy lytle, Shirley Wilson, and Bruce Fukuji presented the Draft Plan. ARCHITECTURAl REVIEW BOARD ACTIDN: Comments to be given .t nex! meeting. 3. Planned Unit Development (PlIO) C .... itt •• : Appoint 2 ARB members. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION: Thomas Hise and Hichael Lyz •• appoint€d to the pun Committee. 44 ADPO~ ntmer,t of .~.RB 1 ia 1 son to the Comprenens i ve: Plan C1 then I 5 Ad!ijsorY_~OO'lI1ittee. Jul ia Mas."J:....!P1!ointed. 5. Board t(t.Meveo lUnch for out-going Chal! • .t.iriO Yiero-cfa-Ros~ foll owing "ovtttlber ]9 meetfng,- P: \AllE \I'IIIrr\l'l1 .11 os. Page 9 • " I .. - ~rdlifectlt .. :'1 I~e\'ie\\' Umu·d EXCERPT • -----;::'1". 01 ~ AJto-____________________________ _ MINUTES Thursday. Dece::".oer 3) i992 8:00 AM Board Members Fresent: Thomas Kise Michael Lyzwa J1111 a foiaser Council Conference Room 250 Hamilton Aveiilie Palo Alto, California Aino Vie;ra-da-Rosa Shirley Wilson Board' Members ,lI.bsent: Michael lyzwa was absent for item N on the consent calendar and iiem #4 on the regular agen-da. Staff Members Present: Nanc.y L.'IItl e lotra i ne We is s B. APPROVAL OF MINUT~S O~NOVEMBER 5. 1992 APPROVED as corrected, 4-0-0-1, Aino Vielra-da-Rcsa absta;;;ed. C. ORAL COHMUNtcATlONS None D. AGENDA ITEMS APPROVALS: The ArchitedLlfil Re'Vielol Board (ARB) decisio:1 on the de-s1gn {Jf tt1'E! project is a recQ:T"JI1endation to t~e Dir=ctor of Planning al'lc Cornmurdty Environment {the Directcr). who makp.s the fi(1al decision. Unless otherwi se stated by the ARB or the 01 rector. project apprmJ al s generally incorporate Project Rev!ew COi\!.fTlittee conditions as mailed to th€ applicants and staff conditions as reconrnended i~ the I~formation Memorandums, CHANGES: Any change to all approved design pTan must be resubmitted to the City for approva1. Resubmi ltal of a prnject rr.~_'f a1 s,a be necessary if changes are mandated as a result of complying ~it~ Public Works/EngineEring or other Cjty department requirements, or any other applicable code or ordinaf1ce requiremel'1ts. Page I -'"L'--',- - , .. ~ i !, - -~------------------- 5. 6. o o 3. The granting of the applitation ~ill not be detrimental or injuriuus to property cr improvem€nts in the yjc1nity and ~'l] nat be detrimental to the public health, safety. and generil welfar~ or convenf~nce in that tne sign will not be oVHde:igned or pecul~a'r" as to be overly con5p~c'JoUs. and. win fi~ in well ';\'ith the existing ar'chitectIJre. 3!t2:9 El Camino Re~l Tong fon Imports rnstall ""a11 sign on commercial building . 9Z·ARB·166 cont ~rila~d by staff based 01'1 ; ncompl ete submittal and for further design devel~pment. ~·;691 E1 CamIno Real Prague Piofessional B~jldin9 92-fl,RB-132 Revised color schem~ for previously approved ARB project for a professiona1 medical building. PUBLIC TESTIMO~Y: Jim Black, 21070 Holmst,ad Road, Cupertino, CA, testimlJny as to why the building had been painted. P.RCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION: APPROVED, 4-0-1-0, Michael Lyz~a absent. I!. NEll/OLD BUSINESS I. unity Church fl.ld vIsIt· December 3, 1992 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION: Continued to Ja"uary 7, 19<;3. ---7) 2. Oownto~Yrban Des'9n Plan Recommendation to the City Council ARCHITECTUR~L REVIEW BOARD ACTiON: Stron~ support to adopt the Downtown Urban Design Plal' and support for addit~onal funds for professional editing, color enhancements, and a change in title to ~Urban DeSign Opportunity·, 4-0-1-0~ Mich~el lyzwa absent. IV. REPORTS OF BOARD MEMBERS DR STAFf REGARDING HEETINGS OF OTHER CITY BOARDS OR PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES Page 9 I- i· , . ; - lIXCBRP'l' frQ. M.INtt'rE8 of 'Utilities Advisory commis.fon .ednesday, ~c~r 2, 19'% Chairoerson Gri~srud called the meetinq to order at 7:30 p.m. in the City Coun~il Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue. Palo Alto, California. Roll Call PRESENT: Grimsrud, Vejtasa, E~erly, Hoffner, Sutorius ABSENT: None COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: cobb, Rosenbaum Draft Doyptovp UrbaB Design Plap~ Shirley wilson, Chair of Urban Design Committee, said the Urban Desiqn Committee consisted of a broad range of people from the co~unity, including retailers, developers, residents, urban de&iqners, architects, historic preservation buffs, etc., in order to previde a broad spectrum of people to obtain many points of view in studying the downtown area. If dealing with a specific area, special interest groups or developers vould be brought in, e.g~, utilities, tra,nsportation, etc. The Draft Do"w'ntoitro'!'