Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout395-Page-Mill-ID-2949 City of Palo Alto (ID # 2949) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study SessionMeeting Date: 9/10/2012 Summary Title: 395 Page Mill/3045 Park Blvd (Jay Paul) Prescreening Title: Request by Jay Paul Company for Council Prescreening of Preliminary Plans for Five (5) Sites within the Boundaries of the California Avenue Concept Plan: 1) Office Development at 395 Page Mill Road; 2) Public Safety Building/Parking Structure at 3045 Park Blvd.; 3) Public Parking Structure at 250 Sherman Avenue; 4) Public Park at 350 Sherman Avenue, and 5) Multi- Family Residential Development at 450 Sherman Avenue. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council conduct a preliminary review (pre-screening) of the proposed project and provide comments on the proposal to staff and the applicant, particularly focused on the proposed land uses and intensities and on the adequacy of proposed public benefits. No formal action may be taken at a pre-screening. Comments made on preliminary plans are not binding on the City or the applicant. Summary of Key Issues The applicant’s project description for the proposed Planned Community (PC) District is detailed in Attachment E. Staff has identified the following key issues for the Council’s specific consideration and comment: A. Zoning compliance, uses, and intensity of land use B. Comprehensive Plan amendment C. Adequacy of the proposed public benefits D. Parking E. Relationship to the California Avenue Concept Plan F. Conformance with Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan G. Relationship to and impacts on surrounding neighborhoods H. Environmental review In order to assist the Council, staff has provided analysis in addition to the applicant’s description of the project’s compliance with the required findings for the PC District and the proposed uses. Background A Planned Community (PC) Zoning application for a prior version for the proposed project on two parcels was submitted on October 17, 2011. However, after discussing that project with staff at the Development Review Committee meeting, the applicant chose to put the project on hold. On April 11, 2012, the applicant submitted a revised proposal that proposed significant public benefits such as a public safety building and proposed development on three sites located on Sherman Avenue. Given the significance of the project, staff has advised the applicant that this prescreening meeting would be the next appropriate step. Prescreening process Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.79.030(b) states that concurrence of the City Council is necessary to conduct a preliminary review. The purposes of a preliminary review, as stated in PAMC Section 18.79.010, 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. Planned Community Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Processes Rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) district follows a unique set of procedures and standards, which are described in Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). After prescreening, the first step in the PC process will be Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) review of the preliminary plans, a development program statement and a draft development schedule. With favorable feedback from the P&TC, the development plan, site plan, landscape plan and design plans are submitted for review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) in the same manner as any commercial or mixed-use project. The environmental document is prepared and circulated prior to ARB consideration, although a preliminary ARB review or reviews may be recommended. The development plan recommended for approval by the ARB is then returned to the P&TC, together with a draft zoning ordinance and environmental document, for its final review and recommendation to the City Council. As a part of the formal PC Zoning process, the PT&C and City Council will be required to make all of the following findings with respect to the application. (a) The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. (b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning commission and city council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district. (c) The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. Amending a site’s Comprehensive Plan land use designation also requires P&TC initiation, followed by preparation of an environmental document and resolution for P&TC review and recommendation for Council decision. Comprehensive Plan Map designation amendments are not subject to ARB review and recommendation. Project Description The proposed project is composed of two main parcels owned by the developer and three additional parcels currently owned by the City. The applicant’s project description and draft findings for a proposed PC rezoning are provided in Attachment E. Below is a parcel by parcel description of the five proposed project sites. 