HomeMy WebLinkAbout0602.093I
\
~
~ . .
'Q .~
"0:;'," " ... :-'
November 18, 1993
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
Ki4t~YD Shoppinq Ar ••
Members of the Council:
This report is for informational purposes only; no city Council
action is required.
At the November 15, 1993 City Council meeting, representatives of
the Midtown area of Palo Alto commented on speculation of a pending
sale of the Bergmann's department store to a major retail'~r~
Residents and bUsinesses were notified to attend the Council
meeting via an anonymous flyer that was dictributed to businesses
in lfidto~-n and surrounding residences.. The purpose of this: memo is
to advise the City Council of meetings and staff discussions
regarding the Midtown shopping area pertinent to that testimony~
Discussion
The flyer distributed to residents and businesses in the Midt.own
area ur-qed them to rela~( their feelings to the City regarding
redevelopment of Midto~n for a Redwood city style supermarket. The
new facility in Redwood City is in excess of 65,000 square f~et,
and would require approximately six acres of vacant land (at .25
FAR, a common floor area ratio for supermarkets) to construct in
Palo Alto. It would not be physically possible to develop such a
facility in Midtown without drastic measures, such as street
closure. It is also not in keeping ~ith the Ioeaticnal criteria of
the major ~upermarket chains, who generallY seek thoroughfare or
even freeway vis ibility fOI: m"ljor facilities. Finally, and perhaps
most importantly, a neiqhborhood commercjal center ~ould be
percsived as an inappropriate location by staff for major chains
requiring considerable space needs, and they would be direl.;ted to
more suitable CS (commercial service) sites.
CHR,;602:9J
I d*, it r
Page 2:
Status of Midto~n
Data collected for a July 28, 199) meeting 'With merchants and
p:-operty owners hosted by-Council :Member Ron Andersen indicated
that Midtown 'Was exhibiting severe economic stress. Sales tax data
for the entire shoppinq center area is substantially below other
neighborhood commercial centers in the City; i.e. Alma Plaza and
Edgewood Plaza (complete Charleston Cerlter data was not available' .
It should be noted that all of our neighborhood commercial centers
are appro~imately one-third to one-half national averages in sales
per square foot. Grocery store sales in Midtown are also
considerably lower than grocery store sales Citywide (data
reflected pre-closure of the Midtown Market). In addition, a
number of buildings are for sale or lease (or bvth); nearly one
third of all of Midtown square footaqe is presently vacant, with
the vacancy concentrations occurri.ng in thi! area of Midto","r. west of
Middlefield Road and north of Colorado Avenue. Very large
buildingG, such as the fon::.er Berqmann's department store and
former Midtown Market, represent a sizable portion of the vacant
square footage in Midtown.
The available vacancies and the strong demographic m~rket of the
surrounding Midtown neighborhoods have generated great interest
from major retailers and commercial brokers. Staff has had several
conversations with potential users or their representatives for
leasable or -for sale" space in Midtown. Inquiries for such ~ses
include grocery stores. specialty food sales -operatiolls,
dr~9stores, etc. All of the inquiries made reqardir,g permissible
uses vithin the Midtown Shopping center have been allowable under
the pres~jt neighborh¢od commercial (eN) zoning. In the case of
grocery stores located within the (CN) district. any store proposed
in excess of 20,000 square feet requires the iEsuance of a
conditional use permit.
Com:rtercil!l brokers interested in Midto .. ·n {and there are several}
have offered fairly consistent observations on the lone; te:rm lease
prospects in Midtown. They note the lack of anchor tenants; large
bulky structures unsuitable for satellite retail uses; lack of
visible parking for some buildings; and the high cost of converting
structures to alternative retail or, in pa.rticular, restaurant
uses. High expectations of VallJ8 on the pArt of some property
owners and rel 1Jctance to make substantial investll!ent.6 in tenant
improvements are also cited as impediments to re-leasing some
buildir.qs. Multiple property ownership within the Midtown SliOPl='ing
area renders a co:rnbination of properties tor redevelopment purposes
difficult~ Finally, the availability of E1 Camino Real sites,
particularly for uses such as major-drugstores or famJl}~
restaurants I places Midtown in a less .-::ompetitive position for
certain uses compared to wore visible E1 Camino Real locations.
CKR:6{)2:93
.~ " .....
•
-
P&g:. 3
Given thQ above indicators, the status of Midto~n shopping area is
in thoc. Several strcnq tenants ex-ist in the cEnter'"; and the
expressed intereat in maintaining their location and improving
physical conditions are positive signs in addresslnq the centerrs
lonq-te~ econoEic viability.
Nonetheles., structural obsolescence and property value
expe:etaticna can be .ajor i!flpedi:tll.ents to leasing efforts in the
Midtown ahoppinc; area. They are.. hOil/ever, ma.rket considerations
best left to property o~ner6 and their potential lessees. It is
city policy that staff does not become involved in issues related
to buyinq and selling private property, private lease negotiations"
or competition tro. pQtentia.l tenants. Given the high vacancies in
Midtown, naturally ~rrin9 redevelopment, While not probable, is
possible, and it co~ld be done in compliance vith existinq zoning
regulations and city prOC6S&eS~ In response to retaile~s'
inquiries as to redevelop.ent potential on existing Midtown
properties, staff has consistently advised them that a program for
existinq tenant retention would be a primary consideration of such
efforts, as would extensive neighborhood outreach in the plan
for.ulation Btages~
It is staff's intention to continue to monitor the activity in the
Midtown Shopping Center, and to provide aSGistanc~ in the followinq
manner: i.e. performance of regular maintenance, code enforcement,
attendance at Midtown merchants and property owners meetings when
appropriate ~~ de5ireablQ, and providing inform~tional assistance
to the retail and commercial broker industries on requEst~
Informational memos to the City Council will be prepared as
conditions evolve~
Respectfully submitted,
CAROL L. JANSEN
Manager~ Economic Resources Planning
Attachment:
CC! Architectural Review Board
P~annin9 Commission
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee
Midtown Me~chants Association
Hoover Park Neighborhood Association
CMR~602:93
..
~ ,-......
L
L
!!l.~~.~~~~~~f'{;r\~~~:e.:r~~~p~~~~~~~«rt-~· '~aergl:i1an'sas th~;fi:f,,,. ~l.eL~:t~~-__ -:' 7,:;'~~/~R. '-'-~-~.' ~ ';,;-' -;I~,~ftl{'-'.--· ~!9.~el:Lon~~h.e "entlr~ ~}:~:
;~q,~':~!1~~'iS?~t;. 0fl~n.ed 2:'"~.~·~:,
'1t!!n3R~"dW'p'od City-).The~?j"~
-_' . -':' -r'lj.,(,_-,.', ,. . "-,'. • ,--_);,.. ~1:~ev~lq,pm~nt:.Wer~c()ntheta.~le}lttthetimet~e offer~··,"
uilding (and any·additional'purchases) would most~
!N.~~~~§.m±V~c~nt as a way of forcing. out the()thers.mallbusines~es:
_ _ to reduced foot traffic sales.' Contmued vacancies it _
jffi;d~,lt;to ren.t available properties at market rates.putting~
';',~ -' \'.';', \,." ' - - -~ , ~~~:~Y!~}~~~~;ij~pp~-:ty,pw~ers~ Midtown ,n~eds.,a.yia~le shopping~ _
~tn.~!'9gJi.h~!l:!Jr/day traffiC what we ~ant, or.ls ne,gh~orhood-gener~-~-' ~,~~~~-V~.I&~w']~r~,}!,nd~r. the commu~lty-process (reslde~ts and bUSI-:g
loertvowners) Comprehensive Plan better for Midtown? Lettl6
'sellerand city) know before the deal goes through ! ~
, ........ '"!"."fI!I:"I-.
": :;t.', . ,-'.' -~:~1,~i~t , ,,', !j~:'·l··~ .,:', '.;\:r~/;,,·'
~
.J
• The revised. draft was distributed to the three property
o·.mers for their revie· .. · and cormnent.
DISCUSSION
The Urban Design Committee is no'"" retllrning to the Policy and
Services Committ.ee with t.he revised draft and requesting that the
Commi ttee recommend adoption of the plan to the City CO'..lncil" A
copy of the Aug>..lst ~{l, 1992 draft .PlaIl is atta.ched to Council
Members' copies of the staff report to facilitate comparisons
with the revised draft.
The suhst~~tive changes made to the document include:
• Referring t.o the dccument as a "resource reference" r2.the-r
than a "plan-,"
• Highlighting the "Statement of Intent~ by making it thE
first section of the document ~~th bold type;
• In each District description, the "Architecture Guidelines~
were remo .... -ed and, when appropriate, we~e incorporated under
"Observations". now titled "Urban Design Observations!'!'.
Guidelines which relate to public improvements were retained
under a r..ew section called "Public Area Guidelines ....
• The general ~Architecture Guidelines~, beginning on page 57,
were subst.antially edited and reduced in number by half.
• Many of the specific languag~ changes suggested ~ere also
incorpora tli;:d .
• Additional language suggested by two memoers of the Public
Arts Cummission regarding public art and use of art concepts
in building and amenity design was also incorporated.
