|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
As Palo Alto moves ahead with plans to promote more housing and community amenities in the Ventura neighborhood, a prominent developer in the area is proposing another idea: encouraging more office use on a prominent stretch of Park Boulevard.
Jay Paul Company, the San Francisco-based commercial developer whose properties in the area include the office building at 395 Page Mill Road, which is occupied by Cloudera, and 3045 Park Blvd., a site that the city had once considered as a possible location for a new police station, is now eying the creation of what would effectively be an office district on the northern edge of the Ventura neighborhood.
The developer is requesting that the council rezone this site at 3045 Park Blvd. to allow other office uses. In addition, Jay Paul is proposing that the city create a new overlay district along Park Boulevard that would give additional flexibility to establish office uses on the seven properties in the area.
The Jay Paul proposal, which the council is scheduled to discuss on March 1, arrives at a time when the city is forging a new vision for the broader 60-acre area in Ventura bounded by Park Boulevard, El Camino Real, Page Mill Road and the rail corridor. The area, which includes the Portage Avenue campus that until January 2020 housed Fry’s Electronics, is the subject of a coordinated area plan that a group of resident stakeholders has been putting together over the past two years.
To date, most of the residents involved in the area plan have emphasized the need to bring more affordable housing, park space and community amenities to the Ventura neighborhood and to limit office development. Despite that prevalent sentiment, Jay Paul is arguing that the design of its office project is “suited to the current direction of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, which promotes a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood, as it also encourages additional resident-friendly uses within its area.”
“We would expect the types of office uses to be pedestrian-oriented, with many employees arriving by bicycle or walking from the nearby Caltrain station,” Janette D’Elia, Jay Paul’s chief operating officer, wrote in a letter to the city.
Jay Paul’s proposal would create an L-shaped overlay district that includes a stretch of Park Boulevard between Oregon Expressway and Lambert Avenue, along the northern edge of the North Ventura plan area. All of these properties are currently zoned for “general manufacturing,” though the city has made exceptions for several properties and has allowed them to switch to office and, in one case, residential uses.
Click the icons above to find out which businesses fall in Jay Paul’s proposed overlay district, which intersects with 60 acres of land where the city is working on a new vision plan.
The proposed zone includes two properties on the north side of Oregon/Page Mill Road: 200 Page Mill Road, which is currently occupied by the law firm Hopkins & Carley, and 2747 Park Blvd., the office building occupied by Tencent’s U.S. headquarters. The five properties along Park Boulevard include Park Plaza, the mixed-use complex with 82 apartments at 195 Page Mill Road; 3101 Park Blvd., Groupon’s former offices now occupied by WeWork; 3197 Park Blvd., the administrative office of the builder Vance Brown; a vacant commercial building at 3241 Park Blvd.; and Jay Paul’s recently completed project at 3045 Park Blvd.
Jay Paul’s recently completed office building is a glassy two-story structure near the intersection of Park Blvd. and Olive Avenue, an area that the city sees as ripe for change. In addition to being part of the Ventura area plan, the site is just a few blocks east from 2951 El Camino Real, a site where the developer Acclaim Companies is planning to build a 113-apartment complex. Last month, the council held a pre-screening session for the Acclaim proposal, which would utilize the city’s “planned housing” zone and, in doing so, allow the developer to exceed typical development standards in exchange for a provision of housing.
While the council gave the Acclaim project generally positive reviews, commercial projects could prove a tougher sell. Residents and members of the North Ventura working group have vehemently opposed alternatives for the 60-acre area that include a heavy office component, even despite warnings from the city’s economic consultants that commercial development would likely be required to make the housing economically feasible.
The city’s Planning and Transportation Commission recognized the wide discrepancy between what is desired and what is actually achievable at its Jan. 13 review of the Ventura plan, when members acknowledged that all three of the alternatives that they were presented with are deeply flawed. Two of these alternatives propose a relatively modest increase in office use, with 8,600 square feet in one and 33,300 square feet in the other. The third proposal would include 126,700 square feet of new commercial development.
The city’s consultant, Strategic Economics, concluded that only the third scenario would generate enough financial benefit to the developer to make community amenities (including affordable housing) possible. The third scenario would, for example, include 1,490 new residential units, while the first and second would include 500 and 1,170 units, respectively.
Planning staff cited the Strategic Economics analysis in concluding that the third alternative “represents the most viable scenario and the one most likely to deliver community benefits,” according to a report from the Department of Planning and Development Services.
But while the third alternative may be financially feasible, its significant office component has also made it deeply unpopular. The vast majority of the working group rejected it and members of the planning commission acknowledged that the alternative is unlikely to advance.
The planning commission agreed to explore a different option: spending public funds to create below-market-rate housing. The commission requested staff to analyze how much funding it would take to advance with the moderate-growth alternative with additional affordable housing, as well as how much it would cost to keep the high-growth alternative but to add new park space and additional housing.
In making its recommendations, commissioners showed little appetite for proposing a scenario with significant office growth, given that such a scenario is unlikely to advance. Commissioner Ed Lauing said he would like the city to focus on projects that are “100% housing.”