395 Page Mill Road  Construction of two four-story R&D/Office buildings totaling 311,000 sf of floor area  Retention of the existing three-story 219,377 sf R&D/Office (AOL) building  1,170 parking spaces provided in basement garages with a one level above grade parking deck. 546 parking spaces for the R&D/Office uses would be provided off-site at 3045 Park Blvd . o Given the site’s proximity to CalTrain, the applicant will be asking for a minor reduction to the required 1:300 parking ratio.  Significant setback along Olive Ave. for use as stormwater retention and useable open space The applicant is proposing to provide the following public benefits on four sites: 3045 Park Blvd  44,420 sf Public Safety Building with 147 secured parking spaces. The Public Safety Building would be the lower and front half of a larger parking structure that would include 546 parking spaces for the 395 Page Mill Road tenants as noted above. o The City would be responsible for the cost of the interior improvements and 147 parking spaces 250 Sherman Avenue (City owned surface parking lot)  Parking structure with surface parking and three (3) levels above grade for a total of 529 spaces and 6,600 sf of commercial floor area. o This would be a net gain of 125 parking spaces for the area o The City could use the proceeds from the applicant’s proposed purchase of 450 Sherman Avenue to offset the cost of construction o Applicant proposes to purchase the 6,600 sf of commercial space from the City 350 Sherman Avenue (City owned surface parking lot)  Applicant would construct a new turn-key public park 450 Sherman Avenue (City owned surface parking lot)  116 unit high density housing development over two stories of podium parking o The applicant would purchase the lot from the City at market rate Discussion Conformance with Comprehensive Plan and California Avenue Concept Plan The California Avenue Concept Plan is currently in the final process stages. Unless directed otherwise by Council, staff will work with the City’s consultant to ensure the general parameters of the proposed project are integrated into the draft Concept Plan, or at least one alternative thereof. Staff will also need to work through the project’s conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Attachment C). While the proposal on the 395 Page Mill Road site is in conformance with the site’s Research/Office Park (RO) designation, the other proposed uses do not fit cleanly into the existing designations. Below are the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations for each site (Table 1). Table 1: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS Address Comprehensive Plan designation Zoning Designation 395 Page Mill Road Research/Office Research, Office, and Light Manufacturing 3045 Park Blvd Light Industrial General Manufacturing (Auto Dealer Overlay) 250 Sherman Ave Major Institution/SP Public Facilities 350 Sherman Ave Community Commercial Public Facilities 450 Sherman Ave Community Commercial Public Facilities The subject properties are located within 2,000 feet of the CalTrain station and within the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) zoning boundaries. While, the development may meet the City’s desire for additional development near transit, some of the sites will likely need a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in order to accommodate the proposed mix of uses and densities. Public Benefits The second of the three required PC approval findings is that: “Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the P&TC and City Council at a later formal hearing shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district.” The applicant’s project description includes a “List of Public Benefits”, the highlights of which are summarized below. 1. Public Safety building. The Jay Paul Company will provide the land, structure and exterior shell for a new Public Safety Building (PSB) that will be incorporated into the 3045 Park Blvd. parking structure. The City will be responsible for the interior improvements and storage, as well as the cost of the required parking for the use. The parking cost will be established on a pro-rata basis based on the overall parking garage cost. Preliminary estimates are that the cost to the City for the PSB and associated parking would approximate $20 million, while the costs to the applicant would be approximately $26.7 million. 