Top Banner
Specific Plan Is NOT Working as Intended November 19, 2013
8

Specific Plan Is NOT Working as Intended

Jan 06, 2016

Download

Documents

Silvia Dorado

Specific Plan Is NOT Working as Intended. November 19, 2013. Background – El Camino. General Plan calls for New and upgraded retail along El Camino Small-scale office in balanced pattern with residential, retail Consultant Memo justifying standards and thresholds, concluded: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Specific Plan Is NOT Working as Intended

Specific Plan Is NOT Working as Intended

November 19, 2013

Page 2: Specific Plan Is NOT Working as Intended

Background – El Camino

General Plan calls for • New and upgraded retail along El Camino• Small-scale office in balanced pattern

with residential, retail

Consultant Memo justifying standards and thresholds, concluded:• New Base threshold essential to

stimulate development• Office uses unlikely, even in mixed use

projects on both small and large parcels

Specific Plan EIR and Financial Impact Analysis – illustrative 30 yr.

plan

Office 17%

Hous-ing

67%Retail

6%

Hotel10%

Page 3: Specific Plan Is NOT Working as Intended

The Old Rules Work in Today’s Market

Projects approved under pre-Specific Plan rules are being built:• 389 ECR – housing (100%)• 1460 ECR – housing (47%) and office (53%)• 1706 ECR – medical office (100%)

Observations: Old maximum standards are adequate to stimulate ECR developmentOffice – 100% OR mixed use - “pencils”, even at prior allowed levels

Page 4: Specific Plan Is NOT Working as Intended

Stanford Project Example

Office 64%

Housing33%

Retail 3%

November 2012

Office 43%

Housing55%

Retail 2%

April 2013

Office uses quickly became most desirable to developersAbility to influence project makes a big difference, but ability to negotiate not part of Base level

Base level standard

Page 5: Specific Plan Is NOT Working as Intended

Office 25%

Housing52%

Retail 14%

Health Club9%

Prior Projects

Office 49%

Housing46%

Retail 5%

Current Proposal

Office is most desirable use to developers, even more than before Housing and Retail uses are crowded out by office

Greenheart Example

Page 6: Specific Plan Is NOT Working as Intended

Total SF Office SF Housing SF Retail/Restaurant SF Health Club SF -

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

Prior 1300 ECR Project, Derry Proposal Greenheart Proposal

Project Element

Squa

re F

eet

58% Increase

196% Increase 20%

Increase

35% Decrease

100% Decrease

Proposal Increases• 60% Larger than Prior Projects• 50% More Housing Units

Proposal Reduces• Housing/Office SF ratio

from 2:1 to 1:1 • Retail by 1/3• Eliminates Health Club

Former Cadillac site subject to lawsuit; prior project approvedOriginal Derry project subject of referendum; negotiated project resultedCurrent project much larger with nearly 200% more Office. May require new EIR less than 1-1/2 years into a 30 year plan

Greenheart Example Details

Page 7: Specific Plan Is NOT Working as Intended

Office 64%

Housing33%

Retail 3%

Office 49%Housing

46%

Retail 5%

Conclusion: Specific PlanIsn’t Achieving Its Vision

Greenheart Project

Stanford Project

Office 17%

Hous-ing

67%Retail

6%

Hotel10%

Page 8: Specific Plan Is NOT Working as Intended

Honor the 5 year Specific Plan process and Vision

Support the adopted Housing Element

Respect the General Plan

Follow Sierra Club/Save Menlo’s Recommendations:* Office maximum of 25% Base* Funding plan for public improvements

Lower the Base threshold* Encourages Vision* Structures negotiations

Recommendations To Make the Specific Plan Work Better

Revisit in ONE YEAR