! Urban Design Pla:r'l (ths Draft Plan) 'Was the result of the study. The Urban Design comruittee saw the Draft Plan as a,vision or catalyst at what Palo Alto could be and what could be worked on in the future, but ":.hey did not want the Draft Plan to be rigid. Change was an important aspect of any city. The Draft Plan \ria,s not desigrled as a set of regulations, but as inspiration for poeitive things for the downtown area~ The Draft Plan was compiled to provide a graphic representation of needs or possibilities which took into consideration three-dimensional issues important in forming ... n urban comnunity. The. process considered positive aspects and special qualities of Palo Alto, e.g., the special complementary relation.ship the downtown area had "With the stanford Shoppii\g Center. A thorough inventory 'Was made of the downtown area to identify and evaluate special characterist.ics. Then goals 'We.re formulated, starting with specific buildinqs. As time went on, focus was taken from specific buildings to urban space, public spaces, infrastructure, and the framework of Palo Alto's needs. A fra~ewor~ ~as necessary to ensure good livability, good economic viability, and positive aesthetics for the do~ntown area~ It was ---------------~-------------------- important to maintain the stron~ downtown skeleton to suppo~t the changes around it. The committee was interested in increasing the utility of all parts of dcwnto~~. Much concern about growth and overdevelopment had been expressed in the past. Much development potential existed in a fairly restricted ~rea. Side streets had been neglected in the past... but t!1ere .. ere better l!'.ethods of turninq co~ners and developing side streets to bring them int.o the vitality of the ~rban core. A strcnq sense of "place" needed to be ~sta.blished. The proqress ""'ith the Plaza. Ramona Civic Center cross-access: frolD city Hall to Cog.swell Plaza ... hich broke through the University Aven~e business wall, was a positive step toward accomplishing a goal of developing a center to do~town. It was important to truncate the very linear quality of University Avenue because it was too long for people to psycholoqically feel cO~fortable walking the ~hole distance. If activity nodes, visual interest, or gathering pla~es were developed along a hroad linear corridor I people were given a greater sense of where the}-· were and identity to the oowntQwn area. Buildings and their relationship to open space ~as studi~d a great deal and was dvcu~ented in the Draft Plan. How changes in buildings affected people was also consid ered. The Draft Plan avoided too much shade and shadoW' because of the benefit of sunny streets an~ side~alk cafes. Caution was also given to casting shado.·s where they should not exist. The Draft Plan would be used by many people, e.g., developers, builders. O~ architects from other commur"!.ities cominq into Pal., Alto to do a project, providing the opportunity to familiarize with Palo Alto and its values. It could also be used by the Planning Department~ council, or the Architectural Review Board (ARB). If the document was accepted, it would provide a common set of goalS, making it easier to develop projects with less conflict than had existed in the past. Many projects were very good cont~ibutions, e.g., the Thoits Building i Plaza Ralllona, and the Civic Center, which ~ere direct results of the Committee. The committee had received much cooperation from the development communitYI .ho expressed interest and excitement in implementing the ideas. It was hoped that the utilities Departlnent would become interested in the aesthetic aspects of the Draft Plan as it related to utilities facilities and equipment .. Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official/zo~ing Administrator ... introduced posters which would be used ~n merchant windows throuqhoLLt the downtown area as concepts presented in the Draft Plan were adopted.. The posters ~ould help develop advocacy for "Watching the downto·...m area blossom as a result of many efforts. Ms. Wilson had been responsible for the survival of the Draft Plan and deserved thanks for her inspiration. The essence of the Draft Plan reinforced the dO\rlTIto\rm. retail corer with University Avenue at the heart of the original development and exlsting downtClW"n. Honey ha~ been allocated in the Capital :mprovement Program (CIP) budget for the years 1992-94 for new lightin~ in the downtown area as wall as fixtUres along University Avenue which would be an important aspeot in making University Avenue a special district with its own identity. The Utilities Department would work "With the ARB 01"'. U\C: 12/02/92 L - developing thE: master r1an for the l.~,ghtinq. Improving the sense of entry !!it either end of university Avenue, either a't the r~sidential end f~om Middlefield, or the commercial entry on the ~ircle from Palm Drive and El Camino Real into the downtown area. Enhancing the historic connection to Stanford was important, as University Avenue end::.; a~ the main quad of Stanford University. ~he linkage was lost because ot the barri~rs between the two sides, but the connection should be en..'I)anced~ One wa:)( .,'as imp!:'oved pedestrian access to the tranei t depot, 'Which called for good access from downtown tD the transit center. ~hd Draft Plan called for maintaining and improving the diversity of architecture on university Avenue, the tree-lined ambiance, etc. The entries tc University Avenue highlighted by the Draft Plan included the two at either end of University. the Alma Street eDtrance frOE El Camino by El Pal.o Alto and. El Camino Park, and the other end of Alma. There were secondary entries, pedestrian entries, entries to plazas, and entries to buildings, which theme was repeated throughout th~ Dr~ft Plan in an attempt to indicate to the public it ha~ arrived. Another component of the Draft Plan involved the Civic and Commercial Centers. The Civic Center cross-access created a linkage between the Civic Center, Cogs~ell Plaza, and the Senior Center, which traversed the parallel districts of Hamilton, Lytton, and university. setting up a good 1 inkage. The alley system, initiated through Plaza Ramona, provided a visual terminus to City Hall, showing hew the connection could go through the oth~r direction. Cowper Center was another commercial center which had been identifiE'd as important for creating the ccnn_ection concept., at cowper and University, working off landmark buildings includinq the Webster/Cowper garaqe. The Alma Boulevard concept called for de-emphaSizing the presence of automobiles through extensive tree plantings, a median, improved pedestrian connections to the transit depot, and a bicycle and pedestrian parkway parallel to Alma. The bicycle path had already been accounted for in City budgeting. Linkages would be created to the Star~ford Shopping Center and urban lane. The tree plantlngs along Alma w~re possible through the Tree Power program. providing yet another linkage to tbe Utilities Department. The Commercial and Resident~al Edges component dealt with the streets of Hamilton and L)!tton -which ran parallel to University Avenue, and the development of the individual character of the linear districts, emphasized in the Draft Plan l including strengthening the residential boundary. The Draft Plan described distinctions between the two districts fairly clearly and could be further enhanced through programs similar to University Avenue, e.g.1 street lighti~g, tree planting, etc. The Draft Plan called for improved dow-ntoitr.1. alleys to p!"ovide continuous pedestrian ccrridors and parallels linking Alma to tr.e Urban I.ane I the transit depot; Stanford Shopping Center, and University Avenue as a back road to the actual street frontage. Chairperson Grimsrud expressed an interest in discussing the utilities aspect of the Draft Plan. ll1IC: 12/02/92 Page 3 - Ms~ Wilson said one of the problems in the downto\m are.!i 'Were narrow or