Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1997-03-24 City Council (12)
City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report 1 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AGENDA DATE: March 24, 1997 CMR:183:97 SUBJECT:Recommendation Concerning New Parking Structures in Downtown Palo Alto In March 1994, the City Council appro~,ed" a comprehensive parking plan for downtown Palo Alto. One of the elements of the plan was consideration of one or more new parking structures within the University Avenue Parking Assessment District. The City Council, subsequently, approved an agreement with the Watry Design Group (Warty) on December 4, 1995, to conduct a feasl~oility study. The purpose of this report is to forward the final parking structure feasibility study report to the Council for action and to request that Council direct staff to initiate the process that will lead to construction of two parking structures and the formation of a parking assessment district to fund such a project. Staff recommends that Council: Approve, in principle, and direct staff to proceed with the necessary steps leading to (a) the construction of a multi-level parking structure (four elevated decks, one at-grade level, and two below grade levels on the Lots S/L site); (b) the construction of a multi-level parking structure (three elevated decks and one at- grade level) on the Lot R site in the Downtown Business District, and (c) the formation of a parking assessment district to fund such a project; Authorize staff to. negotiate a Phase II design contract with the consultant team utilized in Phase I and, if unable to successfully negotiate a satisfactory Phase II design contract, pursue a general solicitation of other consultants, consistent with the City’s established consultant selection procedures; CMR:183:97 Page 1 of 37 3.Direct staff to proceed with the necessary and appropriate steps to secure the following additional services: design/construction management, bond counsel, and financial advisor; and 4.Direct staff to proceed with the necessary and appropriate steps to identify an. alternative suitable location for the Teen Center. Future additional steps requiring Council approval. a.A resolution expressing the Council’s intent to use the proceeds from an anticipated future bond sale for reimbursement of Phase I costs, as well as Phase II design, management, and financing consultant services related to the development and funding of the parking structures, and incurred prior to the bond sale. b.A budget amendment ordinance to provide funding for: (i) the design work (architectural design, construction plans, cost estimate, specifications, and related bid documents), (ii) the design/construction management work, and (iii) the financing work (bond counsel and financial advisory firm) with the source of funds being from the General Fund and with the understanding that the General Fund is to be reimbursed fi’om the proceeds of a bond sale, subject to the formation of a new parking assessment district. If an assessment district is not formed, the expenditure of General Fund monies will not be reimbursed c.Award of a consultant contract for project management services during the design and construction phases. d.Award of a Phase II design contract for preparation of detailed engineering design and construction drawings, a detailed engineer’s estimate, general requirements and teelmieal specifications, and other related bid documents. e.Acquisition of the services of a bond counsel firm and a financial advisory firm. f.Formation of a new parking assessment district. g.Sale of bonds. h.Award of contract for construction of the parking structures. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Provision of additional parking in the downtown area is consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan Transportation Policy 10: Reduce employee or commuter parking in residential neighborhoods. It is also consistent with recommendations from the 1986 Downtown Study and the 1994 Chamber of Commerce/City of Pale Alto Downtown Multi-point parking program. The Downtown Urban Design Guide identifies parking as a crucial element to the ongoing success of a downtown commercial area and indicates that there is a general feeling that ClVIR: 183:97 Page 2 of 37 there is not enough parking. The Downtown Urban Design Guide identifies two locations, Lots S/L and Lot R, as appropriate for new above and/or below ground parking structures. While the inclusion ofrestrooms appears to have broad general support, the provision of public restrooms in the downtown area is a new policy direction for the City and should be recognized as such. Most significantly, apart fi’om the initial capital expenditure, public restrooms will necessitate a high level of ongoing daily maintenance and monitoring that must be provided and, consequently, funded. In the past, under substantially different circumstances, when the issue ofrestrooms was raised in conjunction with Johnson Park, the Council decided not to support the provision ofrestrooms. More recently, the Council has approved a CIP project for improvements in the downtown area, which includes consideration of the provision of public restrooms. Proposition 218 has introduced new risks for the City with respect to initiating an assessment district. If parking assessment district property owners do not vote to approve an assessment, the City would have to absorb all costs incurred up to that decision point in time, including costs for the feasibility study, design, project management, and financial and legal services. Staff has estimated that expenditures for these items will be $2,000,000, in addition to the $75,000 ($80,000 budgeted) that has already been spent for the feasibility study. As only $80,000 has been budgeted to date, most of these funds are yet to be committed. The risk is higher because the decision on whether or not to form an assessment district could involve property owners, tenants, and residents at-large, rather than only the Council. The higher level of risk is a significant, changed condition regarding Council’s historic policy of committing City funds in anticipation of the formation of an assessment district. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based upon policies established as part of the Downtown Study (1986) and a comprehensive plan for downtown parking approved in 1994, Council .established a Capital Improvement Program (No.. 19530) to study the feasibility of building a new parking structure(s) on one or more existing surface parking lots in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District. A consultant was hired, a Project Study Committee provided guidance, and the study has now been completed. The scope of the. study addressed parking need, site analysis, schematic design options, financial analysis, and environmental assessment. Based upon the information developed during the feasibility study, including review comments by the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board, plus a public workshop early in the process and a public meeting toward the conclusion of the study, the primary conclusions and reeomrnendations are as follows: CMR:183:ff’/Page 3 of 37 There is a need for additional parking in the downtown area and there is support for the City to proceed with the provision of additional parking. While the amount of parking needed may vary according to one’s perspective of the problem, an amount in the order of 500 to 800 additional spaces, seems to be an appropriate next increment. The most suitable locations for one or more parking structm’es (based upon need, site characteristics, cost, and functional efficiency) are Lot R on the western edge of the downtown and Lots S/L in the central portion of the downtown. Lot O is not a realistic option, nor is a combination of Lots R and P. All other surface lots are also unsuitable for a stand alone parking structure. This does not preclude the possibility that at some time in the future one or more of these lots may have some potential, in conjunction with the redevelopment of adjacent private property. The recommendation is to build two parking structures, one on Lot R and one on Lots SiL. The parking structure on Lot R would be one surface level, three elevated levels and no below-grade level, for a total of four levels. This would provide a total of 210 spaces, or 139 additional spaces beyond the 71 spaces that presently exist. The parking structure on Lots S/L would be one surface level, four elevated levels, and two below-grade levels, for a total of seven levels. This would provide a total of 699 spaces, or 590 additional spaces beyond the 109 spaces that presently exist. The total net gain would be 729 spaces. The estimated 1996 cost (design, construction, financing and other related costs) to build these two new parking structures is as follows: 1996 COSTS BASED UPON FEASIBILITY STUDY Total Cost Cost/stall Cost/added stall $4.7mil~on $14.4million $19.1million $ 22,600 $ 20,700 $ 21,100 $34,100 $ 24,500 $ 26,300 The above costs are in 1996 dollars. Depending upon when actual construeti0n is started on each of the two proposed parking structures, the actual costs are expected to increase, due to inflation. For reference, the figures below reflect the effect of four years of cost increase (to the year 2000) at a 3 percent annual rate of inerease.~ See Attachment 1 for the effect of this increase for the intervening years. YEAR 2000 COSTS BASED UPON 1996 COSTS + 3% PER YEAR INCREASES Lot R Lots S/L Total Cost $5.3 million $16.3 million $21.6 million Cost/stall $ 25,400 $ 23,300 $ 23,700 Cost/added stall $ 38,400 $ 27,600 $ 29,600 CMR:183:97 Page 4 of 37 The economic analysis indicates that the bonding capacity of the District appears to be substantially more than adequate to support the construction of both parking structures. The proposed parking structures would result in the following additional annual assessments (estimated) to downtown properties over a period of 20 years, based on 1996 costs: ASSESSMENTS BASED UPON 1996 COSTS Lot R $ 0.21 Lots S/L $ 0.59 Both R & S/L $ 0.80 Current Rate $ 0.34 per assessed square foot per year per assessed square foot per year per assessed square foot per year per assessed square foot per year Again, for reference, the same information based upon estimated costs for the year 2000, including 3 percent annual cost increases, is provided below.See Attachment 1 for the effect of this increase for the intervening years. ASSESSMENTS BASED UPON 2000 COSTS Lot R $ 0.23 per assessed square foot per year Lots S/L $ 0.67 per assessed square foot per year Both R & S/L $ 0.90 per assessed square foot per year Current rate N/A The recent passage of Proposition 218 changes some of the procedures for establishing new special benefit assessments. While the extent of such change is not fully evident, it will likely increase the cost of debt financing and also require that the City pay an assessment for City Hall. It does not appear to preclude the use and appropriateness of a new parking assessment district to fund parking structures for the downtown area. For the structure on Lots S/L, the inclusion of a limited retail element at the comer of Bryant and Lytton would significantly enhance the urban design characteristics of the struetureand the immediate surroundings. Due to the size and shape of Lot L, a small retail element can be achieved withoutthe loss ofany parking spaces, and, as such, seems to have the support of most interested parties. However, City staff would prefer not to have the ~esponsibility for owning and managing such a retail space. The retail portion turns out to be relatively expensive on a cost per square foot basis. Furthermore, the retail portion of the parking structure will need a separate financing mechanism, since the parking assessment district mechanism eaunot be used for the retail portion. CMR:183:97 Page 5 of 37 The recommendation includes incorporation of public rest’rooms into each of the proposed .structures. A more complete stumnm3’ of the study process, findings, and conclusions is provided in the main body of this staffreport, as well as the Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study - Final Report, a copy of which is included with this staff report. In addition, an Interim Report (June 12, 1996) that provides more detail regarding the site evaluations and the schematic design options, is available for review in the office of the Transportation Division, Civic Center, 250 H~lton Avenue, sixth floor. In summary, there is a recognized need for more public parking, the most appropriate sites are Lot R and Lots S/L, there is support for parking structures on these two sites, the costs, albeit high, are supportable by downtown owners/businesses, and there is a strong imperative to proceed with a commitment to both structures simultaneously and in the most expeditious manner practical (planning, design, and financing); recognizing that the actual construction would very likely occur sequentially. At this time, it is premature to specify which structure might be built first. That decision can best be made toward the end of the design stage, when it needs to be made and when more information is readily available~ Primary_ Issues for Council Consideration Based upon the information developed during the feasibility study, including public meetings, study committee input and oversight, and preliminary reviews by the Planning Commission and the.Architectural Review Board,. staff has identified the following issues as being most pertinent to Council consideration and action, at this time. Issue 1: Number of Structures The study recommendation is to proceed with two parking structures, which together would provide 729 additional parking spaces (909 total parking spaces) in the downtown area. This conclusion is based upon the following considerations: The need for additional parking clearly exceeds the increment associated with any one structure. The addition of 729 new parking spaces, which would be provided by the two structures, seems to be an appropriate next increment.. The need for additional parking is geographically dispersed and the two proposed new parking structures would serve distinct, non-overlapping areas and needs. The additional required investment of time, energy, and money associated with the study, planning, design, construction, and financing of a second structure, at some future time, would be substantial and is unnecessary. CMR:183:97 Page 6 of 37 The bonding capacity of the parking assessment district is more than adequate to support two structures, and the annual assessments to property owners appear manageable. The level of support fi’om interested parties in the downtown area appears to be higher for proceeding with both structures, than for either single structure. An altemative would be to proceed with only one parking structure at the present time, reassess the parking needs at the time that the initial parking structure is completed and ~ fully operational, and then decide whether to proceed with the design, financing, and construction of a second parking structm’e. In this event, a choice would need to be made now regarding which of the proposed new structures would be first. The structure proposed for Lot R would provide 139 additional, parking spaces (210 total parking spaces) while the structure proposed for Lots S/L would provide 590 additional parking spaces (699 total parking spaces). Given the level of need for parking, the increment of 590 spaces associated with the Lots S/L site would favor its selection over the Lot R increment of 139 spaces (210 total parking spaces). Does the .Council agree that the City shouM proceed with two parking structures in the downtown, simultaneously,, recognizing that actual construction may occur sequentially? Issue 2: Location of Structures An important part of the parking study was a comprehensive review of all downtown City parking lots, to assess the feasibility of using any single site as well as a combination of sites, to construct a parking structure. As illustrated in Attachment 2, ten of the existing surface parking lots (Lots A, C, E, F, G, K, L, N, P, and T) ended up with a rating of POOR; another two (Lots D and H) were rated FAIR; and three received a rating of GOOD. The study process reached the conclusion that Lot R and Lots S/L are both suitable for parking structures, and, furthermore, along with Lot S by itself, ~are the only sites that are suitable for parldng structures given the level of technical understanding developed during the feasibility study and reasonable cost considerations: Attachment 3 provides, a good visual picture of the areas of influence for each of the two proposed new parking structures, as well as their relationship with similar information for the four existing parking structures (Q Garage, Ramona Plaza, Civic Center, and Webster-Cowper). While it is physically possible to build a parking structure on any surface parking lot, the realities associated with access, surrounding land. uses, and aesthetics introduce constraints that limit suitability. Design factors, including functional design and CMR:183:97 Page 7 of 37 circulation requirements, seriously limit the number of parking spaces and rapidly escalate the cost per net new space to a point where building a structure no longer makes reasonable sense. Does the Council agree that further steps related to the design of parking structures shouM be limited to Lot R and Lots S/L? Issue 3: Appearance of Structures What the proposed parking structures will look like is of concern and interest to everyone and, in no small way, influences a person’s perception regarding the suitability of the proposed new parking structures. While the feasibility study looked at a comprehensive range of issues that evaluated the feasibility as well as identified some of the design features that the projects may incorporate (e.g., height, massing, retail, open areas, art, amenities, etc.), it clearly was not intended to establish the design appearance of the structures. For purposes of visualization, the consultant did prepare preliminary sketches of what such projects could look like. However, the actual design and appearance will flow out of the next step in the process which is to proceed with a design contract. That design will build upon the ideas that have come forth during the feasibility study, and undergo the same rigorous review and scrutiny.that any project’in downtown Pale Alto would experience. At this stage, it is only necessary to establish the overall general size, massing, amenities (art, multiple elevators, restrooms, security, natural lighting, etc.) and other features that should be carried forward into subsequent