HomeMy WebLinkAbout0296.095£<:\.'. ~.
(:)
<3'
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
AGENDA DATE: JUDe 12, m5
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
CMR: 296:95
SUBJECT: Addeadam t. the Midi .... Mark.1 Analysis Follo .. -up
sm1lES'[
The purpose oftbis report is 10 provide !he City C<lonciI with additional information on
!he proposals regarding !he Iong-tenn economic viability of the Midtown neigbborhood
c:ommereial sJwwing center. SpecificalJy.this report analyzes !he similarities and
di1I'eren«s between "area-'IIIidc planning" efforts and !he approach 10 e<:onomic
revitalization offered in CMR:2.5S:95. ti1led MidloWl> Market Analysis Follow-up.
REVISED SF£OMMENPAIIONS
At the May 22, 1995 Council meeting. staffhad indicated 10 !he Cour>cil1hat allocation
of the paddng-Iot and the noncomplying slnKtures issues (numbers (l) and (n) under
Phase II) roaId be considered as part of !he Phase I =>ceptu.al planning exercise. It is
recommended thai the C<lonciI approve this approach of considering the two concepts in
CO<Ijunetion with Phase I • even though the aclllal impJemenllllion of these issues may
lake piau lIDder Ph ... n when the zoning 1rx1 <banges are initiated.
BACKGROUND
Al part of the City'. on-going Coolprehensive Plan update, the Comprehensive Plan
Advisofy Cmnmittee (CP AC) recommended thai several areas in the City be considered
for an Area-Wide Planniog efbt. Planning staff inl"'l"etation of area-wide planning
approacll is presented io CMR:29S:9S on the proposed Community Desigll Element of
'.--
.-
o
1he Draft Comprehensive Plan. While 1he proposals in thaI repc<1 also addrtss alternative
approec~ .. staff fell it helpful 10 lay out the n1timate objccti~, and comparison of 1he
two appcoaches for Midlown in grea!er specificity for Council consideration.
PO! ley IMPI.!CATIQNS
BolIo. !he area-widc plAnning "l'P'"'*1o and the Midlown Market Analysis follow-up
approdclt have • coosistcnl goal -10 IIChieve Iong-1erm economic viability IDe !he
MidtoWll Area, and 10 lransfer • pubJk process, in some form, to other commercial ......
of!he Cily ~ similar eecoomic distress andfor land use conilicts.
The atIached Exh.ibit A encapsulates the two approac~s 10 Midlown Revi!alization.
Ca!egorical and polky implkative discussion of 1he approacbes can be broke .. inro !he
following: poblic participation, liming. cost;, sta.ffing. loots required for plan
implemmtation. and \laIure of final producl l!t esSClK<, the approack outlined in
CMR:2S5:9S is. fucm ofpulilielprivate partnering. whereas traditional area-Md.
plazming efforts have been initiated by, and largely paid for by, !he public sector.
SpecifkaI1y, staff analysis suggests !he following:
Pub6c Plrtlclpotioa: The IUiIDre and extent of pobfic participation varies in 1he two
approacbes. Under !be Midlown proposal. • small woddng group of commercial property
owners and oIher interested parties. includiog residenlial, re!aJllenant, and board,
c:ommissioo and Council representatives, would be convened 10 participate in 1he
commercial property owner-funded s;1e planning exercise. The majority of!he group
would be c:omprised of!he commercial propettj OWDeB. Other stakeholders would act as
amba ... d<Jn to !heir ccnstitnent groups tbrougbout !he process, and 1he predominant
n=siden! role would be played in !be plantzoning n=vicw slagcs. The primazy advantnge to
!his approach is !hat Ihose who will ultimalely invest in !he Midtown Commercial Center
play • very imjlOl1aDt role carIy on in !he process. In addition. !here may be substan.tial
lime and cost savings in !he Phase J Siage, due to !he smaIler numbers of participants, and
greater focus on !he anticipated outcollle. One risk in Ibis ~ lies with !he
ambassador role, whicll, if 1104 properly executed, could leave some stakeholders feeling
"au( of the loop." Also, while the sile plan or plans gcncraled in Phase I. in conjunction
witlo. !be pro-forma lIIIlIysis. may be instrumental in facilitating commercial property
owner decision-malring in future Midtowll investments, 1he ~tua1 nature of 1he plans
may 1104 lead 10 eventual plan adoptioo without further refinement and expenditures.
The ar .... wide planuiDg approad. generally involves large neighbolhood participation at
the carIy stages of plan preparation. Under this "universally-<lriveA apprOIlC1t, " .n parties
are anti<:ipaled 10 play an equal role. The commercial property ownerlfinancial investor
hp2cCS
, .
-. '
" ...
, -. ~.
"
input IIlOY be diminished, how"""" due 10 greater emphas.. .. on resident participation and
IoDset time foe plan preparation. In addition, non-investor invotvement in the genera60D
of plans for private property devei<lpment is enIw>ced, ol\d will> that enllancemet>t lIllY
come increased risk in the e<:ooo«n ic viability of the ullirnately 1JIPro,'Cd area-"ide pIm.
In gencraI. the atu-wide planning product is depen<knt <lpOO a pub~ policy
cIeIenDina!i<lD \0 create • pIII>IK proce .. 10 ele:Iineate spe<:ific plans foe private property, as
~ \0 deveIopins general regulations and allowing individual owners/developers 10
come fO<W8l"d with variable proposals. One upsiele: of the area-wiele: planning process is
eerWnty 10 all sides, • downsiele: lIllY be lack of f1exibilily andior aeativily in specific
project proposals.
nRliDIr-Coooep!uaI plan(s) preparation in Phase I olthe Midtown approacll, including
the completion. of the pro focma &lIaI}-.is and preliminary Inffic otudy, is estim.ted 10
like between 3-S months '" COIIlplete. Due 10 the greater pub:ic invotvelllent and IOOl'C
specific nalllre of the area-wiele: planning efrort.s, staff estimates a )-2 year time period 10
complete each area-wide plan. Phase n of the Midtown approach will require &dditional
time; however, IIIltil Phase I is CQIIIplete, specifics of Phase n plan preparation and
readineu to< a pub~ review process is unkno,.. ...