cluttered sidewalks. The Draft Plan did not addI'ess definitively how to deal with the "lutter, but was an issue which needed to be addressed to make sidewalks pedestrian-friendly. Traffic controllers should be placed to avoid obstructions. In discussions with Public Works Department personnel, the committee had obtained flexibility in det~rmining where traffic controllers should be plac~d. Private business owners were upset because of large and ugly pover chasea up the fa9ades of buildings. rhe. same design sensitivity should be developed for City departments as that demanded at the private-sector. Much would be accomplished if the UAC kept the Draft Plan's values in mind, spreading the spirit. Georq~ Zimmerman, Assistant Planning Official, Eaid the Draft Plan was meant aE a guideline and not a regulation bec~use Palo Alto already had a qood downtown area. It was designed as an inspira tion for developing downtown over a period of ti~e. The Draft Plan identified five Key areas for implementation. The fjrst was the creation of an assessment district, i.e .. , improvement district. The concept had been tried in Palo Al to once, but had not been successful.. Business improvement districts ,,"'ere successful if they had bottom up, rather than top down, support. The idea 'Was to obtain support froD: businesses, prcperty owners, retailers, or anyone who had a vested financial interest in a business district .. It could be used to eJ"'.hance dar-to··day maintenance and operations as veIl. as small time capital improvements. On a recent visit to Nev York where he. stayed at Times square, he was amazed at how cleaned up the area was with new buildings, clean streets. etc~ An inquiry revealed a business improve.m.ent district had been estab lished for Times Square at the initiation of the family who owned the New York Times, and had proven very successful. The second key area for implementation was the utilization at matching capital funds which could be attained through matching business improvement district funds through assessments, private donations, or th~ CIP~ The third key was planned community zone changes, a number of •• rhich had occurrec over the years. on~ requirement was demonstration of public benefit as revealed in the Plaza Raillona project vith the enhanceDl.ent of the alley, courtyarQ} and linkage between the Civic Center P~aza and University Avenue.. Another example was the benefit from rehabilitation and reconstructicn of the former PacTel building which enhanced the Civic Center Plaza.. Fourth, thg Draft Plan identified the possibility of very specialized ordinances .hich could be considered in the future. One area for potential regulation was that of newspaper racks, which coulQ be a visual blight and a safety hazard. Althouqh certain rights had to be considered, some cities had been legally successf~l in iEplemcnting such ordinances.. The last key involved the day-to-day implementa tion by staff, the ARB, Historic Resources B,~ard, etc" and additional ver~ focused studies \Were suqgeste-d, e.g., 'ct'ee planting or lighting plans. With the conclusion of the UAC meeting, the Draft Plan \Would be taken to the Planning Commi~~ion (PC) and then taken, with comments and recommendations obtained from the yarious !li\C,12/02/92 f ! - ooards and comtnisslons as well as the exten.~ive outreach 'Wi thin the downtown community, to Council in J"amla.ry 199). Commissioner Vejtasa said the Draft Plan sounded very exciting, agreea with the statement that Palo ~lto had a good OOwntO~~, ~nd the Draft Plan se~med a good ~ay to make it better~ Commissioner Eyerly asked whether propErty owners and businesses 'Would be interested. in the special assessment district for the downtown area which nad not been successful in the early 19805. Mr. Zimme~an replied not at the current time. If intere9t ~ere generated from the bott~ms-up approach, it was possible, which 'Was why it had heen identified in the Draft Plan as being one mechanism for implementation. Commissioner Eyerly asked whether con~rol or standar~ization was possible for ne'Wspaper racks, since in 1975 a program had beer. implemented to remove them yet many remained. Mr~ Zimmerman said