design work. Does Council support the overall general size, massing, amenities and other features associated with the two proposed structures and/or what other features should be carried forward into subsequent design work? Issue 4: Implementation/Timing The proposed structure on Lot R is a major project. The proposed structure on Lots S/L is significantly larger given its greater size, as well as the inclusion of below ground construction. Both projects represent a very significant undertaking that will have negative impacts during construction that must be minimized, and will require management staff resources that exceed current availability in terms of time and expertise. An opthnistie schedule for proceeding, such as the one given in the Feasibility Study (Page 76), would have both structures completed midway through the year 2000. A more realistic schedule is probably 1 to 3 years beyond that point, depending upon what level of management resources the City decides to dedicate to these projects. CMR:183:97 Page 8 of 37 Staff believes that it is wise to complete these projects as soon as practical in order to: (i) reduce adverse impacts that will occur during the construction period, (ii) combat escalating prices and (iil") provide needed additional parking as soon as possible. In order to complete these projects in a timely and efficient manner, it will be necessary for the Public Works Department to retain the services of a project management firm to provide both the expertise and day-to-day staffmg needs for the projects. Such outside management services are an absolute necessity, if these projects are going to proceed into the design and construction stages. These project management services will reduce, but not eliminate, the need for City staff involvement and review during all phases of the project, and as a result, other scheduled projects may need to be delayed or rescheduled. Does Council support a strategy to complete the construction of the proposed parking structures as soon as practical, including a firm commitment to support and fund the use of a project management firm to provide both expertise and dayTto-day staffing needs for the projects? Issue 5: Funding In. the past, public parking structures, as well as surface parking lots, in the downtown area have been funded through the formation of’Parking Assessment Districts. The City Council sells the bonds needed to fund all aspects of the planning, design, construction, financing, and management of the projects, and forms a Parking Assessment District to levy the necessary assessment on properties within the District, to pay off the bonds over an extended period of time, typically 20 years. Total annual assessment is. equ~ to the current annual payment required of the City. The mount of the annual assessment to each individual property is in direct proportion to the parking deficiency attributable to each individual property (e.g. a property that providesall of its required parking pays no assessment). Staff does not see any reason or benefit from deviating from this precedent. Of more immediateimportance is the need to fund (1) essentially all of the design work; (2) the project management services during the design phase, and (3) the financing and bond counsel services, prior to andin preparation of the formation of an assessment district. These consultant services are a necessary precursor to a .final decision regarding the formation of an assessment district. Therefore, funds to accomplish these tasks must originally, be advanced from non-assessment district sources. This would require that the City make a commitment to allocate approximately $2,000,000 from the General Fund, for an interim period of time. Ira new assessment district is successfully formed, proceeds from the bond sale can be used to reimburse such monies advanced from other sources. If an assessment district is not eventually, formed, there is no other.realistic source of funding, to reimburse such costs to the City. CMR:183:97 Page 9 of 37 Is the Councilprepared to commit approximately $2,000,000, in order to proceed with the work that is necessary to reach a point where an assessment district can be formed, and does the Council agree in principle to the concept of using the sale of bonds and the formation of a new Parking Assessment District in the downtown, as a means to finance these proposed parking structures? Issue 6: In-Lieu Parking Fees In 1994, Council adopted an in-lieu parking fee for the downtown area: The fee, which is currently set at $17,848 (FY 96-97), is adjusted ~annual!y to reflect changes in the Construction Cost Index. To date, a total of approximately $760,000 has accumulated in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District In-Lieu Parking Fund due to payments, for 42 in-lieu parking spaces and accrued interest. This sum represents payment for parldng spaces that certain developments (eligible for in-!ieu payment) were required, but unable to provide. The intended purpose of the monies collected through the in-lieu fee is to use them to pay for a portion of the cost of the proposed parking structures. Any balance in the account will be used to adjust downward the amount of the bond sale that iseventually established for these projects. If in-lieu fees continue to accumulate during the life of the bond repayment (20 years) they will be used to make what would be a small downward adjustment in the amount of the annual assessment to downtown properties, which is needed in order to meet the required annual bond payment. At the time the parking structures are fully completed and an accurate cost accounting is prepared, staff will review the appropriateness of making an adjustment to the in-lieu parking fee, and bring such information with recommendations to the Council for further consideration. Since the in-lieu parking fees are intended for payment toward the cost to construct additional parking spaces, an appropriate possible use ofthe current monies in the in-lieu account is to help fund a portion of the $2,000,000 needed for the consultant services.that are a neeess~ precursor to a final Council decision regarding the formation of an assessment district (see Issue5). However, if thismoney is used for this purpose and in an assessment district is not eventually formed and parking structures actually built, the in-lieu monies would need to be reimbursed to the In-Lieu Account, for future use in the provision of additional parking spaces in the downtown area. The funds that are currently available in the in-lieu parking fee account are not included in the cost information in the feasibility study or this staff report. The effect would be a marginal change in the estimated assessment rate of approximately a 4.5 percent reduction, based upon the current account balance of $750,000. CMR:183:97 Page I0 of 37 Does Council want to use the balance of funds in the In-Lieu Parking Fund account to help finance a portion of the monies needed for consultant services that are needed prior to the formation of an assessment district, recognizing that if an assessment district is not eventually forme~ such funds will need to be reimbursed to the In-Lieu Parking Fund? Issue 7: Maintenance, Operations and Enforcement Costs ~ Two additional parking structures within the downtown area will result in increased costs for maintenance and operation of the two structures, as well as increased costs for parking enforcement. Such costs include sweeping and cleaning, repair and replacement, electricity, enforcement, etc. Current City policy, with respect to downtown parking, is to include operating and maintenance costs as part of the City’s operating budget with funds coming from the sale of parking perml"ts rather than the establishment of a maintenance assessment district for operating and maintaining parking facilities. While it appears that an increase in maintenance and operating costs can be addressed by increasing the number of parking permits that are sold, as well as increasing the price of the parking permits, which appear to encompass sufficient elasticity to support an increase, it is equally important that the City be committed to securing the necessary staff and/or contract services to provide for the additional work. The Police Department estimates that it will need one .additional full time Parking Enforcement Officer (at $52,000 .per year) when the. two proposed garages are operational. The Public Works Department estimates that it will take an additional $100,000 to $200,000 per year to properly maintain the two proposed structures, including restrooms, on a day-to-day basis, plus management/staffing costs associated with overseeing the maintenance contract work, utility costs, and infrastructure repair/replacement costs. ls the Council prepared to make the necessary commitments to see that proper, appropriate funding mechanisms are established and approved ¯ to support the required levels of maintenance, operations and enforcement associated with the additional parking structures? Issue 8: Teen Center/425 Bryant Building A very important consideration, with respect to the proposed parking s~eture on Lots S/L, is the status of the small parcel of land and building (formerly the home of the Palo Alto Board of Realtors) at 425 Bryant, between Lot S and Lot L. The City’.s Gas Fund purchased this property in 1985 from Gas Fund reserves, with the expectation that the property would eventually be used as part of a parking solution at the Lots S/L site. CMR:183:97 Page 11 of 37 Currently, the building is being used as a City founded and sponsored teen center. The proposed parking structure for Lots S/L presumes that this small building will be demolished and that the parcel of land will be combined with Lot S and Lot L, upon which the proposed Lot S/L parking structure would be built. While the feasibility study did not evaluate alternative locations for a teen center, it was clearly recognized throughout the study that an alternative suitable location for the teen center would need to be established, before the proposed Lot S/L parking structure could be built. If Council directs staff to proceed further with the development of a parking. structure on Lots S/L, Council should also direct staff to take the necessary steps to identify an altemative suitable location for the Teen Center. While there will likely be a cost associated with securing and occupying an alternative suitable location for theTeen Center, the cost is unknown at this time. The source of funding for such costs is likely to be the General Fund, since it would not be an appropriate charge to include in the parking assessment district funding. An additional significant issue related to this property is the ownership, and value of the property itself. The property was. purchased with Gas Fund reserves and is owned by the Gas Utility. If it is to be used for the purpose of parking, the parking assessment district should pay the eun’ent market value and transfer ownership to the City, as per all existing downtown parking lots and structures. The property was appraised in 1993 and was valued at $450,000. Staff believes that this is an appropriate amount tO in include in the parking assessment district for payment to the Gas Fund, in return for transfer of ownership to the City for parking purposes. Consideration of this cost is not included in the cost information in the feasibility study or this staff report. The effect would be a marginal change in the estimated assessment rate of approximately a 2.7 percent increase, based upon a value of $450,000. Is the Council prepared to initiate a process to identify an alternative suitable location for the Teen Center, and does the Council agree in principle to the concept of having the parking assessment district reimburse the Gas Fund an amount of $450,000 for a transfer of ownership of building and property at 425 Bryant? Issue 9: Public Restrooms Incorporating public restroom facilities as part of each structure would help address the recognized need for Such facilities within the downtown area. The conceptual sketches developed as part of the feasibility study included the provision of public restrooms, and the study committee, public meeting comments and staff recommend that they be incorporated into these facilities. The cost to build the restrooms can be included as part CMR: 183:97 Pago 12 of 37 of the parking assessment district funding, and has been included in the cost information included in the feasibility study and this staff report. The conceptual plan, at this early stage, is to have two units in the proposed structure on Lot R and two units in the proposed structure on Lots S/L, with each unit being self- contained, self-cleaning, unisex, and with a full complement of facilities. While the inclusion of restrooms appears to have broad general support, the provision of public restrooms in the downtown area is a new policy direction for the City and should be recognized’as such. Most significantly, they will necessitate a high level of ongoing daily maintenance and monitoring, which must be provided, and, consequently, funded. The ongoing cost of maintenance and monitoring is unknown at this time. Is the Council prepared to support the idea of including public restroom facilities in each of the new parking structures? Issue 10: Retail Element The clear and single focus of these proposed projects has been to provide additional parking and not to create retail space, or any other non-parking related uses. However, through the feasibility study process, it has become evident that for the proposed structure on Lots S/L, the inclusion of a small retail element at the corner of Bryant and Lytton would significantly enhance the urban design characteristics of the structure and the immediate surroundings, and should be made a part of the project. Furthermore, due to the particular size and shape of Lot L, this small retail element (about 2400 square feet) could be incorporated without the loss or displacement of any parking spaces. A small mini-park .is an alternative use that was considered for this relatively small residual space, as a means to soften the corner and complement Cogswell Park across Bryant. A mini-park would entail some construction costs, as well as ongoing maintenance costs. Another potential use for further e0nsideration, is the possibility of including space for the Teen Center. The inclusion of the small retail element is recommended by the study committee,~ and seems to have the support of most interested parties. City staff, however, would prefer not. to have the responsibility for owning and managing such retail space, and is concerned that the inclusion of such retail space may be perceived and/or represented by some as City intrusion into the downtown retail property sector. Whether this space is used for retail, a mini-park, the Teen Center, or other public uses, it is dear that the funding for that particular portion of the total structure would not be eligible for inclusion in the parking assessment district financing, and, therefore, would CMR:183:97 Pago 13 of 37 require an alternative source such as the General Fund. The incremental cost of the-retail component is approximately $740,000, including all hard and soft costs related to design and construction, but excluding financing related costs. Included as Attachment 4, is a letter from the Watry Design Group explaining the retail-related cost components included in the cost estimates. The cost information included in the feasibility study and this staff report include funding for the retail component as part of the total assessment district funding. A cost comparison for the proposed par ~kjng structure on Lots S/L, with and without the retail component, is shown on Page 44 of the Feasibility Study Final Report.’ The deletion of the retail component from the parking assessment funding would result in a marginal change in the estimated assessment rate of approximately a 4.5 percent reduction, based upon a cost of $740,000. Given the relatively high estimated cost of $740,000 to provide a relatively small retail building component of 2,400 square feet ($300/square foot), the appropriateness of expending public funds for this component is questionable. An altemative approach.could be to not include a retail/other use building component, and simply proceed with an open landscaped area, or amini-park (mini-park is estimated to cost about $80,000 more than the simple landscaped option) and leave the door open to the future possibility of a private development proposal to utilize this space for retail use, if and’when the market would support such a decision. Another possibility would be to include space for the Teen Center in-lieu of, or in addition to, retail space. Staff believes that the issue of whether to include a retail component and/or space for the Teen Center or a mini-park, can best be studied and resolved as part of the further design development work and review process. It may be possible to come up with design solutions that meet multiple objectives. Does the Council support the possible inclusion of a retail component, possible inclusion of space for the Teen Center, or some other use building, as part of the proposed parking structure on Lots S/L? Issue 11: Public Art During the feasibility study process, representatives of the Public Art Commission raised the issue of inclusion of art within the design of the two proposed parking structures. The architect involved in the feasibility study expressed the view and vision that art could be part of the design of the structures, and, therefore, need not be high cost. The Study Committee voiced concerns regarding having the parking assessment district pay for public art, but also agreed that .the inclusion of public art is appropriate, if limited to simple art at minimal cost. CMR:183:97 Page 14 of 37 SUMMARY COSTS - TABLE 1. 1996 COSTS BASED UPON FEASIBILITY STUDY ~Lots S/L Total Cost $4.7 million $14.4 million Cost/stall $22,600 $20,700 Cost/added stall $34,100 $ 24,500 Assessment*$0.21 $0.59 $19.1 million $21,100 $26,300 $ 0.80 *per assessed square foot per year YEAR 2OOO COSTS BASED UPON 1996 COSTS + 3% PER YEAR INCREASES Total Cost $5.3 million $16.3 million Cost/stall $25,400 $23,300 Cost/added stall $38,400 $ 27,600 Assessment*$0.23 $0.67 $21.6 million $ 23,700 $ 29,600 $. 