Cools: Costs of both approaches IIJ'C difIicult 10 comj>Me on an 'apples 10 apple$' basis.
Costs 10 dale to proviele: greater inConnalicn 10 the City on issues related 10 the Midtown
neigbbodlood commercial ccnler incluclc: the preparation of the MidtOW1l Ma.i<et Analysis
(whicll included three surveys). and the CPAC related <:<>SIs for the MidIOWll workshllP.
The re<:ommenclations contained in CMR:25S:9S would involve an additionol rost 10 the
City 0($22,500: $15,000 for. preliminary traffic otudy and $7,500 for the pro foona
analysis. 011 the private siele:, the <OlDIJlCI'Ci.al property ownen would be required to
expend up \0 $15,000 for conceptual pi"",.) preparation. Estima!ed costs of an area-"';de
or specific plan preparation range between $200,000 10 $250,000, but the nature of the
final produd and the area ;:overed in that product i, grealer under the area-wide planning
approach. The Midto",u CMR recommendations focus on the Midtown core area first
and fOlmlOSt, but"';lh eventual lie-in 10 the other <:OO1!I\efcial comers of the ~r.
Implellleautioa Tools: Implemen!ation tools necesSlll"J in the two approaches differ. An
L-ca-,..;cIc: plan will proviele: greater levels of detail for specific property development
(bod1 public and private). and the Plan would incluele: environmental documc:ntation,
detailed traffic analyses. and fiscal and ecooomiG iIIlpaca of the plan. Area-,..;cIc: plallS
are generally followed by zoning actions 10 IICCOIIlpIish the Plan', oojeclives; the nature
and _ of such cbanges would evolve a;; the Plan progresses. In the absence of
redevelopment ~cy focmation, where the City can ploy an active role in private
prllPefly ownership and clc:velopmenl, there are few IOOIs available 10 facilitate
redevelopmentlbuilding rehabilitation where individual oWllen are not in • .greeroenl, or
-,
<. -. _.'
aR' unable or lIIlwilling to inv..t. That l'loblem is evideneed in eilher the MidtoWll ""
area-wide pIannins approach. Neigbbornood expectation of eventual plan
implementation may be heightened, however, in the area plan approach; and if!he loots
loR net &~ to a«omplish \be plan. discncl>antment may occur. Lik~, if !he
eommcrci.ol property owners are unable 0< ""WIlling 10 wmmi! 10 &n evmtual plan
impIemmlalion, dISenChantment moy also occur. Under the Midtown approach,
~, fewer City do!lari OR on !he line in !he initial Slage.; and !he ownerifmvestc<s
drive the ~ plan preparation.
Staff Rolesll'roouct Generation: M stated above, !he final plans generated from an area
wide 0< speoifi<: planning process are more detailed and may be more integrated than
those suggested llIlder the Midtown approach. Neighborhood "'tisfaction with the
"process" may be higher. Use of coosultanls will be l!f"ater under the area-wide pla'lIling
approach; hence, !he cos:s fo< plan preparation are anticipated 10 be higher. Under !he
Midtov. .. approach, t1exibility in plan implementation could be maximized, bot that also
heightens !he uncertainty of!he finall'loduct. Ii the final l'lOOUOIl'loduced under !he
area-wIde 0< specific planning process does nol <:reate adequate flexibility, or if the Plan
i. net market-based, !he ultimate result could be continued economic decline in Midtown.
Failure in the Midtown approach might tlsQ produce !he same result. but for differing
reasons.
Staffro1es in both processes also differ. The area-wide planning approach involves
greater staff involvement in !he direction of !he process; staff would contract with
consuItanIs 10 perform the tasks involved in all areas of expertise. In the Midtown
approach, staff acts as convener foe !he conceptual plan prq;aration, but !he commercial
property owners con1nct with. and control, !he roncepWaI plan preparation. CooIract
managemeal 0( the public partnering of !he Iraffic ane! profonna &naJyses would be under
City staff dirmion. Under both scenarios, policy alternative identitkation would be
dependent upon staff evaluation and presentation to boards. commissions, and Council.
The MidtoWll alternative requires only a facilitative or convener role in plan preparation;
however. the MidtoWJI approach moy ultimately require greater staff inv.sbnen! in !he
preparation of ordinancefpublie r.view process cbanges than I COIISllltanl prepared
specific or area-.. ide planning process. The M"tdlo .... approac' also Intkiplres all
oulcome lui .nOWJ staff 10 rocu. on the entitlement ,Ide of Ibe process. in contra,lta
the pI'MiDI,ide of the p.oc.... Transfenbility of either process'" other ",.as of \be
City rests upon the fundamenlal goals and objectives of the City regarding the public role
iD eeOOOllll.: vi!ality and r.devek>p=nt The Midtown approach embraces a more
"hands-«J" policy in dealing with private property develop""",t, particularly with regards
'" tbe role of City staff and allocation of public monies.
l!Dibit A: Compariaoo1 of AJu-W>de Plannins Ind Public-.Privale PutneNhll'
> Approa.:bes ~ MidIowa Revitaliutioa
E:dribil B: EltCeI]lCS from !he Cit)v.'ide Land Use v>d Tru>spOrta6on Study Final
Report. September, 1983
Exhibit c: Letter 10 City Council from !or.:!t<>WIl ~nu' Association dated
MardI 22.199S
CC: MldIOWD MtrIoet Analysis Consultant Selection Commlltec
l'rop<rty ~ Core AlQ, MidtO\\'lI sbopJling Center
hr50fS
EuibitA
(Amended)
hblic-Privale P.rt ...... biD Annro .. "
Small Womng groop .,..;th majority hbr,.
C<>IIlItlerciai property owners. rarticip.ooa
Stakeholders acting u amb<ssadors
SO ~ groups.