The Urban Design Committee feels they have made a concerted
effort to respolld to the concern_s of the property owners. 'Mile
the three propert I· owners with whom the Committee met are
probabl.y still not completely satisfied, the Committee believes
strongly that the document cannot absorb additional significant
changes without sacrificing the overall vision and inter.t"
Additiona~ly~ prior to first seeking adoption by the City
Council, the Committee did extensive outreach to o'Cher downto·,..rn
owners and merchants and received support fo:..· the plan (see the
attached Planning Commission staff report dated December 4,
1992) .
12/2/93
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recc.mmends that the Policy and Services Committee:
1) Reco~end adoption of the nownto~~ U~ban Design document to
the City Council, and
2) Consider the Urban Design Committee's request for additional
funding to professionally edit and finalize the document
{see attached l~tter from Shirley Wilson dated February 18,
1993) .
Respectfully submitt,ed,
II
/
"t~/ . _ J -;/ .lei ,/::.,' Ill, "t·.'C!--tI, J c.-..-~ .,/
NANCY M. LYTLE
Chief Planning Official
KENNETH R. SCHRSIBER
Director of Plan.'1ing and
Community Environment
~tL~
J1JNE FLBMI NG
City ManageI."
Attachment:3 :
Letter from Shirley ~ilson dated 2/18/93
Excerpt minutes of the Policy & services Committee
meeting of 5/18/93
Public Art COHrt',ission statement dated SiloS/93
D'iR.:257:93 dated 4/22/93, without attachments
CMR:174:93 dated 2/18/93. without attachments
Excerpt minntes of City Ccuncil meeting of 2/22/93
Planning Commission Staff Report dated 12/4/92,
without attachments
Revised Draft Downtown Urban Design dated 10/93
Draft Downtown Urban Design Plan dated 8/10/92 (Council
Members only)
cc: Urban Design Committee
Chc.p Keenan
Jim Baer
Warren Thoits
Susan Wexler
Sandy Eakins
12/2/93
Page 3
DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN COl'>lMITIEE
February 18, 1~~3
Oear Council Members:
Th~ attached cost estimate is dccument2tion of the Downtown Urban Design
CommittEf'S request for (approximately) S 16\600 to ensure i time'y and
professianal publication of the Urban Design Plan fer Downtown Palo A1t?
As c~air of th~$ committee, I urge you to appro't'e tnese requested funds to
pravidt the ~ necessary polis~in9 of the ~Tlft int~ a final document. We
of the c~ittee feel strong1J that text editing? formatting, graphfcs ~orK
and the addition of color are fssential to the usefulness ~f this document is
a communication tool. We are hoping for a finished product that has more
<.1arity.
Several bodies who ha .... e revi~.,..e-d this phn, the Arc.hitectural Review Board.
Plannir.g Commission and local arcnitects in partjcuiar, share this view.
As we are all aware~ this project was ~astly under funded from the beginning.
It has on1y been through th! persev~rance and donations cf the committee, ind
the incredible cr~ati~ity and hard work of botn tne ccmm1tt!e and planning
staff, that we were able to get the draft completed under cunent funding.
We believe that an investment at this stage will more than pay for itself over
time in that a clearer document will redwce staff ti~e in exp1aininq concepts
wnen working with projett applicants in tn~ future.
Please recognize the importance-of producing an Excellent document that will
be tru1y useful. one tnat expr~sses a planning effort that the community can
b, proud of and inspired by.
Yours ~ruly, . ,A.-/ ). S~irl.~r.:::()/~>~/L-r
(hair, Do~town Urban DeSign to~m~ttee
,
FlNALlZA nON OF URBAN DESIGN PLAI'i
COST ESTIMATES
The fo11ewing budget and work assumes contracting finaHzation of the DowntDwrI
Urbin Design Plan out to a company specializing in communications, to be
edited and reformatted and to add color district diagrams.
Grap~ics* -Produce color district diagrams (8)
and re-do several line drawings
Add co1or Elasle Plan diagrams
from poster
Cover Art -Glossy cover in black and
white with green tree~ inside
cover building k.ey, H100 copies
Text Revisions -Incorporate c~mments as
.bove, EDIT and REFOOOT
doc~ment for improved
presentation and readibility.
ready document for printer
Printing -Off-set printing fnc1uding col~r
distritt plans and color Basic Plan
diagrams, 1000 copies
4,100
500
900
7,500
6.0{)O**
• All other graphics black and white with no significant style OT content
changes
.* Estim.ate Only
TOTAL: S 19,000
+ ],900 10% Continqency
20,900
-4.300 Remaining Budget
S 16,600 REQUESTED FOR FINALIZING DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN PLAN
MCY~YON PASSED 4-0.
EXCE~~PT minutes of the Pol icy &, Services
Co'iTimittee meeting of May 18. 1993
Chait·person simitian cO!lfirmed the proposal for the visit to the
bowling alley as raised by the P&S Committee.
4. ~ DoW'11t9Wl1 Urban Design Plan
Chief Planning Official and Zoning Ad!l1.inistrator Nancy Lytle
introduced three members of the Urban Design CClI!ll!littee (UOC):
David Z ink-Brody , Tony Carrasco, and Betty Melt'ler. Staff had
conducted individual meetings with council Members and two propertf
owners, Chop Keenan and Henry GOY. Staff reinforced the int~nt of
the UOC, staff, and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to utilize
the document with flexibility and creativity. The UDe recognized
the Downtown Urb~n Design Plan (the Plan) needed both public ~nd
private support and had made efforts in the past to engage property
owners to address council t.hrough correspondence or personally.
Mr. Keenan had committed to organize a group of property owners and
had formed a Downtown Property Owners Parking committee. The UDe
'Was willing to work vi th the group to examine some of their
specific objections to the format ur language in the Plan l
conflicts 'With zo:Ining reg-I..!lations, or language 'Which might be
interpreted as regulation, since it 'Was not the intent of the
document. Many objections to the Plan could be eliminated thro~gh
a crocs-edlJcation process~ The uoc recognized there might still be
diffe.rences of opinion at the outset. Staff asked for the P!i:S
committee to approve a 90-da}" continuance to allow a series of
meetings to occur with the Downto~~ property OWners Group. Staff
would return at the conclusion of the 90 days.
Chairperson Simitian read a letter from Cr.op Keenan, 700 Emerson
Street (on file in the City Clerk's Office) I lI.·hic::h indicated
Mr. Keenan had met with Shirley Wilson and Betty Meltzer regarding
property o'orlners' concerns vi th the Plan. The group ~"o'.lld w.cet
during the next few months to determine whether the editorial
concerns could he handled in a different manner in the text. Mr.
Keenan requested the item be ccntinued for 90 days. Chairperson
Simitian asked whether the members of the public who wished to
speak should do so after the 90-day period.
council Member Huber believed the Public Art Commission (PAC) was
interested in having its comments in a letter when the Downto~n
Plan was revisited.
Ms. Lytle agreed.
05/18/93 P&s: 18
-.---.,---._-'-i "
I
f
"
Chairperson simi tian believed all of the materials sh(Juld return to
the P&S committee when the issue was revisited, including cO'!r.ments
made by the PAC incorporated as part ot the packet materials.
Public Art. commissioner San1.y Eakins said the PAC was pleased to be
able to participate in th..::' revieW' of the Plan and was glad to see
public art mentioned on page 65 (the Plan) _ It vas encouraging to
see the use of art in improving and guiding the looK and feel of
urban areas in Palo Alto~ w'hile concentration in the past_ had
remained with University Avenue, there were other areas ... hich
warranted ill'!provement~ She wanted to see artists as part of design
teams in projects. Artists provided more creative outlooks and
were good at problem solving.
Public Art Commissioner Susan Wexler presented a letter, dated
May la, 1593, (on file i.n the City Clerk's Office). lIIhich attempted
to explain 'What public art had CO!!)c too mean over the past 10 to 15
years. The glue which held the Plan together ~as an art concept
and was what public art should be used .for. Artists brought
innovative and exciting ideas into regular uses.
David Zink-Srody, 400 Ortega Avenue, member of" the Urban Design
Committee, agreed to defer final recommendations until completion
of the 90-day period, as discussed. He thanked Ccunci 1 for holding
the public hearing and feT the patience and support. Many inroads
had been made in the past fev months into the iSSue of art in the
business community, and he urged continuing with specific outreach
~ethods to the PAC~
Chairperson simitian said t~e item had been refe~red to the P&S
Committee in an effort to determine whether some competing concerns
expressed by members of the Committee and the businsss community
could b~ balanced. He thanked the UOC~
council Member Kniss said the UOC had worked very hard, going above
and beyond what was required.
!(O'l'IOll '1'0 CONTINUE: council Member Kniss moved, seconded by
Fazzino, to continue the Downtown Urban Design Plan to the
September 1993 Policy and services Committee m~eting.
Chairperson simitian believed the outreach of the UDC to other
groups besides the business community needed no formal motion~
council Member Fazzino said the UDe worked very hard to educate
everyone~ help Council to understand the effort and purpose of the
document, and allay fears and concerns ex~ressed during the
February 1993 Council meeting.
IIOTIOH TO COl!lTIJo"·UE PASSED 4-0.
05/18/93 P&S: 19
1 1 i:
..
I
I,
.. , .
-,j.-
.' ","'-::::--." ".!-. ... ,-:;'-
.'
....,. ....