0.90 *per assessed square foot per year Effect of various potential changes on estimated costs shown above: a.Change due to use of available monies in In-Lieu Parking Fund equals a 4.5% reduction in costs and corresponding $0.04 reduction in the annual assessment rate. Change due to reimbursement to Gas Fund for 425 Bryant property equals a 2.7% increase in costs and a corresponding $0.02 increase in the.annual assessment rate. Change due to deletion of retail component from Lot S/L financing equals a 4.5 % reduction in costs and a corresponding $0.04 reduction in the annual assessment rate. Does the Council support the inclusion of public art as a component of the design of the proposed two parking structures? Issue 12: Assessments for Civic Center One of the changes associated with Proposition 218 is that public buildings are to be included in the assessment role. The City has two public buildings within the parking assessment district, the Senior Center, which has regularly paid an annual assessment in the same manner as private properties and the Civic Center, which has been handled in a different manner. Historically, when the Civic Center was built, the City directly paid for what is currently 139 spaces for its use. The rest of the spaces (currently 569) were funded through assessment district fmancing. City employees and other City related uses utilize about 279 spaces, or 140 more spacesthan the original 139 that were paid for by the City. This number is based upon an annual survey of garage usage and varies slightly from year to year, based on City employee parking needs, occasional restriping, and past projects such as the seismic retrofit project and the provision of designated handicapped parking stalls, both of which resulted in the loss of spaces. Rather than pay into the assessment district, the City has historically paid for the use of these excess spaces by offsetting maintenance costs for parking facilities that would otherwise have been paid through some type of maintenance assessment district. The provisions of Proposition 218 appear to require that the Civic Center be treated exactly like other properties in the downtown. Based upon that criteria, the 71,000 square feet in the Civic Center (including the Police Department portion) would require 284 spaces (4 spaces per 1,000 square feet). Since the City has provide 164 spaces itself, the deficit for the Civic Center would be 120 spaces. The 120 space deficit (or the associated ¯ 30,0050 square feet) would be the basis upon which the Civic Center building wouldbe assesseda proportional share of the annual debt service, or approximately 1.4 percent of the 2.1 million square feet of assessed square footage in the downtown area. This would translate into approximately $25,000 per year as the City’s share of the total annual assessment of $1,776,000 (1996 dollars) for both structures. Summary: This is an informational issue, not requiring policy direction at this time. Issue 13: Neighborhood Residential Parking ¯ One of the purposes of the proposed parking structures is to create additional parking spaces that can be used by downtown employees who are presently on the wait-list to purchase a parking permit and/or are parking in residential neighborhoods to the north and south of the downtown area. While the impact of the relocation of the Palo Alto Medical CMR:183:97 Page 16 of 37 Foundation, as well as the outstanding Council assignment to assess the feasibility of establishing a residential parking permit program in adjacent residential areas, has yet to be determined, it is certain to create potential significant change which, in conjunction withinereased availability of employee permit parking, could be a unique opportunity to seriously address and significantly resolve the issue of employee parking intrusion into residential areas adjacentto the downtown. Summary: This is an informational issue, not requiringpolicy direction at this time. FISCAL IMPACT Funding in the amount of $80,000 was approved in the 1994-95 Capital Improvement Program (CIP No. 19530) for the purpose of conducting the feasibility study. Approximately $75,000 of that amount has been expended. The portion of Phase II [Parts A and B] work that requires funding, prior to the availability of funds from the formation of a new parking assessment district and the sale of bonds, is the consultant services for: (a) all of the design work (architectural design, construction plans, cost estimate, specifications, and related bid documents); as well as (b) project management services during the design phase, and (e) some of the financing work (bond counsel and financial advisory firm). These consultant design services are a ¯ necessary precursor to a final decision regarding the formation of an assessment distriet~ Therefore, funds to accomplish these tasks must originally be advanced from non- assessment district sources. This would require that the City make a commitment to allocate approximately $2,000,000 from the General Fund for an interim period of time. If a new assessment district is successfully formed, proceeds from the bond sale can be used to reimburse such monies advanced from other sources. If an assessment dislrict is not eventually formed, there is no other realistic source of funding to reimburse such costs. to the City. In the past, when the City has intended to use the proceeds from an anticipated future bond sale for reimbursement of some current expense (prior to the bond issue), it has been the City’s practice to ask the Council to pass a resolution of Intent to Issue Bonds, prior to the expenditure of any such funds. If directed to proceed with the proposed parking structures, statfwill prepare the necessary resolution for Council adoption prior to award of the Consultant contract. The City also has the option of using the balance in the In-Lieu Parking Fund account (currently $760,000) to help finance a portion of the monies needed for the consultant services that are needed prior to the formation of an assessment district. However, if an CMR:183:97 Page 17 of 37 assessment district is not eventually formed, for whatever reason, such funds will need to be reimbursed to the In-Lieu Parking Fund. Other related future cost items include increased maintenance and operations ($100,000 to $200,000 per year), increased enforcement (insert $52,000 for one Parking Enforcement Officer), and Teen Center relocation (cost to be determined). Construction of the two proposed parking structures will result in the loss ofrevenue from the paid attendent operation currently in Lot S, which will actually result in the City saving some money, since the current operation is not self-supporting, and, therefore, continues to be subsidized. There may be some potential reduction in parking citations during the period of construction, as well. Proposition ~218 has introduced new risks for the City with respect to initiating an assessment district. If parking assessment district property owners do not vote to approve an asses.sment, the City would have to absorb all costs incurred up to the time of that decision, including costs for the feasibility study, design, project management, financial and legal services. Staff has estimated that expenditures for these items will be $2,000,000 in addition to the $75,000 ($80,000 budgeted) that has already been spent for the feasibility study. As only $80,000 has been budgeted to date, most of these funds are yet to be committed. The risk is higher because the decision on whether or not to form an assessment district could involve property owners, tenants and residents at-large, rather than only the Council. The higher level of risk is a significant, changed condition regarding Council’s historic policy of committing City funds in anticipation of the formation of an assessment district. The implications of Proposition 218 are discussed in more detail in the Fiscal Impact section of the main body of this staff report. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT An environmental assessment will.be prepared prior to the review and approval of a parking structures project. CMR:183:97 Pago 18 of 37 Prepared By: Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer Marvin L. Overway, Chief Transportation Official Department Head Review: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment City Manager Approval: GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public/W~rks Manager ~// CMR: 183:97 Page 19 of 37 City of Palo Alto C ty M. anage.r’s Summary Report Pale Alto RECOMMENDATIONS ’ Staff recommends that Council: Approve, in principle, and direct staff to proceed with .the necessary steps leading to: (a) the construction of a multi-level parking structure (four elevated decks, one at-grade level, and two below grade levels on the Lots S/L site; (b) the construction era multi-level parking structure (three .elevated decks and one at-grade level) on the Lot R site in the Downtown Business District; and (c) the formation of a parking assessment district to fired such a project; o Authorize negotiation of a Phase II design contract with the consultant team utilized in Phase I and, if unable to successfully negotiate a satisfactory Phase II design contract, pursue a general solicitation of other consultants, consistent with the City’s established consultant selection procedures; Direct staff to proceed with the necessary and appropriate steps to secure the following additional services: design/construction management, bond counsel, and financial advisor; and 4.Direct staff to proceed with the necessary and appropriate steps to identify an alternative suitable location for the Teen Center. Future additional steps requiring Cotmcil approval include. ao be A resolution expressing the Couneil:s intent to use the proceeds t~om an anticipated future bond sale for reimbursement of Phase I costs, as well as Phase II design, management and financing consultant services, related to the development and funding of the parking structures and incurred prior to the bond sale. A budget amendment ordinance to provide funding for: (i)the design work (architectural design, construction plans, cost estimate, specifications, and related CMR:183:97 . Page 20 of 37 Co bid documents); as well as (ii) the design/construction management work; and (iii) the financing work (bond counsel and financial advisory finn) with the source of funds being from the General Fund, with the understanding that the General Fund is to be reimbursed from the proceeds ofabond sale subject to the formation of a new parking assessment district. Award of a consultant contract for project management services during the design and construction phases, Award of a Phase 1I design contract for preparation of detailed engineering design and construction drawings, a detailed engineer’s estimate, general requirements and technical specifications, and other related bid documents. Acquisition of the services of a bond counsel finn and financial advisory firm as well as a design/construction management firm. f.Formation of a new parking assessment district, Sale of bonds. Award of contract for construction of the parking structures: In July 1986, the City Council approved the Downtown Study, which included numerous measures affecting parking in the downtown area. One such measure was to undertake a study to evaluate the feasibility of constructing an additional parking structure in the downtown area. In March 1994, the City Council approved a comprehensive parking plan for downtown Palo Alto. One of the elements of the parking plan was consideration of one or more new parking structures withitl the University Avenue Parking Assessment District (Downtown Assessment District). The City Council subsequently approved a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project for FY 94-95 (No. 19530) entitled "Downtown Parldng Structure Feasibility Study". The purpose of the Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study is to investigate the overall feasibility of developing a newparking structure on one or more sites located in the Downtown Assessment District. A Project Study Committee (PSt2) was formed to help evaluate and select a consultant to conduct the study, as well as to-review and CMR:183:97 Page 21 of 37 comment on the consultant’s work and provide guidance to staff throughout the study process. The PSC is comgrised of the following members: Chop Keenan Roxy Rapp John Baer Georgie Gleim Rick Tipton Julie Maser James McFall Victor Ojakian Jim Harrington Jim Gilliland Ashok Aggarwal Marvin Overway Keenan Land Company Roxy Rapp Company Premiere Property Management Gleim Jewelers American Hotels City Appointee-ARB (initial) City Appointee- ARB (current) City Appointee - Planning Commission City Staff- Public Works Department City Staff- Planning Department .... City Staff- Transportation Division City Staff- Transportation Division Following an extensive consultant selection process, including written proposals and oral interviews, the Warty Design Group (Watry) was selected to conduct the feasibility study. In December 1995, a contract with Watry was approved to conduct the Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study. That study has now been completed. While the current contract with Watry is for only the Phase I work. (Feasibility Study), provision has been made so that if Council makes an affirmative decision to proceed with the Phase II work (final design and construction), Watry may be invited to negotiate for the Phase H work. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Provision of additional parking in the downtown area is consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan Transportation Policy 10: Reduce employee or commuter parking in residential neighborhoods. It is also consistent with recommendations l~om the 1986 Downtown Study and the 1994 Chamber of Commerce/City of Palo Alto Downtown Multi-point parking program. The Downtown Urban Design Guide identifies parldng as a crucial element to the ongoing success of a downtown commercial area, and indicates that there is a general feeling that there is not enough parking. The Downtown Urban Design Guide identifies two locations, Lots S/L and Lot R, as appropriate for new above and/or below ground parldng structures. CMR:183:97 Page 22 of 37 DISCUSSION rP_gg.Lect Descrintion The project was to study the feasibility of building new parking structure(s)-on one or more existing surface parking lots within the downtown area. Such structures could be multi-level above and below ground structures (similar to the existing Webster-Cowper Parking Garage), a single deck over an at-grade level (similar to the two existing structures on Cambridge Avenue in the California Avenue Business District), or something in between ...... The scope of work for the current Feasibility Study included: (1) an evaluation of site characteristics, (2) an analysis of parking demand and supply, (3) development of schematic designs, preliminary architectural sketches, and cost information, (4) a financial and economic analysis, (5) an environmental assessment, (6) public meetings, and (7) conclusions and recommendations. ~urrent Parking in ,Downtown At the present time, the Downtown Assessment District has 2,257 public off-street parking spaces located in 19 parking facilities (15 surface parking lots and 4 garages). Attachment 5 illustrates the location of each facility. The public off-street parking supply is used for (a) free, short-term (2 and-3 hour) parking for customers and others and (b) all day permit parking for employees.. Lot S on Bryant Street across from the Senior Center was changed to an attendant pay parking lot in December 1995, for a trial period of one year. The purpose is to accommodate more ears through tandem parking, as well as to provide parking for more than 3 hours on a daily basis. Subsequently, the first hour of parking in this lot was made free to enhance the parking lot usage and Council has approved additional time for this trial arrangement, .... Employee permits are sold ($200 per year; $65 per quarter) by the City and are valid for all day parking in certain designated lots. Permits are sold on a first-come first-served basis and, generally, there is a waiting list for most locations. Currently, there are 1,313 permits (755 annual; 558 quarterly) sold for the district and there is a waiting list of 1,317. While the cost of the permits has not changed since 1984, staffhas been working with the Chamber of Commerce Parking Committee to review parking related revenues and expenditures for the downtown area and expects to make a specific proposal to increase parking permit fees in the Municipal Fee Schedule, as part of the review and approval of CMR:183:97 Page 23 of 37 the 1997/98 Budget; and, thereafter, to review and adjust such fees as appropriate, in conjunction with the City’s two year budget cycle. All of the on-street parking spaces are available for free, short-term (2 hour) parking for anyone. Need For Additional Parking The Downtown Study adopted by the Council in July 1986 established a parking deficit of 1600 spaces in the downtown area. The 1996 Commercial Downtown Monitoring Report, which includes a report on the change in the number of parking spaces since 1986 due to construction projects, indicates that the parking deficit number is now 1,535 spaces (Attachment 6). Periodic surveys of parking intrusion into adjoining neighborhoods north and south of University Avenue indicate that approximately 1300 non-resident vehicles are parking in these areas. Not all of these non-resident vehicles are related to activities in the downtown core area (e.g., some vehicles relate to people who work outside of the downtown such as PAMF, SOFA, etc.). The Downtown Marketing Committee and the Parking Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, as well as property owners, have voiced serious concerns regarding the parking deficit and strong support for providing additional parking. As part of the current feasibility study, the consultant prepared an evaluation of the need for additional parking. The evaluation included: (a) a survey of existing parking lot utilization (occupancy) and, (b) an analysis of parking demand based upon building size and location. The survey confirmed the common perception that the peak demand occurs weekdays around the noon-time lunch period when, essentially, all parking spaces are fully utilized. Evenings and weekends are becoming increasingly busier, although parking spaces are still available, albeit not necessarily in convenient, well identified places, While the survey found that Lot S was under-utilized, this is attributable to instituting a paid parking lot on a trial basis. Prior to that change, Lot S was one of the most heavily utilized parking lots, due to its convenient central location. Using the blended parking rate requirement (4 spaces per 1 ~000 square feet) included in the City’s zoning ordinance, the consultant calculated the parking requirement for each building in the downtown area,. The resultant total parking requirement, minus the private parking that some properties provide and minus the City’s public