Resident role in review stages
3-S month conceptual plan Timing
preparatioo plus Phase n
525,000 fOr Mar'<eI Analysi. Costs
Residents' Survey
Phase j:1f p<operty OWDen commit
515,000 iMlaIIy roc site plan;
S22,5OO initial costs 10 Cily ($7,500
fOr pro fOrma aoaJy.i .. 51S.ooo 1'-'<
preliminary II'afIic oz,",ysi.)
ItMsecl Public hview Proces. ImplemOlllaooll
Tools
Revised Zcning
CoDC<p!'Ja! Plans
Pro JOOna .'uulysis
Concepruai Plan FUlaI Product
Investor Drivea Product
ZoIling EnlitIement.
ItMsecl Pubric biew Process
Ar ... -",id. J'lallllin. A""ro.d.
\Jnivers:>l!y driven ""th
sigt'.i5cant oeighborbood
participation in the plan
prepa:.tion stage, eala CPAC
worbhops).
O;.minisbec! 0 wnerrkllVeste<
input; .-..iden! participation in
priV1l1e p<operty development.
1-2 year. fOr complete plan
Estimated cosl to City
5200,000 -S 250,000 per plan
IV .. "";de plan with specific
property development (private
and public) including EIR,
economk analY'si~ traffic
analysis etc.
Possibilities include: Specific
Plan. l'redsel'lan. Coordianted
IV .. Plan etc.
Universally/non investor dri\'eg
product
High residential satisfaction
with process
II
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
J
I
I
I
, . ~ .
EXHIBIT 3
ARIA I -IIIDTMI
Midtowo is t~e central ,.10 Alto s~opplng di;trlct w~lch ~.s served t~e
su,rounding resldeotl,l neighborhoods since l~e 1950s (see flgu~e 4,. It
provl': .. a f.n .Ix of neighborhood .e .. ic"., Including seve .. l ""derate·slz,>
.. arhts, sm,n bonb, ntln service uses, • hrclwire store Ind I departl!tent
store. Most of the hulldi.gs Ire to fair condition but could beoeflt from
IIOr. parilng Ind better access. ~ot .11 of the sites have parking and their
c"stomer. ~ust p.rt either 10 the City·owned lot or .t the lot next t. Midtown
M.rtet. UpgradIng the Midtown shopping district, particularly the cire.l.tion
and parking, to.s been. goal of lhe ComprehenslYe Plan since 1978. Rel.tlvel,
llttl. c~ange ha' occurred io the last teo years, but I 'Parking eire.lation
and Access Study,' pr.par~ bl the Cltl'S traffic con,.ltoot, !. May 1988.
rec ...... nded Wl3' 10 wIIic. exht log ~rl .. te parTting can b. better u.ed.
Plerc'har.ts. h2.Vi been encouraged to CDopente i1t, a prograra Clf sllared" parking.
The Neighborbood Coomerclal Comproh.nsl.e Plan and zoning ~.signatlons .t t~.
center .llow development up t. a 1:1 FAR. FARs .ary greatly among specific
sit., but average ,round .~:1. Tne eN zone .1'0 establish., size limits for
c.ertain tlses. wflich lIay be. exceeded wit" Ippreval of I conditional use ,perV11 t.
Tbese provisions are lotended to encourage the retention of sm.,1
nelghborhood·servlog vses and Inc'.de a 5.000 sQuare· foot size limit for
office uses and. 20.000 square-foot limit for sr~er1 stores.
ISSU(S
Tbe te1 issue Df <onter. fDr t~e Midtown s~oppin9 district is 'hew to i~pr~ve
the Yisual ippearance Df t~e aTel. and improve tne parking and (:iTc~lltlcnl
yet preserve the exf$~~ng .ix ef ~ses. fbis is partfe_liTll difffcwlt t~
resolve beclase the two re'prese~t an essenthl ccnnfct~ to l1aiDtail ... tat now
exhts or to redevelop. ContirlLlatfon of the range of goods a.nd S!ntlces [lOW
offered through Midtown shopping i',de,fred. Resol.tlon of area parking and
<fr,.l.tlon problems wo.,d most llkel, requlr. redevelopment and.
comprenensi~e area approac •. However. measures encDuraging redevelopment and
upgrading would not pro. Ide ,.,urances that e'istlng business., wcu1d be
retaIned. At present, the (itl bl' no direct wa] t. os'.ro eilher retention
of the buslnesse, or promotion of redev.'op0ent. Redevelopment Is like1, t.
be driven by economic and market factors o~ts~de t~e Cit~'s control, and
cl'h;hcement of exi5ting IIIses can O(.cur witflout re~evelopment. It is also
I~ortont t. recognize that rarkiog requirements place an additional
constr.i~t on redevelo~nt Gptfons because a number of sites are already
defic, •• t I. parkfog by current st.ndards.
The changes cr <e~atfvts consfdered for t.'5 area i~luded I fAR reduction
from 1:1 to .4:1 combined wit_ either I problbltlon on bousin. (Altern.tl,e 1)
or Increoslng lhe allowable slz. of grocery stor~s to 30.000 ,quare feet
(A1ter.ativo l). Tbe lower FAR was con,ldered I. a meaRS of redUCing
potentl., cleYe''' ..... nt and traffic growt~. The eli"lnatlon of the exisUng tN
bousfng provisfon ~s consf4ered because t~is area bas already received a
lorge s~are af new multlple-famll, bouslng projects. Ral,l'g the grocer1
store size limit WI. considered to se. whether suc~ a change could foster
ret.otlo. Ind upgrade af the existing star.s. The theory bebind the potentf.,
Increase W" t~.t It Is dlfflc"t for lb. smaller markets t. sta, competitive
wit. t~e newer larger aarkets loc.ted outside the Cit, •• uc~ a, t~e Safewa,
•• rtets I. Ke.l. Park and ""unt.f. ffew.
9/7/88
-3;.
,
.. ~ . ,
') : . ~-0-2>~~";-'
, ,
-
to-
Cl!