. ·!:i<
r, "
I'uNIc wt ,IT""kk$ I unique .lXIsil/a7 ffom ~d 10 forge conf1~'flar;s bdl'Wt!wJ me' putJlic splJere
andtl1epn"vaI~ :.(p.~ kli1~
jO"n'b?g I meJap/1uicai spin on !he r:rdr.ary; 11~ nfHlt"puiJk 11) //T".DwS 1M lIntY:J'mily of vt:mn
5p1/lC'f1 witI1 ed';ces cf JXM?y • (KBn .hIms.m, Mil Am«fc;a)
Public Art Commission: Urban Design Plan May 18, 1993
The Public .oct Commission proposes thot a slatement regarar>g public an be
induded at lhe very beginning of lI1e Unban Design Plan. This statement oughl
;0 reflect the most up to date understaming of pubflc an as described below. It
win be seen that 1I1i. cor.cept is the glue that i. needed to bind together the
Guiding Principles as they exist in the presenl document
In cities aaoss thrs country, engineers, a: chrtects, city planners, social work.ers
have discovered !he refreshing conlribution artists make to projects when they
•. re included at Iheir inceplion. Adopting 1I1is approach 10 deve(opmen~
when apprOfl<iate. wiD enable the City of Palo Alto to tap into the power of art 10
solve problems, provoke !houg,t heal wounds and bring people logether.
Rather than se<>ing the rei. of pubrlC on ~mited to one of decoration.
bealltification and "mijigation" of the visual ill. of urtK!nlwion 1/rou!t> the use of
ciserete, S1ucic>-pr~.d worlc:s, art needs to be ~nders1QOd as a neeessa!"y
component in the collaborative process of creating a vibrant and unique city
environ men1 .
• .. administrators and arttsts have been questioning the nature of public
art .. whether something, even something good .. ,inserted Into a pubfic space
afler the fact. is ... 1I1e bes1 way 10 provide the public wijh an aesthetic
experience. The CUTent consensus about p"blic an. proposes a
collaboTalion betw&eef1 artist ""d arcMecl from the beginning ... In some
instances. t'aditional sculpture or painting might be the solution, but tn 01l1ers.
proje,,1s resembnng architect1.Ke, en~neering a landscape design mi9ht
resulLln most cases, something between the two poies of disaetp. on object
and ... chiteclllal intervention would come about" (David Sone!!i. S.F
Examiner)
"CoIIatxrative projects would be far more ""ccessM t artists were included in
them t-om Iher incepton." (Robert Irwin. artist)
"TtToo!t>OUl Ihe agos a-chrtects have joined wit~ painters and sculptors 10
aeate funy developed progams for public sites: (J.Marter. Art Journal)
2 •
I
I
!
·;.i -
Page Two
The Pubfic Art Commission appreciates the inclusion of an art category es the
first guidefine in "the Pubfic Improvement Section of tlle Urban Design Plan. We
1.01111.1 a more ",elusive ap~oac~ 10 an under-standing 01 what rJsts can
conbibute to the development of the cill' wouf d be even m<re E'xcitin-g and
contempa"ar)" and tha1 it WOIJld be appropria~e 10 incorpora1e 1hese ideas in the
Pubflc fmproveme1 Guidelines and the Archttec1lral Guiidetines. 01.1" goa: is to
encocrag. an overan conaborative approach to public arl in addtiQn to 111.
more 1radlional "after tne fact" inclusion of works of .n.
The fonowing ere examples of me re--conceptuaJilation of Pubfic Art as i1 r~ates
specificany 10 Pubijc Improvements.
-Nowadays, arom are-often de .. r.n iii wtth entre ilbet\ en'i''N'lmenb rather lfiar, iust malting
61diviciJal ~ .. (A.Berman . .ArI N~)
"We ~e been able to invof .... a artists iI'l dtH;igning 1rte p.Jblic infrtmrudure. ,roitdHays. pans.
overplIS6"eS I!nd ';1c"itles ~ (D&.>a-ah Whitehurst, exec ci-". Phoer'\ix Arts Commission)
-Artists WI' 3Ireing the O'ea~iye potefllial in ad'n.y items such as .-est, cans. manhole covers, bus
shetter'S, dinXing fountains and elte11 S;:dewaJk.&-itIjlrT1S that el"e gener3l!y viewed as poJbli.c
necessities, rather Ihan wo~k.g of art , .. Heir .-listie s1at.,ments provide a refres"ling and
unprecktab!e-q..nd"rty to the urbait ei/Pefience ~ (Art on File Inlel"natiooa!j
.A.~ designed amanit~., '-"can commet"l t Upofl IJ1 e-SQ:::i ill a.'ld' physicaf forces which des::n:'
!her porpose-. the neighborhood' 'J streel scet'1e '!Where lf1ey reside, ~ other hi'SiaiC!8~ and cu'ttral
~HtnOmen8 In efll!'ct. they al1er the p-eclctable experience m ife in the city by Slimur8!in-g
1hou!tlt 8th'I providng a vehicle ror benet untJer-standing our social and physical en"Yonment,·
(Art on File jn'ema1iOflll:~
-.,bel'lChes, plazas. ano'fences.," CCln "chaReoge the 5mits of e)(pe<:ta(ions ~a tne-seputffC
iIlTler1itie6. Tlyoogh humor, hi'Stor-fca! r~ference and aeslheficafly interes1ing fc.-m:s, they jYovid'e
an mlegai connection to I!I b'!s~ nl1rtlan di.sr-~ rcr originarlty in the vf&saJ environm&nt." (AI1 or.
File Intematfona.')
Tbere is 3 great deal of maLerial avai1abl~ relating to the ideas
presented herein. The Palo Alto Public Art Com.mission would
welcome tbe OpportUT.dty to discuss them with anyone who 1S
interested.
: ~,
" ,
I ~,'", ~
April 22, 1993
HCIIORABLE CITV COUNCIL
rala Alto, C,liforni.
Att-ention: Pol it,)' and Senrices COlMli ttee
DRAfT IlOIINTOIIN URBAN DESIGN PLAN
Members of the Council:
At the City Council meeting of February 22, 1993. the JJrbafl. Design Corrrnlttee
presented the Draft Downtown Urban Desigll Ph.n to the C{luncii. A public
hearing was held on the draft Plan foilo_inq the presentation. Severa,
persons spoke regirding the Pl an, including ttlree downtown property owners
concerned about the Plan's references to pri .... ate property and the Dotentlal
for thesi! "guidelines· ttl be used as inflexible regulations.
Followi~9 Council's questi~ning about the intent~ use and p05sible future
revislons t~ the Plan, the Draft Downtown Urban Design Pl~n was ref~rred to
the Policy and SerY;c~s Committee on i ;~O vote. Based on comments made by
indiyjdual Council Members. issues to be discussed by the Policy and SerYic~s
Committee include;
J) Review of how the Plan and its concepts end gtJidelines were
developed by the Committee over the last fDur years (see staff
discussinn on page 1 of the attached Pl.uming Comdssion staff
report dated Oecember 4. 1992);
2) Concerns raised by several property owners that the Plan is too
bindlng and could be osed to limit flexibil1ty and creativity (see
pages 2 and 3 of Planning Commission staff report);
3) Hew to ensure the PTan wlll be visionary and used to insplre
downtown property owners and mer~hants, rather than dictate the
design of their projects (see pages 2 and 3 of Planning Corrrn~,ssion
staff report) j
4) Allocating additiona1 funds to professionally edit and finalize
the Plan (see attached Tetter from Shirley Wilson dated february
18, 1993).
CHR:251:93
•
The verbatim <minutes of Ute Architectural Re'Oiew Beard meetings at which the
dr.ft Pl.n was discussed (November S, 1992 and December l, 1992), and which
we~e not prev~ously distributed, are attached to this report.
If y04J need .. n(ltner cOP,)" of the Draft Urban Design Plan, or any other
materia1s re1ited to thh item, p1use c01fhct LDri lD;-ley at the Phn1"l~flg
Depart=ent offices.
Respectfully submitted,
':'/'Jte... ,
IWIC~ LYTLE
Chief Planning Official
~~
City Manager
.. -1/ . /.J;' j/' , ~/U~:,/""!."?4. ~. ---j£~,~t':~+
KENNETH R. SLHRE1BER ~
DirectDr of Plann1ng and
(ormJun i ty fnvi ronment
Attachments: CIIR 174: 93 dated Febrllary IS, ! 993, wi thout attachment s
Planning Commission Staff Report d~ted December 4, 1993.
withQut ittach~nt~
letter from Shirley Wilson dated February IB, 1993
Excerpt Minutes of Feb~uary 22) 1993 City Council ~!ting
Excerpt minutes of November 5. 1~92 and December 3, 1992 ARB
Meet'ings
cc: Urban Design Committee
Chop Keenan
Jil1: Baer
Henry Caw
[r;ck Si1bertson
Juhn Hackmann
CMR:2S7:93
p:\crw......".,..cmr
----
4(21/93
Page 1
february 13, 1993
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Pa10 Alto, California
PRAfT POWNTOWM URBAN pESIGN PLAN
Members of the Council:
Report ir. 8rief
..•
'.~,.~.
' .. "c"~" -.' ,;.:-C~_
Tf~is report sl.:rrrnariz€s public, advisor,)" board and Comission conroents and
reconmend.l!tions on the Draft Downtown L1rban Oesi9n P1an~ It also requests
City Counc:ll review .Dnd conment on th'!! draft p1an~ and recommends City (oun,n
odoptlon.