spaces in lots and garages, produced a theoretical residual parking deficit of approximately 6,000 spaces. CMR:183:97 Page 24 of 37 While this theoretical deficit substantially overstates the actual parking deficit, the data can be used as a helpful indicator for determining the location(s) of the parking deficit. Using the theoretical parking deficit as a relative index (rather than an absolute measure), the Purple Zone (Lots R, P & O plus Q Garage) has the highest deficit, followed by the Lime Zone (Lots S, L, F, K, D, E & G). Relatively smaller deficits exist in the Coral Zone (Lots A, C & N plus B Garage & Civic Center Garage) and the Blue Zone (Lots T and H plus Webster-Cowper Garage) .... ’~haracteristic~ There are presently 15 City-owned public parking lots parking garages in the Downtown Assessment District. Initially, each of the surface lots was evaluated with respect to the following characteristics: Accessibility and Street Capacity Surrounding Land Use Soil Conditions Functional Efficiency Aesthetic Compatibility Attachment 2 shows a summary rating (Good, Fair, Poor)-regarding the relative potential for developing aparking structure. While it is possible to build a parking structure on any of the surface parking lots, it is not practical to do so on most of the lots due to functional inefficiency resulting from the size and shape of the lot and/or adjacent property characteristics. From this initial evaluation, Lot S, Lot R, Lot O and the combination of Lots S/L were the only lots rated as GOOD. Lot D and Lot H were rated as FAIR, and the remaining lots (Lots A, C, E, F, G, K, L, N, P, & T) were rated as POOR. Based upon the existing site characteristics, location analysis of the relative parking deficit, and the cost per added stall, Lots R, S and S/L were finally selected for possible development of parking structures. (In looking at Lot R, there was also .an interest in considering the possibility of combining it with Lot P [Lots R/P].) Initially, the consultant developed 30 conceptual alternatives with associated general cost estimates. The alternatives varied from single elevated decks to multi-level structures, and the construction costs varied from a low of $13,900 to a high of $46,400 per additional CMR: 183:97 Page 25 of 37 stall. The table on pages 32 and 33 of the Feasibility Study - Final Report provides a good summary of the 30 conceptual alternatives that were considered in the early part of the study process. Lot O (Emerson/High): Due to its rating and parking demand, two design options were considered for Lot O. One is a single elevated deck with one level accessed from High Street and sloping up toward Emerson, and one level accessed from Emerson Street and sloping down (below grade) as it extends toward High Street. The second consists of one elevated deck set back from the property lines and accessed from High Street via a speed, ramp (a ramp that takes vehicles directly to a floor above, without going through the parking area). While Lot O is a heavily utilized lot and would be a very good location to provide additional parking, the size and features of the lot and the adjacent properties make any structure functionally inefficient. While the cost/stall to build a parking structure would fall in a reasonable range, the cost/added stall falls in an unacceptably high range, due to the fact that the net gain in spaces is very low. Therefore, Lot O Was .not considered a reasonable candidate, and was not further evaluated. Lot R (High/Alma South): Several design options were evaluated for Lot R, including (1) a single elevated deck with one level accessed from Alma Street and sloping up toward High, and one level accessed from Emerson Street and sloping down (below grade) as it extends toward High Street, (2) a single elevated deck accessed from .High Street via a speed ramp, and (3) a multi-level structure with two to four elevated decks and one at-grade level, with a speed ramp that continues upward to provide access to additional floors. A total of up to four elevated decks (pins one at-grade level) could be achieved within the existing 50 foot height limit. Lots R/P (High Street): Given the proximity of Lot P to Lot R, consideration was given to the possibility of combining Lots R and P to create a much larger, multi- level structure. This would involve either an underground tunnel or an overhead bridge..Prelims, ary analysis concluded that these options were not practical, due to the relatively high cost of providing either a tunnel or a bridge, coupled with the relatively low number of additional parking spaces that would be created. Therefore, the Lot R/P (combination) was not considered a reasonable candidate, and was not further evaluated. Lot S (Bryant/Florence): Several design options were evaluated for Lot S (without Lot L), including (1) a multi-level, structure with either two, three, or four elevated decks and one at-grade level (nothing below grade), (2) a multi-level structure with either two, three, or four elevated decks, one at-grade level, ~ one CIVlR: 183:97 Page 26 of 37 level below grade, (3) a multi-level structure with two elevated decks, one at-grade level and one level below grade, plus provision for two .additional elevated decks in the future, and (4) a multi-level structure with four elevated decks, one at-grade level, and two below grade. Lot S is the best site in terms of fimctional efficiency due to the size and shape. It is also in a convenient central location that will enhance accessibility and utilization, and the cost/added stall is relatively economical. Lot S/L (Bryant/Lytton): Taldng into consideration the proximity of Lot L to Lot S and the fact that the City owns the intervening property between the two parking lots, another viable option is a combination of the two parking lots coupled with the intervening lot. Several design options were evaluated for Lot S/L, including: (1) a multi-level structure with either two, three, or four elevated decks and one at- grade level (nothing below grade), (2) a multi-level structure with either two, three, or four elevated decks, one at-grade level, and one level below grade, (with and without retail and restrooms) and, (3) a multi-level structure with four elevated decks, one at-grade level, and either one or two below grade levels (with retail and restrooms 9.[ with a public park and restrooms). The size and shape of Lot L are such that there would be some residual land that could be available for some other use, because it could not be effectively used for parking. Therefore, the inclusion of ground floor retail and/or a park was considered on the Lot L frontage. This feature provides an opportunity to reduce the visual impact, as well as improve the pedestrian environment. ]~nvironmental Effects Probable environmental effects include: (1) increased street traffic in the immediate vicinity of the parking structure, (2) better accommodation Of parking demand, with reduced parking intrusion into adjacent residential neighborhoods, (3) displacement of existing parking during construction of the project, (4) pedestrian and bicycle circulation, (5) noise and air quality, and (6) visual impact in relation to the existing setting and adjoining sites. None of these effects were found to be significant.and staff does not anticipate that an Environmental Impact Report will be required. The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board were asked to make a preliminary review when sufficient information regarding the .parking deficit, site selection, design concept alternatives, and the possibility of incorporating ground level retail was developed. CMR:183:97 Page 27 of 37 Summary comments from the Planning Cornm~ssion and ARB include: ®Support for additional parking, The most suitable locations for parking structures are Lot R, Lot S, or Lots S/L combined, Support for retail, bathrooms, public art, Support for construction of two structures, Support for two below-grade levels on the S/L site, Concern about mass and that the structures be well designed in terms of details, landscaping, lighting, safety, signing, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and Concern about existing parking intrusion into the adjacent neighborhoods and interest in measures that would reduce its magnitude. The Project Study Committee (Committee) for this feasibility study has met on numerous occasions, to review and discuss the information presented by the consultant. While the Committee has. generally agreed on all aspects of the work that have been completed to date, there was a notable difference of opinion regarding whether Lot S by itself should receive further consideration, as well as whether further consideration should be given to the inclusion of ground floor retail. By the time the feasibility study was completed, the Committee fully supported proceeding with a multi-level structure on both Lots S/L (not Lot S alone), as well as the inclusion of a ground floor retail element for the proposed structure on Lots S/L, but limited only to the residual area of Lot L that eatmot be used effectively for parking. The Committee voiced eoneem regarding paying for public art within the parking structures, but also agree that the inclusion of public art is appropriate if limited to simple art and minimal cost. The preliminary cost estimates prepared by the consultant reflect the~ professional judgment and experience based upon their preliminary understanding of the project, and represent a cost for which a parking structure could be provided under average conditions based upon 1996 costs. The special renew and design considerations that typify Pale Alto projects, as well aS unknown site conditions, may result in higher rather than lower costs. A more precise cost estimate will be prepared as part of the next phase ofthe work (Phase II, Part A). The cost information presented in the feasibility report and referenced in this staff report is organized into several components including (a) hard costs, (b) sott costs, (e) total costs ¯ excluding financing costs, (d) financing costs, and (e) total costs including fmaneing costs. These same cost figures are alternately presented as: (i) cost per square foot, (ii) cost per CMR:183:97 Page 28 of 37 stall, and (iii) cost per added stall. There are no right-of-way costs included because each proposed project is planned for an existing City-owned parking lot. Any discussion of costs or cost comparisons with experience on other projects must be accompanied with a clear understanding of what components of cost are being discussed and compared. Otherwise one ends up comparing apples and oranges with a less than helpful outcome. For example, the cost estimate (in 1996 dollars) for the proposed structure on Lots S/L ranges ~om $13,900 per stall to $24,500, depending upon whether one is talking about the hard costs only and referring to the total number of stalls provided ($13,900) or total costs including financing and referring to the cost per added stall ($24,500). Both numbers are correct, and there are several intermediate points that would be equally correct numbers. For general purposes, staff believes that the total cost and the cost per added stall, both of which should include financing costs, are the most suitable for discussion and comparison because they best reflect the true cost (total cost) and relative value (cost per added stall) of the project. Chapter 5 of the feasibility study provides concise information regarding the financing costs, the total bond sale requirements, the annual debt service and the assessment rate and range of assessments, attributable to each of the proposed parking structures, based upon 1996 costs. The following table provides a brief summary: 1996 COSTS BASED UPON F.EASIBILITY STUDY Total Construction Costs (Hard and Sott Costs) Total Financing Costs Total Bond Issue Average Annual Debt Service Assessment Rate/Square Foot Lot R Lots S/L ~ $4,057,000 $12,589,000 $16,646,000 $683,000 $ 1,851,000 $ 2,534,000 $4,740,000 $14,440,000 $19,180,000 $439,000 $1,337,000 $1,776,000 $0.21 $0.59 $0.80 CMR:183:97 Page 29 of 37 YEAR 2000 COSTS BASED UPON 1996 COSTS + 3% PER YEAR INCREASE Total Construction Costs (Hard and Soft Costs) Total Financing Costs$ Total Bond Issue Average Annual Debt Service Assessment Rate/Square Foot Lots S/L $14,169,000 Lot R & Lots S.~ $18,735,000 $769,000 $2,083,000 $ 2,852,000 $5,335,000 $16,252,000 $21,587,000 $494,000 $1,504,000 $ 1,998,000 $0.23 $0.67 $0.90 The current assessment rate per square foot for parking in the downtown area is $0.34 which covers two partially outstanding bond issues, a relatively small one ($60,000 to $70,000 annual debt service) that will be fully paid in 2003 and a larger one ($600,000 to $650,000) that will be fully paid in 2007. The feasibility study points out that the combined assessment of $0.80 ($0.21+ $0.59) for both proposed parking structures implies a potential annual rent increase of about 2.2 percent to 2.4 percent, based upon typical annual rent (NNN) of $33 to $36 per square foot for leased commercial space in the downtown area. While this is characterized as normally tolerable, sales per square foot and operating margins vary substantially from one business to another, and what is tolerable for one business may not be for another. The added parking capacity has the potential to provide a net benefit to a business if the increased sales of that business more than offset the increase in assessments. A public workshop was held on May 16, 1996, to share information and seek public comments regarding the information that had been developed. Approximately 1,000 notices of the workshop were mailed to property owners within the downtown assessment district, downtown merchants/tenants, neighborhood representatives for the residential areas north and south of downtown, members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board, Public Arts Commission and Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. Notices were also published in the Palo Alto Weekly and the Daily newspapers. Approximately 40 people attended the workshop. The comments received at the workshop are presented in Attachment 7. A second public meeting was held on November 21, 1996 to share the study findings and solicit additional public comments. Notice of the meeting was mailed to the same potential audience as described above for the first meeting. Approximately 30 people CMR:183:97 Page 30 of 37 attended the meeting. Comments received at the meeting varied from general support for constructing multi-level parking structures at both sites (Lot R and Lots S/L) to not providing additional parking, but rather regulating the demand for parking by charging for parking and implementing a local shuttle bus service. In preparation for the current discussion before the Policy and Services Committee and Finance Committee, approximately 1,000 notices (Attachment 8) were mailed to property owners within the Downtown Assessment District, downtown merchants/tenants, neighborhood representatives, and member of boards and commissions. Notices were also published in the Palo Alto Weekly and Daily. Recommended Plan The recommended plan is to proceed with the development of (1) a multi-level structure on the existing City parking Lots S/L site (four elevated decks, one at-grade level, and two below grade), and (2) a multi-level structure (three elevated decks and one at-grade level). on the existing City parking LotR sitel ¯ The recommended plan is expected to yield up to 729 additional parking spaces, at a total cost of approximately $19.1 million (1996 dollars) or $26,300 per added stall. With the addition of four years of cost increases (at 3 percent per year), the total cost of the recommended plan to build two parking structures would be approximately $21.6 million (2000 dollars) or $29,600 per added stall. The following table shows the relevant details. SUMMARY COSTS - TABLE 2. No. of Existing Spaces No. of Additional Spaces Total Construction Cost Construction Cost per Added Space Total Cost (including financing) 19965 20005 19965 20005 19965 20005 Total Cost per Added Space 19965 20005 TotalAnnualAssessment(6.75%;20yrs)19965 20005 AverageAnnual Assessmen~SquareFoot 19965 20005 Lot R .71 139 $4.1 million $4.6 million $29,200 $32,800 $4.7 million $5.3 million $34,100 $38,400 $439,000 $494,000 $0.21 $0.23 Lo~ S/L 109 590 $12.6million $14.2million $21,300 $24,000~. $14.4milfion $16.3million $24,500 $27,600 $1,337,000 $1,504,000 $0.59 $0.67 To~ 180 729 $16.7million $18.8miU~n. $22,800 $25,700 $19.1million $21.6million $26,300 $29,600 $1,776,000 $1,998,000 $0.80 $0.90 CMR:183:97 Page 31 of 37 ALTERNATIVES A host of alternatives were considered and evaluated as part of the feasibility study - 15 alternative sites, 30 schematic designs for the most promising sites, and possibilities of retail or a mini-park as part, of the Lot S/L structure. At this point, based upon the information provided throughout the feasibility study, the realistic alternatives to the recommendedplan for Council consideration include the following: 1. Do not proceed further with any new parking structure, 2.Proceed with the development of only one of the recommended new p.arking structures, either (a) Lots S/L or (b) Lot R. 3.Proceed with the development of larger or smaller sized parking structures, either (a) Lots S/L and/or (b) Lot R. 4.Proceed with further study and evaluation of a new parking structure on a site other than Lots S/L or Lot R. FISCAL IMPACT Funding in the mount of $80~000 was approved in the 1994-95 Capital Improvement Program (CIP No. 19530), for the purpose of conducting the~ feasibility study. Approximately $75,000 of that amount has been expended. The portion of Phase II [Parts A and B] work that requires funding, prior to the availability of funds from the formation of a new parking assessment district and the sale of bonds, is the eonsulta_nt services for: (a) all of the design work (architectural design, construction plans, cost estimate, specifications, and related bid documents); as well as (b) some of the design/construction management work; and (c)some of the financing work (bond counsel and financial advisory firm): These consultant design services are a necessary precursor to a final deeisi0n regarding the formation of an assessment district.. Therefore, funds to accomplish these tasks must originally be advanced from .non- assessment district sources. This would require that the City make a commitment to allocate approximately $2,000,000 from the General Fund (or the use of monies from.the In-Lieu Parking Fund, for an interim period of time. If a new assessment district is successfully formed, proceeds from the bond sale can be used to reimburse such monies advanced from other sources. If an