0 Z
"-6 w
OC b
~
I .....
>-0 < w
;:J t.!
l-< \I')
W
0 ..;
~ '" C£
>-;:J
to-
0
I.)
L<:
----
-
~ .
~
-
e
I
i
\
\
\
,
• \
IIldt""" {eli}
TIClIl ••
SUlmarl of .It ••• lt\ •••
Aru'
ALl I
.4:1 fAR; b.~sln9
not &ll~d; reo
lala office And:
9r<><:ery stor.
slz. Halt.
&U
S .... IS Alt. 1
.. 1t~ fllCrus.d
sizI 1 imit on
gr.oce.rl Sit'Dre
(up to 30,000
square feet}.
Tabl. 9
ALl!
Sa .. , IS Alt. 2.
'ot~ntl.l A~41.lonal Squ!re footage under A1ternatlves
Area 3
'.
'.
lbe reductIon t~ FAR to .4:1 Will reduce theoretlclt development petenll,' by' sa p<!rce.t. ,"d -.in allow tnl} I negllgibl. S.200 s<lulr. f •• t of additlon.l
de,·e1opooent. Tils sIgnIficant ~rop 10 dev.lopment poteotlol couH b •• xpected
to slro"9'1 eocourlS. retontlon of ,,'sUng .'e'. 1I0n.th.l .... tbis redoctio.
1. Ict.,'ll expected to ba •• n. pracllca' effect en dev.lopment sile boca.,o
developooent Is Ilrted1 constrllnee! by the smol1 partel slz. Ind parilog
requlr.me.t •• The reduced fAR would provIde tne be.efits of f.MOlli'!.; the
""'TO r .. Hstle do .. lop"",o\ potential and clirlf,'09 the Cill', position on
sfze of desired d.v"opment.
Rlhln; the grocery .t""e .'ze limit would effer a ."an redev el opment
IncentIve, but It I •• ls. ~nll~ol, t. ~ay. In1 pracl!cI' effecl because
ir~ery_store 5;ze is .'50 limited by parcel S;Ie and par\iog rfquirements.
R.d.v.lopment or expansion ef the existing store, would require parc.l ~erg.r
Ind dfspl Kement ef other .xlsting ••• s. I.d co,1d Itt •• n, re .. H (~ I net
leoss iI c.orl'lJ\'!Tch.l floor Ina.
The optfon to ~'im'Dite t~e c~rrent RH~30 bous\~g prD~ision ,~ the CM lo~e
would eli."Rinate housing op'Portun'Hes and. is a nsu't , 'W~uld not be
~Qnshtent wiUI (ity l:ousfng poiic.ieL However, suc'h atlion I':a, be ... ·a!"r~nted
i. this Irei because cf its d;stf~ct needs ind c~aracttri5tic54 Tbls
com.erc.hl center :1$ holahd frOl'll -other (:olTlli'lercfa' i.reiS 1ft the City i~d
serves the nel9hbor~d shopping need. of the large r.sld.nti.l area whic'
surrounds it. Many multfp1e-famlly bous;ng prajecls hive been (.Qnstructed
nearby II recent years. further ,ncreasing the slrOfl9 ~.eViiilnd fDT the services
prDvided by "idt~n businesses. Though the same parklng requirements and
RiTcel size Ji.itations make practlcal appllcltfon of any bousing provlsfcn
'lghlJ ""'lkel}. the .1imlnal!on ef the housiog optIon ~al bel, mai.t,i. an~
pre.erve tho l~eotlt1 and oit.,;ty of this o"ghborboo~-s.rvi"g bu,i •• 's
ceRttr.
II Id<!ition to redIKlng the fAR fro. 1:1 to .4:1 for previous1, dIscussed
reisons~ reta'.ing 5ize limits OQ offices and ct~er uses s~ould ~elp to
lI!"uervf the preseRt .ix of .... ses.
RWlt1M£NOATION
I) Reduce the fAR i. lhe eN distrIct fro. 1:1 to .4:1. and maiotai ••• isling
siz~ li&its on grCKery stores; a.nd
Z) treate a new o~erllJ lone restricting bous\ng 11 th! ~idtown s~oppiog
district.
--:--~----~-----
"'
9/7/8S
-42-
~ry Of I ...... nded rrafflc laprovement. An4 MitIgatIon "easure,
The "suH, of tbetityvfde In.,porhUon Study tonhlnod h \~e ill prepated
for t~~ Citywide Study and ,.mm,rlzed I. thl, r.port have 'hown that capacity
laproveDen's at a large number of tlt1 Inters.ctlons and Illtlatlon or a
Transportation Oemond Ma.ageme.t (TOM} ordinance are warranted. Tbe
reeognitlon that projetted traffic volumes senerated .nder the Yarlou,
alternatives Ire similar, and eve~ t~e lowest deve10pmeAt $cenario evaluated
wnl re,aU h .Ignlriunt leve" of conse,tlon. ur.derscores the •• ed to
pursue all reason obI, f.o.lbl. capaclt1 Improvements and tr.fflc reduttlon
.... ures. rEq3rdl.ss of whlc_ aneruthe II selected.
Appendix C, exce",ted frolll the tr.ffrc analy,l, f. the Citywide ErR, descrlbes
t~. specific capacft1 Improvements Which ~.v. be •• Identified for 38 of the 6;
i.tersectlons studied. The table I. this Appendix places the Improvements
loto four ~.~ groups based ~al.ll on co,t, and descrl~es the p~y'lc.1
impacts, the rel'ti~e costs and cenefits of instalJatfon of suc~ frnprovernents.
lbe TrlnsportitioD OiyjS~OD ~as (arefwll1 reviewed t~e proposed capaC\tl
1aprD~ement$ and ~as made specifi, recommenditfons O~ wbfch 5hould be
1aplementtd. F~rsult cf all funding ~ec~anfsms iViilabl! is re,ommen~ed,
'ncluding state, counts, and local devel~per cODtrib~tiQns, p~r5~it of I
Citywide Trifflc I~pact Fee ~rdinance and a special issessment district for
the Stanfor4 Res •• rcft Part.