2. High Density Housing. The Jay Paul Company proposes to purchase from the City an existing surface parking lot at 450 Sherman Avenue at market rate and construct 116 one and two bedroom units on the site, with an average unit size of 700 sf. The project would provide a new customer base for the retail, business, and service sectors on California Avenue and the proceeds from the sale of the land may be used by the City for development of the parking structure on the nearby public site noted below. The applicant estimates the current value of the site at $4.36 million. 3. Turn-key Public Park. The Jay Paul Company proposes to invest $1.26 million into a turn-key public park for the City at 350 Sherman Avenue. There would be no cost to the City for the park. 4. Public Parking Structure. At the City’s expense, the Jay Paul Company would construct a 529 parking space structure at 250 Sherman Avenue. This structure would replace spaces lost on the three existing surface parking lots (250, 350 and 450 Sherman Avenue) and would provide an additional 125 parking spaces. The parking structure would also include 6,600 sf of commercial space that the Jay Paul Company would purchase from the City. The applicant estimates that the cost to the City for the parking structure would be $13.33 million. The proposed costs and benefits to the City are summarized by the applicant in Attachment F. Staff has done only preliminary analyses of these initial costs and has not formally peer reviewed them nor attempted to estimate operating costs for any of these facilities. Development Standards and Relation to Public Benefits As discussed below and shown in the attached zoning comparison table (Attachment D), staff has analyzed the development standards for the proposed PC zone development in comparison to the current development standards. Floor Area Ratio The proposed FAR increase is the applicant’s main reason for requesting a Planned Community Rezoning. As shown below in Table 2, the requested FAR at 395 Page Mill Road is 1.23:1, whereas the maximum floor area ratio in the ROLM district is 0.4:1. However, if the FAR is averaged over 395 Page Mill Road and 3045 Park Blvd., the FAR would be 1.17:1. While the residential proposal at 450 Sherman Ave is well over the allowed FAR of 1:1, if the FAR was averaged with the Sherman Avenue properties, the FAR would be 0.86:1, in conformance with the allowed FAR of the PF Zoning district. Table 2: FAR COMPARISON Address Allowed FAR Proposed FAR Average FAR 395 Page Mill Road 0.4:1 1.23:1 1.17:1 – non-conforming 3045 Park Blvd. 0.5:1 0.71:1 250 Sherman Ave. 1:1* 0.12:1 0.86:1 - conforming 350 Sherman Ave. 1:1* 0.00:1 450 Sherman Ave. 1:1* 3.08:1 Average FAR over 5 sites 1.10:1 * allowed FAR for public facilities Relationship to Public Benefits The amount of excess square footage requested for 395 Page Mill Road amounts to 311,000 sf above the existing 219,377 sf in the current building. A simple calculation of the “benefit” of the Public Safety Building costs borne by the applicant in relation to the square footage allowed at 395 Page Mill Road and 3045 Park Boulevard would yield a “public benefit” of $95 per square foot of increased development allowance. An analysis for all five sites was not done at this time. The Sherman Avenue sites are currently owned by the City and zoned for public facilities, so the allowed FAR for private development is currently unknown. For comparison purposes, staff estimates that the “benefit” amount provided for the Lytton Gateway project was $177 per square foot (including the parking in-lieu fees as public benefit) or $134 per square foot, excluding the parking in-lieu fees. The Council may also wish to discuss whether the approach proposed by the applicant is a justifiable use of the Planned Community process, or whether public benefits should be more closely aligned to the purpose and intent of the proposed project. Use of City Property The three parcels located on Sherman Avenue are currently owned by the City of Palo Alto and appropriate appraisals and public hearings would be needed prior to moving forward with the applicant’s proposals for these sites (Table 3). Table 3: CITY OWNED PROPERTIES Address Acres 250 Sherman Ave 1.23 350 Sherman Ave 1.03 450 Sherman Ave 0.80 While the applicant has expressed an interest in having the City process the development on the City-owned sites in