Discussion
After feur yeaTS of hard ~ork. the Urbln Oeslgn Committee has produced I Draft
Urb.~ DeSign Plan for consideration by the City Council. Background
informat'~~ re1&ted to th@ preparation of the plan~ inclu~ing i summary of
cOmlents received during p~blic outreach to downtown merchants, property
owners, neighbors, a.nd review by the ArddtectlJ'I"'al Review Board, th.e Historic
Resources Board and the Publit Art Commission, is cQntaine~ in the attached
report to the Planning Commission date4 O~cember 4, 1~93.
The Planning \:or!'ll1issitm reviewed the Draft Plan at their meeting of December
9. 1993 and unanimously recommended adoption of tne plan by the City Ccu~cil
(minutes are included in the Council's packet). Tke Utilities Advisory
Commission revi~wed the plan at their meeting of December 2, 19;3 (minutes
attached). Significant comments and recommendations of the Planning
Coanission and the Utilit'es AdYis~ry Commission, Which are not already
addressed in the Oeceruber " Pl annlog (ofil!1ission Staff Report, are surrtJ1arized
below.
All of th~ various groups, boards and comrnisS\cns Wh1~h revi~~ed the pla~
expressed enthusias~ ~nd support for the plan.
"annl"g Commission C .... "ts
ENTRT£S: Concern was expressed that A.1ma/£1 Catnino Real skould not be
emp~asi~ed as in entry to downtown, especially in light of the City's
CMR:174:93
" -------~---
.. ~.
-;;"
.t.ted desire to not ~.ve Alma link to Sand HiTl Road. The
f1iddlefieldjUniversity entry seems to work fine "O~, so there ls
discomfort wlth the idea of emphasizing higher density housing in this
areo. (Marsh)
BUILOING MASS: The plan talks about how building mass should be focused
it the corners in order to anchor int~rsections. Some concern was
expNssed that mass does not always eQuate to an improved ped~stri an
experience, and that this plan should not necessarily encourage
increased bu.nding mass at the torners. ,Marsh, Cullen)
PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE PUBLIC BENEFITS: The Tist of it.ms, which might
q~alify as publ ic benefits for Planned COiTmunity lone projec.ts, needs to
be compared to tne original list of de~ired downtown dmenities develDped
several y!ars Igo. The plan should clarify tnat this list has a lot of
thln9s whlc~ wou1d be nice, but would be very minimal public benefits in
and of thems.lve'. (Marsh, Cullen)
NE"IGHBORHOOD PROTECTiON: Protection of residential neighborhoods needs
to be emphasized more. with specific ideas, i~ the discussion of
tran~ition edges. (OjakianJ
lmER FRO!! JIM BAER: Th. eonnission received, letter at ttl. meeting
from Mr~ Baer regarding his COr.cerns and co.ments en the plan. The
Commission agreed with Hr. Baer that there should be better emphaSis of
the plan as ·gu;d~line· rather t~an regulation, and that spectfic
references to liddtcoats l!.e'l private property) should be removed from
the plan. Staff a1s~ igrees and sees no problem including these
changes.
utilities Advisory Coomisslon C .... nts
The Commission generally supported the Drift Plan and indicated that in
the future they would be open to discussing ways to improve the
appearance of necessary utility structures in the do~town.
New lighting for the downtown Ire a 1s a utilities CIP item to be
implemented in tMe near future. Careful consideration of the type of
light fixtures used would b& necessary.
"ext Steps
Staff is recDtllllending that. the City Council adopt the Draft Urban Design Plan
and direct staff to produce a final plan incorporating comments received by
the publiCI boards and commissiDns and the Council.
The City Council originally approved a budget of $25,000 to prod~ce the Urban
Design Plan. That money .as used mostly to pay for th! se~i,es Df a
cDn~ultant, who facilitated the ~arly meetings of the Committee and produced a
eHR:174:93 2/18/93
Page 2
number of the graphics in t~e p1an (the remainder of th~ graphics wpre
produced vol"ntor11y by Rob,rt Frank of the Urbon 0.5;gn Committ •• ). Of the
totil S25,000, approximately 54,100 remains. Staff believes tnat His amount
i~ sufficient to ffnilize the document in tne fol1ow;ng manner:
finalize graphics without making significant styT~ or content chang2s
(.11 graphics in bl.ck and whit.);
Produc! final cover art in two colors;
IncorpDrate changes based on comments received from tne public, boards
and c.o!llllissions and Council;
rn-house xerox printing. 1000 copie~.
rf t.~e final document \lH!re produced based on the ilbDye~ it \I,'ould' look v!ry
simila~ to the drift 1r. terms of Quality and content. Howeyer. due to our
current worlc.load. the staff resources necessary to finalize the plan
(incorporate comments, word processing and 9rap~ic5 layout), ~ould not be
a~ailable for six months. Staff would anticipate releasing the final plan in
late $ utIID9r.
BecgmendatiQn
Staff recommends t~at the Cit) Council:
1J Adept t~e attached Negative DeclaratiDn of environmental impact;
2) Adopt the Draft Urban D.sign Plan;
3} Oirect staff to produce the fini.l Urban Duign Plan, Tesponding to
comments recefved from the public~ boards and commissicns and the
Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Ilhlr.r~~7
NAlley l frlE
Chief Planning Official
00:174:93
~;e./~
KENNETH R. SCHRElB,R ;J'
Director of Planning and
Community Enyircnment
.4
2/18/93
Page 3
Ath.chllents: Negative o.c1.rotion
Planning Cosmi,sfon staff report of 12/4/92 .ith attachment,
Excerpt of ARB minutes of 1l/5/92 and 12/3/92
(>cerpt or Utilities Advisory Commission Minute, of 12/2/92
letter from J;~ B.er doted December 9, 1992
Draft Urban O~sfgn Pian ,Council Me®ets only)
cc: Urban Design Committee
Chop Keenan
Jill Saer
CMR: 174: 93 2/18/93
Page 4
., /
PUBLIC HEARINGS
.~ PUBLIC REARING: Oowmt~wn Orban Design Plan
~ayor McCown dec~ared the Public Hearing open.
Chop Keenan# 700 Emerson street# referred to a letter to the city
Council from a nu=ber of the property owners in the Downtown area
{on file in the City Clerk's Office). He suggested the Downtown
Orban Design Plan be referred back to ~~e Urban Design committ~e
'With direction to work lii1 th merchants and property owners lIIost
affected by the plan to ~assage the public advocacy of the pUblic
areas~ He was concerneQ about the -guidelines· becoming policies
and. ordinances having to do with archite.cture in the private
property areas.. The City had clearly defined zoning Drdinances and.
had a competent statf and Architectural Review Board (ARB). The
process was understandaple and it challenged the individuality Of
each property. the creativity of individuals, and the self-interest
of property owners. He was conc.a:rned about the City I S
m.icromanagil\9' privat.e property a.reas.~ In the Emerson cor.ridor a.nd
the area of South of .Forest Avenue (SOFA), private O\ffler-s expressed
themseJ.ves on their private property within the context of t.h~
zoning ordinances. As a result, a seriously needed grocery store
vas constructed Do_~tovn by the private sector with so~e patiene~
by the public sector. He encouraqecl Council to return the pIa..., to
the Urban Desiqn Commi t.tee to 'Work on the very strong public right
ot-way aspects of the plan.
Jia Baer, 532 Channing Avenue, said in 1988 alley systems which led
to Plaza Ramona were formulated in the Downtown Orban Design Plan~
The interior alley systems ... ere needed to create greater pedestrian
flow, and there was. also an ill-defined notion that there should be
nodes. Since 1988, the proces~ had reachea beyond the areas where
it had the greatest expertise to Bthe Dream Team 8 aLa the inter
relationship between Town & Co~,try Villaqe. the Urban Lane area,
Stanford University, San Francisquito creek, ~acArthur Park, and
the Red Cross facility. It was imrortant to have significant
participation troll. interestea Downtown proper-ty owner5~ While
prope--ty owners were promised the plan ~ould be interpreted with
flexibility, they vere not confident that was currently the case at
either the staff or the ARB level or that it ~ould be in 10 years
wben a plan was adopted and moved to the status of regulations.
For example, after expressing repeated concern that the plan would
not lead to flexible application of deSign criteria but r-ather
02/22/93 70-143
.. PO
j
'-
rlqid application~ on January 4, 1993~ 578 university Avenue, at
the corner of University Avenue and Webster Street, which housed
Merrjll Lynch for over 25 years~ ~as before the ARB. A motion Yas
made to encourage the entry to that office be moved to Webster
street. since the Urban Design Plan viewed Webster Street as an
important qatevay. ~nile L~e motion failed, it was the kind of
tninq that led to the concern about the extent to which the plan
moved from a vision for the Oowntcwn and the public right-of-way
into a vision for the specific deSign of buildinqs~ Notwith
standinq Mr. Keenan's comments about tl'H~; ARD's accountability,
there were period3 when that miqht not be true, and the risk ~as an
applicant would have to appeal to the Council. In January 1991,
be, Chop Keenan, and 'Warren Thoits attende~ a meeting with two City
planners to determine W'hether there was support for the nodes,
alley treatments, and urban amenities. In that aeetinq he and
Messrs. Keenan and Thoits expressed concerns about the impact on
private property rights and requested theIr participation be
411owed~ No plan was drafted at that point. In September 1991,
upon recPoivinq a draft of the Do'Wntown Urb~n Design Plan, they
wrote letters to thE City setting forth a number of problems and
spoke to a couple of Councjl Members. Prom their experience, the
urban Design committee seemed to think it knew Wh3t was best for
their collective $500 million invest~ent. Despite repeated input,
their requests and ideas regarding their privC!lte property were
rejected.