it was possible 'With cooperation between various city departments and dO'wilnto\rn int&rests. The City 1-.ttorney's Off :Ci! had researched the issue reveal inq certain cities had ~ffectively dealt with the proble~. He hoped to see improvement within the next year. Ms. Lytle said a nexus study and a new set of requlations were necessary. The current requlaticms would not enable staff to control nelll'spaper racks. The Draft Plan provided background information. Commissioner Eyerly thought there was resistance to a restriction of newspaper racks downtown and special assessments, which ... ·ould require catalytic action from the city. commissioner Sutor ius ";,fas inte[""e~ted in continuing the underground ing programs indicated throughout the document, accelerated whenever and 'Wherever fea$ible. Whalehe.;;!.rtedly supported the Alma substation and structure improvements to streetscape. Encouragec better work than had been do~e on the PeninsuJ.a creamery. If something dramatic occurred from a feasibility standpoint, inclusion of undergrounding the 60 kV lines would have a dramatic impact on the Qownto'WIl skyline. The architectural guidelines refarenced landscaping and lighting and made appropriate stipula t.ions for drought tolerance. and minimal water use. It was possible r however, that minimal water use 'Would be extraordinarily minimall given the continued drought situation and emphasis on conservation. The same conservation issue ~ould apply to p.nergy use, vis-i-vis, lighting. Neon lighting used only as an accent and not a way of life in downtown Palo Alto was positive. The public improvement guideline section which further aealt with lighting was intriguing, and ~ould not be contested currently, ho~ever, because of ~nergy conservation and because of cost aspects 'Which 'Were 1lI\C: 12/02/92 Rq! 5 ~l , ') I " -------------------- :"t. ,: .... ; 'i'"". ~. :':J~~:. - ;.'"" -" :",C,,;>. associated with vat'ious types of fixt.uZ"es, standards, etc., more explicit examination as staff went further into the Draft Plan would be required~ Distinctive lighting fixtures in subdistricts created concern because of t.he potential for hc.dge-"podge. Rather than facilitate and enh,~nce identity, it 'ould become a jumble resulting in confusion. There was al'Ways t:.~ risk t.hat something trendy became stale~ or something initially topical became "'clltsie.· Those who 'Worked on the Draft Plan were to be congratu lated~ It had been worth the effoIt and demonstrated his tho~ghts back in the early 19805 that just because Palo Alto was :built~ollt, a need for an urban design plan still existed. Different spaces and different uses always came alon9~ without a plan, thel~ were not properly directed. Too many missed opportunitige existed in communities t-"'ouqhout the world because ot the lack cf a: plan 'With foresight. H~s other observation dealt vith Appen4iz A: Poo4 Por ThQugbt which he considered the mos~ important section, and w.e.s food for thought. He hoped the elements would remain on a warm burner, at a minimum, and would be very ca~efully considered, as they were fUndamental to the whole circulation subject and needed to be viewed in the context of what had happened and what poten tially ;would happerl in the Urbar. Lane ar-ea. It was also important to the Embarcadero/Galvez/El Camino area. By keeping it on the burner,. other opportunities would not be J!dssed. It was a missed opportunity, for example, when southern Pacific abandoned thE rail line from California Avenue to Los Gatos sitting as a riqht-c<-way over time~ The city lost the opportunity for a very important vehicular linkage and a safer, more attractive situation in the area~ Similarly, a missed opportunity occurred with the potential acquisition of the Greyhound station, if for no other reason than baving the physical space for a co~~ection under the tracks into the Stanford Shopping Center ~ Thus, Appendix A was very important. He asked whether Frederick Olmstead was involved in preparation of the Draft Plan. Ms~ Wilson replied no. commissioner sutor ius said the poster 'Was beautiful. He understood why it looked better this ~ay, but it reversed the traditional way t.lte