conjunction with the development on the privately owned sites, the two projects can be feasibly separated as they may involve different policy considerations as well as potentially different timelines. Traffic/Parking Many of the subject properties are located along Park Blvd., which is designated a Bicycle Boulevard in the City’s Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Care will need to be taken to minimize any safety concerns along this bicycle route. As a next step, the City’s Transportation staff will have a discussion with the applicant’s traffic consultant and a scope of work will be prepared for a traffic study. This Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Parking Analysis will be evaluated by staff in conjunction with the environmental document. Staff expects that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for the project if it proceeds as proposed. South of Page Mill Road, the project will be providing a total of 1,865 on-site parking spaces. The Zoning Code requires a parking ratio of 1 space per 300 gross floor area for Administrative Offices, Research and Development, Manufacturing and Warehousing uses for a total of 1,917 required parking spaces. The project is therefore short 52 parking spaces (3 percent). However, all of the subject sites are within 2,000 feet of a CalTrain station making it eligible for a parking adjustment of up to 20 percent reduction if deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, in this case, the City Council. The Sherman Avenue portion of the project is located within the California Avenue Parking District and includes construction of a public parking garage with a total of 529 parking spaces at 250 Sherman Avenue. The residential project is proposed to be parked under code requirements. The existing number of parking spaces over the three existing surface lots is 404 spaces. The proposed project would result in a net gain of 125 public parking spaces. Neighborhood Compatibility The properties located at 395 Page Mill Road and 3045 Park Blvd have a height limitation of 35 feet and 25 feet for structures within 40 feet of a residential zone. There are special height and daylight plane requirements for PC zoned sites that abut residential property. Specifically, the PC zoning (PAMC 18.38.150) requires that the height limit shall be 30 feet when adjacent to R-1 zoning and that a daylight plane is to be established along that portion of the lot that abuts the neighboring residentially zoned property. The daylight plane is to be measured beginning at a height of 10 feet and increasing inward at a 45 degree angle. The project’s preliminary plans do not provide a daylight plane measurement but staff’s calculations confirm that a portion of the fourth floor of 395 Page Mill Road would encroach into the daylight plane requirement. The proposed height to this building is 56 tall with 15 additional feet for mechanical equipment, for an overall height of 71 feet. Whereas, the proposed height for the public safety building and parking garage at 3045 Park Blvd is proposed to be a maximum of 61 feet in height. Given the proposed buildings are over 35 feet in height and within 40 feet of a residential zone, height/daylight plane exceptions will be required. The City Attorney has previously stated that these types of exceptions may be granted as a part of a PC Ordinance, rather than requiring a variance, and such actions are within the authority of the Council. Therefore, the issue is more of a policy one for Council, regarding precedence and extent of the exceptions. Staff notes again that the exceptions are for minor compatibility purposes and do not adversely impact the adjacent properties, and findings to that extent are noted in the proposed PC ordinance. Staff believes that, if the request were for a height in excess of 50 feet for building areas comprising floor area, an undesirable precedent could be set through a PC process, though again the Council may have discretion to make such a determination. For the site at 450 Sherman Avenue, the height limitation in the PF zone is 50 feet and 35 feet for structures within 150 feet of a residential zone, with a daylight plane beginning at a height of 10 feet and increasing inward at a 1:2 ratio. However, given the most restrictive adjacent zone is CC-2 with a maximum height limit of 37 feet. The projects preliminary plans do not provide a daylight plane measurement but the proposed height of the building is 50 feet, within the allowed limits of the PF zone. Trees/Landscape As this review is only a prescreening, limited information regarding trees and landscaping has been provided. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would likely be required for the project, including an assessment of the impact on trees due to intensity of development and the addition of below grade parking. Achievement of urban forestry goals on a densely designed site of this nature will require creative and technological consideration. Staff will work with the applicant to explore urban and pedestrian design features that will help improve the site connections to CalTrain and create a greater sense of place for this area. Staff will continue to meet with the applicant team to discuss the areas that need to be addressed and set next steps for the design review. Community Outreach A notice of the public hearing was distributed to the owners and tenants of all propertieslocated within 600 feet of the project site and was posted on the City website. This staff report is also posted on the City’s website. Signage has been posted at the site to inform the public about the proposed change. Staff has been available to discuss the proposal with interested members of the public. Going forward, staff will work with the applicant to arrange for a series of community meetings with residents and business owners. Staff will also work with the applicant to develop a website, so community review and input can happen on a 24/7 basis. Next Steps 1. Applicant revisions in response to Council comments 2. P&TC (or Council) Consideration of initiation of Planned Community zoning 3. Coordination with California Avenue Concept Plan 4. Initiate Environmental Impact Report process and scoping meeting 5. ARB preliminary review hearing 6. ARB hearing and recommendation 7. P&TC hearing and recommendation 8. City Council hearing and action Resource Impact Applicants for any preliminary review/PC zoning submit a fee deposit, against which staff time to process the application is charged, as a part of the City’s cost recovery program. As part of the formal process, the applicant will submit a fiscal impact analysis to provide information on cost of benefits of the project to the City. However, the applicant has provided preliminary cost estimates for the proposed project as seen in Attachment F and summarized below. The proposed development would also result in a one-time development impact fee payment to the City. 3045 Park Blvd  44,420 sf Public Safety Building with 147 secured parking spaces.  The City would be responsible for the cost of the interior improvements and 147 parking spaces  Cost to the City for the PSB and associated parking would be approximately $20.1 million, while the costs to the applicant would be approximately $26.7 million. 250 Sherman Avenue (City owned property)  Parking structure would include a net gain of 125 parking spaces for the area  The City would be responsible for the cost of construction  Applicant would purchase the commercial space and prorated share of parking from City  The applicant estimates that the cost to the City would be $13.33 million.  On-going maintenance performed by the City 350 Sherman Avenue (City owned property)  New turn-key City park provided by the applicant at their cost of $1.26 million  On-going maintenance performed by the City 450 Sherman Avenue (City owned property)  The applicant would purchase the lot from the City for housing development  The applicant estimates the current value of the site at $4.36 million. Environmental Assessment Environmental review is not required for a prescreening, as no formal action will be taken on the project. If the project proceeds, staff will work with the applicant to obtain and review all the environmental documents associated with the site. A complete environmental assessment and likely an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including a traffic report, air quality and greenhouse gas analysis, arborist report, hazard report and noise report will be prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines prior to the ARB’s and Planning and Transportation Commission review of the PC zone request. Attachments:  Attachment A: Parcel Reports for the Five Sites (PDF)  Attachment B: Area Map (PDF)  Attachment C: Comprehensive Plan Policies (DOC)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Tables (PDF)  Attachment E: Project Description and Draft Findings from Jay Paul Company (PDF)  Attachment F: Preliminary Cost Estimates from Jay Paul Company (DOCX)  Attachment G: Preliminary Plan Sets (Councilmembers and Libraries only) (TXT) Prepared By: Jodie Gerhardt, Planner Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager 132-37-049 132-37-048 132-37-044 132-37-042 132-38-046 132-32-026 132-32-025 132-32-034 132-32-033 132-32-028 132-25-050 132-17-080 132-17-075 132-25-006 132-18-074 132-18-095 132-18-076 132-17-032 132-17-077 132-17-016 132-17-017 132-18-090 132-18-006 132-18-086 132-18-086 132-18-085 132-13-076 132-17-012 124-33-019 124-33-018 124-33-016 124-32-043 132-37-018 132-37-017 132-37-004 132-37-008 132-37-040 132-37-039 132-37-038 132-37-037 132-37-036 132-37-035 132-37-033 132-36-069 132-36-070 124-32-022 4-32-021 9 124-31-049 124-31-039 124-31-072 124-31-083 124-33-001 124-33-022 124-33-020 124-32-035 124-32-042 132-36-073 124-32-001 124-32-032 124-31-042 124-28-012 124-28-014 124-28-020 124-28-018 124-27-030 124-28-023 132-39-017 132-39-018 132-38-059 132-38-055 132-38-011 132-33-050 132-38-040 132-38-058 132-38-041 132-38-013 132-38-043 132-38-060 132-38-061 132-32-036 132-26-076 132-26-079 124-29-025 124-29-027 124-29-026 1 2 3 DayCare 3 F Molly Stone's Market County Courthouseand Jail North County Mental Health Center Fry's Electronics Gas Station #2 Bldg 5 Bldg 6 Lot C-5 Parking Lot Bank ofthe West A B Bldg 8 Bldg 7 California Station Country Sun PARKING GARAGE K J H G E B D C A Landscape Overlay70' from center line ofpublic right of way For location of zone boundarySee Ord. # 4848 CALIFORNIA AVENUE GRANT AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL SHERMAN AVENUE SHERMAN AVENUE JACARANDA LANE ASH STREET NEW MAYFIELD LANE NEW MAYFIELD LANE EL CAMINO REAL CALIFORNIA AVENUE CALIFORNIA AVENUE PERAL LANE MIMOSA LANERO LANE CAMBRIDGE AVENUE T BIRCH STREET NEW MAYFIELD LANE CAMBRIDGE AVENUE BIRCH STREET BIRCH STREET COLLEGE AVENUE COLLEGE AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD CALIFORNIA AVENUE ALMA STREET PARK BOULEVARD SHERMAN AVENUE JACARANDA LANE PARK BOULEVARD EMERSON STREET RAMONA STREET COLORADO AVENUE COLORADO AVENUE EMERSON STREET HIGH STREET ALMA STREET ALMA STREET OREGON EXPRESSWAY BRY OREGON AVENUE GRANT AVENUE SHERMAN AVENUE SHERIDAN AVENUE SHERIDAN AVENUE ASH STREET BIRCH STREET BIRCH STREET GRANT AVENUE EL DORAD ASH STREET BIRCH PARK BOULEVARD PARK B ALMA STREET ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE PEPPER AVENUE ASH STREET PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REAL ALMA STREET PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD NOGAL LANE JACARANDA LANE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL CC(2) RP PF (AS3) CS(AS1) PF PF R-2 PF CC(2) CC(2) R-2 PF ) PC-4127 PF CC(2) CC(2) (R)(P) RM-30 PF CS PF CN CC RM-40 CC(2) CN PC-2224 PF PF PC-4268 PC-2293 RM-40 PC-4354 PC-4463 PC-3028 PF PC-2952 PF PF RM-30 RM-30 RM-15 R-1 GM RM-30 RM-15 RM-40 ROLM GM CS CC(2)(P) GM GM(AD) C(AD CS PC-4831 RMD RM-40 PTOD CC(2) CC(2) PTOD This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Location Sites 0' 400' Lo c a t i o n M a p CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2012 City of Palo Alto jgerhar, 2012-08-27 17:28:33 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachment C Planned Community Prescreening 395 Page Mill Road 11PLN-00374 Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. Policy L-1: Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods. Goal L-2: An enhanced sense of “community” with development designed to foster public life and meet citywide needs. Policy L-10: Maintain a citywide structure of residential neighborhoods, centers, and employment districts. Integrate these areas with the City’s and the region’s transit and street system. Policy L-31: Develop the Cal-Ventura area as a well-designed mixed use district with diverse land uses, two- to three-story buildings, and a network of pedestrian oriented streets providing links to California Avenue. Goal L-5: High quality employment districts, each with their own distinctive character and each contributing to the character of the City as a whole . POLICY L-42: Encourage Employment Districts to develop in a way that encourages transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel and reduces the number of auto trips for daily errands. POLICY L-43: Provide sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and connections to the citywide bikeway system within Employment Districts. Pursue opportunities to build sidewalks and paths in renovation and expansion projects. