Return to CalPERS Headquarters Master Plan Project Page

CalPERS Headquarters Expansion Master Plan

Workshop #3: Testing Master Planning Alternatives

January 5, 2000

The third community workshop provided an opportunity for participants to test master planning alternatives that are being considered by the CalPERS master planning team. Over 40 persons participated in the workshop.

The objectives for the January 5 meeting included:

• Review of November 29th workshop results
• Review CalPERS master plan alternatives
• Testing the alternatives
  

Workshop Summary

The CalPERS architects presented four alternatives to the workshop participants. The CalPERS Building Committee directed the CalPERS master planning team to gain input from the community on two of the alternatives they believed best fit CalPERS needs from a facilities perspective. However, the workshop participants felt strongly about reviewing all four alternatives and communicating their observations to CalPERS. To do this, the workshop format was changed from working in teams to an open forum discussion of each of the four alternatives. The participants listed what they viewed were the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative. In addition, an "issues bin" of other important topics was recorded.

Alternatives

The master planning team architects present four alternatives at the workshop. These alternatives built on the planning concepts developed by the participants in the November 29 community workshop. The four alternatives were given "color" names. The workshop participants recognized the alternatives by the location and amount of housing integrated into the 3rd/5th/R/Q Street blocks.

Orange: No housing

Red: Housing on 3rd and 5th Street

Blue: Housing on 5th Street wrapping around to R and Q Streets

Green: Housing wrapping 3rd and R, 5th and R Streets

Alternatives Review and Discussion

The participants collectively discussed and listed the positive and negative features for each alternative. A summary follows.

Orange

The Orange Alternative has the least number of desirable features of the plans presented from the community participants' perspective. Participants felt the scheme does not match the spirit or policies of the R Street Plan because it does not provide the amount housing required by the 'R' Street Plan or integrate it in a way that the community has viewed as a policy priority.

Strengths

Leaves 4th Street open

Weaknesses

Lacks residential - - violates mixed use concept

Segregates housing and commercial - - does not mix it into the project

Falls short of 3:1 office/residential in R Street Plan

Relies on retail that may not be viable

4th Street needs to be an interesting place

Red

The Red Alternative includes the amount of housing required by the 'R' Street Plan. However, the workshop participants expressed concerns about the strength of the housing solution. They felt it does not create a residential community.

Strengths

Meets the 'R' Street housing requirement

Weaknesses

Splits the focus of housing - - seems dwarfed or token in scale

3rd Street may be too noisy for housing

Parking access bisects housing and pedestrian flow on 3rd and 5th Streets

Blue

The workshop participants felt the Blue Alternative creates a critical mass of housing at the 5th Street end of the site and enhances the residential connections north and south of R Street. However, it was criticized for its impact on adjacent existing and future residential sites on R Street and 3rd Street.

Strengths

Clusters housing on 5th Street - - creates a strong sense of community

Has more housing on R Street

Potential for pedestrian "quadrangle" on 4th Street for auto drop-off and pedestrians

Potential food service or cafe' focus as activity center on 4th Street

Weaknesses

West block (3rd/4th/R/Q Streets) is "sacrificed" to office uses - - no housing

Q Street frontage is a poor location for housing

Green

The workshop participants felt the Green Alternative has the most features desirable to the community. It accomplishes more of the goals of the 'R' Street plan.

Strengths

Most balanced regarding residential and retail mix

Rooftop court yards potential amenity for housing - - secure/safe space for families

Make the most of housing block-face (scale and mixed use R Street edge)

Corporate identity is on Q Street

Better relationship to future residential development south of R Street between 3rd and 4th Streets

Weaknesses

None - - however, more housing on 5th can make it better

Issues Bin

In addition to the critique of the alternatives, there were issues that workshop participants felt were important for the CalPERS Building Committee to consider regardless of which alternative was selected.

• Make sure the amount of retail proposed in realistic.
• The community feels there is a strong demand for a grocery store in the South Side neighborhood and the planning should consider configurations that can accommodate one as a ground floor use.
• The master plan should comply with City plans and policies for R Street.
• Be careful about the location of parking access drives in terms of interrupting pedestrian flow.
• The 4th Street frontage should not be a dead space. It should be an interesting and special place.
• Q Street connections between the buildings should happen at street level or below grade (not as a bridge).
• The master planning should complement the future development of the large housing block south of R Street between 4th and 5th Street.
  

  Return to CalPERS Headquarters Master Plan Project Page