dow.'1tcW'%\ area was viewed. Invariably, documents included issues which professionals were familiar with while non professionals were not, and asked what "erode architecture" meant. Ms. wilson said something happened architecturally at a street corner, rather than a hard corner, enabling the public to see around the corner or walk around the corner, or enter the corner, as Ramona aid, providing a showcase. There ~ere many ways to do so, either visually or physically. commissioner Sutcrius said Liddicoat's was included in the document as a place where rear Weroded" architecture was desired. Chairperson Grimsrud indicated enjoyment in the downtown area. JL~ article in the San Jose Mercury News indicating Los Gatos as the 1l1oC: U/02/92 ---_._-------,.-_. '. -------------- Paris of the South say was di~appointing because Palo ~lto cQ!ltained much vitality reflective of Paris c~fes, 'Which the Draft Plan prcmoted. From a UAC standpoint, it was difficult to visual i~e the intersection between UAC responsibility and the result of the Draft Plan. In future presentations, information concerning what actions should be taken or whether a!'l information only item would be helpful.. Of interest was the seco!'ldary impact of the Draft Plan on utility use or whether any positive or adverse impacts affected load growth. The lighting program 'Would. be involved in Demand Side Management (OSM) and there could be load impacts which needed to be accounted for. It was difficult to read the d~uments, from an engineering standpoint I ~ithout considering what should be done. Ms. Wilson said it would be most helpful if utilities, in the spirit of cooperation, hid. things which 'Were ugly, but necessary. Co-mmissioner Sutor-ius quoted Lol.lis Sullivan ""'ho said "form follo,*,s fUnction." Richard Young, Director of Utilities, said open dialogues had already taken place on a number of topics. The elP for the street li9ht system had been developed ~ith the centennial celebration as a target. }. computer-operated traffic controlling system: for traffiC lights through town ",as developed 'Which, although valuable, did have controller boxes which pro~ruded on the side'Walk and could be dealt with. Dialogue bad begun with Ms. Lytle regarding the Alma Street Substation concerning the building next door or expansion !",lans. timing of the ch<J;rette to indh:ate changes coming. The 60 kV lines could not be removed because ot .... ery difficult technicalities, but the line cO'..lld be redesign.ed and made more aesthetic vith a different type of pole or arrangement on the pole; much could be done. An open dialogue was possible and he looked forward to becoming more involved in the communit~~ efforts. Commissioner Hoffner said one of the things on 't.he tour of the Hetch He.tchy 'Water facilitie.s concerned this issue. As an age.nda item for tu~ure budget consideration~ the UAC and utilities staff could consider changes to make substations more aestheticaily pleasing. A filtration or treatment plant existed in Fremont ..... hich looked like the new office buildings in the Stanford Research Park. There was no comparison between it and the Alma street Substation. If the necessary utility functions could be made to mcre appropri ately fit in with the surrounding community, as part of the elP considerations for forthcoming years, it would do much to benefit the overall aspects of utilities in Palo Alto. UIoC: 12/02/92 FaI}e 7 II ,'_ '.' L - .... ~ " N! '" _'MMii.ijPROI-'hRTIES 'lilA &f~'''' Ms. Nancy Lytle Zoning AdrrJnistrator Planning Department City of Palo Al;o 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CiI. 9430] Re: Urban IJesieu Plan Dear Nancy: December 9, 1992 B0507·9QOOJO The purpose of this letter u; to provide comments with respei...'1 to the draft Urban Design Plan which is being discussed by the Planning Commission tonight, December 9. At the outset, it is important to congratuIa~ the Com..'1Iittee and the Planning Staff for a great effort which intrcxluces many features and concepts which create a believable vision for the Downtown which may, in large pan, be achievable. r have had the opportunity to meet with staff members on ~.raI occasions in 199J and 1992, and with Committee Membe~ Shirley WJ1son, Tony Carrasco, Roxy Rapp and John Montgomery, indMduany. many times. Tony and Roxy~ in particular. have been important parts of my Life and great sources of my o..