“I’m not opposed to more offices,” Lauing said. “I’m opposed to the fact that they take up space where you can have a park or a house or a café.”
Jay Paul, for its part, is arguing that its newest office building at 3045 Park Blvd., as well as the proposed overlay district, are consistent with the city’s vision for Ventura. The office uses, D’Elia wrote, “would not result in any additional traffic intensity or impacts over existing permitted use,” given that research-and-development tenants typically have greater employee density. Notwithstanding the plan’s focus on housing — and, in particular, affordable housing — D’Elia suggested in her letter that the new office building is consistent with the city’s vision, as well as with the existing neighborhood.
“Given the site’s proximity to the Caltrain station and the pedestrian friendly improvements in the area, the requested change with a transportation-demand-management program would be compatible with the existing neighborhood,” D’Elia wrote.
Correction: A previous version of the story had stated that Jay Paul is planning to build an office building at 3045 Park Blvd. The company has already constructed the office building and is seeking a zone change for the site.
We don’t need a single new office in Palo Alto. The more office space we have, the more housing and density we are going to be required by the state. Let offices and density go to the cities that have the transportation infrastructure to support them.
No more offices. NONE.
J. Paul in Redwood City has torn down a section by 101. Do not see any new building going on there. Hey J. Paul – finish what you started. Taking control of land is big business now. Once you take control of business then do something. We need new housing on ECR. Condos and apartments. That will help us meet some goals. Adding new business is not meeting a current goal. It is defeating current goals.
In RWC put back the miniature golf course. We need a local miniature golf course. We need to practice for the TV show that Curry puts on.
You know, I was just saying to my husband and cat the other day that I thought what was really needed in town was more offices. A whole boatload of offices. Not just one building, not 2, but a lot – maybe even 7 buildings of offices! Wouldn’t that be great. I just love a good office, and I bet you do too.
They don’t add much to our city tax revenue – deeelightful.
They totally screw up demand for more housing – fabulous.
They bring more traffic to town (not everyone rides the train and few ride the ECR bus) – cool.
Yes, yes, let’s do have 7 smacking new office buiidings because everyone will enjoy a jillion offices! It’s what Palo Alto needs.
@not good enough
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
What happened to Palo Alto’s 50k sq ft annual office development cap? Do we need a new annual office development cap?
Given the office occupancy density has increased so drastically since Palo Alto last revised the city wide zoning, which assumed one office worker in 250 sq ft, time to revisit the balance of housing to office zoning. How about rezoning all of Park avenue for housing with a legally required sunset clause for existing office use.
I am trying to figure out what prompted J Paul to target PA with such a grandiose plan. There is obviously some section of the city who has to be egging them on. They have unfinished business in RWC. If they cannot finish up their projects which are in a stall then why roaming around PA? Who are they throwing money at?
@not good enough. Excellent.
You could also take on BART, Great front page story in the San Jose Merc https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/04/how-much-parking-does-a-bart-station-need-tough-choices-as-transit-system-dives-into-development-world/ today about how maybe BART should stop get out of the housing development business of building parking lots near its stations because — golly gee — it just might deter people from using public transit if they can’t park.
What is highly unusual about this suggested development is that it cost money to develop plans and do the exploratory work to see how it all fits in to the location. They would not expend the money to do that if they did not have some encouragement from the City Planning Department.
So what is going on here? We are being beat up to build housing. We already know that the Fry’s site will have some commercial elements mixed in with the residential portion. So why is the City Planning department encouraging more office buildings in a section where we are encouraging more housing? There is extensive building of residential properties in that section on Park.
The PACC needs to get on top of the City Planning Departments and clearly define what the overall plan is for that section of the city. That is where we are going to put low cost housing and teacher housing. We have been talking about this for more than a year. Meanwhile while we are talking housing J. Paul is spending money to plan the direct opposite of what we have been talking about.
We have rogue departments working in direct opposition to what we have been talking about on the public forums. We are led to believe one thing when in fact the opposite is happening.
PACC and City Manager – please define what direction is being provided to the city departments because they are spending money – our money – supporting activities counter to public policy.
Glad to see that the PA residents have figured it out. More offices means more people, more cars, more pollution and more calls for housing. We are already overpopulated and don’t need one new job.
What the PA residents also need to understand is that building any new housing will only be for rich techies unless it is designed and deeded for low income people. That is why we need to support our city council as they fight against the take over of local zoning by Sacramento politicians who want to allow developers to build huge market rate developments and destroy quality of life in the city.
Don’t just fight office space, fight for a livable community which is not more market rate housing.
@Resident-1 Adobe Meadows
“I am trying to figure out what prompted J Paul to target PA with such a grandiose plan.”
This is not a new player, or concept, for the California Avenue area. If you remember, this is just another version of the huge behemoth Jay Paul was proposing in that area a few years ago. When, in return for their zone busting development proposal, they offered to build an empty shell for the new police building on some of their land along Park. Apparently, after the city turned them down, they have been squatting on the sidelines waiting for an opportune moment to take another crack at the golden egg the goose laid.