Onl, II Df t~! )8 ideDtiffed fmprovements are not recQmmended~ ~ilDl, becau~e
of 'Jg~ costs fo~ relative1, low benefits, ~r because Qf fGsufffc;ent
avail.bl. rig~t-of-Y.,. Tbe gr.de-sep.rated urban loterehang.s proposed {or
t~. n ( .. ino/Page Mill and fooUill/Page Mill/Juniper. Serra lotersecUons
are r.commen~.d for furt~.r study because of the •• snlt.de of betk the '.st,
{over S10 .i11101] eacn}, the extnt of plli's;c.' fmpro'lemer.ts, 1$ -well is the
Gverllpphtg rezo'ponslbl1ttl of CUI. countJ and sh.t! jl.irisdfctJons iD fu:nding
the improvODent,. I\Ore detailed .nal"ls is .eeded before. fin.1 deci,ion
can be reached on ~~ether to pur5ue sue\ improvements.
Improvement, Identified for "tersectlons .10ng the Sand Hill Corridor ...
recommended to be i.pl,mented, but po,slble exten,lon of Sand ~jll Road could
affect their ~ltim~te design. It is recognized t~at S~stal'ctf~n of som€ of
t~. S.od Hill Corrider improvements ~'J D,ed to be del.yed until completion of
the Saod Sill Corridor Procedural frame.ork, a coordinated
.. ltl-jurisdictlon.l effort .mos. so.l fs to resolve t~e .aried I'sues
.ffectlns • pO"ible Sand ~ill Ro.d extens!oo.
The f~ters~ctfons recommended te be ;~rgved and the expected cOSt5 of these
fmproveze.tl are Ifsted I. Table 4. Soc) ccst. ,re expect.d t. be distributed
&Rang the ,arfetl of r~ndtng mecbanisms discyssed &bove.
'/7/88
-24-
-,
.:,
.. ~ ,
,,',
r,-,
",'
, ",
" \
'!: \,~_ 1,. • I
.. ' .; "':Ii
.... :'., .. ,,
'. ,'--
i
, ,
'" . "-
~~
.~
T.b.l. 4
R.c~nd.d Copacity INproYeNents
~ndCost sumaary
In\er5estl~
Group A ($I.OOO~~
I El Cimino ~ell & Serr./Par~ Blyd. ('28)
2 El Comino Real & Stanford ('29)
3 El Cimino Rell & Charleston/A.ast.adero ('30)
4 Page Mill & Porter ('58)
5 Orogon [xpwy. I W. Baysho.e ('53)
6 Middlefield & r. Meadow ('13)
7 Hlddlefield & Hamilton (IS)
8 Page HIll & Deer Creek ('S9)
9 El Camino Real 1 CallfO.nla (69)
10 [1 Camino Rell & Curtner ('32)
II El Camino Real & university/Palm (l5)
12 [1 Camino Real It Hansen & Portaoe (130)
Sub-Total Group A
Group a ~-<29~0~7,50,OOO)
I Middlefield & San Antonio
Z [1 Camino Real 1 Embarcadero/Cal vel ('26)
3 Junlpero Serra & Santa Crul/Alpine ('37)
4 Foothill & Hillview ('42)
5 Pago Hill [xpwy. & Hanover ('$6)
6 Middlefield & Unlver'ity ('4)
7 Alma & lytton (118)
8 El Camino Real & San Antonio (136)
Potent hI l"'Prev~~
Add 58 right-turn l •• e
Add 50 right-turn lane
Add S8 right. turn l.ne
Re,tripo NO approach
Restripe N8 app.oach for
two lAnes
Lengthen NO l sa left-turn
pocket, 100 feet
Add E8 left-turn lone ,
Add NO l.ft-turn l.ne
Revl.e phasing to eliminate
ea.t/we.t spIlt
Widen W8 approlch
Re'trlp' ~B off.ramp l.no,
Add WB left·turn lano
Add EO right.tu.n 1 •••
Add S8 left·turn l.n.;
re.trlpe W8 approach
Add £8 right· turn lane
Add S8 right-turn lane;
close Hiranda
Add S8 right-turn line;
rest~tpe NO .pproach
Add we through Ian.
Add SO lpft-turn l.tne
Add NO right-turn lane
I "'l1.l!..otnttt 1 on --ve. --~ -----
S 1,000
1,000
1,000
3,000
3,ooG
6,000
8,000
10,000
30,000
35,000
$~
S 125,000
125,000
125,000
125.000
10,000
S30,OOO
JH~ $6 ,
S125,OOO
150,000
150,000
®
®
'\
.' t
, .,
•
/-,~.
'/ .
" '
\,-;
.( ,".
,"
.., .N ~
~ ... 'g:
9 £1 C ... lno Real & :Chu~ch11l ('27)
10 [ .. b.~.a.ro & ~. eayshoro ('5Z)
11 Sand HIll & Santa Cruz ('44)
12 MIddlefield A Wtllow ('Z)
13 Sand HIll & Arbo~etum ('46)
Sub-Total Group 8
~roup e (J~5O,OOO TO $509,000)
1 Mtddlefleld • Grogon Expwy. ('10)
2 Alma & Charleston ('21)
3 FoothIll & Arlstrader. ('43)
4 Arboretum & Quarry ('47)
5 Arboretum & Palm ('48)
6 Alma & Meadow ('73)
7 Charleston & San Antoni. ('65)
8 Alma & ChurchIll (,71)
9 Middlefield & Emblrcadeto (18)
10 Sind Hill & P,stour (#45)
II roothlll & (new) Mlrind. (IX)
Sub·Tot.l Group C
Gr9~t~~opO and ~b.~'y'~
I Foothill, rage Hill & Junlpero Serra (141)
2 EI Camino R.al & Page Mill ('70)
Sub·Tot.l Group 0
(C~~t;~u~d)
Add VB left.turn lane; ~OO.OOO
N9 rIght. turn lane
Add H8 l.ft.turn la.e
AddER left.turn hne
Add S8 thro~gh llno & vo 250,000
len·turn lane
Reconstruct to accommodate 250,000
Stanford West
U.lIO,OOO
Add NB & 59 left· turn lane. $300,000
Add N8 left-turn & S8 300,000
right. turn lanes
Close Mlrand.; .11mlnat. 300.000
shl~.d lane.