assessment district is not eventually formed, there is no other realistic source of funding to reimburse such costs to the City. CMR:183:97 Page 32 of 37 In the past, when the City has intended to use the proceeds from an anticipated future bond sale for reimbursement of some current expense (prior to the bond issue), it has been the City’s practice to ask the Council to pass a resolution of Intent to Issue Bonds, prior to the expenditure of any such funds. If directed to proceed with the proposedparking structures, staffwill prepare the necessary resolution for Council adoption prior to award of the Consultant contract. The City also has the Option of using the balance in the In-Lieu Parking Fund account (currently $760,000) to help finance a portion of the monies needed for consultant services that are needed prior to the formation of an assessment district. However, if an assessment district is not eventually formed, for whatever reason, such funds will need to be reimbursed to the In-Lieu Parking Fund. Other related future cost items include increased maintenance and operations ($100,000 to $200,000 per year), increased enforcement (insert $52,000 for one Parking Enforcement Officer) and Teen Center relocation (cost to be determined). Construction of the two proposed parking structures will result in the loss of revenue from the paid attendant operation currently in Lot S, which will actually result in the City saving some money, since the current operatioh is not self-supporting and therefore continues to be subsidized. There may be some potential reduction in parking citations during the period of construction, as well. Under Proposition 218, the "Right to Vote on Taxes" initiative passed by California votersin November 1996, there are new, more restrictive requirements now in place for special assessments. Those new requirements would apply to a new downtown parking structure assessment. They include the following points: A more rigorously defined Engineer’s Report, which clearly calculates the special benefits to each property from the project, and the amount of the assessment. Only special benefits are now assessable, not general benefits. "The amount of the proposed assessment for each identified parcel shall be calculated and the record owner of each parcel shall be given written notice by mail of the proposed assessment, the total amount ...chargeable to the entire district, the ¯ amount chargeable to the owner’s particular parcel, the duration of such payments,- the reason for the assessment and the basis upon which the amount of the proposed CMR: 183:97 Page 33 of 37 assessment was calculated, together with the date, time, and location of a public hearing" on the assessment" (Proposition 218, Article X13D, Seeti0n 4c). c.A mail vote is required and each property owner must be mailed a ballot to vote on the assessment. f. A public hearing in which the votes received through the mail are tabulated. The votes must be weighted according to the proportion of the assessment. That is, a property owner with a $5,000 assessment would get a vote weighted twice as heavily as another with a $2,500 assessment. A majority of the weighted votes must be in favor of the assessment, in order to proceed. Once an assessment is approved by property owners, voters may circulate a petition to put the issue of the assessment before all of the voters. A majority of voters in the City (not a majority of property owners in the assessment district) can vote to overturn that assessment. While the likelihood of eitywide voters desiring to overturn an assessment that they themselves, do not pay is remote, it is not impossible. If voters did vote to overturn an assessment, it is also unlikely that an assessment which pays for bond repayments could legally be overturned. As reported by the State Legislative Analyst’s Office, "many bond specialists indicate that the debt impairment clause .in the federal constitution would prevent local residents from eliminating a...revenue stream ffthat action would jeopardize the security of bonded indebtedness," (Understanding Proposition 218, December 1996, page 37). Most commentators on Proposition 218 believe it is extremely unlikely that the courts would allow an assessment that paysfor bonded indebtedness to be overttwned; A fiurther complicating factor in Proposition 218 is a section which says that where "tenants are directly liable to pay the assessment.,.in question," those tenants shall be treated as ff they were the property owner as far as participating in assessment proceedings and having the right to vote on the assessment. The impact of-this clause is unclear. The author of Proposition 218, Jonathan Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, has written that "ifa tenant of real property is ~ (emphasis in original) liable to pay an assessment, that tenant would have the right to protest and vote" on an assessment (Proposition 218, Statement of Dratters’ Intent, Proposition 218 Implementation Guide, League of California Cities, page A- 72). Staff does not know how manyofthe downtown leases between owners and tenants contain provisions in their leases for ~ pass through of assessments. When assessments are calculated by the City and delivered to the County CMR:183:97 Page34of37 Assessor’s Office, however, it is the property owners that receive the assessment on their property tax bill. In summary, the fiscal implications of Proposition 218 are that if parking assessment district property owners do not vote to approve an-assessment, the City would have to absorb all costs incurred up to that time for the feasibility study, design, fmancial and legal services. Staff has estimated the total budgeted expenditures for these items will be $2,000,000. As only $80,000 has been budgeted to date, most of these funds are yet to be committed. In conclusion, Proposition 218 has introduced new risks for the City with respect to initiating an assessment district. If parking assessment district property owners do not vote to approve an assessment, the City would have to absorb all costs incurred up to the time of that decision, including costs for the feasibility study, design, project management, financial and legal services. Staffhas estimated that expenditures for these items will be $2,000,000 in addition to the $75,000 ($80,000 budgeted) that has already been spent for. the feasibility study. As only $80,000 has been budgeted to date, most of these fimds are yet to be committed. The risk is higher because the decision on whether or not to form an assessment district could involve property owners, tenants and residents at-large, rather than only the Council. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT An environmental assessment will be prepared prior to the review and approval of a parking structures project. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL With the completion of the Parking Structure Feasibility Study, Phase I of the two-phase process for the provision of additional public parking in the Downtown Assessment District has been completed. Procedurally, Phase II, if authorized by the Council, is comprised of three sequential parts: (i) Part A is the preparation of bid documents necessary to build a project, including detailed engineering design and construction drawings, a detailed engineer’s cost estimate, general requirements and teelmieal specifications, and other related bid documents; (ii). Part B is the process of forming an assessment dislriet to finance the project; and Off) Part C is the actual physical construction of the project. CMR:183:97 Page 35 of 37 Phase II; Part A Phase II A would require that the City retain the services of a qualified team of consultants to develop the detailed engineering design and construction drawings, detailed engineer’s cost estimate, specifications and requirements, and other related technical and legal documents necessary to advertise and award a contract to construct a specific project. The development of such documents would include the review and necessary approvals by the City, including the Planning Commission, ARB, various affected City departments, and the Council, as well as public information meetings for property owners, tenants, and neighborhood residents. The Request for Proposals and the constdtant evaluation and selection process were set up in such a way as to solicit, evaluate, and select firms based upon their capability to provide necessary services for both Phase I and Phase II. This was done to ensure continuity and consistency between the planning and feasibility work, and possible subsequent design and construction work. It was also done with the understanding that if (and only if) Council makes an affirmative decision to proceed with the Phase II work, and subject to the discretion of the City’s project manager regarding the quality of the work performed and continued suitability of the selected firm, the consultant selected for Phase I would be invited to negotiate for Phase I1 work (without going through another consultant selection process). If staff was unable to successfully negotiate a satisfactory contract for Phase II work, a general solicitation to other consultants, consistent with the City’s established consultant selection procedures, would occur. In any event, a final design contract for Phase II would go to the Council for approval. Staff is. satisfied with the Phase I work done by the consultants, believes that they would be suitable for the Phase II work, and proposes to pursue negotiations with them for the Phase II work, ffthe Council makes an affirmative decision to proceed with Phase II. Phase 1~ B, is the process of forming a new assessment district to finance a project. Phase [I B would require that the City also retain the services of a bond counsel firm and a financial advisory finn to assist staff with the legal and procedural steps related to the formation of an assessment district, and the preparation and sale of bonds. Also, as part of Phase l~ B, it would be necessary to establish the legal boundaries of the new assessment district and a proceedings formula to be used to determine the annual assessments upon the real property within the assessment district. This CMR:183:97 P~go 36 of 37 will be reviewed and considered at the time of preparation of the Engineer’s Report, but at the present time staff does not anticipate any changes from the current boundaries and formula. Phase II: Part C. Phase II C involves the issuance and sale of bonds to raise the necessary funds to pay for the project, and the actual construction of the parking facility. The construction work will involve advertisement and award of a construction contract and related items necessary to construct, manage, and finance the project. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS 1: Effect of Inflation on Parking Structure Costs and Assessments 2: Parking Lot Rating Summary 3: Parking Structure Areas of Influence (Parking Supply Radius Map) 4: Letter from Watry Design Group, dated March 17, 1997 5: Map of Parking Facilities in Downtown Area 6:Excerpt from 1996 Commercial Downtown Monitoring Report (Parking Deficit Table) 7:Comments from Public Workshop 8:Notice of Council Committee Discussions 9:Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study - Final Report Planning Commission Architectural Review Board Historic Resources Board Public Art Commission Human Relations Commission Utilities Advisory Commission Project Study Committee Susan Frank, Chamber of Commerce Watry Design Group CMR:183:97 Page 37 of 37 ATTACHMENT 1 EFFECT OF INFLATION ON .PARKING STRUCTURE COSTS AND ASSESSMENTS Total Cost Cost/stall Cost/added stall Assessment* YEAR 1996 COSTS 1996 COSTS BASED UPON FEASIBILITY STUDY $4.7 million $14.4 million $19.1 million $22,600 $20,700 $21,100 $34,100 $24,500 $26,300 $ 0.21 $0.59 $0.80 YEAR 1997 COSTS BASED UPON 1996 COSTS PLUS 3% PER YEAR INCREASES Lot R Lots S/L .~[LaaILSJL Total Cost $4.9 million.$14.9 million $19.8 million Cost/stall $23,300 $21,300 $21,700 Cost/added stall. $ 35,100 $25,200 $ 27, 100 Assessment*$0.21 $0.61 $0.82 YEAR 1998 COSTS BASED UPON 1996 COSTS PLUS 3% PER YEAR INCREASES Lot R ~~. Total Cost $5.0 millon $15.3 million $20.3 million Cost/stall $24,000 $22,000 $22,400 Cost/added stall $ 36,200 $26,000 $ 27,900 Assessment*$0.22 $0.63 $0.85 YEAR 1999 COSTS BASED UPON 1996 COSTS PLUS 3%PER YEAR INCREASES Total Cost Cost/st~l Cost/added st~l Assessment* $5.2 million . $15.8 million $21.0 million $24,800 $22,700 $23,200 $ 37,400 $26,900 $ 28,900 $0.23 $0.65 $0,88 YEAR 2000 COSTS BASED UPON 1996 COSTS ÷ 3,% PER YEAR INCREASES Total Cost $5.3 million Cos~st~l $25,400 Costiaddedst~l $ 38,400. Assessment*$0.23 $16.3million $21.6million 23,300 ’ $23,700 27,600 $29,600 0.67 $ 0.90 per assessed square foot per year S-~RUC~fURE f~.AS|BILII"YS’[UDY Figure 3-1 Parking Assessment District Lot Ratings Summary C0mpiled from the Detailed Lot Summaries found in the Interim Report Fin~ ATTACI-IMENT 2 Rating Lot Lot L Lot blame poor Lot N Lot A Emerson/Lytton Lot Poor Lot O Lot C Ramona/Lytton Lot Fair Lot P Lot D Hamilton/WaverteY Lot Poor Lot K Lot E Gilman/Bryant Lot Poor Lot S Lot F Florence/Lytton Lot Poor Lot T Lot G Gi|man/WaverleY Lot Fair l~arne Bryant/Lytton Lot Emerson]Ramona Lot Emerson/High Lot High/Hami|ton Lot High/Alma South Lot Bryant/Florence Lot Lytton/Kip|ing Lot Rating Poor Poor Good Poor . Good Good Poor Lot H ami|ton Lot Lot K Lytton/Wavertey t.u, Page 20 DOWNTOWN PARKINGSTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY ATTACHMENT 3 Figure 3-2 Parking Assessment District. Parking Supply Radius Map Cowper-Webster Garage Ramon Civic Center Garage The above map represents the areas of influence a parking structure may have in a particular area. The assumption isthat a person would utilize a parking structure if it were within 2 blocks ~valking distance from,their destination. Existing structures are represented by open circles. Filled circles are used to representareas influenced if a parking structure were to be built on the lots R and S/L. Approximately eleven percent of the PAD falls outside the influence of these areas. Page 30 Warty Design Group DESIGN GROUP¯ ARCH.[TECTS & I~NGLNEERS, March 18, 1997 ATTACHMENT 4 Raymond A. Bli~h, Brent Fo~’di~ ||Jep I:L Mr. Ashok Aggarawal City of Palo Alto P.O. Box. 10250. Pal0 Alto, CA.94303 RE.:Palo Air0 Parking S~ " WDG#9533.312 .. 7015.Mo~iagsid¢ Dri~ .l~g~nis, CA 9~.050 ¯. T¢1:916.7~/86 Fax:910 ,’/97 2054~,mail.- w ,a~dg@aOl.coat Dear, Ash~k: : .. The allow~n, ce for il~e added cost of"retail" for the siL lots was arrived at by combining three different cat ’ ~egori~s Of coStS. .. The first added expense was the coat.of the retail space "shell." The additional foot.ings, walls, glazing, roof;’ etc. f0r°the retail space was budgeted at $200,000. This Cost would vary according to the actual scheme, but this.was estimated to ¯ cover the level of detail presented in t.he. preliminary sketch designs. ,Thesecond a~e’a. ~f cost was for:retail Infrastructure: Our assumption was that this space woUldlikely Include some food preparation, and shell infrastructure would include gas to meter, electrical to meter,.provision for added .waste from sinks, additional restrooms, etc. This cost was estimated at .$50,000. The third area of increased cost assumption was an allowance of $200,000 for what was assumed to be an increasedlevel of detail on the base of the building based on the .a .ssurnption.thet the, addition ¯Of the retail ..component ~as an Mr. Ashok Aggarwal ’ Page2- " " " ’ March 18, ’J997 -. indication of heightened level of sensitivity to the.pedestrian and to the street scape. This allowance could provide for additional detai~ng, upgraded base mated.’als:, imnworl~, etc: Please call with any additional questions or comments, Sincerely, THE WATRY DESIGN GROUP Wendler, Architect Thomas Downtown Pio Alto Parking Lots & Parking.Color Zones ATTACHMENT 5 Legend Free 2 H~Jr Porldng Free 2 H(~Jr & Pert’nit Parking Free2 Hour & Senior Center Permit Paddng Free 3 Hour & Permit Parldng ~Peer’nit Pa~ng o-o- -e~o- Parking lot restrictions and color zone .requirements in effect 8 am - 5 pm Monday tO. Friday only, Holidays excepted. Once the time limit expires in a given color zone you must move your vehicle out of that zone. KEY to Lots and Garages A.Emerson/Lytton lot B.Ramona/University garage C.Ramona/Lytton lot D.Hamilton/VVavedey lot E.Gilman/Bryant lot F.Florence/Lytton lot G.Gilman/VVavedey lot H.Cowper/Hamilton lot ’ K.Lytton/Waverley lot L.Bryant/Lytton lot N.Emerson/Ramona lot O.Emerson/High lot R High/Hamilton lot Q.High/Alma North garage ’ R.High/Alma South lot S.Bryant/Florence lot T.Lytton/Kipling lot CC. Civic Center Garage WC. WebstedCowper Garage L,L Webster Street Tasso Street 400 C~wper Street 50O tk_ Street 400 Waver/e 60O Gilman Street LimeZone 400 Bn/ant ~lreet 500 600 " 4OO Ramona Street"~500 ~60O Cor’ i 400 Emerson Street 500 City,of Palo Alto Transportation Division 415/329-2520 ¯ Excerpt of the 1996 Commercial Downtown Monitoring Report ATTACHMENT 6 TABLE 2: Commercial Downtown (CD) Parking Deficit September 1, 1986 to August 31, 1996 520 Ramona~ 220 University 151 Homer 314 Lytton 247-275 Alma 700 Emerson 431 Florence 156 University 401 Florence 619 Cowper 250 University 550 University 529 Bryant 520 Webster 305 Lytton 550 Lytton 531 Cowpere 540 Bryant 530-534 Bryant 555 Waverley~ 201 University 518 Bryant 165 Channings 245 Lytton 400 Emersonc 443 Emerson 420 Emerson 340 University 281 University 456 University 536 Ramona . 725-753 Alma 552 Emerson 483 Universityc 424 University 637 Emersonc 901-909 AlmaD~ TOTAL o o 11 o 5 16 o o o 9 131 o o 163 o 19 o o o o o o o 149 12 o o o o o o 7 o o o ’o 16 538 2 1 0 0 5 ~,6 10 20 10 9 103 0 10 0 1 19 36 2 2 8 I0 1 8 26 -0 1 0 0 30 1 7 1 16. 9 17 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 20 I0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 2 2 8 10 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 30 1 0 1 0 9 0 0 117 +2 +1 -11 0 0 +10 +20 +10 0 -28 -2 +10 -163 +I 0 +36 +2 +2 +8 ÷I0 +1 +8 -59 +14 0 +1 -2 o10 +30 +i 0 +’1 +16 +9 +17 +2 -66 %eismlc, historic, or minor expansion exemptions pursuant to PAC Section 18.49.060(b). ~his project received ~ parking variance (84-V-36) predicated on the historic nature of the stmeture~ CThis project was approved with a provision for the payment of in-lieu parking fees pursuant to PAC Section 18.49.100(d). 