-pcrience of the Downtown as a community for many ~·ears. The visions of imprO"."t:d pub!ic areas and public amenities with nodes for gathering and dispersing pedestrians are brilliant. It is because of the concepts advanced by the Commjttf':e that projects with whkh I have been im'olved at 250 University Avenue, 529 Bryant Streei-(2nd those planned for 53] Cowper and 325 Lytton) took shape with bui1~ interacting with streets., alleys, driveway's and parking lots in ways which enlmnce the pedestrian experience in both our buildings and the public areas. To tbe extent the Pian focuses on public property and public amenities (other than parking lots) it is entu-ely positive. Where the Plan addresses design criteria (induding height, width and mood) for private property, it becomes problematic. While members of the Committee and Planning Staff seek to provide assurances that the Plan is intended to be helpful for appliC'-ants inexperienced In ba:):ic principals of design and architecture, yet flexible as guideline::;, only; (so as not to establish rules) fer quality projetts wen represented by quality architects, my experience teaches ;ne Otherwise, f1e:cibility is not an adjective most applicants in the ARB review process would use to dcs.cnbe either members of the Planning Staff or the .I\rchitectural Review B<mrde For many, the ARB ·To Coolad Jnn BIcr7 C/O Ware.a: f • ...-.lIl1Ch.. 400 Haml1ton A''e1lUoe, Plio AHa, COlJil0l1Ha 94301,lP;"'..j ,Tdt:'ph<:,rIC', {41S) }l8{!50l, Fax: ('1~) 32:'-3099 iPIOi Pie ) ~? -, e_ • • , " , ""-"-:-~:.,,\. - Ms. Nancy Lytle December 9, 1992 Page 2 -" proce55 is humiliating, rigid, bllmorless., dictatorial and controlling of outcorr.es beyond the reasonabJe boundari::s of the protection of architectural q:Jalit)" The ris" 'olrr;th adoption of the Plan is Utat urban design guidelit!es may, L"l the future, be used by staff members or members of the ARB as rules and thereby given mere power than intended by the C.om.mine-e. Were the many design prir,cipal! of t1'1e Plan used by future members of the Planning staff 01' ARB as rigid rules, the benefits provided by the fine qualities of the Plan. would in my Qpinio~ be greatly outoMreighc-d by the nC'-gative factor of an increased layer of complC'-it regulations. This does not mean that I encourage rej<=ction of the Plan. Instead, I suggest lbat in L'fJe ordjnance adopting the Plan, that there be sJ>ecillc language clearly stating that the Plan ~ to serve as a guideline only, that i~ is not to be treated with the authority of an ordinance or other regl!lativn, that Planning staff members and ~embers of the Architectural Review Board are to view applications with DeXloility w1ten evaluating the guidelines, and that it is not the poricy of 1he City to establish written design criteria for private property owners. Other. object to the application of any design criteria to private property. ] understand the value of Ihis poLqt of view, and the desire to resist further regulation. [also think that the Plar1 ning Commission a'ld City Council shuuld gi .... e: careful consideration to the degree to whicn privale property and its design should be regulated in Palo Alto. In addillon to the preceding concerns a bout the fu ture application of the Plan as law ~ there are several issues. raised by me Plan which require specific comment. 