Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 205-06City of Palo Alto City Manager’ Repor TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: MAY 1, 2006 CMR: 205:06 3401, 3415, AND 3445 ALMA STREET (ALMA PLAZA) [06PLN- 00020]: CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OF A REQUEST BY MCNELLIS PARTNERS AND GREENBRIAR HOMES COMMUNITIES, INC. FOR PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE DEMOLITION OF THE APPROXIMATELY 45,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING (THE VACANT ALBERTSON’S STORE AND TWO ADJACENT BUILDINGS DEVELOPED AS PLANNED COMMUNITY #1362) AND CONSTRUCTION OF: (1) A THREE- STORY, MIXED-USE BUILDING FRONTING ALMA STREET COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 19,200 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL AREA AND FOURTEEN RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS ON THE UPPER FLOORS (WITH ASSOCIATED UNDERGROUND TENANT PARKING SPACES), (2) FORTY-FIVE DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, AND (3) LANDSCAPED PARKING FACILITIES ON THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE. REPORT IN BRIEF The applicants, Greenbriar Homes Communities, Inc. and McNellis Partners, have requested a preliminary screening of a redevelopment project concept for the 4.2 acre Alma Plaza site located at 3401, 3415, and 3445 Alma Street. The proposed mixed-use development includes commercial retail, apartments and small-lot single family residential. The implementation of the project would require a Planned Community zone change from the existing Planning Community (PC-1362). Staff has conducted a preliminary analysis of the suitability of the site to accommodate the uses proposed by the applicant, as well as the consistency of the proposal with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, especially those relating to housing and neighborhood centers. This report addresses five key considerations for redevelopment of the site. This report also lists those policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Element that are aligned with the key considerations and that may provide guidance for the redevelopment of the project site. A summary matrix of key considerations/policy implications is provided as Attachment A. The key considerations are as follows: 1)Change of land use from colnmercial retail to a mixed-use development (commercial retail and residential). 2)Size of commercial retail area and neighborhood center viability. 3)Housing density, type and Below Market Rate (BMR) housing unit requirement. 4)Physical constraints and opportunities (ingress/egress, parking, Design Enhancement Exception (DEE), open space/site amenities). 5) Zoning process RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the City Council review and comment on the proposed proj ect concept for 4.2 acres located at 3401, 3415, and 3445 Alma Street and provide direction to staff on a policy framework for considering the appropriate land uses for the site. No formal action may be taken at a preliminary review; comments made at a preliminary review study session are not binding on the City or the applicant. BACKGROUND On January 30, 2006, the Council directed the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) to initially study the proposal prior to the City Council study session. The P&TC reviewed the preliminary review application on April 26, 2006. The verbatim minutes from this meeting have been transmitted to the Council under a separate cover. Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.97.040(a), one or more noticed public study sessions can be held to accomplish the purposes of a preliminary review. As provided for by Chapter 18.97 of the Zoning Ordinance, the purposes of a preliminary review are: a)To maximize opportunities for meaningful public discussion of development projects, at the earliest feasible time, for the guidance of the public, project proponents, and city decision makers. b)To focus public and environmental review of development projects on the issues of greatest significance to the community, including, but not limited to, planning concerns, neighborhood compatibility, Comprehensive Plan consistency, economics, social costs and benefits, fiscal costs and benefits, technological factors, and legal issues. These procedures are not intended to permit or foreclose debate on the merits of approval or disapproval of any given development project. c) To provide members of the public with the opportunity to obtain early information about development projects in which they may have an interest. d) To provide project proponents with the opportunity to obtain early, non-binding preliminary comments on development projects to encourage sound and efficient private decisions about how to proceed. e) To encourage early communication between elected and appointed public officials and staff with respect to the implementation