1,601 1,603 1,604 1,593 1,590 1,590 1,590 1,600 1,620 1,630 1,630 1,602 1,600 1,610 1,447 1,448¯1,448 1,484 1,486 1,488 1,496 1,506 1,507 1,515 1,456 1,470 1,470 1,471 1,469 1,459 1,489 1,490 1,490 1,491 1,507 1,516 1,533 1,535 1~535 ~l’his project was approved pursuant to PAC Section 18.83.130, which provides for a reduction in the number of required parking stalls for uses exempt from parking assessment whose hours and days of operation are such that parking impacts are mitigated by the availability of joint use parking and off-site parking facilities. ~ project was approved pursuant to PAC Section 18.83 (Table 1), which provides for a reduction in the number of required parking ntalls (up to 30%) for commercial recreation uses as part of the Conditional Use Permit process. ~ this project was approved pursuant to PAC Section 18.83.120(a), which provide~ for a reduction in the number of required parking ~alls (up to 5 %) . for substitution of 8 bike parking spaces for one vehicle space. ¯ C:phil\data\edmon\edmon96.wpd 12-18-96 . ¯ Page 8 ATTACHMENT 7 A public design workshop was held on Thursday May 16~h, t996 at the Palo Alto Senior Center. The purpose of the workshop was to seek input from interested parties regarding the location and design of one or more parking structures to be located in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District. In addition to notices placed in local newspapers, flyers were sent to approximately 1000 people including property owners, merchants, business.and neighborhood associations etc. Approximately 25 citizens participated in the workshop. DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY The workshop began with an introduction by AshokAggarwal, City Traffic Engineer and Project Manager for.the City of Palo Alto for this feasibility study. Nick Watry, Pririeipal of the Watry Design Group, then described the overall workshop process and goals the workshop.sought to attain. All participants then broke into one of four detailed areas of concern: Design, Traffic, Cost and Site Issues. Each group spent thirty minutes discussing issues relevant to their topic. A list of issues developed in each of the four groups can be found below. The whole group then reconvened for an hour to summarize the findings and issues of each specialty group and to reach a consensus about how to approach them. The workshop was then adjourned. Small Group Findings & Issues The following are brief descriptions of points made and issues raised during the course of the workshop. Design Opportunity to improve environment Retail - Restrooms -.Farmers Market Valet Parking more efficient Public art - how to get into project Lot 0 - negative impact on neighboring lots Mixed use favored bymany How can the structure add to the environment Elevator - visible for security/traffic flow Passive security - open stairs and elevators Traffic 2 hour limit of colored permit zones contribute t~ traffic congestion Emphasize parking accommodations for bicycles,throughout downtown area More bicycle use could decrease traffic Business districts outside of Assessment District are overparked day and evening (High & Everett) Green zones are exempt from colored parking zone 2 hour restrictions. City is attempting to expand number of green zones All day parking is needed in greater quantity DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTUR£ FEASIBILITY STUDY Is City’s program to encourage carpooling expanding? Is this helping to reduce traffic A new parking structure at Lot "S" could affect Senior Center access due to increased traffic flows High Street functions better as "one way" Senior Center needs to maintain adequate parking Cost Funding: not only Parking Assessment District Liability for bond assessment district Work with Stanford on how to charge Fear of pricing out retail tenants 2% to 5% premium for "architecture" Assessment basis - use vs. square footage City should share cost with PAD Other alternatives to a parking structure should be looked at People won’t walk tO a distant structure Paid lots not full (for long term) 1200 people on waiting list for parking permit Investigate residential parking permit system Site Issues ¯LotR Front/back door Poor sight lines on Alma Not good for below grade ¯ LotO Transformer Trash Pick up ¯Lot S/L Impact on Victorian Possible lightwell Use street to turn around Construction time: small - 6 months; large - ] year Phase construction of 2 structures Efficiency of scale - above grade/below grade R/P (or F/S) bridge not cost efficient A survey was developed and distributed at the workshop. The survey consisted of a list of decisions typically made in the design of a parking structure. Participants were invited to fill out the survey and return it to the committee. The resultsofthat survey can be found in Appen- dix B. Page 28 Warty Design Group DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS Page 1 Parking Structure Design Questionnaire ~ Downtown Palo Alto Respondent (optional): Survey Results May 16,1996 Site 1. Issues Should retail establishments be incorporated into the ground level, street front facade of the parking structure? 2.PartYing on grade - asphalt concrete paving and/or concrete slab on grade, decorative pavers. 3. Bicycles: racks and/or lockers provided? Site lighting - freestanding or building mounted? YES III NO COMMENTS -Essential to retain street vitality -We have enough retail, not enough parking -Use artists to design paving -Encourages alternatives modes of transportation -Building Mounted preferred What access to rear of existing retail is required?¯Pedestrian only, trash, deliveries Neighborhood relations - how will building be presented to public/neighborhood? I!-For trash and deliveries -For trash, deliveries and pedestrians -Mostly retail businesses will benefit .Community outreach meetings -Diplomatically Utilities 1. Garbage control, cigarette urns, trash cans, dumpster locations and access to be provided? YES NO COMMENTS IIII Emergency generator: On site or off site remote? Emergency generator tO cover exit lighting only; or to keep elevators in operation? (Options will affect size of generator and size/location of room to house it, as well as costs.) -Use battery packs for emergencies 3. Storage room(s) size and location(s).I I -For.support/ci’eaning equipment 4. Hydraulic vs. traction elevators. Howmany, speed,~1 -Hydraulic size, etc. Note: choice affects speed, capability and type of elevator machine room required. Vertical and horizontal transportation = escalators, elevators, stairs, moving sidewalks, bridges, ’ tunnels...etc. Sand oilseparator? Main Office: 1500 Fashion Island Boulevard, Suite 200, San Marco, CA 94404 Tel:4150349M546 Fax:415*349~1384 m Sacramento Office: 7015 Moraingside Drive, Loomis, CA 9,5650 Te1:916~797o07’86 Fax:916*797e0786 *j:~orojects~9533\workshop~sur-taly.doc Lighting concepts, utilitarian or any specialty effect lighting for directional flow? VVhat average foot-. candle level for structure and for activity nodes? 7.Restrooms in structures, size, accommodate how II many? YES I 8. ’ Lobbies at each level?. Grand lobby at ground IIlevel? Enclosed vestibules? Air conditioned spaces? Heated spaces? 9.Drinking fountains. How many, locations? Chilled I IIwater? NO Page 2 COMMENTS -Usually security lighting to bright -Involve P.A. Utilitie~ Dept. -Only in L~)t L/S combo -Lobbies - yes -Art - yes -Heating/AC - no -Only in Lot L/S combo 10.Telephone banks with TDD machines. How many, II I where? -At ground level 11. 12. ATM convenience machines? Where, how many?I II -Existing banks are nearby " Smoke detectors, heat detectors? Which or both? Connected to fire stations? Connected to audible and visual alarm or both? How does alarm mode affect building services? (gates all open? close? extra lights come on?...etc.) 13. Advertisement spaces? 14. Convenient car battery jumper stations?II 15.Electdc vehicle charging stations? Locations, how I I many? 16.Truck dock program requirements: Number of I IIdocks, size of docks, special dock equipment, etc. III -Maybe - if they p, ay big -See P.A. Utilities Dept. for specs Security 1. 2. Security offices? Size? Functions? Location? YES NOCOMMENTS II -Probably not needed IIISecurity cameras throughout levels and/or at entries? 3. Fenced Perimeter?IIII 4. Gates with locks, card readers, bar code swipes,IIIIticket spitters, loop detectors or other controls? Main Office: 1500 Fashion Island Boulevard, Suite 200, San Marco, CA 94404 Sacramento Office: 7015 Morningsidc Drive, Loomis, CA 95650 "j:~proje~9533\workshop~sur.taly.doc Teh415o349*1546 F~x:415.349o1384 . Tch916o797e0786 Fax:916~797e0786 ~ Parking control equipment - booths at entries or deeper in structure to allow queuing of cars. Gate arms, rolling grille doors, booths, loop detectors, etc.? Page 3 6.Glass-backed elevators? 7.Open stairs or enclosed in a vestibule? Code minimum or more generous? II -Deeper, gate arms -Open stairs, code min. width Patrolling guards or parking attendants? They would need an office, break room or similar space. -Mixed use will provide "eyes on street" Traffic Flow 1 Painted arrow and markings of lanes. Thermoplastic paint or typical traffic paint. 2. "Botts" dots as lane in.dicators and flow patterns. YES NO COMMENTS II -San Jose .Airport fop example 3.Plastic bollards, steel bollards, concrete bollards, concrete filled steel bollards. 4.Signage - vinyl lettering on signs, reflective, electdc signage, audible signage? 5.Exit signs - are electrically illuminated preferred over newer glowing signs? 6. Double-striping of stalls or single striping. I I II -Per ADA -Simple, Cost effective -Single stdping preferred Exterior/Interior Finishes 1. Painted 2.’ EFS, EIFS 3.GFRC. 4.Tile accents 5.Architectural metal work YES NO COMMENTS I I I I 1 Main Office: 1500 Fashion Island Boulevard, Suite 200, San Marco, CA 94404 Tel:415e349*1546 Fax:415*349*1384 Sacramento Office: 7015 Momingsid¢ Drive, Loomis, CA 95650 TcI:916e797*0786 Fax:916*797e0786 ~’j:~projects~9533\workshop~sur-taly.doc 6.Brick cladding 7.Precast Finish il Page 4 8.Metal Pickets 9.Painted interior- columns, soffits, curbs Other Issues Parking stalls: City of Palo Alto Standards (Compact / Standard) or (Unistall) Ratio of types of stalls - Handicapped, Van Handicapped, Busses drop-off and pick-up, motorcycles and bicycles,? Ground floor traffic and clearances depend on the interaction of the above items. YES I " NO COMMENTS -Use P.A. standards -Existing "special" facilities are adequate - deficiency is for "garden variety cars 2.Are accessible parking stalls grouped together at ground, or spread out over.building? -Talk to Disability Consultant -accessible parking on ground o Wheel stops: Precast wheel stops? Integral raised curb for wheel stop? No raised curb islands or perimeter? .Interface between edge of slab and exterior rail. or no wheel stops? I!.-Recycled plastic wheel stops "Piped" in music and/or Public address system?IIII -Definitely no Exterior rails - Precast rails, cast-in-place, concrete block walls, cable rails, block rails withEFS finish, steel rails, Landscaped perimeter rails. -Precast rails -Cable tells -Steel tells Stairs - Precast concrete, prefabricated steel stairs, ¯ metal pan with concrete tread, or cast in place concrete stair, etc.? Stair rails - painted or bare steel pipe, galvanized, metal grid or weave, solid block, open metal, etc. -Use most cost effective -Depends on structure design -Painted metal o Expansion joint materials ’ inexpensive metal slip plate at horizontal joints, or more expensive watertight typeS? 9.Fire extinguisher cabinets -surface mounted on ~1 columns, recessed into .walls? -Watertight expansion joint -Inexpensive -Recessed preferred -One vote for surface mounted 10.Monumental objects at entry: Flag poles, civic art, II lighting, clocks, etc. 11. Water proofing of walls, decks, etc...III -CivicArt -Flagpole -L!ghting -At decks ~Main Office: 1500 Fashion Island Boulevard, Suite 200, San Marco, CA 94404 Teh415e349o1546 Fax:415*349~1384 ~ Sacramento Office: 7015 Morningside Drive, Loomis, CA 95650 Tehgi6~797=0786 Fax:916.797.0786 I ¯ °j:~projectsL9533\workshop~sur-taly.doc 12. 13. 14. Graffiti-proof paint or vandal resistant finishes? Page 5 -Use art as a graffiti prevention method Floori"ng changes as function changes: (i.e.: Concrete = auto traffic, Pavers = Pedestrian traffic) II Planting in and on structure, and irrigation of planting?III -If possible 15. 16. 17. 18. Light wells to get natural light into the center of the structure? Elevator towers - to be celebrated or hidden? III -A must ’Votes for both Pedestrian use storage or locker rooms for personal articles?II -Definitely Covered walks across top level? Enclosed and air I conditioned? Heated?III 19. Kiosks, directories, Informational boards?~ I ~ 20. Pedestrian b’enches?III What is the maintenance plan for the structure?~21. -They go elsewhere - this is for parking, not sitting Is landscaping part of this project?What are city standards?.III Comments: . -Traffic flow and Exterior/Interior finishes should be a part of an integrated graphics pac~ge for the structure. -See City of Santa Rosa Downtowh parking structures for good design cdteda. ° .. -Build fast - 2 level in 6 months - then tackle larger structu.re. Main,Office: 1500 Fashion Island Boulevard, Suite 200, San Mateol CA 94404 Tei:415o349=1546 Fax:415.349o1384 Sacramento Office: 7015 Momingsidc Drive, Loomi~, CA 95650 Te!:916.797o0786 Fax:916;797oO78~ ~ "j:~pmje cts~9533\wod~shop~su r-taly.doc ATTACHMENT 8 DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE PLAN MEETING NOTICE March 17, 1997 Dear Property Owner/Tenant: As we have shared with you in the past, the City retained Watry design group (Watry), a consulting firm, to conduct the Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility study. The purpose of the study was to develop the necessary information for the City Council to consider whether to proceed with construction of a new parking structure on one or more sites in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District, in Downtown Palo Alto. Watry has now completed the Parking Structure Feasibility study. Based on an analysis of parking demand and supply and the size and shape of all of the public parking lots, the Study has identified two sites (Lot R located between Alma, High, University and Hamilton and Lots S and L located between Bryant, Lytton, Florence and’University) as the most suitable sites for constructing multi- level parking structures. The two standing Committees of the City Council, the Policy and Services Committee and the Finance Committee, are scheduled to discuss this issue at their regularly scheduled meetings on March 25, and April 1, 1997, respectively. We urge you to attend these meetings, if you are concerned about parking inthe downtown area. Both meetings are very important. The Committees may discuss a wide variety of issues; including whether to proceed with construction of one or more than one parking structure, suitability of the sites, funding, inclusion ofpublie restrooms, retail, art, other amenities, etc. At the conclusion of the Committee discussions, the Committees will make a recommendation to the full Council for consideration and decision whether to proceed further with construction of one or more new parking structures; development of the final design; preparation of plans and specifications; formation of a new parking assessment district to finance the project; and construction of the new parking structure(s) and related activities. Currently, we are working on a staff report to the Council for referral to both.Committees. Copies of the staff report will be available on. March 21, 1997 in l-hd Transportation Division office at City. Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, sixth floor. In the meantime, if you have any questions please call Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer, (415) 329-2575. Architectural Review Board Historic Resources Board Human Relations Commission Planning Commission Public Art Commission Utilities Advisory Commission PI~OPO~ED GARAGE - LOTS S/E (19965) 7 levels (4 elevated, 1 at-grade, 2 below) 699 total spaces (590 additional spaces) $14.1 million total cost to design, construct and finance $20,700 total cost per stall $24,500 total cost per added stall $0.59 per assessed square foot per year Q Cowper-Webster Garage Civic Center Garage Q Indicates Surface Lot Parking Assessment District Parking Facilities Ramona Garage 4 levels (3 elevated, 1 at-grade, 0 below) 210 total spaces {139 addilJonal spaces) $4.7 million total cost to design, construct and finance $22,600 total cost per per stall $34,100 total cost per added stall $0.21 per assessed square foot per year The Council committee meetings to discuss two proposed parking structures in the downtown area are scheduled as follows: Policy and Services Committee - Tuesday, March 25, 1997 Finance Committee -Tuesday, April 1, 1997 Meetings being at 7:00 p,m., in the Council Chambers, First Floor, Civic Center, 250-Hamilton Avenue, Palo Ait0. DOWNTOWN PARKING SI’RUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study for the City of Palo Alto Final Report January 16th1997 Prepared By DESIGN GROUP with Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. Traffic Consultants Angus McDonald Associates Financial Consultants Lowney Associates Geotechnical Consultants © 1997 Warty D~ign Group, S~n Mateo, C_.alifomia DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS January l6, 1997 Mr. Ashok Aggarwal City Traffic Engineer City of Palo Alto Transportation Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto California 94303 Principal 12. Nicholas warty, ArchilectYEngineer Vice Presidents Thomas J. Towey, ArchitectElisabeth Bianton, MBA Raymond A. Bligh, S.E.Brent Forslin, S.E.David LoCoco Associates Michelle Wendler, Architect John D. ~.