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Program L-48: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design. GOAL L-8: Attractive and Safe Civic and Cultural Facilities Provided in All Neighborhoods and Maintained and Used in Ways that Foster and Enrich Public Life. POLICY L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible Transportation Element POLICY T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. PROGRAM T-1: Encourage infill, redevelopment, and reuse of vacant or underutilized parcels employing minimum density requirements that are appropriate to support transit, bicycling, and walking. POLICY T-22: Improve amenities such as seating, lighting, bicycle parking, street trees, and interpretive stations along bicycle and pedestrian paths and in City parks to encourage walking and cycling and enhance the feeling of safety. POLICY T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. GOAL T-8: Attractive, Convenient Public and Private Parking Facilities POLICY T-45: Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address long-range needs. Housing Element Policy H-2: Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and attainable housing. Program H-1: Increase housing density immediately surrounding commercial areas and particularly near transit stations by either increasing allowed densities or encouraging development at the higher end of the existing density range for sites within 2,000 feet of an existing or planned transit station or along two major transit corridors, El Camino Real and San Antonio Road, wherever appropriate. Community Services and Facilities Element GOAL C-4: Attractive, Well-maintained Community Facilities That Serve Palo Alto Residents. POLICY C-22: Design and construct new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. POLICY C-27: Seek opportunities to develop new parks and recreation facilities to meet the growing needs of residents and employees of Palo Alto. PROGRAM C-26: In conjunction with new development proposals, pursue creation of park, plaza, or other public gathering places that meet neighborhood needs. Business and Economics Element POLICY B-11: Encourage the use of public/private partnerships as a means of redeveloping and revitalizing selected areas. ______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLES 395 Page Mill Road 11PLN-00374 ____________________________________ Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (ROLM DISTRICT) FOR 395 PAGE MILL ROAD SITE Regulation Proposed Existing ROLM (Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing) Minimum Site Area 9.86 acres 9.86 acres 1 acre Min. Front Setback (Page Mill Road) 25 ft 25 ft 50 ft from Page Mill Road, 20 ft, same if abutting or opposite residential zone Rear Yard Setback (Olive Street) 66 ft min. 31 ft 20 ft, same if abutting or opposite residential zone Min. Street Side Setback (Ash St/Park Blvd) 25 ft / 20 ft 300 ft / 25 ft 20 ft, same if abutting or opposite residential zone Max. Site Coverage 46% (199,518 sf) 25% (105,389 sf) 30% Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 1.23:1 (530,377 sf) 0.51:1 (219,377 sf) 0.4:1 Max. Building Height 56 ft (with additional 15 ft for mechanical) 50 ft (with additional 10 ft for mechanical) 35 ft, 25 ft within 40 ft of residential zone Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Use Required Proposed Conformance Admin Offices, R&D, Manufacturing and Warehousing 1 per 300 sf of gross floor area (1,768 spaces)* 1170 spaces Non-conforming - 598 off-site parking spaces needed to conform (see below) * 1415 spaces would be required if the maximum 20% reduction is given for proximity to transit Table 2: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (ROLM DISTRICT) FOR 3045 PARK BLVD SITE Regulation Proposed Existing GM (AD) General Manufacturing (Automobile Dealership) Minimum Site Area 1.41 acres 1.41 acres none Min. Front Setback 10 ft 30 ft 10 ft if abutting or opposite residential zone Rear Yard Setback 10 ft 50 ft none Interior Yard Setback 10 ft 30 ft min. none Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.71:1 (44,420 sf public safety bldg) 0.29:1 (17,957 sf) 0.5:1 Max. Site Coverage 82% (50,364 sf) 29% (17,957 sf) none Max. Building Height 61 ft Approx. 