Given the 3:1 jobs housing imbalance Palo Alto is getting hammered with to build 10K housing units, makes more sense for Palo Alto to rezone the land for housing and not dig the hole any deeper.
These properties are already zoned to allow office use. Jay Paul’s proposal is not advocating adding any more office space than the City’s existing GM zoning ordinance already allows at these seven parcels. All his proposal does is seek clarity on the type of office space allowed. The City’s definition is 40+ years old and is archaic.
As their first shot across the bow, how wise of Jay Paul to start small with a conforming proposal this time, with no cause for challenges to city codes to get through the eye of the needle.
What’s the betting that once initial development approval has been granted, there will eventually be a bait and switch tactic? Detailed plans will be submitted that require all sorts of exceptions such as added height, lot coverage, parking waivers, daylight plane, etc., claiming these are necessary for the project to pencil out?
There has to be a time when the current PACC brings everything up to date with what the city really needs – despite zoning. Zoning is under attach in any case and is outdated to a prior time when we thought everything was coming up roses. Times have changed and the economy has changed. We need more housing and in that area and it is apartments and condos. All types – some for the older and some for the younger – more transient.
To mjh,
The two parcels on Park Blvd owned by Jay Paul have brand new buildings on them. 2747 Park was completed only 2 years ago while 3045 Park Blvd was completed in 2020. Drive by and take a look. These buildings are likely to be there for 30-50 years – Jay Paul is not going to apply to build bigger buildings at these parcels. To do so would make no economic sense. Jay Paul’s proposal is related to what specific types of office use can go into these GM-zoned office buildings. The City has distinctions between different types of office space that are holdovers from times gone past. The City needs to update their ordinance. The proposal by Jay Paul has virtually no impact on Palo Alto residents. Yes, I hear everyone clamoring for more housing, but these parcels are not going to be converted to housing when Jay Paul just completed construction of brand new buildings.
I am making a guess here – J. Paul has tended to work the San Mateo County area. There was an idea that the Sequoia Station Shopping Center would be converted to housing but the city decided correctly that there has to be a shopping center. The rest of downtown RWC is building at a furious pace. As that area is now getting built out, meeting and surpassing it’s goals, then that leaves the rest of the area that is struggling and vulnerable to coercion. Hello Palo Alto. The Stucky for everyone wanting to make a buck using political correctness as the rationale.
So J. Paul does have some buildings but there is other property that is not built on. We have yet to hear from the FRY’s people and what they are planning. It is time for all of the participants in that location to put their hat in the ring so the city can measure where the goals are and how they are being met.
If the city thinks that it can move the target for housing out of the areas where there is already housing – commercial owned to single family owned than think again. We know that single family owned housing is a target for the great social experiment but we also know that building multi-resident housing can meet the goal quicker for the housing allotment.
To Resident 1 – Adobe Meadows
Not sure I fully understand your point. Jay Paul is a regional developer who has properties in the Bay Area including Redwood City, Sunnyvale, San Francisco. Most development is commercial office, but they seem willing to do multi-family housing too – depending upon zoning (and if the numbers work) Their big Palo Alto property is 395 Page Mill Road. The 395 Page Mill property and the Fry’s site consist of 40% of the North Ventura plan area. 395 Page Mill is currently a very large office building occupied by Cloudera, etc. If the City cannot get this Jay Paul and Sobrato owned parcels redeveloped quickly to follow the City’s vision, the NV Plan is going to be very, very slow to morph into the vision of the City has. Sobrato owns the Fry’s site and has recently disclosed a far different vision for their site that the City’s NV Plan vision. If Jay Paul either leaves their existing Cloudera building in place for the next 20-40 years and Sobrato does their own thing, where does that leave the City’s NV Plan???
The City needs to work with Jay Paul and Sobrato to get these two huge parcels in line with their NV Plan or else give up on the NV Plan altogether. These are large parcels that have the potential to yield huge amounts of housing, but only if Jay Paul and Sobrato become willing housing players. The City needs to stop visioning the NV Plan independent of Sobrato and Jay Paul and start working with the two to see if some common ground can be found that benefits the two developers and the City (including residents).
What you just stated is what I said. The papers indicate that there will be laws suits against cities if they do not step up to the plate and get going on formulating specific plans for additional housing. We have been talking about the Fry’s site for a while now with no news forthcoming as to what the end result is suppose to be. Then new news about more office space. More office space is just snowballing the need for more housing.
The type of jobs that happen in this location are tech oriented and tech companies are heading out the door. Miami is now the choice location. We were discussing this at dinner last night – my techie younger generation and they all have friends who have relocated elsewhere and are very happy with those moves. My son’s company just moved their headquarter to Nashville – that is bio-tech.
We have a new PACC which seems to have the energy to get the move on here. And we have to get the move on making concrete plans or then end up fighting law suits – a huge waste of time and energy. And the residents of this city – the taxpayers – are going to end up feeling the brunt of these decisions. The taxpayers are tired of law suits which are politically motivated and tired of lack of planning on projects. Also note that the delay in these decisions could be viewed as a strategy to force other decisions which are unpopular – like building housing at Cubberley.