~ton, P.E.Hiep H. Ho Re: Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study Dear Ashok: The Watry Design Group is pleased to submit to you this Final Report for the Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study. This report encompasses Tasks 1 through 3 of the work scope and is the culmination of the Phase 1 work. The Watry Design Group and our associated consultants, have endeavored to assemble this information into a clear and concise format. We believe that it addresses the concerns and criteria identified in the original Request for Proposal as well as those raised during the study process and sets.the stage for a favorable continuation into Phase 2. We thank you for this opportunity to work for you and we hope to do so again. Sincerely, THE WATRY DESIGN GROUP C. Nicholas Watry, Architect/Engineer Principal Main Office: 1500 Fashion Island Boulevard, Suite 200, San Mateo, CA 94404-1556 Tel: 415-349-1546 Fax: 415-349-1384 Sacramento Office: 7015 Morningside Drive, Loomis, CA 95650 Tel: 916-797-0786 Fax: 916-797-0786 DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations The Purpose of this project is to assess the feasibility of building a new parking structure(s) on one or more existing surface parking lots in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District (PAD). The study included.: 1) a parking demand analysis; 2) a site analysis of existing lots; 3) development of schematic design options; 4) an economic analysis; and 5) an environmental assessment. The following isa summary of the conclusions and recommendations. Based upon information from the City and surveys performed by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. the parking supply is 5,172. Peak demand occurs weekdays at noon with an occupancy demand of nearly 100%. Theoretical peak parking~ demand using the blended rate requirement of 4 spaces per 1000 square feet has~ been assessed at 10,954. While this theoretical demand overstates the actual parking deficit, the data is a helpful indicator for determining the parking deficit. The largest parking deficit is located in the Purple Zone, second largest in the Lime Zone. Fifteen (15) City owned, surface parking lots were analyzed with respect to: accessibility and street capacity; surrounding land use; soil conditions; function and aesthetics. Each lot was given a rating of poor, fair or good. Three lots, O, R & S were given a rating of good and chosen for further study. Several schematic parking structure design options were developed for each of these lots. Preliminary cost estimates and building/parking statistics were also gathered for each option. Lot O was deemed infeasible after additional investigation, Lot S and Lot L were combined as an additional option. Five of the remaining options were chosen for further refinement. An economic feasibility study was performed on the 5 chosen options. The bonding capacity of the District appears to be substantially more than adequate to support the range of parking improvements being considered. Environmental impacts included: 1) increased traffic and parking; 2) increased access; 3) pedestrian and bicycle circulation; 4) noise and air quality; and 5) visual impact. No signitieant impact was discovered for any of the options. Summary The recommendation of the consultant and Project Study Committee is that the City of Pale Alto should proceed at the present time with the development of two structures: Lot R - Option 3b and Lot S/L - Option 3. Lot R - Option 3b will provide an additional 139 stalls (210 total stalls) at a cost of approximately $4,056,529 or $29,184 per added stall ($19,317 per total stall). With the formation of an assessment district to finance the project, the total project cost (inclusive of financing costs) is approximately $4,740,000 or $34,100 per added stall ($22,571 per total stall). Lot S/L - Option 3 will provide an additional 590 stalls (699 total stalls) at a cost of approximately $12,588,821 or $21,337 per added stall ($18,010 per total stall). With the formation of an assessment district to finance the project, the total project cost (inclusive of financing costs) is approximately $14,440,000 or $24,475 per added stall ($20,658 per total stall). The average annual total assessment for Lot R- Option 3b is $438,766 The average annual total assessment for Lot S/L - Option 3 is $1,336,663 for a combined total of $1,775,429. Individual annual assessments average around $0.21 per square foot for Lot R - Option 3b and $0.59 per square foot for Lot S/L - Option 3 for a combined total of $0.80 per square foot. Current assessments for parking total $0.335 per square foot. Five Options Summary Information Site option Square Feet Lot R Lot R Lot SIL Lot SIL Lot S 5 228,000 Existing Spaces New Spaces Total Spaces Cost of Construction Cost/Stall Cost/Added Sstall With Design (Soft) Costs Cost/Stall Cost/Added Stall Cost with Financing Cost/Space Cost/Added Stall Total Annual Assessment Assessment/Square Foot 109 590 699 $3,341,457 $15,912 $24,039 ,0ss,s29 $19,317 $29,184 $4,740,000 $22,571 $34,100 $438,766 $0:2073 $9,693,281 $13,867 $16,429 $11,767,643 $16,835 $19,945 $13,510,000 $19,328 $22,989 $1,250,576 $0.5907 Summary Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study for the City of Paid Alto Final Report Contents Cover Letter Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations ~ | ~" introduction Background Figure 1-1 City of Paid Alto University Avenue PAD Figure 1-2 University AvenuePAD Parking Facilities Purpose and Scope of Study Purpose and Scope of This Report Study Chronology Report Organization ~ 2 w Su~ o~: Packing Demand Objectives of Parking Needs Analysis Procedure Parking Supply Parking Demand Figure 2-1 Table 2-2 ’ Table 2-3 Table 2-4 Table 2-5 Table 2-6 Table 2-7 Table 2-9 Table 2-9 Calculated Parking Deficit Around Most Likely Parking Structure Sites Parking Demand Survey Results (Off-Street Only) Short Term Parking, Thursday, 2/22/96 Parking Demand Survey Results (Off-Street Only) Long Term Parking, Thursday, 2/22/96 Parking Demand Survey Results (Off-Street Only) Short Term Parking, Saturday, 2124196 Parking Demand Survey Results (Off-Street Only) Short Term Parking, Wednesday, 2128/96 Parking Demand Survey Results (Off-Street Only) Long Term Parking, Wednesday, 2128196 Parking Demand Survey Results (Off-Street Only) Short Term Parking, Saturday, 312196 Parking Supply in University Avenue PAD Parking Supply and Demand Comparison Page 2 Page 2 Page 4 Page 4 Page 5 Page 5 Page 6 Page 8 Page 8 Page 9 Page 9 Page 10 Page 12 Page 12 Page 13 Page 13 Page 14 Page 14 Page15 Page 16 Contents (Continued) Objectives of Site Analysis Procedure Site Analysis Results Figure 3-1 PAD Lot Ratings Summary Lot R Overview Lot S Overview Lot L Overview Design Workshop Site Analysis Conclusions Figure 3-2 Parking Supply Radius Map Page 18 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 22 Page 24 Page 24 Page 27 Page 29 Page 30 Chapter AI. w $~...h~nm~lc Background Lot R - Option 3a Sche~c PI~ ~i~on of Probable Co~ B~l~ng S~ Lot R - Option 3b Sche~fic PI~ ~i~on of Probable Co~. ~tion S~ Lot S~ - Option 3 Sche~fic PI~ ~i~on of Probable Cost ~tion S~ Lot S~ - Option 5 Sche~fic PI~ ~i~on of Probable Co~ ~tion S~ Lot S - Option 2c Sche~fic PI~ ~i~on of Probable Cost ~tion S~ Page 32 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Contents (Continued) The District Figure 5-1 28 City Block Map Valuation Fin~cing ~sumptions Development Costs ~d Total Costs Table 5-2 Tot~ Esfi~t~ Proj~t Cos~ Operating Costs ~d Revenues Table 5-3 E~i~ted ~n~ ~mfing Co~s & R~enues Efisting ~ual Debt Se~ce for the District Table 5~ E~i~ted C~ent Composite Debt Se~i~ Estimated ~sessment Spread Table 5-5 E~i~ted As~ssment Sprod Feasibility Assumptions Assessment of Potential Traffic and Parking Impacts Table 6-1 Estimated Incremental Traffic Generation Table 6-2 Primary Impacts~on Local Streets Parking Structure Access Issues Figure 6-3 Estimated Daily Traffic Generation - Lot R-3a Figure 6-4 Estimated Daily Traffic Generation - Lot R-3b Figure 6-5 EstimatedDaily Traffic Generation - Lot S/L-3 Potential Environmental Impacts 7-- Basis of Conclusions & Recommendations Number & Location of Structures Structure Options Financing Requirements Project Timeline App~ndb~ A Appendix B Appendix C Page 56 Page 56 Page 56 Page 57 Page 57 Page 57 Page 58 Page 58 Page 58 Page 59 Page 59 Page 60 Page 60 Page 64 Page 64 Page 64 Page 65 Page 67 Page 67 Page 68 Page 68 Page 69 Page 74 Page 74 Page 74 Page 76 Page 76 Final Report DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FI:ASIBILITY STUDY This "Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study" Final Report has been prepared under the direction of the City of Palo Alto & the members of the Project Study Committee by the Watry Design Group and associated consultants. It is the intention of this report to provide information, procedures, conclusions and recommendations regarding the feasibility of constructing one or more parking structures in the University Avenue downtown area. Warty DeMgn Group Page I Final DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY In July 1986, the City Council approved the Downtown Study, which included numerous measures affecting parking in the downtown area. One such measure was to undertake a study to evaluate the feasibility of constructing an additional parking structure in the downtown area. In March 1994, the City Council approved a comprehensive parking plan for downtown Palo Alto. One of the elements of the parking plan is consideration of one or more new parking structures within the University Avenue Parking Assessment District (Figure 1-1). The City Council subsequently approved a Capital Improvement Program Project for FY 94-95 (’No. 19530) entitled "Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study". City of Palo Alto University Avenue Parking As~ssment District Page 2 Warty Design Group Final Repor~ At the present time, the University Avenue Parking Assessment District (PAD) has 2,257 public off street parking spaces located in 19parking facilities. The parking facilities consist of 15 surface parking lots and 4 parking garages (Figure 1-2, page 4). Provision of additional parking in the downtown area is consistent with existing Comprehen- sive Plan Transportation Policy 10 which states: Reduce employee or commuter parking in residential neighborhoods. It is also consistent with recommendations from the 1986 Downtown Study and the recently completed Chamber of Commerce/City of Palo Alto Down- town Multi-point parking program. In addition the Downtown Urban Design Guide identifies parking as a crucial element to the ongoing success of a downtown commercial area, and indicates that there is a general feeling that there is not enough parking. The purpose of the Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study is to investigate the overall feasibility of developing a new parking structure on one or more sites located in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District. A Project Study Committee (PSC) was formed to help evaluate and select a consultant to conduct the study, as well as to review and comment on the consultants work and provide guidance to staff throughout the study process. The PSC is comprised of the following members: Chop Keenan: Roxy Rapp: John Baer: Georgie Gleim: Rick Tipton: Julie Maser Jim MeFall Victor Ojakian: Jim Harrington: Jim Gilliland: Ashok Aggarwal: Keenan Land Company Roxy Rapp Company Premiere Property Management Gleim Jewelers American Hotels City Appointee - Architectural Review Board (initial) City Appointee - Architectural Review Board (final) City Appointee - Planning Commission City Staff- Public Works Department City Staff- Planning Department City Staff- Transportation Division Following an extensive consultant selection process, including written proposals and oral interviews, the Watry-Design Group (Watry) was selected to conduct the feasibility s~tudy. The Feasibility Study has been completed. Subsequent steps would include: 1) Council decision whetherto proceed further with construction of one or more new parking structures; 2) development of the final design; 3) preparation of plans and specifications; 4) formation of a new parking assessment district to finance the project; and 5) construction of the new structure(s) and related activities. DOWNTOWNPARKING STRUCTURE [£ASIilILITY STUDY Design GroUp ......~Page 3 DOWNTOWN PARKINGSTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report Cowper-Webster Garage Civic Center Garage Figure 1-2: (~) Indicates Surface Lot Parking Assessment District Parking Facilities Ramona Garage While the current contract with Watry is for only the Phase One work (Feasibility Study), provision has been made so that if Council makes an affirmative decision to proceed with Phase Two work (final design and construction), Watry may be invited to negotiate for the Phase Two work subject to the quality of the Phase One work performed and the continued suitability of the consultant. The purpose of this project is to study the feasibility of building a new parking structure(s) on one or more existing City owned surface parking lots within the University Avenue PAD area. Such structures could be multi-level above and below ground (similar to the existing Webster- Cowper Parking Garage), a single deck over an at-grade level (similar to the two existing structures on Cambridge Avenue in the California Avenue Business District), or something in between. The scope of work for the current Feasibility Study includes: (1) an evaluation of site characteristics, (2) an analysis of parking demand and supply, (3) development of schematic designs, preliminary architectural sketches and cost information, (4) a financial and economic analysis, (5) an environmental assessment, (6) public meetings, and (7) conclusions and recommendations. Final Re~or~ The purpose of thisreport was to 1.) document the methods used to gather pertinent information about parking in the Downtown area; 2.) present the findings; 3.) assess feasibility and 4.) provide recommendations on the feasibility of building a parking structure on one or more sites. Task One - Site Review & Demand/Supply Analysis DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE. FEASIBILITY STUDY Parking Structure Committee Meetings Progress meetings between Watry and the Parking Structure Committee (PSC) began during the month of February 1996 and continued periodically throughout the course of this study. Site Analysis / Parking Needs Analysis / Geoteehnieal Study The Watry Design Group, in conjunction with Barton-Asclunan Associates, Inc. (Traffic Consultants) and Lowney Associates (Geotechnical Consultants), began an analysis of the existing conditions and sites as they related to a future parking structure. Public Meeting A Downtown Parking Structure Design Workshop was held Thursday May 16, 1996 at the Palo Alto Senior Center. Invitations were sent to all downtown merchants and property owners and notices were placed in local newspapers to invite the general public. Task Two - Alternatives Development/Evaluation Option Development The selection of lots was narrowed down to the three lots that earned a feasibility designation of "good" during the Task One analysis. Schematic Design Options were developed for Lot O, Lot R and LOt S. Schematic Design Options were also developed for the combination of LOt S and LOt L due to their close proximity and potential for a large parking structure. Interim Report Issued June 12, 1996 Containing Task One information and schematic design options. Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board Review The Interim Report was sent to and reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The report was discussed and public conunents were heard at the July 10, 1996 Planning Commission meeting and the July 18, 1996 meeting of the ARB. Final Report DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURF. FEASIBILITY STUDY Task Three - Develop Recommendations / Report for Selected Sites Design Development Based on comments received from the Planning Commission and the ARB, Five options were selected for further study and refinement. Final Report Issued All information gathered during the process described above were synthesized in to this report. The remainder of this report has been organized as follows: Chapter 2 - Parking Needs Analysis Report on existing parking conditions by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Chapter 3 - Site Analysis Procedures used for analysis and selection of feasible sites Chapter 4 - Schematic Design Options 5 Schematic design options on Lot R, Lot S/L & Lot S Chapter 5 - Economic Analysis Economic feasibility of chosen sites by Angus McDonald & Associates Chapter 6 - Environmental Assessment Assessment of potential environmental impacts of proposed structures Chapter 7 - Conclusions Conclusions and recommendations Page 6 Warty Design Group DOWNTOWN PARKINGSTRUCTURE FF.ASIBILITY STUDY This chapter summarizes the findings of the Parking Needs Analysis as undertaken by the Watry Design Group in conjunction with Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. W&ry Design Group , =~ Page 7 DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report The Downtown Marketing Committee and Parking Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, as well as property owners have voiced serious concerns regarding parking deficit and have expressed strong support for additional parking. Objectives of the Parking Needs Analysis were: 1) 3) 4) 5) Determine long/short term parking supply Inventory on-street parking Determine present/future parking, demand Determine spill-over demand from PAD into residential areas Determine Influence of Surrounding Community Development on PAD (e.g. Palo Alto Medical Foundation, South of Forest Avenue Area, Channing House) The Downtown Study adopted by the Council in July 1986 established a parking deficit of 1600 spaces in the downtown area. The 1995 Commercial Downtown Monitoring Report, which includes a report on the change in the number of parking spaces since 1986 due to construction projects, indicates that the parking deficit number is now 1,491 spaces. The change in deficit (1600 to 1491) is based upon an accounting of the development projects that have occurred along with their associated provision of parking or lack thereof. The actual deficit may likely be higher, due to the intensification of use of existing building areas which seems to be occurring and is not fully accounted for in the annual monitoring report. Banon-Aschman Associates, Inc. addressed the issue of downtown Palo Alto parking demand in two different ways: one way was’to conduct a survey of parking occupancy at the parking district lots and garages, and the other was to estimate parking demand based on building size. Neither of these techniques can give a definitive answer as to what the demand is, but taken together they paint a consistent picture. The parking surveys were conducted on four separate days: a weekday survey (Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday); an evening survey (Friday or Saturday); and a confirmation survey for both the weekday and evening survey. Demand based on building size was established by comparing total building size in the downtown to the demand ratio (4 spaces per 1,000 square feet) used by the city to track parking deficit on an annual basis. Page 8 Wa~ Deign Group Final Re oft " At the present time the Downtown Parking Assessment District has 2,257 public off- street parking spaces located in 19 parking facilities (15 surface ~arking lots and 4 garages). The public off-street parking supply is used for (a) free, short-term (2 and 3 hour) parking for customers and others and (b) all day permit parking for employees. Lot S on Bryant Street across from the Senior Center was changed to an attendant pay parking lot in December 1995, for a trial period of one year. The purpose is to accommodate more cars through tandem parking, as well as to provide parking