Add FoB l.ft·turn & NB 300,000
through 1 ••••
Add S8 left-turn 10.0; Z S8 300,000
l.n., from Quarry
Add NO a.d S8 left·turn l.ne.
Add S8 left-turn lane and NB
right.turn lano
Add N8 left-turn & 58
right. turn lanes
Add N9 & S8 left·turn lanes
Reconstruct to accommodate
Stanford West
Co.struct new .t·grade
Intersectl0.
Replace with gra~e~sepat·
.ted urban Int.rchonq.
Replace with grad.
.eparated , .. ban
t.terchang"
400,000
400,000
$2,300,000
SlO.OOO.OOO
1l.000,OOO
$21.000,000
100,000
200,000
$700,000
SlOO,ooO
350.000
375.000
400,000
$1,425,000
$ .0.
' ..
~
t.:D
,
'1'0:
FROM:
llE:
" .-..
~<~ --~~~t;-C~-~~~-
G-idtcMn f(e.siden~s· ,-.s5OCiati~
~T,( CF f!.lO .!..t.T~, c. my ClEf.,:\S Cf1l~C
March 22. 1595
9S IVP 22 ~~ II: ~o
~m~I'S of the Palo Alto City Co-un.cjl ~~
Pebble MJitels. Mjdto...m Itesldents' AssOCiation h--r'\.
Steerinq COIrJnittee, M:idtown Residents" Assc:x::iati .. ~ .. l:' .... ~-~?
~?' <. r.
C.,..ments on the Midto-.m Marl<et ~.naly$j$ ~~ <~,j:\ b~
~ ~
4~
The attached letter from Davjd Greene of tlle Midto'Wn ?,e-sidents I -I'
Association jnclodes comments developed after a s~ries of three
meetjngs beld by our qroup·s Kidtc~~ Revi~alization 7as~ Fcrce~
Members of o>.,:r task f.orce ",bo part.icipated in these dlE-c'.;ssions
included :
Ar-....r-,ette A.shton
Lynn Chi<!pella
Kathleen Con"'ay
David (;reene
Pat M=rr~ott
-'-1 T06c.
POD riol:
'I'h'e obJectives .of tbi s d-o<:u!!'.er;.t are to:-
• Respond to the Mjdto~ M~rket ft~~lysjs
• ~ticulate ~o~unjty valces of t~€ arEa~s reSlc~~ts
•
•
•
Relat.e L~e desires and concerns of t.J":e MFA in r€-;ard
to Mid~n re~italizatlon
Suggest ... hat. M!dtOfJn residents ~2:nt. in a snoppir,'i ce~ter
Pro,?Ose bow .. e 'W'ollld lite to .. .'or/( .:ith t.t.e Cc-l:ncil Co:;"':
city staff in tbe re~italjzation proc~ss
Our desire is to -creat.e a Pt"OCes5 a.mo!::g t1-,e City Council .. cO .. ;i.-'Tl.etclal
property o-wners# cOQ.."Uercial ter.:al''Its arid residents that. ...,j11 result
in a locally s-calec ... prosperolls shOpping .center.
We appreciate tl',€ "';":o;Jn-cil and $tz.ff~s attention to. M5cto'JU issues
a!K3 request t.hat. the co~cerns of area reside:-:ts, ..,hich wE re?r€'s.er~t.,
be-included in tr-Ie process for Midto<Jn revitelizatjon.
~fi;) ... c ;1:,),-.4:. 11._
--o..:-bbie Mytels-"
Steerir.g Committ.eE-.
Midto~ .. tl P.e5jdl?nt.s~ l-"ssociatic:c
2924 Louis Hoad
Palo Alto. CA 943Q)
(415) 856-7580
•
Honorable ~emher. of tb~ City Council
-City ef ilalo Alto
2SC P~ilton A~ue
p.l~ Alto. CA !4301
Dear Counei 1 :Me~r.5:
Sy design ... the Midtown Jota.r'ket Survey focue;es on tbe interests c,f
cornmercl.al proPerty cwners l re~ail m@renants. a.-'ld ~e Cit}o-' sneed
Cor sales tax reve&ue. Xno~ng that Council Membe:s ~~11 ~ant to
tde into aCCO'.J.Ilt the t-1Ol11 rang-e. of interests and C'N'.ce.rrJ.'5 in t.~e
Xidt."MD. ilreil l the Midtown :Re~ide.nt.s Associatioo. vie ... ·s this stt:.dy
session as ao. opportunity t.o cornple.meY'.t -the !I"..arket Su~.-ey' 5 fcc:..ls
by pro~~ding Council ~e~ers ~~th clear ~tate~e=ts cf:
What Midtown lU':sidents Want fer our Sooppi!l9 Center; a:-::c.
therefore .. lrlh2.t. Midtown Jte.s:idents Wa..nt from t.he City Council_
In SO coing .. lo.~ viII relate c;.;::-c:ge~da to t.he Jt"..:i::-;';'et 5ur-,·e.:." .... -:.ere
relevant. We take t:p t!":ese t, .. ~ 'H_i:l t.opics ~:ter :irc:t i:'!tr·,Jd'-!c:L::=tS
Ollr ¢'t'ganizatioo a!.ld the <:ore vall.!es ""e represe::l':._
The ~dtown Residents ;~sccia':.:oo {~~'l ~aS f~~e~ i~ W~~t~~ 15S~
to help revitali:e the F.idto .... -::;. Shopping Cente: Gre. i::: ac'::c!"C!:a.!lce
~tb the va1nes and i~terEste ~f local resicents. ~. fccus~s ~n
four issues; {al variEty a::lC! convenience of reta::l 5!:.q:;pi~g; (";:,1
pbysical att.ractiveness of ~treets and bui!ci~ss; fc; t:affic cen
trol ar.C! safety; and ~d) devel::;piog a gre3.ter se.....se of co:mnu.~ity .