of city policies, standards, and regulations on particular development projects. f)To facilitate orderly and consistent implementation of the city’s Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. CMR:205:06 Page 2 of 8 Site Information The 4.2-acre project site is located on Alma Street between East Meadow Road and E1 Verano Avenue. Surrounding land uses are apartments to the north, single-family residential to the east and south, medical offices to the south, and Alma Street and the railroad lines to the west. The site contains a total of 45,161 s.f. of building area in three buildings: (1) the 17,168 s.f. former Albertson’s store, (2) the 14,630 s.f. two-story retail building, and (3) the 13,363 s.f. single-story retail building. There are 257 existing surface parking spaces at the site. The site is currently vacant with the exception of three businesses: Mandarin Cuisine restaurant, Alma Shoe Repair, and Jacquie’s Sew & Sew. Project Description The applicant proposes a conceptual plan for redevelopment of the site that includes the following: 1.Mixed-use building with 19,200 s.f. of commercial retail area on the ground floor and 14 rental units (one- and two-bedroom) located on the second and third floor. Underground parking garage for rental tenants and retail employees. 2.Forty-five detached, small lot, single family residences with a mix of two and three- stories and ranging in size from 1,690 s.f. to 2,150 s.f. A vesting tentative map to subdivide the parcels and create condominium units would be required. 3.Surface parking for commercial retail shoppers and guests of the single family housing. 4.Site amenities, including tot lot, pedestrian and bicycle connections, gathering spaces and public art. The applicant has provided additional project information in their project binder, entitled "Alma Plaza: Visionary Mixed Use" (Attachment C). DISCUSSION Attachment A provides the policies and programs listed in the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element that are pertinent to each of the key considerations. As incentive to build affordable housing and to revitalize the neighborhood center, Council may consider where flexibility of certain zoning standards and development policies (as stated in the adopted Housing Element) may be appropriate for this application. Change of Land Use The change in land use from commercial retail to a mixed-use development of commercial and residential benefits the City by (a) revitalizing a neighborhood center, and (b) providing affordable and market rate housing. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Neighborhood Commercial. The proposed mixed-use development is consistent with this land use designation, which includes "... shopping centers with off-street parking or a cluster of street-front stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. Examples include Alma Plaza, Charleston Center, Edgewood Center and Midtown. Typical uses include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber shops, restaurants, self-service laundries, dry cleaners and hardware stores. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may also be located in this category. Non- CMR:205:06 Page 3 of 8 residential floor area ratios will range up to 0.4." The proposed project does not alter the uses suggested in the land use definition and the proposed non-residential floor area ratio calculates to 0.15 to 1. The zoning district for the project site is (and has been since 1951) Planned Community (PC). As part of the application review process, the City will discuss what types of uses are appropriate for redevelopment of this site. In particular, the Business and Economics Element of the Comprehensive Plan has broad goals for the City that can be summarized as: providing a thriving business environment that is compatible with Palo Alto’s residential character; providing a diverse mix of uses; providing for new businesses that provide needed local services and municipal revenues, contribute to economic vitality and enhance the community’s physical environment; and providing attractive vibrant business centers. The emphasis is on economic vitality with a diversity of services while maintaining compatibility with residential neighborhoods. In adopting the Housing Element in 2002, the City Council confirmed the appropriateness of building affordable housing on this site. The proposed 59 housing units exceed the objective of the City’s Housing Sites Inventory that identifies the site for a minimum of 8 units. The City will have to consider the economic consequences of allowing residential on an existing commercial retail site and thereby reducing the square footage available for sales tax-generating retail use in the city. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-7 states, °’Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods." Several retail studies and economic analyses addressing this issue were provided to the Council. Housing Density, Type and BMR Housing Unit Requirement The applicant is proposing fourteen Below Market Rate (BMR) rental units located above the commercial retail building and forty-five detached, small lot, single family residences, for a total of 59 housing units and a density of 14 units per acre. Residential density in mixed residential and nonresidential projects in multi-family zones (RM-15 and RM-30) are computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use. Multi-Family Housing Single Family Housing Combined Site Area 4.2 acres 4.2 acres 4.2 acres Number of Units 14 45 59 total Density 3.3 units per acre 10.7 units per acre 14 units per acre The project site provides an opportunity for the City to require a mix of BMR units to facilitate the objectives of the Housing Element. The City’s BMR requirement for affordable housing at below market rates for very low, low, and moderate-income households is fifteen percent of all housing units in sites of five acres or less. The applicant is proposing that the fourteen rental units above the retail building be affordable units to meet the BMR requirements (15% of the total units, or 9 units) for the entire site. The applicant is proposing that the rental units be operated by a non-profit housing organization. CMR:205:06 Page 4 of 8 Size of Retail Area and Neighborhood Center Viabili _ty. The applicant is proposing 19,200 s.f. of commercial retail area. The building is proposed to contain a space (approximately 9,000 s.f. to 11,000 s.f.) for a small grocery store and three to five additional tenant spaces for small retail and personal services. The applicant has stated that in order for the retail portion of the project to be economically feasible, housing would be required on the site. Past retail feasibility studies of Alma Plaza have concluded that because the site is located mid-block, on an arterial with an entrance driveway that is unsignalized, it may not be economically viable for additional retail to locate on the site. The proposed mixed-use development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy B-27 because the new development would "support the upgrading and revitalization of Palo Alto’s four neighborhood commercial centers," which includes Alma Plaza. The Business and Economics Element of the Comprehensive Plan also lists other pertinent policies that support the applicant’s proposal in conformance with the Plan. These policies can be summarized as maintaining distinct neighborhood shopping areas that are attractive, accessible and convenient to nearby residents. Staff recommends that the larger retail tenant space for the grocery store would be specifically limited to that use. The other ground floor tenant spaces would be designated for such other uses that are compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and intent of the commercial center. Office use would not be allowed. Staff believes that the proposed size of the commercial retail area is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan policies for the site as a "neighborhood" serving center. Without the provision of a considerably larger anchor grocery store (from 30,000 s.f. to 40,000 s.f.) and providing additional access from Ramona Street, it is unlikely that more commercial retail space would be viable at this center. Physical Constraints and Opportunities Physical constraints and opportunities regarding the proposed use of the site include: ¯ingress/egress, ¯parking, ¯design enhancement exceptions (DEE’s), and ¯site amenities. Ingress/Egress The existing unsignalized condition at the entrance driveway would be maintained. At the time a formal application is submitted, staff will further analyze the constraints of the site to ensure the proposed ingress and egress to the site are sufficient and that it will not interfere with the nearby street and rail intersection, as well as easements with abutting properties. The proposal does not include vehicular access to Ramona Street or Emerson Street, though pedestrian access would be provided between the site and Ramona Street. Parking Regulations The zoning code regulations allow flexibility to modify the current off-street parking and loading regulations used by all districts in the City (PAMC Section 18.83.120). The applicant is proposing one space per 250 s.f. of retail floor area and one space per 1,500 s.f. of storage areas. This ratio is less than the City’s standard for retail and personal service of one space per 200 s.f. CMR:205:06 Page 5 of 8 The proposed 73 on-grade parking spaces for the retail use also include spaces from the redevelopment of Alma Street frontage near East Meadow and some shared p~irking with the BMR rental units, due to different peak hours of demand. The Comprehensive Plan encourages relaxed parking standards as an incentive for redevelopment. Business and Economics Element Policy B-17 states "where redevelopment is desired, encourage owners to upgrade commercial properties through incentives such as reduced parking requirements, credit for on-street parking, and increase in allowable floor area. Use such incentives only where they are needed to stimulate redevelopment or contribute to housing or community design goals." Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) The applicant proposes bringing the commercial retail building forward towards Alma Street to within 5 feet of the property line. The project site has a special street setback of 30-feet on Alma Street, which is a designated arterial in the Comprehensive Plan. Current zoning standards do not permit a building to encroach into the street setback without a DEE. The applicant is also proposing minor DEE’s for setbacks and daylight planes for the market rate housing adjacent to the apartment buildings on the north property line and Ramona. At the time a formal application is submitted, staffwill review the project for compliance with the proposed zone district. DEEs are not required with PC districts, as the PC district allows for flexibility of development standards in exchange for a public benefit. Open Space/Site Amenities The proposed project incorporates open space on the site for both the residents of the BMR rental housing and market rate housing. Site amenities include a tot lot, landscaped pedestrian pathways, and gathering spaces. Thirty percent of the site is proposed as open space for the single family housing, including the tot lot and private courtyard patios. The BMR housing units would be required to include common and private open space as well. Zoning Process The applicant is proposing that the site be rezoned from Planned Community (PC) to a different underlying zone or combination of zones. As described in the applicant’s project description, a Development Agreement is proposed to ensure the phasing of the development, building types and uses, site improvements and project benefits (see Attachment C). The site is currently zoned PC-1362, which refers to the originating ordinance that established the zone in 1951. PC districts are established to "...accommodate developments for residential, commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The PC district is intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments, which are of substantial public benefit, and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan." Any use may be permitted or conditionally permitted in a PC district, as long as it is a use that is approved at the adoption of the zone. For PC-1362, the listed uses coincide with that of the then C2 zone plus a service station. The C2 zone has since been replaced by the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zone. However, certain development standards for the CN zone do not currently apply to this PC zone, CMR:205:06 Page 6 of 8 because each PC zone has its own development standards that are adopted at the time the PC zone is adopted. As the project is further defined, staff will review the project for conformance with the proposed change in zoning as well as Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and programs, such as those relating to site and building design and neighborhood relationships. The PC zoning district may offer greater flexibility for the proposed development in regards to site regulations while providing the community with a public benefit. RESOURCE IMPACT Processing of the development application is on a cost/recovery basis, and no additional funds are necessary for staffing. At this level of preliminary discussion and non-specific project description, there is not sufficient information to determine a detailed cost/benefit analysis. POLICY IMPLICATIONS As noted, Attachment A provides a summary matrix of policy implications. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No environmental review is required for this Preliminary Review application, as it is not considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). When a project application is filed, staffwill develop the Initial Study in compliance with CEQA guidelines. The outcome of this Initial Study will determine the type of environmental document staffwill produce to evaluate this proposal in regards to CEQA guidelines. Potential environmental impacts to be analyzed include public facilities and services such as utilities, parks and open space, libraries, transportation and schools. As mitigation towards these impacts, the project is subject to requisite Development Impact Fees intended to offset capital costs for the increased demand for community facilities and schools. Also, the project is within the Charleston-Arastradero traffic impact fee area, Development Impact Fees would be required for any redevelopment of this site that increases vehicle trips above the site’s baseline conditions. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A:Key Considerations/Policy Implications Matrix Attachment B:Written correspondence Attachment C:Applicant’s Project Description (Project Binder was delivered personally by applicant to Councilmembers) Attachment D:Draft Verbatim Minutes Excerpt from the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting of April 26, 2006 (will be sent under separate cover) COURTESY COPIES Patrick Costanzo, Jr., Executive Vice President, Greenbriar Homes Communities, Inc. John McNellis, McNellis Partners, LLC James Baer, Premier Properties James Frost, DDS David L. van der Wilt, DDS Sheri Furman, Midtown Residents Association CMR:205:06 Page 7 of 8 Jay Hammer Arthur Keller Marilyn Keller Jacquie Knott, Jacquie’s Sew & Sew Bob Moss Martin Stone Beth Young Bourne Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Dire of P1 "unity CITY MANAGER APPROV e~mly ~amson " Assistant City Manager Environment CMR:205:06 Page 8 of 8 Z ~J ¯¯¯¯¯ Attachment April24,2006 The City of Palo Alto Attn: Planning and Transportation Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ’muni’6~ Environment RE:Alma Plaza, Planning and Transportation Commission Study Session 3401, 3415, 3445, Alma Street Initial Review Dear Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission: Upon your initial study of Alma Plaza, we, as residents of Palo Verde neighborhood, and members of the Palo Verde Residents Association speaking individually, request you consider our below positions as you study the future land use of Alma Plaza. Alma Plaza is situated very close to our Palo Verde neighborhood. The location and use of Alma Plaza is crucial to us, as it sits in the middle of, or near many residential neighborhoods that do not have close-by neighborhood-serving retail facilities, such as parts of Greenmeadow, Midtown, Ventura, and Barron Park Neighborhoods. In addition, a large number of residents will soon occupy new housing throughout south Palo Alto, and they will need retail stores nearby. We also recognize that as the population of Palo Alto ages, not all residents will continue to be able to drive cars, and will need access to retail services that are accessible without a personal vehicle. Given the central location of Alma Plaza to our south Palo Alto neighborhood, we urge you to keep its current Zoning as PC, for any new development at that location, so that it must contribute significantly to the resources of the surrounding neighborhoods. We request the following for Alma Plaza: Current PC Zoning is not changed Housing on site shall not take precedence over retail Full-service neighborhood serving grocery store (with caf~ on site) Commercial viability for business located at Alma Plaza, and for the Developer (by adequate size of neighborhood serving retail 15,000 sq. ft. or more) Adequate parking (defined as sufficient to accommodate residents; residents of the next-door apartment complex; visitors; and customers; without impact to nearby residential streets) Appropriate site access for customers and deliveries, minimizing impact on residential neighbors Neighborhood safety (access points, whether for vehicles or pedestrians, must be designed to promote safety for nearby residents and discourage traffic diversion to neighborhood residential streets) Keep the integrity of the neighborhood architecture in the new design of the neighborhood serving grocery store and housing Add public space, such as a small community garden area to the site, to serve residents and neighbors to create unique community interest and spirit We look to the Planning and Transportation Commissions’ vision for our south Palo Alto neighborhood and hope you will well consider our requests and apply them to the new Development so that south Palo Alto will be well served in the future. Thank you for your consideration of our joint letter. Resident of Palo Verde neighborhood, and Member of the Palo Verde Residents Association Pamela Anne Radin Resident of Palo Verde neighborhood, and Member of the Palo Verde Residents Association PR:pr Chairman Patrick Burt Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 3694 Louis Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 April 23, 2006 2 2006 Jartment ,~ ;munity Environment Dear Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, We, as individual citizens, would like to add our voice to others living near Alma Plaza in representing a few points of view in common. We would like to see preservation of existing zoning for the site. Already, many of us travel to Mountain View to buy groceries. With the hundreds of already planned new housing units in this area of Palo Alto, and the fact that not everyone can, or should have to, drive several miles to grocery stores leads us to believe that a viable grocery store is a real possibility at this site. In order to ensure the viability of a full-service grocery at