Henry Gaw represented CN Capital which owned 525 University Avenua.
He had seoen thoe Downtown urban Design Plan and its various
modifications although CN capital was neve~ consulted about it~ CN
Capital was planninq a plaza expansion at 525 University Avenue and
did not kn~ what its plan versus the Downtown Orban Design Plan
would: look like.. He vas concerned there needed to be cooperation
with various bui14ing owners and urged the Council to continue
approval of the matter until that occurree.
Erick Qilbertson, 215 Oakhurst Place, Men~o Park, qenerally
supported the Downtown Urban Oesign Plan but toox exception vith
the noticn t.'lat Alma Streat between El Camino Real and the Downtown
vas generally unattra.ctive and hazardous. He believed t...l).e area was
an excellent bicycle route wi~~ great site lines, directness, and
few stop signs. There needed ,to be more 5imilar bicycle routes.
He hoped the br idqe 'Wou.ld someday connect Alma Street from botl1
Menlo Park into Palo Alto and that there would be a bicycle/pede
strian crossing at ALma Street and El camino Real to pull in people
cominq frOlll. points west. The Downtown Urban Design Plan needed to
consider the pedestri.an riqhts that modern desigTi and traffic
engineering did not. There needed to be 20 feet of site clearance
before intersections if one was serious about pedestrian safety.
People with strollers had to push the stroller out because
o~tentimes a parking space was more valuable than site clearance.
At 90ae intersections it would help if riqht turns were prohibited
on red liqhts to keep the cars out of the c~osswalks~ He urged
caution with the use of grade separations. He suggest.ed less
parking downtown and more housing in its place. Downtown property
owners could make better Use of available parking if fences did not
02/22;93 70-144
surround sOllie park:inq areas so those areas could :be ~t-ilized at
night.
John Hac~ann, 235 Embarcadero Road, spoke on behalf of the Friends
ot the Embarcadero and said W'alkabilit)~ WAS one of the most
i.portant things in the desirability of Pale Alto, He associated
with the comments of Mr~ Gilbertson and said if Palo Alto wanted to
improve its walkability, there needed tc be more direct li£itations
on the activity of the automobile. While the City and tax.
strccture would benefit from more development, people enjoyed the
activities and s~rvices offered by the variety of activitias in
Palo ~lto, and a lot of resistance resulted from the impact of the
Automobile en individuals as they attempted to use the facilities.
The Friends of the Embarcaaerc was a qroup of neighbors in
Professorville and old Palo Alto who sought to i=prove the
situation on Embarcadero Road specifically betW'een Middlefield ~oed
and Alma street.. He 8uqqested the possibility of a traffic commis
sion or a whaal tax. The City also neeQed to c~nsider whether it
should subsidize parking at all.
Mayor McCown declared the Public Hearing closed.
council Member Cobb requested response from a member of the Urban
Design committee regardinq the issues raised :ty Me55r!.=-. J(ee~n,
Baer, and CaW'.
Shirley Wilson, Chairperson of the Ur~an Design Committee, said she
sympathized with the positions expressed by Messrs. ~eenan, &ae~,
and Caw I who could have been me.zbers of the committee but chose :r.ot
to. In terms of 525 University Avenue, she met twice with the
.anagement ot the building, and the discussions were positive ar~
h-ealthy about the opportunities, and no real aictates were put
forth.. 1~e issues raised in the plan were exactly that--issues to
be looked at. The Orban Oesign Committee did not really care hoW'
the issues were solved as long as the issues were addressed. The
issues bad to be discussed, and to taXe offense that an urban
desi9Jl issue was raised durinq an urban design review did not
reflect a willingness to at least look at all aspects of a problem~
She expected that would continue. In terms of 578 University
. Avenue, while the motion to move the entrance onto Webster Street
vas deLeated for ~anJ reasons, it did not negate the tact that the
entrance location was an issue in terms of the Downtown Urban
Design Plan or that it shculd be forgotten~
Council Member cobb asked whether one way to interpret the concerns
expressed by the property owners was that somehow the city would
end up steppinq over the line between having issues to discuss to
having zandates forced. upon the private property owners.
Director of Planning and community Environment Ken Schreiber
sympathized "With the concerns as a legitimate public policy iss'J.e.
While the City had the prerogative to establish written de.sign
guide.lines, the Do'WJltoW"r. Urhan Design Plan for the Downtown
emphasized. that the document 'Was not intended to be binding or
regulatory in nature, and the~e was no intent for ordinances that
would translate specific proposals in the Downtown Urban Desi9n
02/22/93 70-145
_ .... __ ._ .... --
Plan into private property requlatiol'.s. If, over time, there was
I! tendency on the part of s-eaff or the ARB to use the Do.-ntown
Orban Design Plan in a more rigid way than was intended, it would
be .appropriate to restructure or relook. at the private sect.or
references in the plan or even "garbage" the entire docw:zent.
statf did not intend to use the plan as a set of re~~lations but
rather as a set of guidelines, tl'.Dughts, and ideas peop!.e coulo
think: about and €ncouraqe. He ~as aware of the specific: situation
mentioned by Mr. Baer at the ARB meetir.q and f~=tunately the wotior.
tailed. From what stltff told him., staff 'Was supportive of the
failed motion aT'd ~euld nave. beer. very concerne.(1 if th~ motion
passed beeauge in the context of the building itself, it would have
led to a design situation that would probably not have been very
benefici~l to the property owner or to handicapped accesS. He
assure~ Council he would emphasize strongly to the ARB and other
bodies who might use the plan about its intent.
council Member Anderse~ asked what the ~wntown Urban Design Plan
accomplished that the zOLinq ordinance did not.
Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the zoning -ordinance
provided a set ot site development regulations and included things
like floor area maxim'Jms and setbacks which prescl"ibed maximWl"l
development limits for a particular piece of property~ The
Downtown Urban Design Plan looked at the Downto.~ as a Whole and
envi$ione~ what might be accomplished if the public and private
sectors worked together tOliard realiz inq sotte of the ,\"is ions
articulated. While the Downtown tJrtlan Design P~an was within
existing zoning. it went beyond the current zor:.in9 to see how
individual properties related to the OOwntown in its entirety.
COUo"'lcil :MelDber Ander-sen asked. what would happen if he o\lmed
250 University Avenue and went before the staff or the ARB with a
plan ~or a remarkable upgrade where r~e OOWntown Urban Design Plan
envisioned an alley.
Ms. Lytle sa.id it was hoped the Downtown urban Design Plan would :be
embraced by peoplE!, and. people would carry forward some of its
inspiration into the design of his/her project. A project ~ight
then p~ovide s~me ot the public benefit, e.g~, the application for
250 University Avenue to obtain extra floor area.
Co~cil Member Andersen said the -carrot-was some ot the bonuses
that could be received. The ·stick-was the dOCWIIEnt.
Xs. Lytle aald tlle ·stick.· "Was not the document so much as the
approval process could act as the ·stick.~ In terms ot how the
DoWntown Urban Desiqn Plan 'Was intended to be implemented, sbe
referred to page 2 of the Planning commission's report which
articulated "'the plan can be.come a catalyst for advocacy of public
iJlprovements in the Downtown.· That section of the repart was
written in response to staff's outreach efforts which had taken
place over the past six months and inc1uded extensive ~eetinQs with
Downtown merchants, owners~ and the Palo Alto Chamber of CoJmllerce.
Tbe three property owners wbo provided a report 'Were contacted
throuqhol,lt the four-year process at various intervals, even aore 1$.0
02/22/93 70-146
•
\
------
tllan other property owners. The Urban Design committee "acknowl
edged that the plan captured some ideas and concepts~ Most
concepts 'Will undoubtedly be modified slightly or radically in
later development. Some of the ultimate goals were likely to be
accomplished in ways that yere not envisioned or anticipated by the
Committee 4 Therefore, the Plan should be vie'ded as a teol and
resource rather than a requirement, an inspiration rather than a
regulation.-
co~~cil Member Anders~n said emphasis had been placed on Co~er
Street, and he asked whethe~ that emphasis would add to the problem
of congestion already on that street. He had heard that 5QZfie
people in the area were deeply ccnc.srned about the extent of
traffic.
Ms. Lytle said traffic congestion and people activity ~ere slightly
ditferent~ The idea of being able to move the automobile in and
out of a parkinq structure at that node .as important, but there
might be steps L~e city could t~e that would be more efficient in
combination with private actions, e~g~t valet parking. It wao the
kind of -making it happEnR place that the Plan envisioned tor the
end of town.
CO\.Ul'Cil Member Andersen asked how the document would work in
conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan process.
~.s. Lytle said the document could be a resource for the Comprehen
sive Plan Advisory Co:mmittee (CPAC) f could be coordinated with the
ruture improvements qoals identified elsewhere in the community,
and could be used to balance ideas in the Plan agail).st other
coaaunity-wide objectives in order tc make recommendations to the
council ~ The Plan had 3lready led to some. thinking about the
transit depot and the proposal for a design charette, which also
had potential if the council desired to have CPAC conduct further
consideration~
MS. Wilson said there had been discussion about whether the Plan
should be an appendix tc the Comprehensive Plan~ The Urban Design
Co~ittee believed it should not be done because the Plan should
not be caught up in a legal sfstem and should be flexible.