MFA's -t",o core values .. re Pedestrian Friendliness anc. Local Scale.
Our fQC1.;5 az:d approacb 9r~'''' C'T..!t of careful st:Jd:t of ........ .....;.t hundreds
o,f :Midtown reside::lts said ilt open meetinss~ [;.espite -obtious C:if
feren<:es on specific remedies to particular prob:e~Sr reside::l~$
share a·<lear a.~d <:onsistEnt consensus on tasic seals a..d valces.
For this It"eason~ instead of standing for -one sol'.J,=-ion or ii.:'lct.ber,
MRA is devoted ~o ar~ic~lating and promoting ~be im~~tar.ce and
~ractical consequences of .our cornmuni::y's common goals and values_
:tEl particular, .... "e heliev~ t.hat.--if residents' gcals O!.::':ld \'--al'Ces are
kept. in foc:us--any of tbe Gptions and implementation strategies
recommended by ~ could be ~kable in meeting beth cur ne~ds and
t.hose of tbe rnaj<lrity ~f economic interests-i!l"Jcl·.led~ Ig",.cring
residects~ coccerns. bc .. ;ever, is certain t.o u."':!e:-~i!le a..'1.'J app::cach
to achieving ecocov,ic revitalization of t_he Shopp::.ng Cer.ter.
-1 -
"
Midtown residents; concerns and desires for the Shopping Center
repeate~y revolve arQun4 the aame set of f~ur focal i$sues~
til Variety .. nd' cOllve.o!eDce oE ret .. il sbopping. Ir,eaning a. desire
t.o meet the ~jorI'Cy of our !.!aily and weekly IShopping and
serviee n~eds within the ~enter; with a very strong consensus
favoring .~11erl locally-awned shop$~ and a -down-home-or
·small-town· neighborhood atmospbe~e. In addition to existing
ter~t •• the types of establishments ~~st often menticned ~:e
a drUg and variety store. bookst~re and/or ccffeeboose,
fam.ily-orl~ted resta:ar.ut;tll!l. and specialty f-:xXI stores.
(2; "hysIcal .at:f:rac::'tiveaess oE street., side .... C!lK:s .. and "buildings.
The upkeep and maintenanee -of liidewslks. Oiled ilarking lots in.
and around the Center is & local embarr&s~~nt; there is also
much room :tor improvetr:ent. in bc-tb .rcbit-ecturoe and land.scap
in9--espe~ial1y in the very obvious i,~fiiciency of trEes~
0) TraLtic cODtrol and sa~~ty, Most. urger;t.ly~ -we need to recluce
·speeding e!l M:id.d!efi@ld i1o~c1 without ce<:reasing t:hroug!i.p·ut.
~and tb~s incr~a5in9 traffic en ne~rby xesidantial stre~~$1.
At pres~nt. circul&tioo and acces& to scoFS Are oft.e~
chaotic. and paths for pe-destri ... ns a:-.d biC"'lClists a:-,a
indeci,r,iho/!::able. Children a..'"ld sen:..ors !I':"-.lst be ab::e to ""a!it.
safely thzouShout the Cel"'.ter area ,,'it.hect fear cf car!:.
{4~ Developing ill great.er sense -cf coimm.r.cicy. Th.:! Cen:.e:-;' s ret .. il
and civic vitality 'Would beth be en.~anc·ei by ~be .F:cvi.sion of
s~ace dedicated to public qa~hering and c~~unicaticn_ Some
examples -are Qutdoor eeating Grea$~ a ~plaza and ~ree~· ~th
trees and bencbes~ and .. cortlml.lD.ity meetins ... !"ea a!""d-/c!" .ccu
ference :room ""fiich lDight be. st-.a.z;ed ....-it.b local b·':si:JEsse::.
The t~ tnemes that cor.nect and integrate t~ese iss~es are ¥.?_~·s
core goals and va!ues:
f1J Pedeserian Lriendl~es6 combines traffic sa=ety issues ~tb
shopping convenience and physical at.tractivene:!:s;
~2} Loc:a.l scale i.'ltegrat.es a desire fer El!'..all shc,ps. loo:al ow:-.er
ship. the birir.g of local people. shopping conv=:~:d!;:~ce. a.:ld
attractive physical appearance with a g~eate!" se:Jse of
c~unit.y-.
Ped'est.rr~ frier.dliness~ )IJtA is .... ell .wa::-e tl-.at. from tb.e perspec
tive of many 'City .officia.ls u.d polic:r"ma.kers~ tra!fic issues and
econcmic issues of tell seeill t.o exist in different .... or1ds _ Ne:Jertr.C!.
less. t.he day-to-day int.erd~pencence of thece two issues is a
-cent.l:al feat.ul::e. of t.he miroiset. of 'Midl:'.c-.m. l:es idoe.:1t.s. E~re' s ""r.at.
w@ ....ant the City Council to understacc~
---Local. llhoppers will suppo;r;t. il vide range oC • tenant .u.xe.s· in
.. pedestrian-friendly sboppi..'''lg center. but 'Very (e-.t i.f any
-.t;enant Ilixes ia an Wl.Safe and unattractive shopping center.
·2-
•
8 ® LocaJ .(' .. let Above all, Mid-to....-u r:e$i~ent5 ... ant t.he 5hoPiling center
•• a \thole to-lBanifest local ·scale, by which we mean.:
... Lot:al .lilcale 18 • sat.ter of boUI physical ahe and type of
~ign. Yalki~ cotsi~e buildings of local scale. one sees
vari~ty &nd differentiation rather than uniformity and
eoneentretion. ~e sees diyisions of appearance from the
froot of such buildings everr ~5-25 feet er S~+ Rather than
eooce.ntrat1on OJ::. one lnain entrance, buildings of local .e:cale
present multip!e~ varied points of entrance aDd exit.