Alma Plaza, and to make sure that it doesn’t adversely impact the neighborhood, we’d like to see a site with a) adequate parking, b) sufficient square footage without becoming oversized for what the neighborhood can handle, c) good access for delivery and shoppers and, d) pedestrian and bicycle friendly layout to make shopping without cars a real possibility. We note that the modest retail square footage currently being proposed for the site is, when taken in total, sufficient for a viable grocery as evidenced by the Midtown Safeway (ca. 20,000 sq. ft.) and Piazza’s (under 15,000 sq. ft.). However, given that sufficient space for a viable grocery would leave little to no space within the current proposal and that the city is more than meeting it’s goals within the Comprehensive Plan to create new housing, we suggest preservation of existing zoning while working toward a viable grocery. Palo Alto is becoming ever denser and while we are learning to accept that, we’d like to see it happen in a way that makes it as livable, environmentally friendly and revenue-rich as possible for the city. These objectives and the needs of a growing population can be met, we believe, with an appropriate grocery. Respectfully yours, Gail & Boris Foelsch 725 Alma Street ¯ Palo Alto, CA 94301 ¯ (650) 521-9709 0 Fax (650) 321-4341 April 21, 2006 Dan Garber Chair, Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Alma Plaza Study Session: BlVIR Contribution Dear Chairman Garber and Members of the Commission: I have reviewed some of the materials that will be before the Commission at its study session on the Alma Plaza project proposal. I am unable to attend the meeting on April 26th, as I wilt be out of town. The Review Memorandum lists the BIvIR proposal as one of the five major policy questions the Commission should consider in its study session. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) is very interested in the Below Market Rate (BMR) proposal from two perspectives. First, PAHC administers parts of the City of Palo Alto’s BMR program. We often participate in the BMR negotiations the City holds with the developers, particularly in a large and/or unusual project. Whatever the eventual configuration of the Alma Plaza project, it is very important that City’s BMR program receives its full contribution, as calculated by City staff. That is a requirement and the Commission should stress the importance of the BMR policy. NO one has determined at this point whether fourteen rental units comply with that policy. Second, PAHC has had preliminary discussions with the developer’s representative about the proposed rental BMR units above the retail space at Alma Plaza. We are intrigued with this solution for policy reasons. It results in more units for lower-income households than the traditional 15% of the for-sale units. A single-family for-sale BMR unit results in a very large subsidy for one household. That amount of subsidy can construct several rental units. The affordable rental units can be owned and managed properly by PAHC long into the future. The attached letter of interest contains some of PAHC’s specific thoughts about the BMR proposal as presented to the Commission. Sincerely, PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION Marlene H. Prendergast Executive Director cc: Steve Emslie, Director of Planning and Community Environment 725 Alma Street ¯ Palo Alto, CA 94301 ¯ (650) 32,1-9709 ¯ Fax (650) 321-4341 April 10, 2006 Jim Baer Premier Properties Management 172 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: BMR Housing at Alma Plaza Dear Jim: I enjoyed discussing with you the opportunity for development of affordable apartments as a Below Market Rate (BMR) contribution of the redevelopment of the Alma Plaza project. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) would be very interested in exploring this idea and eventually owning the affordable units. In PAHC’s opinion as a BMR consultant to the City, this would be a more meaningful solution than a contribution of single-family homes within the single-family residential development. You have outlined the possible scope of this project as follows: Fourteen (14) BMR rental apartments- 4 one-bedroom and !0 2-bedroom units over ground floor retail placed facing Alma Street. Twenty-five (25) garage parking spaces located under the retail building for exclusive use of the residential apartments. Depending on how many units can actually be accommodated, additional parking might be on a shared basis with the surface parking for the retail building. The apartments units and garage parking would be delivered turnkey to PAHC by the developer of Alma Plaza as legally separate parcels. P_A_HC would be supportive of those parameters o_n_ a general !eve! and would !ike to participate in further discussion with the developer of Alma Plaza and the City of Palo Alto. Since this would be the BMR