Vice Mayor Kniss said since the Comprehensive. Plan had gone through
a number of hearinqs and discussions by elected policymakers i the
Plan being appended to the Com.pr-ehensi ve Plan 'Would not be a
discussion point.
Ms. Lytle replied the process followed in the Plan was not the same
as the legal process for the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Wilson was
referring to a concept that came up early on and was abandoned by
the Urban Design Committee~
Vice Mayor Kniss was concerned that the document might appear to
look as though it had real validity. She asked ho~ the document
could be kept as a vision and as somethinq that evolved over a
four-or-five-year period and. not tall into the category of a
02/22/93 70-147
----------------"
•
~,-.,
•.
person beinq told that hls/ht!r p:-oject did not fit into the vision
or the dream.
Ms. Lytle said the Council needed to spell out clearly under the
section of the document that said -How does this document get used
What is its pu~se and intent?-that the Plan was not intended to
be used as a regulatory tool.
Vice Mayor Kniss was concerned the Plan might take the City down a
P&th that the council might not ~ant to go down, particularly since
the Comprahensive Plan process had just begun and the -Dream Team"
had not been discussed. Both ~f those iss~es led into a particular
direction that the Council had not discussed ~t length yet.
Council Member Huber understood the document 'Would. change over
time. Ba asked if the plan ~ere adopted, how the changes would~
if any, be made and how those changes vould be inco~~ated into
the Plan~
MS. Lytle replied efter the Comprehensive Plan effort was out of
the way, it would be time to relook at the Downtown plan and other
areas and brinq those areas up to da te. The doc'.J.ment should be a
tool that did not beco~e outdated, did not wo~k against the City's
purposes, and helped to accomplish goals rather than stano in the
way of goals.
Council Kember Huber asked if many people came to the City with a
twenty-first or twenty-second century design but that was not the
right architecture at the ti~e, when the City would say that that
design might be the way the Dovnto\m ViliS headed.
M&~ Lytle said there was a process in place for individual
applicants to present their rationale to the ARB. If a person haa
a better solution or knew specific information about the property
that negated Whatever the Plan said about the property. it would be
appropriate to bring it forward to staff first and then to the ARB.
Tbe ARB was flexible ana understood those variable.s had a mor-e
direct implication on the exact development of a property than the
conceptual vision. The vision was meant to inspire people, not to
direct people. The idea would not work by itself, and t.he private
applicant would bav2 to malte the idea come alive, but it mit;'ht not
come alive exactly as the committee bad envisioned.
Mr. Schreiber said there-was an annual Downtown monitoring process
the Council instituted at the end of the Downto'Wl'l Study in 1986.
The Planning commission reviewed the annual Downtown report several
weeks aqo, and it would be sent to the Council in the near future.
rt would be appropriate if the Downtown Orban Design Plan .. -itS
approved to require, as part of that annual monitoring process, an
assess.ent be -.ade by staff of the nWllber of applications ana t:.~e.ir
relationship to the Oowntown Urban Design Plan. The council had an
annual meeting with the ARB, and as part of that process, the ARB
usually provided the Council with an update on its activities
during-the past year, i.e., the nU!l1ber of applications, trends that
the ARB saw, etc. It would also be appropriate, as part of that
annual Council/ARB process, to asJc staff and tl'le ARB to comment on
02/22/93 70-148
.~----.--..
/
I
I •
I
I
I
the status of the Downtown 'Urban Desi'gn Plan in terms of the
applicationD that "'ere seen durinq the year 'Which would help
provide a form for individuals both on the Council, ARB~ and tne
public to maxe observations, additions, or corrections.
Council H~r Huber asked it a per-son had a piece of property that
they wanted to develop and the vision presented vas not the same as
what was currently pr-oposed in the Downtown Urban Design Plan,
whether someone would indicate that their plan did not comply .ith
the Downtown Urban Design Plan. He asked hoy much hassle a person
would have to go tr~ough before approval was received if a person
said -no· to all those quidelines~
MS. Lytle said the Planninq Department provided customer service,
and sta.ff tried to put applicants on an agenda promptly, qet
hia/her to the ARB within time lines that were published, and keep
him/her on a schedule because sta£f recognized that time W3S money~
The statt l s qoal lIr'as to provide resources that would help the
appli~ant be successful in that process. Even if a pe=$O~ did not
share that vision, staff forwaraea the application as q~ickly as
any other application~ The ARB was W'illi!~g "to entertain individual
visions ,dth as much enthusiasm as it entertained all applications.
Mr~ schreiber said that situation often occurred. The City had
design expectations for El camino Real and other areas which had
emerged over time based on the actions of ARB, Planning CemmislSiorl.
and the Council on various applications. Staff had guidelines that
ware provided to applicants which indicated that if an applicant
filed an application by a certain date, he/she could count en being
on an ARB aqenda by a specified date. Applications that had
problems of inconsistency with past city actions or expectations
JIliqht take longer through the review process if the applicant
decided he/she needed to do some modifications before going to the
ARB. Some applications went to the AIG and :received comments that
led to changes and other applications h~d been reqarded as good
ideas and had gone throuqh the proceos.
council H.e~ Wheeler believed developers had r-.othing to fear if
the vision for the El Camino Real is1..and enunciate!! in the 1976
Comprehensive P~an versus the reality of what had emerged in ~~e
'Dle.a.."ltime lw"as any indication of how stringently guidelines .. ere
upheld. The dra.ft document was before the Council after q-oinq
throuqh several advisory boards and commissions, who had made a
substantial number of comments, and it vas the intent of the staff
to incorporate those co~ents in a final version~ She expectea
once th~ council qot through a preliminary round of quastions of a
more qenerali2:ed nature~ ther-e would probably be a number of
specific comments and questions raised by 'the council. She
be~ieved the plan would require a substantial rewrite of portions
of th~ document. She asked how the rewrite 'Vould be done and
whether the document should be brought back through a public:::
process before the Council finalized the document.
Ms. Lytle said staff's impression of the process was that the
comments received would not result in a substantial rewrite l with
the exception ~f the comments made by the ARB vhich had to do with
02/22/9J 70-149
----.-"--
\ -',
I
i
j
I
I
1
1
j
t~e budget request. The Urban Desiqn Committee ~as very firm that
the c1OC\ll11.ent should be reformatted into a 1Sl.0re profeeosionally
edited version that was thinner ana had useful qr-aphics. The
prillill!lry COMlI.ents received from other groups had more to do 'With
Jli!"".~r changas to date. Unless the council desired othoe-rwise, statf
wo~ld not be able to make those ~inor changes ~nd return with a
final docu=ent for another six months.
Mr. Schreiber said between the development ~oni~orin9 side of the
Planninq Department -and the comprehEm:S:ive Plan effort recently
initiated, there was little s~aft time available for the project or
any other type ot special study. The six-month estimate ~as based
on the time senior Planner Lori Topley 1II'ould need to fit the
follow-up work into the lulls betwe9n the Stanfora We~tJSand Hill
Road/Stanford Shopping Center double Er.vironm~ntal Impact Report
(EIR) proceas. Staff was not available to do the tollo~-up work on
an ongoing basis~
xorl"OW 'l"O ltZJ'D: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconde~ by Kniss,
to refer the Downtown Urban Desiqn Plan to the Policy and Services
COIIIIIIittee.
Council P~r Fazzino was concerned that there was a significant
nll.lllber of questions regarding 't.he content of the r-eport. It seemed.
foolhardy after the Urban Oe&ign committe~ had spent six years on
the issue %or the Council to ~ismiss the item in ar. hour and a
hal~. He believed some concerns had been raised by Messrs~ Baer
and Keenan and others, but instead of establishing a new public
process, it would be best for ~~e council to bave the Policy and
services (PiS) Committee review the document and bring the .atter
back to the council tor final consideration. It had been is
tremendously valuable exercise on the part of a largo number of
committed people, and he was not troubled that it would be used as
a ·stick-and saw it as a vision document and a document that was
consistent with the current comprehensive Plan. He hOped# When the
council approved the new Comprehensive Plan, that it would ~en
review that vision document to~ake sure it was consistent with the
pclicies of the new Comprehe~sive Plan. He said as a member of the
PiiS Committee, he was 'Willing to. commit extra houre. to serious
consideration of the document.
council Member Andersen said the doculJlent made reference to the use
of variolls square footaqe ineentives to encourage developers to
follow those guidelines and asked whether those incentives would
have to be in the form o~ an ordinance and it so, Whethe~ something
would be created considerably more than guidelines.
Ms. Lytle said the Planned community (PC) zene change ordinance
allowed those in~entives to be utilized which ~as the process being
usee currently. An idea c~e up durin9 the outr~ach proc~s5 that
there might be something a little less ominous th~n the PC process
which would allow similar incentives bu~ at a minor level.
council Member Andersen said there were a lot of things about the
document that he :found excitinq. He was imp:-essed by the amount of
work and cre~tivity that went into the document but was conc~rned
02{22(93 70-.150
•
/
--'-"--
that the document might be vieved as binding in the context of the
private developer-who had creative ideas. He was also concerned
the vision of the ARB ~i9ht not be the ultimate vision of a private
developer and 9000 idea.s 'liQuId be lost. He hoped thoa P&S Committee
would explore hew to make certain the doc~ent was not binding or
requlatory. He vas not persuaded that the current document would
not be that ~nd the City's role should be explored in detail with
reqard"to how the process migbt be encouraged and sti~ulated in
public domail1 areas. The assessmellt d.istrict was one area, hut
there miqht be other areas that could be explored. so that it might
be moved along in mo:-e rapid manner. He wanted the pUbliciprivate
partnerships concepts explored in more detail with respect to the
Varsity Theatre.
