ATTACHMENT B: DOWNTOWN HOUSING PLAN SITE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS As part of the effort to illustrate the impact of current development regulations and other site constraints on development potential, the project team selected three sites and evaluated them for their potential for future housing development at varying intensities. The site selection process included Housing Element Opportunity Sites as well as other public and privately-owned parcels downtown. These typical exemplar sites were selected based on a specified site selection criteria described below.
Site Selection Criteria
The objective was to exclude parcels with low likelihood of redevelopment. The identified constraints in this case were:
• Buildings with a historic designation;
• Parcels that were developed in the last twenty years; • Approved and under-construction development project-sites; and • City-owned parcels with parking garages.
The remaining parcels in the project area were evaluated using the following criteria to identify potential sites that can be tested:
1. Building-to-Land Value Ratio: compares a building’s improved assessed value to the land value.
Sites with low-value improvements are more likely to redevelop, whereas those parcels with high- value improvements tend to be less likely to redevelop. Parcels in the project area that have a building-to-land value ratio of less than or equal to 100% (building and site improvements have less value than the value of the land) were considered as “low value” with higher likelihood of redevelopment and therefore identified as “underutilized sites.”
2. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): measures the existing intensity of development on a property. Parcels that have a ratio of less than or equal to 0.30 floor area ratio (FAR) are considered underutilized. The predominant zoning district in the downtown area is CD-C allowing mixed-use development with a non-residential FAR of 1:1 and a residential FAR of 2:1 on a parcel. A parcel within the CD-C zone with an existing FAR of less than 0.3 is significantly underutilized relative to the permitted development intensity.
3. Parcel Size and Ownership: The other important criteria that affects development feasibility is parcel size and ownership. Developers contacted as a part of the stakeholder engagement efforts indicated that parcels of 0.5 acres or higher are more viable to develop, resulting in its addition as a criterion for site selection. Additionally, parcel ownership plays a crucial role in redevelopment potential. For the purpose of site selection, both City-ownership and contiguous private- ownership were considered. Contiguous private ownership enhances feasibility by reducing the need for site consolidation, enabling larger, more cohesive developments.
This systemic approach enabled the team to identify sites that have greater development potential given the existing constraints. The Opportunity Sites Map (Figure 1) contains sites considered for testing (red) based on the criteria discussed above. Of these sites shown in red, three sites were selected to represent a variety of contexts present within the project areas. The three sites tested are marked in blue to differentiate them from the other sites that were considered for testing based on the eligibility criteria.
Site Development Feasibility Analysis
The sites tested, assumptions considered, massing, and the results of the process are listed below. The evaluation includes the limitations related to current development standards that hinder housing production in the project area.
1. Site 1: 318 University Avenue
318 University Avenue is a mid-block Housing Element opportunity site adjacent to another opportunity site, with higher chances of parcel assembly. One characteristic of the site is that vehicular access is restricted from University Avenue.
o Dimensions: 125 feet x 64 feet
o Lot Area: 8000 square feet (0.18 acre)
o Base District: CD-C (Downtown Commercial)
o Combining District: GF (Ground Floor) and P (Pedestrian Shopping) Development Feasibility Analysis – 318 University Avenue Scenario 1: CD-C (GF) (P)
designation
Scenario 2: Assuming Housing
Element Rezoning
Achievable Unit Count 10 17
FAR, Maximum Commercial: 1.0 Residential: 2.0
Residential: 1.0
Height Maximum 49 feet 44 feet
Usable Open Space/ unit 150 square feet/ unit (private) 150 square feet/ unit (private) Commercial Space 8000 square feet
Parking Required: 46 spaces Required: 25 spaces
Achieved: 10 spaces Achieved: 10 spaces
2. Site 2: 635 Waverley Street
635 Waverley Street is a mid-block site over 0.25 acres. It is also adjacent to the RM-40 district where special mixed-use and residential development standards apply. o Dimensions: 70 feet x 193 feet
o Lot Area: 13,500 square feet (0.31 acre)
o Base District: CD-C (Downtown Commercial)
o Combining District: P (Pedestrian Shopping)
Development Feasibility Analysis – 635 Waverley Street
Scenario 1: CD-C (P) Vertical
Mixed-Use
Scenario 2: CD-C (P)
Horizontal Mixed-Use
Achievable Unit Count 16 18
FAR, Maximum Commercial: 1.0 Commercial: 0.75
Residential: 1.0 Residential: 1.25
Height Maximum 49 feet Commercial: 43 feet
Residential: 45 feet
Usable Open Space 2,400 square feet (common) 2,600 square feet (common) Commercial Space 13,500 square feet 10,200 square feet
Parking Required: 70 spaces Required: 58 spaces
Achieved: 15 spaces Achieved: 15 spaces
3. Site 3: 116, 136 Hamilton Avenue and 650 High Street The site including parcels on 116, 136 Hamilton and 650 High Street have common ownership facilitating parcel assembly and higher development feasibility. 650 High Street is a Housing Element opportunity site and is in relatively closer proximity to the Palo Alto Caltrain Station with a greater potential to test higher density and intensity. o Dimensions: 100 feet x 125 feet and 75 feet x 112.5 feet o Lot Area: 20,937 square feet (0.48 acre)
o Base District: CD-C (Downtown Commercial)
o Combining District: P (Pedestrian Shopping)
Development Feasibility Analysis – 116, 136 Hamilton Avenue and 650 High Street Scenario 1: Vertical
Mixed-Use
Scenario 2: Horizontal
Mixed-Use
Scenario 3: Hybrid
Achievable Unit Count 36 32 38
FAR, Maximum Commercial: 0.8 Commercial: 1.0 Commercial: 1.0 Residential: 1.25 Residential: 1.0 Residential: 1.25
Height Maximum 44 feet 44 feet Mixed-Use: 48 feet
Residential: 44 feet
Usable Open Space 9,925 square feet
(common)
6,500 square feet
(common)
7,100 square feet
(common)
Commercial Space 9,800 square feet 12,500 square feet 12,500 square feet Parking Required: 75 spaces Required: 82 spaces Required: 88 spaces Achieved: 23 spaces Achieved: 25 spaces Achieved: 25 spaces Figure 1: Downtown Housing Plan: Sites for Development Feasibility Analysis Johnson
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Williams
Park
El Camino
Park
PALO ALTO
STA TI ON
ALMA ST
TASSO ST
KIPLING ST
HIGH ST
EMERSON ST
RAMONA ST
BRYANT ST
WAVERLY ST
COWPER ST
WEBSTER ST
FOREST AVE
HAMILTON AVE
UNIVERSITY AVE
LYTTON AVE
EVERETT AVE
FLORENCE ST
PA Office
Center
Lytton
Plaza
0.5 MILE
City
Hall
0 250 500
Feet
Parks
Downtown Housing Plan Boundary
Housing Element Sites
Selected testing site