contribution to the City, PAHC would assume its usual role and participate in negotiation of the in-lieu contribution so as to effectuate the best solution. At this preliminary juncture, PAHC would like to emphasize other points of intense interest or concern: ¯Unit Configuration. The size of the units should be approximately 800 square feet for one-bedroom apartments and 1100 square feet for two-bedroom apartments. PAHC would review the design, materials, interior features, and construction quality of the units. Construction Type. PAHC would also review the structural construction of the entire building as well, as that would affect cost of construction of the apartments per square foot. The design should include space for a laundry room, community room and manager’s apartment. Green construction should be a part of the architectural program. Ownership. PAHC would want ownership of the apartments, not management of apartments owned by another entity. That may involve a complex legal, structure that PAHC would have to be comfortable with. Long term legal relationships would likely also be involved. Additional Debt. PAHC understands that, when all cost factors are considered, the best project may result in more than fourteen units and some additional debt to be incurred by PAHC over and above the dollar amount of the BMR contribution. That would be acceptable. We prefer little or no debt so that the units can be available to very-low income households. If ttiat becomes part of the package, the Alma Plaza developer should cover the debt service for the ftrst two years..The successful operation of the rental apartments cannot be jeopardized. PAHC would anticipate an enthusiastic, cooperative and flexible approach to working out the best result for the involved parties, the community and the eventual residents. I understand that the Alma Plaza developer will present this concept to the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council in the coming months. Let me know ifPAHC should provide more information into that process. Sincerely, PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION ~r~nt ~v ~DP.~2~t~;r g as t ~.~ cc: Steve Emslie, Director of Community Environment ATTACHMENT C Alma. P za Vision ry Mixed Use M c N ellis P a rtn e rs Alma Plaza Project Description Plans, renderings and a detailed Project Description are provided at Section 1 of the Alma Plaza Binder. The Proposed Alma Plaza Project is summarized below with the Site Plan attached: Site Area: 183,546 sf (4.21 Acres) Retail Project: Building Area = 19,200 sf (including some basement storage) FAR = 10.5 % Required Retail Parking -73 Spaces: 4 Spaces Per 1,000 sf for 17,700 sf Retail= 1 Space Per 1,500 sf for Storage = 72 Spaces 1 Space 73 Spaces 73 Spaces are provided, including new spaces along the Alma Street frontage. Note: 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet was approved by P&TC in January 2003. Policy B-17 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages reduced parking as an iuceutive for Neighborhood Retail Centers. Below Market Rate Housing: Number of Units: 14 Density: 3.3 Units Per Acre Building Area: Approximately 17,000 sf FAR: 9.3% Required BMR Parking: Six 2-Bedroom @ 2 Spaces = Six 1-Bedroom @ 1.5 Spaces = Guest Parking @ 1 + 10% = Single-Family Housing: Number of Units: 45 Density: 10.7 Units Per Acre Building Area: 101,436 sf Site Coverage: 45,903 sf FAR: 55.3% Unit Sizes: 1,692 sf to 1,956 sf, Plus Garage Required Parking: 104 Spaces 2 Spaces Per Home = Guest Spaces = 12 9 3 24 Spaces 90 14 104 Spaces ~.~ RT<~ Basement Level Plan Ground Level Plan AI ma Plaza Palo ,~\!t~. Cahi~rnia LU 0U LU © LLI Estimated Trip Generation for Greenbriar Housing Project April 7, 2006 Trips A~M P~M In Out Total In Out TotalLIse Existing Uses Supermarket Specialty Retail Existing Site Proposed Project SF Detached Homes Apartments Supermarket Specialty Retail Rates (per 1,000 sq. ft. or per unit) Size A__~M P~M (ksf or unit) Daily In Out Total In Out Total Daily 17.6 102.24 1.98 1.27 3.25 6.82 6.59 13.41 1,799 28.0 44.32 0.63 0.40 1.03 1.39 1.79 3.18 1,241 45.6 66.68 1.16 0.72 1.89 3.49 3.64 7.13 3,040 45.0 11.08 0.22 0.69 0.91 0.73 0.42 1.16 499 14.0 16.75 0.14 0.64 0.79 1.14 0.64 1.79 234 10.000 102.24 1.98 1.27 3.25 7.70 7.40 15.10 1,022 9.200 44.32 0.63 0.40 1.03 2.07 2.72 4.78 408 35 22 57 61%39% 18 11 29 61%39% 53 33 86 10 31 41 25%75% 2 9 11 20%80% 20 13 33 61%39% 6 3 9 61%39% 120 116 236 51%49% 39 50 89 44%56% 159 166 325 33 19 52 63%37% 16 9 25 65%35% 77 74 151 51%49% 19 25 44 44%56% Proposed Project na na na na na na na na 1,929 36 47 83 129 118 247 Net Trip Generation -1,111 -17 14 -3 -30 -48 -78 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, 2003. (13) ~- 15 (38) ~ 23 (58) Alma Plaza KEY’, XX (YY) = AM (P~) FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS April 2006 SJ05-779A Alma Plaza TRIPS AT PROJECT DRIVEWAYS FIGURE 1