Council MeaDer Simitian said there was a request fer support for
additional funding and aSK&d whether that req~est should also be
referred to the P'S committee. Ha supported the motion and said
an urban <1esign plan 'Was a good idea, and the 'C'rban Desigr-..
committee had done a good job. The fundamental nation to have some
dasiqn vision for the Downtown shou~d not be lost~ He agreed with
the comment by Ms. Lytle to t~e Planning Commission that -for the
plan to he successful I it should De embraced by the property and
business owners, not forced upon them.-That ~a6 the compelling
argument for the referral to the P&S Committee. The referral did
not suqgest any conclusion about the process that led the Council
to that point nor did it suggest any conclusion about what woul~
coae out of the referral. He believed going an extra mile in
orQer to qenerate a little =ore support from the property owners
downtown. would be worthwhile. He recalled the com:nent by Ks. Lytle
that -it was a plan a8siqned to inspire and not dir.ct-when he
read. under architecture for the Civic cross AXis District that
-architectural style of new structures should reflect and compli
ment the mediterranean style ot the ~istrict, although they need
not mimic. Use of stucco, masonry, clay tile roofs, and light
color palette5 of whites, creams, and light pastels are encour
aged~" Most people would think that was !!lore in the way of a
direction rather than an inspiration in terms of the specificity
offered for a. particular project. The P&S Committee needed to
di«cuss ho''''' to sort out the tension bet'Ween project specific
visions and visions for the entire Oowntown~
JIUZR AJII) SBCOIIDER AGUE%) oro D/COU'OUTI! = 'l'III! MOTrO" that a
request for additiona1. funding be re.ferred to the Policy and.
Services Committee.
council Member Rosenbawa encouraqed the Or:ban Design Committee. He
referred to page 2, paragraph 1, of the DClimtown Urt.a.r-, Design Plan
which stated, WIn September 1987, the City council appointed a ten
member Urban Design committee to prepare this plan~ Initial
direction provided by ~~e Council was to produce a comprehensive
document ot policies and guidelines describinq the physical form of
Downtown Palo Alto. The plan was to be in a form L~at could be
used to help developers and designers in understanding the
expectation.s and objectives for downtown development. -The Urban
Design committee had done exactly that~ The Committee, with one
exeeption, was ma.de up of design professior.als, and· tht! City
02/22/93 70-151
'.,;;,
"
E ,::{ .
'~"''''f-~.-.
,
Council Kembers in 1987 asked for the riqht things. He 'Was
concerned that at the last m.oment it appeared some significant
oowntown property owners were not enthusiastic4 A good eX:alJIple wa.s
the Barron Park Drainage Plan which was referred to the Finance
Committee. Staff had done a great deal of work on the plan, but
there were many peopla. "'he were unhappy. Eventually, a plan was
aChieved that was workable tor everyone. He hoped the same thing
would happen and he ~ncouraged the P&S Committee to vork ~ith the
urban Design COMl!littee and the Downtown people and come up wi t:h
something that yould worX. If there ~ere dis~qreements, he wanted
to 5ee those disagreements carefully spelled out and then the
council could make a final decision.
council Member Cobb said many times when the council referred an
issue to a Bt~nding committee, it was because the counci1 did not
want to deal with the issue at that time. council ~ember Rosenbaum
had touched the riqht nerve. He believed it was a good idea to
refer the issue to the P'S committee, although he believed the
urban Desiqn Committee had done an excellent job and had provided
some ideas that co~ld be very exciting for the City~ He believed
tbe P'S Committ£e should .focus on the issue!! presented, and it
sbould not be a ti:me. for another presentat,ion~ He hoped the people
Who bad expressed concern that evening would take those concerns to
the P&S Committee and 'Would \.Iork with the committee to resolve
those concerns9 If th~e were other issues be5ides those raised
that evening, he hoped those issues would also be brought up so the
OO-.ittee could resolve 6ubst~ntive issues and then ret~-n to the
council for a final decision~
council Meaber Huber supported the motion and also supported the
Downtown Urban Design Plan. He was the Planning Commission's
~ppointee when t.'1e process got underway, and the Council's
direction waa understood at that point. HI! believed Council Mel!lber
Cobb's SU9gestion regardinq the focus of the referral to the P&S
CC*aittH vas excelle.nt. 8e clid not think it sbould be referred to
the P'S Committee for redesiqn. The Council either bought into the
vision the Urban Design committee presented or it did not. He
believed if it 'Were referred. t.o the PO'S Committee, it should be
done in the context of solving the basic issues that were raised by
Messrs. Baer and Keenan and ethers with regard to the guidelines
and Whether additional money should be allocated and then leave it
at that~
Vice Mayor xniss said it would be a diss~rvice not to allow the
vision ideas expressed in the Plan a chance to be considered in a
di~ferent li9ht~ The framP-vork was excellent and would provide
the P4S COll1'litt4!-e 'With an opportunity to thorouql'\ly review the
issues addressed.
Mayor McCown said it wa$ important to work through the issues
raised that evenin9 ~ She did not agree with the breadth of
Mr. Baer's suqgestions that tne dOCWElent should refer only to
public areas and not concern itself with private areas because that
was unavoidable. with any plan the City envisioned, e.g~, the
DoWntown Plan or the Comprehensive Plan. When the City wanted. to
articulol!te a vision in the community, tb';! city spoke about the
02/22/93 70-152
-----_ .. ---------
\
",
• goals and how private prope.rty owners could be encour-aqed. to
develop their land in conjunction with those visions. She said it
did not make sense to sayan urban ~~si9n plan shoula eliminate all
reference to concerns about private proj~cts. A challenge for the
P.S COJDlllittee would be hoW' to articulate an integrated vision
without it being a requirement and the language would have to be
considered to det~rmine how that could be achieved. The Council.
was often in the position of spending-much of its time reac"tinq to
thill9s and ofter.. spoke about wanting the opport1.lnity to De
proactive ana try to define for people.. who 'Wer-e inter41lsted in
helping the community achieve its vision l what the Council would
like to ~ncouraqe people to do. She said that was what the Plan
was trying to achieve and believed the conc-erns could be 'Wor-ked out
and the ri9ht balance reached so the document cculd be used in the
community.
1I0'1';[CII PASSEl) 9 -O.
Mayor McCown asked the City Manager-wh~n the item would be before
the p,s Committee.
city Manaqer June Fleming said possibly early April 1993. Staff
would notify the interested people when the issue was befor-e the
P&S Committee..
•
December 4, 1992
PlAANlNG COMliISSIOI1
Palo Alto, California
fit~ of 1'010 ttlto
,,",0, I!O~ U'l1'Hl
f'A.~C' .:InO. CA 'i4~03
Q!W] oo.INTOIffl URBAN pESIGN PLAN
H~bers of the tammission:
Prqj~ct pescription
This report s'nn~u.rizes pub1ic~ advisory board and cOllll1ission C01!J"IIents and
recommendations on the draft Downtown Urban Design Pl!n. It also reQuests
Planning Commission review and recommendation(s) on t~e draft Plan tnat will
be submitted for City Coun~il c~nsideration ar.d final acticn in January 1993.
B,ckground'
·.:'.',
In Septe.ber 1987, following completion and implementation of the Downto~
Study in 1986 and City Council policy action on the Downtown Amenities
CDlmittee recommendations in .id-1987, the City (ounctl apPointed a ten-member
Urban o.sign C .. ittee (UDC) to prepare a Downtown Urban Cesig". Plan. The
Cou"cfl's objective was to have a design pla~ for the Oowntown Area that would
guide future development and fdentjfy appropriate public )~royement vit~in
the context of previously lpproved p~lfcies and regulations fo~ the D~town
Area.
The volunteer Committee met ext~nsively o~er a four-year peri~d in deveioping
rnfDrmation and ult1~tel1 concepts and graphic illu$trati~~s thit WQyTd be
1~corporited within the draft ?la~. This dr~ft Plan was completed and
distributed for public review in August 199L SL:bsequentl,y, member:; of the
Urban Design Committee end staff ~et and discuss~d the Pla~ or. slx occasions
fn October 1992, wit~ yarfo~s Downtown interest groups. includi~9 merchants,
property owners, other business owners and nearby neighbors. Over 700 notices
were sent to these individuals ar.d businesses announcing the Ivailability of
tftis draft Plan and the date and loc.ation of the six outreach meetings. In
addition, the draft Phn was reviewe(j by the Public Art Conraiss~Qn, Historic.
Resources Board [HRB], Architect~re Review Hoa~d [ARB]. and Utilities Advisory
Commission [UAC]. All Boards and COmmiSi?OnS who have r~vie~d the P1an to
date, endorse it enthusiilSt~cal1y.