1. Parking. The Plan refers to parking lots or. pages 23, 26 and 36 and does this "IWith little analysis of parldng requirements for the Do'>lo'11town. Other member~ Gf the Do""''nwI,;:n community have been more carefully evaluating parking lots suitable for parkjng structures and the Plan~s reference to tQ."O bts (s&L .md R) should nm exclude consideration of other kits as suitable for parking structures, and sl10uld not be c.onsidered an endorsement of structures on the3e lots without consideration of the impacts of par Xing structures on adjacent properties. Page 36 encourages a lar~e structure on lots S&L adjacent to the beautiful front entne.s of 314 Lytton and 420 Florence. These and other properties must be protected when planning for parking struC1ures. The Committee did not condu,t a thorough investigatlon of parking issues and memociS of the Committee have not been regular participants of the DowntO'WIl Parking Committee which has been in operation for most of 1992. My point is that once things are put into print, as with the Pla.n. they take on great s[gnificance for future readers. Future readers should not mlsinterpret parlUng references in this Plan as ha ..... ing benefitted from any thorough or critical analysis, My specific recommendation is that the language on Pa.ge 23 be expanded to reference the opportunity to provide atxwc grade and below grade parking structures on any of the e~sting surface parkir lots with sJX;cific reference to the need for increa:.ed public parKing in the Downtown in urder to maintain or enhance the vitality of the Dov.Tltm-.rn. The recommendation on Page 36 with respect to Lot S&L should be deleted or should state that any such SUucture must be sensitive to the entries and windows of adjacent propen[es. L - ----------- "", M<, N .ncy Lytle December 9, 1992 Page 3 2. I$ton A,'enue. The Lytton Avenue Districl is ais.cussr.d &1 pages 46-49. Sever,j! gu!delines for this district haY:" not been carefuUy considered. {i) Parking should be allowed on the nerth side of Lytton ""heie opporttini~je5 for large parking: are..as can be C!ea~ect. provided primal)' (or exclusive) entry to the lots tak.es place from Lytton. 325 L)'1toD and Pa!"king Lot K, in combination. provide an opportunity for greatly increased pub!ic parking as might the Times·TnDune property if redeveloped. Large parldng areas such as these (the Times-Tn"bune is the largest, 325!I.A')t K the 3rd largest) are importaJlt for parking. Underground parking may be economical in these locations and noM elsewhere in the Downtown. To eliminate these sites fn! parking is not a good land use policy. (ii) The CD z.. .. me ordinances pr0'01dt:: for height, setback and d:!ylight plane protections for resideiltial neighbors which have been well comidered. The p.."'1ficies about transition to residential properties are of great importance but arc handled .less wen by the PIan then by the zoning ordinance. The Plan should state that designs must satisfy the CD requiremenb-when abunmg residential properties and not k.ad into new language about stepp-!..ng down, etc, Otherwise, the Plan takes on zoning ordinance autho6ty. 3. Palo Alto O!f.lre Center, Pages 37-40 dfscuss the Cowper Street mode, and refer extensively tQ the Palo Alto Office Center (52.::; Unr.'ersiry). The owtleu of 525 Universi!:y are not in agreement with specific recommendations for their property. The owners are planning improvements to t..'he plaza and office center hut these improvements differ from specific recommendations of the Pian.. References to improvements of the Palo Alto Office Center should be deleted. The Plan should flI.lt express opinions about development of specifi: pieces of private property without consent of the ownel (or without intent to take by the City) which is not th( case. 4. 340 Yniversity. At pages 52 and '31, the Plan refers to USI!1g 340 Unrversity (liddicoat's) as a pedestrian link betweeD University and Hamilton. This is only pos.slble if this bwldmg which is 50 feet wide and 200 feet deep is dedicated to such a pedestrian purpose. No major retail or residential use couid aa..:ommodate the Plan~s wish that trus bullding perpetually serve as B covered walkway. The owner expects to renovate the building:n 1994 or 1995 and to change the existing usc, thereby ending the passageway. Again, development of a p;:>..:rtkular piece of private propeny should not be .considered by the Plan without the consent of the owner, or without the City's intention to take the property. Please deTe:~ references to 340 University Ay~nue. . . .. . . . I hope these and other changes will be incorporated before t:1e City Counc]l hearing. ,--. .. -"". d' • I f' I l i I I Ms. Nancy Lytle December 9, 1992 Page <I Agair, cor.gratuJations to the Committee. Sincerely yours, ~ James E. Baer