Bcilai:og& arl!._c'{ nO greater tha.n moderate, tloio-stOry height.
Whatever the gross size .of a building, it cann~ manifest
local scale if £ingle s!:ore.s~ usoes, .or tena."j.t.s exceed 20.~OO
sq ft in sI%e. Of equal importance. tne building'S desisn
must provide appropriste space £or many--ideally. mcst-
~@nant5 in the lSOO-~500 sq ft range, or @Yen 5mall~r.
,.. LocaI sca.le is the antithesis of -regional-scale a.cd desi-gn~
Very lege discolJ.!J.t E-tores, grocery "s·.lperstores.· .. -ery large
%etail ~~part~~Dt storeg. &nd ether ~egior.al sncppin3 ce~tEr
projects are fl.mdamentally dri..-en by busir:;.ess rood-els in .... '!:l.ich
economies of 5cal@ are t..l::e core CODcept~ If existing parc~ls
in the ~d~6wn Sbopping CEnter are cor~olidate6, the pcssi
biliti@5 of achieving econQ:"!",i@s of sca.le begin to f·r~s~::!.t:
themselves. We a~e unequivoca.~ly cppcsed to a~y c€velop~ent
~ainly driven cy this apprcaco.
,.. Local seale: implil!!s some sense of C'OGInUnit.y--a. personal c:on
ne<::tion bel:"Ween retailers and C\.\.StomeIS. FCi:: e..x.;s;;;;ple., a st-ore
tbat preferentially hires salespeople fro~ t~e ceisbborhood
is quiotes~~tial17 of !ocal sca!~. Ground flocr retail a~d
local services are generally mor~ beneficial to the community
-than ba::lk.s .. real estat.e .. a!ld p.::cfessiocal offices, to tl:e
extent tbat.. the lat~er ca~ afford much higher r=~ts. We a~e
not averse to mixing re-tail iI.':'ld -office ~~!".a.!lts in .Midto ... ~;
our priil'ary goal is bave enoush retail variety tc support.
Mid~~ shoppinS needE. In ~~o-story buildings, office s~a=e
b~longs ~n tbe second f~ocr_
The results of t!:.e K.VA. Sboppers' Surve.y are ccnsis':,,:::.t v:.t.b.M?.A
gcal,s _ In pa:rtiC\.:lar, reSpoc.ses to QUf"stio~s ., a:"ld E cCilcerni:og
required ph}~ical improvements and cesired tenant miz co~ncide
with the Ti~vs expr~ssed he~e_
(It lie want Ue City Council ~o-ba:lan<:e revenue enhancenent with
our cOlZlllWlity goal.s and values. Find cr constn:.<:t; a ".i::l
win" path that achieves economic revitalizaticc in harmony
vitb our neighborhood aspirations. Specifically. we ask you
to dedicate resources no~ for Staff to devGee some ti~e to
bringrng t.ogether the ecocorni-:: and the r,la:1ning persp-!!ctives.
{"2] We Want t;he Cit.y counci1 to consider t:he whole pictur~. Io.
evaluating optiocs i even if ~hey co~cern only t.he North Eas~
ccrcer~ consider t.he impact O~ th~ ~nole Center (all feur
co·rners of Middlefield and Colorado O.:JW :t~ned on. AlthouS"h
t:.be CFAC process is lor.g-term. la.st Moay' s J1idtc'''~ t'esign
-] -
•
Workshop rev~ed a 5ignjfican~ consensus an4~nerated ~ny
U8~tul ideas. ~thou9h traffic issues ar~ i~eed City-~de~
no ·solutioe-for the Midtown Shopping Center can ignore
traffic thrO'.l9hput~ cirCtllation, an~ safety issues-.
U~ !rei vant. the City ~il to take an active role in e7.ploring
a broade% range of ~iODS for the futur~ of the Midtown
Shopping ~anter than tho$e presented in the Market Study. We
atrongly agree wi~ KKA~s recommendation tbat the City take
an active role l but ~e would stress informality~ flexibility,
and pr02.ctlYit.y_ As examples~ consider aSking Sc.aff to prc
~e inerement&l steps to serve as catalysts and incentives~
and to ~k proectively on clarifying the ~ground rules· fer
potential. developers. Consider the possibility o-t 1l1anned
~~ity ZODing. Ask Staff in other Oepart~nts to genera~~
alternate ~iODS and scenarios before making any definieiv~
plana. The Ciey's ownership of the largest parking lo~ in the
~enter may ¢pen up a range of optIons. Surely it ~ould ~Ake
senee to revistt lODg-s~anding parking re3Ulations as well.
r4' We vant t:be City Council to take advant.age of .MRA/s interest,
experience. and ~rtise. ~dtcwn resi~en~s wa~t to playa
proaccive role in c-esign decisiol"...5 affecting fu<: .... re de-.. elol:'
ment in thl! Jlridto,*-n Sbopping Cent~r-. any kind of co •• sl.lltat'ic::
rol~ to help facilitate prog~e$s on design, zon~n9; traffic,
etc. issues. Today, eyery const-ruction project Clust !?"et J._~.3
apprO'lo'-al and e· .. ery re-q'..les': for a zoning voria::;ce Iln.l5t be
app-roved by the Planning C'ommi5sicn. As effective as t.hese
procedures aLe, t.r.ey limit residents" partici~a~ion to afte~
the-fact reactior::.s 'to al-rea-T.f-fonm..1!at.ed desi.T-'.=:_ 'IoI'!:y not
break t.b.e mole tr ..... t. discourages prcacth-ity?
T!-.anJt you for t.he cppcrtunity to prcvide i~i?ut. t.o this prOCESS.
Respectfully.
~V~~
David Grll!lI!ne
Economie Re7italization Task FQrce
and SteeriDg Committ~e Me~~r
1'!'idto .... "C Resident-s Ass:x:iatioa
-. -
'.