Ni.:*"".chon
<
12/04/92
Page I
Purpqsg of the Downtown Urban Design P1~n
The draft Downtown Urb3n D!sign Plan is inte~d~d ~to enhance the Q~a1ity of
ciownto~ and ensure t~at it retains its aDpeal and attraction.~ lhe draft
Plan e~phasiles that it is intended to guide downt~wn d~~elopment and
amenit,~s and is !!SL1 intended t~ be binding or regUlatory in nature. The
c:onmittee fOn.'ards the PTan with the hope tl'lat it will inspire private action,
rather than deat.and it. the Pl ar, tan beco.me a -catalyst for ad\locacy for pl.ibl it
impro'Vements in the Oowntown. ihe Cormri ttee acknowledges that the Plan
captures some ideas and concepts. Most concepts will u~d(.lubted1y be modified,
.1 i gilt l:! or radjcally, in their loter development. Some of the ultimate goals
are likely tD be accomplished in ways that were not envisioned or ant1cipated
by the Committee. Therefore, the Plan should be viewed a •• tool and
resource, rather than a requir~ntj an inspiration rather than a regulation.
Staff and t~e ARB are committed to being ve~y flexible and open minded in
their application of the Plan. Tne Committee intends the flan t~ b~ fluid and
realizes tl"lat tf)e indhridual \lariables relating to any single propfirty or
situation will have a great decl to do with the tJlt;mate deSign solutions, and
tl'lere ;s a need for treativity and respons1veness to those variables. for the
Plan to be succ~ssful it s~ould tn be embr~ced by tne prop~rty and b~si"ess
owners, not forced upqn them. Implementatt~n is expected ower the long ratner
than the short term. Tbings will occur which will -date-the docwnent and it
snould never betome a constraint to innovation. That res~lt \>tould be contrary
to its intent and purpose.
$Um@Jry of Cgmm«nts and Rtcp~ndat;Qns on t~g Plan
To date, ~st ~rs of the pubifc and all of the advisory boards a~
commiSSions ~aye been very supportive of t~e Plan. Criticisms have focused on
several area.s.
Us-gf tbe Plao
Some i"d1~idulls, particularly the ~ajQr Downtown prDperty QWners
Jig Baer Ind Chop Keen~n, have expressed conce~ that staff and the ARB
will use the Plan ~s I regulat~ry deviee rather t~an a guideline for
i~rQ.ed quality. Hr. B.er is sati.fied that the Plan will not be
misused if it is adopted with I set of jnstructfons to staff and the ARB
net tb use the Plan as a basis to deny projects with reference to ~t.
Also, he ~uld prefer that the reference to the Liddicoat's building be
deleted. ~r. Keenan hiS requested that any reference to private
property and architecture be removed frem the Plan in order to prevent
another layer of ·zoning-for the Downtown. Staff ~as gone to some
lengtn to assure these property owners thit the document will ~ot be
applied rigidly, h-",t it is understandable t~at they 111;11 require City
Council assur~nce on how tne Plan will be used before they are
comfortable.
•. p
12/04/92
Page 2
•
While staff and th~ ARB inten~ to be f1~x,bl~ in lpplying the
gt,;;delfnes, it cannot be ignored that put:>Tic 5p~c.e is frJrmed and framed
by the buildin3~ whic~ surround it, This is ill fundamental p~intip1e of
urban design. Deleting all reference to private prnpe~ty would
eliminate the three-dimensior,al qua1ity of this. P1an. which is ill primary
concept berng forwar~ed in the document. Furthermore. whiTe the ~ajor
property Qwners are to be comp11mented for thei r man.> st.!cces~ful
contributions tD the Downtown. it must be acknowledged that many ARS
applicants are not fami1far with the urban framework cf the Downtown and
would benefit from I document which articulates cOATIlJnity expectations
prior to designing their project. The ARB reviews hundreds of ~mall
applications ~very year, oftentimes working with unsophistic~ted
applicants after they have invested in pJins. Currently the only method
for relaying community expectations in advance of tn! project design is
fDr staff or ARB members to Yerbally articulate tnese concepts. This
method is ~nsati$ractcry and creat!s undue tension in the process. The
verbal comments of an individual staff person or ARB member are often
interpreted to be that person1s apinion 1 rather than a community
expect.tion. On the other hand, an illustration in the Ur~an Oesign
Plan can he ·~ortn a thousand ~ords· in explain'~9 to i 1ess
sophisticated applicant the benefit of, fer example, designing
pedestrian d,strict buil~ing ~nrners {page 59; or putti~9 a -base on the
building' (pages 60 and 61).
Traffic
Nearby reSidents expressed concern over increased traffic into the
neighborhoods, partieulir]y if Alma Street was made lncr •• singly
pedestrian oriented and converted into a b~u'eyard. Measures can be
taker. to visuallJ de-Hlpha.s1ze the automobile ... ithout restT'lcting
automobile tr~ffic flow. Tree plantings are an example. Pedestrian
~ro55ings will eventua11y restrict automubiles, however. and it should
be acknowledged t~at th! Alma Boulevard concept is a lOTig-range
aspirati~n a~ that further emphasfs Gn pedestrian connections, de
eMpnasfzfng tnrpugh traffic, will need to be accompanied in conjunction
with measures to address the nefg~borbood concern. The intermodal
transportation co~cepts now being discussed in the ftOrlam Te~· effort,
to eventuaT1y be i~troduc!d to citilens in the Comprehensive Plan
process, will need to address the n!ighborhoQd concerns ov~r traffic.
It should ~ noted tr.at until society recognil2s. through individual
lif~style cRo1ces, the full CO$t of automobiles on ·qu~lity of ltfe~·
there will not be a co~~lete resa1ution to this concern. However. it
cannot be expected that p~ople ~11 eYer ~se their ta~s 1ess if planners
and paHty-ma.kers do not provide options to the atltornobil e. T.'! design
of Alma currently does nat promote '~termodI1 transit. Pede$trian
access to the train and bus station j, dismal at best. S~cyclists are
nC)t encouraged. lherefore. in order to provide better choices,
consideration of potential options will require thorough e~aluation in
the Comprenensive Plan process and support from the neighborhoods.
11/04/92
Page 3
.-...,'
..... -,'" .J.:':",
-'-
Parking
Numer interests upressed frustratfon over the perceived lack of
adequa par~ing in t~e Downtown area. So~ individuals asked w~y so~e
sit~~ were id~ntlfied is being sUltable for parking structures ~hile
other ~otentlal sitp~ were not mentioned. These sItes ~!re selected due
to their adeQuate 5.le. configuration 4nd location; however, it is not
the intent of the Comfttee to reduce options for parking soT'Jtlons, but
instead to suggest oppart~nlties. It ~as learned during the Oo~town
outreach thtt the Chamber of C~rce has I parking committee ~rking on
other recon.ended solut1cns to the parking deficit. Tne Urban Desi;"
Plan is not 1ntendtd to stifle those private efforts and would recommend
t~at the City remain receptive to any future proposals.
Transit
Some .embers of the public suggested that the draft PI," emph.size t~e
need to ~xpand and improve transft, particularly in the context that
improved transit and a r.ultny Downtown were mutually supportive items.
The Committee recognizes this need. In fact, tr.e -Dream Team-effort,
which received ;"spfrati~n from the Urban Desfgn Plan, ;s intended to
work toward ~hasizing inte~dal tra~sit for the Downtown. The ideas
of the -Dream Team-will ev!ntualiY be introduced into the Comprehensive
Pl an process.
SOFA business owners suggested t~at the Drift Plan provide g~idelinEs to
improve the appearance of a~tomQttve sery;ce businesses. These
guidelines are presented on pages 53 to 55.
SMall Byildjng Expansjon
One architect sL~gest.~ that the Plan advocate incentives for impro<ing
saaller businesses by ~Tlowing =odest expansions. T~fs concept could be
explored as a follClli-up ordinance. A Downtown amenities bonus, similar
to t~i sei~mic bonus, could be aide iVlilible relit1vely easily if the
polfcy ~kers so desired.
preser.-ation
The HRB. in endDTSinQl the Drift Ph", fJrged gr"uter empnasis or. historic
preservation i~ the final document. The Comm;tt~~ and staff are ~ery
receptive to suggested wording for final publication_
.... '---~----...... -~.--
12j04/92
Page 4
•
News Racks
Staff rece'i .... ed iii comment from a rl:"presentati VI! c;f the new:lpaper industry
who felt tnat tr.e discussion on newsracks, wnich focusei cn repairing
and utilizing t~e existing public newsracKs. appeari to e1imfnate other
possible arrangements for newspaper display, One of the follow up
assignments to tllis Plan will be to revise tr.e City's news rae/(
regulations. Bec~use tnere i$ l legal framework wit~in ~hjch cities can
regulate newsracks? staff does n~t want to preclude any reasonable
alt!rnattves prior to thorough staff and public review of the news rack
regulation issue. Therefore. staff recQ~nds that the {o~issicn
should not view. the language in the Plan as excluding: other options.
Staff Rec?mmendation
Staff recommends t~at the Planning Ccmmfssion recommend to City CQuncil ad~ption of the lI!'!1atiYe dec.larat;Qn and enC:orsemeilt ~f the {Jrban Design Plan.
Respectf,lly submitted,
HANCY MADDOX LYTLE
Chief Planning Offlciil
cc: Urban Oe.lgn Co .. ltt ••
Chop Keenan, Keenan lind
J1. Baer, Premier Properties
Attachments;
HistDric ReSDUrCe$ BDard Kinute$ of Novembe~ S, 1992
Archltecturil Review BOlrd Minutes of Noyeober 5, 1992
Public Art Comml •• lon Minutes of October 28, 1992, with
letter from John Montgomery, Chair
Draft Urbarl D2sfgn Plan (pre'/iousiy di s'tr1buted)
11/04/91
Page 5