25 ft 35 ft, 25 ft within 40 ft of residential zone Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Use Required Proposed Conformance Admin Offices 1 per 300 sf of gross floor area (149 spaces)* 695 spaces (147 spaces dedicated for public safety) Conforming – 149 spaces required, 546 spaces available for off-site parking * 120 spaces would be required if the maximum 20% reduction is given for proximity to transit Table 3: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (PF DISTRICT) FOR 250 SHERMAN AVE Proposed Public Parking Structure Site Regulation Proposed Existing PF (Public Facilities) Minimum Site Area 1.23 acres 1.23 acres None Min. Front Setback 14 ft n/a Equal to the setback of the most restrictive abutting district, CC2, requires 1-10 ft to create an effective 8-12ft sidewalk width Rear Yard Setback 0 ft n/a 20 ft, same if abutting or opposite residential zone Interior Yard Setback n/a n/a 20 ft, same if abutting or opposite residential zone Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.12:1 (6,600 sf of retail space) n/a 1:1 Max. Site Coverage 89% (47,400 sf) n/a 30% Max. Building Height 37.5 ft n/a 50 ft, 35 ft within 150 ft of residential district Daylight plane none n/a, Res. to south 1:2 with initial height of 10 ft when abutting residential zone Table 3: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Use Required/Existing Proposed Conformance Public Parking Structure 404 spaces exist over three City owned surface parking lots 529 spaces Conforming – with 125 additional parking spaces over existing Table 4: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (PF DISTRICT) FOR 350 SHERMAN AVE Proposed Public Park Site Regulation Proposed Existing PF (Public Facilities) Minimum Site Area 1.03 acres 1.03 acres None Min. Front Setback 0 ft n/a Equal to the setback of the most restrictive abutting district, CC2, requires 1-10 ft to create an effective 8-12ft sidewalk width Rear Yard Setback 0 ft n/a 20 ft, same if abutting or opposite residential zone Max. Total Floor Area Ratio n/a n/a 1:1 Max. Site Coverage n/a n/a 30% Max. Building Height n/a n/a 50 ft, 35 ft within 150 ft of residential district Daylight plane n/a n/a 1:2 with initial height of 10 ft when abutting residential zone Table 4: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Use Required Proposed Conformance Public Park None for passive recreation 0 spaces Conforming Table 5: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (PF DISTRICT) FOR 450 SHERMAN AVE Proposed High-Density Housing Site Regulation Proposed Existing PF (Public Facilities) Minimum Site Area 0.80 acres 0.80 acres None Min. Front Setback 3-6 ft n/a Equal to the setback of the most restrictive abutting district, CC2, requires 1-10 ft to create an effective 8-12ft sidewalk width Rear Yard Setback 0 ft n/a 20 ft, same if abutting or opposite residential zone Interior Yard Setback 0-4 ft n/a 20 ft, same if abutting or opposite residential zone Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 3.08:1 n/a 1:1 Max. Site Coverage 82% (28,580 sf) n/a 30% Min. Usable Open Space 50 sf per unit and 5,600 sf common space n/a None (RM-40 would require 100 sq ft per unit) Max. Building Height 50 ft n/a 50 ft, 35 ft within 150 ft of residential district Daylight plane none n/a 1:2 with initial height of 10 ft when abutting residential zone Max. Residential Density 145 units/acre n/a n/a Table 5: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Parking Spaces Required Proposed Conformance Residential 1.25 per studio unit, 1.5 per 1- bedroom unit, 2 space per 2- bedroom unit or larger (182) 134 spaces Nonconforming Residential Guest 33% of all units (60) 0 spaces Nonconforming * 194 total spaces would be required if the maximum 20% reduction is given for proximity to transit 3045 Park Avenue Public Safety Building City of Palo Alto Costs Jay Paul Company Contribution Cold Shell $17.70M Land Costs $ 9.00M Total $26.70M Notes: 1. Estimates are based on the most current plans submitted to the City and discussions between the Police department and DES. City could lease FF&E and IT to reduce its initial capital outlay. 2. Jay Paul Company contributes the land and cold shell for Public Safety Bldg. 3. The City of Palo Alto pays for the Warm Shell improvements, the cost of Public Services Building parking, interior improvements, and its prorated share of soft costs. 4. This number is preliminary, based on discussions between our IT consultant and the City. Sherman Avenue Project City of Palo Alto Costs Public Parking Costs (529 stalls) $14.92M Cost to park retail at 4 per 1000sf (27 stalls). Paid by JPC. -$0.76M Land Cost for Retail. Paid to City by JPC. -$0.825M Subtotal $13.33M Land Cost for Residential. Paid to City by JPC. -$4.36M Total Cost to City $8.97M Jay Paul Company Contribution Park Construction Costs $1.26M Notes: 1. Parking Costs based on $28,200 per stall times 529 stalls. 2. Assumes $125 per sq. ft. price for land. Land used by Jay Paul = 34848sf for residential + 6600sf for retail. Attachment F Warm Shell Improvements $3.2M Tenant Improvements $10.2M FF&E $720K /IT/Cabling/Equipment (see Technology note 4) $2.7M Soft Costs $1.3M Foundation / Underground Parking $1.8M HVAC $0.2M Total $20.1M 6111 Note. Page 1