for more than 3 hours on a daily basis. Recently the first hour of parking in this lot was made free to enhance parking lot usage. Employee permits are sold ($200 per year; $65 per quarter) by the City and are valid for all day parking in certain designated lots. Permits are sold on a first-come first-served basis and, generally, there is a waiting list for most locations. Currently, there are 1,291 permits (725 annual 566 quarterly) sold for the district and there is a waiting list of 1,120. All of the on-street parking spaces are available for free, short-term (2 hour) parking for anyone. DOWNTOWN PARKINGSTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY The parking survey was conducted on two weekdays in February and two Saturdays, one in February and one in March. It was apparent that the maximum parking demand oeeurred week- days at around noon. This is when the many restaurants in downtown Palo Alto are busy and when office buildings are occupied. At fight and on weekends the entertainment businesses are very busy, but the offices are unoccupied. Most of the office parking is available for other users after hours. The survey showed that almost all short-term parking (two-hour or three-hour limit) is occupied weekdays around noon. The only lot found with any appreciable vacant spaces at that time was Lot S, which is the Cities only short-term fee lot, and that had only 34 spaces vacant. Because of the extremely high occupancy raie, the probability is that there is excess short-term parking demand that is not being met. The parking survey also. looked at occupancy in the permit spaces. The maximum occupancy rate was about 93%, which left about 80 spaces vacant. While this might indicate that the DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report demand, is being met; however, this is not the case because the vacancies are generated due to employee turnover and the city has a waiting list of approximately 1,100 long-term permit seekers. In addition, the city has conducted numerous surveys of on-street parking in the surrounding residential areas, indicating that approximately 1300 nonresident vehicles are parking in these areas. Not all of these nonresident vehicles are related to activities in the downtown core area. Some vehicles are related to people who work outside of the downtown such as Palo Alto Medical Foundation, South of Forest Avenue Area, the Channing House, etc. These numbers are estimated to be in the range of 200 - 400 vehicles, indicating a parking shortage of approximately 1,000 spaces. Parking demand was also calculated using the blended parking rate requirement (4 spaces per 1,000 square feet) included in the City’s zoning ordinance, for each building in the downtown area. The resultant total parking requirement minus the private parking that some properties provide, and minus the City’s public spaces in lots and garages, produced a theoretical residual parking deficit of approximately 6,000 spaces. While it is believed that this theoretical deficit substantially overstates the actual parking deficit, the data can be used as a helpful indicator for determining the location(s) of the parking deficit. The parking demand surveys were conducted in February. Historically, February is a relatively low month for short term parking demand. Retail and restaurant parking demand is low and cinema parking demand is average. The long-term (reserved) parking spaces are occupied by employees; their demand will not change significantly by season. Taking this data into account, The survey results from February could be considered the "best case" scenario as far as parking demand is concerned. Parking data gathered from other cities suggests that the peak demand can be 30% higher than the February demand. The February surveys showed that the short-term spaces are already completely full weekdays around noon. Therefore, additional seasonal increases in demand can not be accommodated. Also calculated were parking deficits around the most likely parking structure sites. Deficits within a two block walking distance from the lot were counted rather than the stalls in a particular color zone. Figure 2-1 shows those numbers. This seems to indicate that Lot S would be the highest priority. Theoretical Parking Deficit Around Selected Lots in Downtown Palo Alto ¯ within a two block walking distance Lot,Total Deficit in Contiguous Blocks R 1621 O 1917 S 2145 Figure 2-1: Page 10 Calculated Parking Deficit Around the Most Likely Parking Structure Sites From Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Wm~y Design Group ~Final Report Using the blended parking rate requirements as an index of parking deficiency, the higher deficit is found in the Purple Zone (1700 spaces). The second highest deficit is in the Lime Zone (1575 spaces), followed by the Blue Zone (1334 spaces) and thenthe Coral Zone (1173 spaces). This also seems to be corroborated by personal experiences of committee members and Palo Alto citizens interviewed. Refer to Tables 2-2 through 2-9 on pages 12-16 for full survey results and parking counts from Barton-Aschman Associates. Future planned developments in the Parking Assessment District are anticipated to increase the theoretical parking deficit an additional 80 spaces. Also worthy of note is the planned relocation of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation located at 300 Homer Avenue, just south of the Parking Assessment District. It is anticipated that this relocation will alleviate some of the parking problems in the neighborhoods. Additionally, in 12 years, the two top levels of the Cowper/Webster Garage will be converted from 9rivate to public parking. DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURI~FEASIBILITY STUDY Wm~ Design Group Page 11 Final Report DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE IFF.ASIBILITY STUDY Page 12 Design Group ~Final Re[7ort Warty Design Group Page 13 DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FI:A~IBILITY STUDY Final Report Page 14 tVatry Design Group Final Report Table 2-8: Subarea Purple Purple Purple Purple Purple Purple Purple Purple Coral Coral Coral Coral -Coral ;Coral Coral Lime Lime Lime Lime Lime Lime Parking Supply in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District1 From Baxton-Aschman Associates, Inc. PUBLIC PARKING SUPPLY PRIVATE Lot/~; ~ ~PARKING Block Garage 1 2 4 Q 5 O 12 R 13 P 15 16 6 ¯A 9~ C 14.. N Long 0 0 135 O 37 0 0 0 0 0 Short 0 0 0 76 34 51 0 0 ¯ 68 ~ Short Supply SUPPLY 8 8 20 18 18 26 21 156 157 38 114 6 31 102 0 44 95 23 42 42 197 45 45 22 SUPPLY PARKINGSTRUCTUR£28 FF.ASIBILITY 44 STUDY 313 120 102 118 239 67 169 30 ’71 20 C~ty 8 K 10 L,S 11 F 19 D 21 E 22 G .... 42 0 0 0 36 49 13 28 83 109 28 137 53 34 87 81 66 147 0 39 75 0 36 85 .98 139 222 20 157 39 126 13 160 60 135 6 91 PurpleZone 172 161 247 580 ’451 1031 Coral Zone 535 384 248 1167 326 1493 LimeZone 127 256 231 614 277 891 BlueZone 331 218 243 792 965 1757 Total 1165 1019 969 3153 2019 5172 Long-term and shod-term apply to designations dudng weekday business hours. ~W~Desi~ Group Page l5 Final Report DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE [EASIBILITY STUDY Table 2-9:Parking Supply and Demand Comparison From Barton-Asehman Associates, Inc. Subarea Purple 1 Purple 2 Purple 4 ¯ Purple 5 Purple 12 Purple 13 Purple 15 Purple 16 Coral Coral Coral 7 Coral 9 Coral 14 Coral .17 Coral 18 Coral 20 Lime 8 Lime 10 Lime 11 Lime 19 Lime 21 Lime 22 Lot/ Block Garage Q O R P CRy ¯ 0 0 K 68410 274 L,S 75228 301 F 71459 286 D 327923 1312 E 62459 250 G 11012 44 Building Total Area Parking (sq. ft.)Demand Private Public 10603 42 20 8 25530 102 26 18 116918 468 157 156 78979 316 6 114 71235 285 0 102 143488 574 23 95 122331 489 197 42 113704 455 22 45 108845 435 113 22963 ~;:92 17 13 Total Parking Supply PARKING Total BALANCE 28 -14 44 -58 313 -155 120 -196 102 -183 118 -456 239 -250 67 -388 95 ~’210 ~= 30 130 ¯ ::;~’:,~. :697 697 139 83 222 -52 20 137 157 -144 39 87 126 -160 13 147 160 -1152 60 75 135 -115 6 85 91 47 Purple Zone 682788 2731 451 580 1031 -1700 Coral Zone 666519 2666 326 1167 1493 -1173 Lime Zone 616491 2466 277 614 891 -1575 Blue Zone 772718 3091 965 792 1757 -1334 Total 2738516 10954 2019 3153 5172 -5782 Long-term and short-term apply to designations during weekday business hours. Final Report DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTUREFEASIBILITY STUDY This chapter documents the process and results of an analysis of the 15 existing City owned surface parking lots in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District. Issues investigated included site characteristics, geological features and adjacent uses. ~Warty Design Group Page 17 ~OWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE [F.ASIBILITY STUDY Final Report There are currently 15 City owned, surface level parking lots located in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District: Lots A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, N, O, P, 1L S, and T. The lots are predominately free public parking with a small portion dedicated to permit parking..Permit parking is allowed in lots E, G, K, 1L and T; Lot S is currently paid attendant parking. Objectives of the Site Analysis were to study each of the 15 lots with respect to the following issues: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Accessibility and Street Capacity Surrounding Land Use Soil Conditions Function/Aesthetics Overall Feasibility The final objective was to determine which lots would be the most feasible for a multi-level parking structure. Each lot was analyzed using the following Criteria: Accessibility and Street Capacity Detailed lot sheets were prepared noting all primary ingress and egress locations and secondary circulation paths consisting of alleyways and service corridors. Lots which currently have access/ egress locations which fall within 50 feet of a street comer, a situation which Barton-Aschman has stated creates a potential traffic problem, have been noted. Street capacity refers to the amount of cars the street can accommodate. In most cases, ingress/egress for the lots are from secondary greets (classified as average capacity) where traffic presents less of a problem than on the three busier thoroughfares: University, Lytton and Hamilton (classified as high capacity). Please refer to Chapter 2, Table 2-8 for a detailed accounting of curb spaces by Barton-Asehman. Surrounding Land Use A preliminary visual check of the surrounding land uses was performed in an attempt to forecast parking demand numbers in the immediate area around each lot. Also noted were areas of potential incompatibility. The types fall into five major categories: Commercial (service providing businesses such as banks, dry cleaners and copy centers), Retail ( retail merchandise providers such as clothing stores, convenience stores and drug stores), Professional (offices for attorneys, accountants, doctors etc.) Restaurants (both sit down and fast food) and Residential (single family dwellings and high density units). Additional categories are noted as they occur. Also noted are the locations of any other public lot in the immediate vicinity. Final Report Soil Conditions Reviewing subsurface data from previous geotechnical investigations performed in the downtown Palo Alto area in the last 15 years, Lowney Associates has compiled a summary of soils conditions for the Parking Assessment District. The full content of this summary can be found in Appendix A. Please note that their findings foresee no problems with building a new parking structure (including a one level basement) with conventional shallow foundation construction methods. Construction of an additional basement level has precedent in the downtown area but will require additional study from a geotechnical engineer before any definitive recommendation can be made. Function/Aesthetics This section addresses the remaining issues relevant to each lot. These issues include: 1) number of street front facades (important if there is to be any retail space provided in a future parking structure); 2) the occurrence of any service alleys or loading docks areas which may need to be accommodated in a future parking structure; 3) any building entrances that front onto the lot that may be hidden in a future parking structure; and 4) existing size and circulation patterns (a future parking structure would require enough room to circulate completely within its property line). Summary of Lot Taking into consideration the above conditions and constraints, each site has been given one of the following ratings: Poor Feasibility - Fair Feasibility - Good Feasibility - little to no opportunity for the construction of an efficient parking structure. the opportunity exists for the construction of a parking structure. these lots present the best opportunity for the construction of a more efficient parking structure. Design Workshop In addition to the above analysis, a Design Workshop was held to elicit opinions, suggestions, concerns and questions from the University Avenue PAD merchants, property owners, users and neighbors. While technically not considered part of the site analysis, what was communicated and learned at that meeting has an important impact on the feasibility of building a parking structure. A synopsis of that meeting has been included on pages 27-29. DOWNTOWN PARKINGSTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY The end result of the Site Analysis was that each City lot was given a feasibility rating of either Poor, Fair or Good. (See Figure 3-1 on page 20 for individual lot ratings). Lots O, R and S were all given the highest rating of Good. This rating was based solely on the criteria discussed above. The rating indicated that each of the three lots had enough physical attributes (i.e. enough square footage, good soil conditions, safe ingress/egress points and adequate circulation) to facilitate a multi-level parking structure. Warty DeMgn Group Page 19 DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Figure 3-1 Parking Assessment District Lot Ratings Summary Compiled from the Detailed Lot Summaries found in the Interim Report Final Re/7ort Lot Lot A Lot C Lot D Lot E Lot F Lot G Lot H Lot K Name Rating Lot Emerson/Lytton Lot Poor Lot L Ramona/Lytton Lot Poor Lot H Hamilton/Waverley Lot Fair Lot O Gilman/Bryant Lot Poor Lot P Florence/Lytton Lot Poor Lot R Gi)man/Waverley Lot Poor Lot S Cowper/Hamilton Lot Fair Lot T Lytton/Waverley Lot Poor Name Bryant/Lytton Lot Emerson/Ramona Lot Emerson/High Lot High/Hamilton Lot High/Alma South Lot Bryant/Florence Lot Lytton/Kipling Lot Rating Poor Poor Good Poor Good Good Poor .Page 20 WarO, Design Group Final Report As schematic design drawings were being drawn up for each of the lots, some additional design considerations came to light with regard to Lot O. During the site analysis, it was noted that many of the businesses surrounding Lot O contained secondary egress paths that utilized the public lot in their required exit path. Two options were developed for Lot O. The first one involved excavating approximately half the site down a full level. This option effectively cut off all secondary access from the surrounding buildings. The second option involved setting the upper level of the parking structure back from the property line. This created a narrow "tongue" of parking that allowed access to the lot in the present manner and did not interfere with the adjacent building egress paths. Unfortunately, the cost per added stall price for this option is prohibitive. The members of the Project Study Committee concluded that Lot O should not be considered further for a parking structure at this time. DOWNTOWNPARKINGSTRUCTUREFEASIBILITYSTUDY In addition to analyzing individual lots, it was requested that the feasibility of combining lots be considered. Taking into consideration the proximity of Lot L to Lot S and the fact that the city owns the property between them, another viable option is to combine the two public lots together to form one large lot. This would involve the demolition of the existing Senior Center Annex which is currently being utilized as a temporary Teen Center. The combination of these three lots provides the city the best opportunity to build a parking structure large enough to significantly reduce the parking deficit. In addition, the comer location of Lot L provides a good opportunity for the inclusion of a retail element in the structure. Likewise, due to the location of City Lot P directly across the street from Lot R, it was suggested that combining Lot R with Lot P could perhaps create a much larger multi-level structure. This would involve either creating an underground tunnel between R & P or an overhead bridge. Parking as well as circulation would have to be provided within the connection, which would require a tunnel or a bridge at least 60 feet wide. The cost and inconvenience of going underground with this wide of a tunnel makes this idea undesirable. The increased floor to floor height required for trucks to pass under a bridge as well as the general dislike for a 60 foot wide bridge spanning a city street renders this option equally as undesirable. In addition, using Lot P does not create enough efficiency to justify the increased costs. This option was deemed economically and aesthetically infeasible and no further study was conducted. A similar idea of combining lots F & S was likewise rejected. The full analysis of all City owned Lots in the University Avenue PAD can be found in the Interim Report, issued to the City of Palo Alto on June 12, 1996 by the Watry Design Group. The following 5 pages are taken from that report and show, in detail, the results of the analysis for lots R, S, and S/L. Design Group Page 21 ~\~ ~WNTOWN PARKINGS’[RUCTURE ~E.ASIBILITY STUDY Lot R is located in the western central section of the Downtown Parking Assessment District, in the color zone designated as purple by th~ City of Palo Alto. It lies within the block bordered by High Street on the east, Hamilton Avenue on the south, Alma Street on the west and University Avenue on the north. Hamilton, Alma and University are two way streets, High Street is a one-way street that heads south. Access to Lot R is from.two, one way curb cuts on High Street and one, one-way, curb cut on Alma. There are two exits, one onto High Street and one onto Alma. The lot is 100’ wide and 225’ long with and additional 25’ wide by 122’-6" long notch located on the northeast corner. Three 6" high concrete curbs divide the lot into 5 circulation sections. The lot is bordered on the north side by two buildings: One is a three stoW professional office/ retail/restaurant building, the other is a 2 story building housing a Blockbuster Video Store on the ground floor and professional offices on the second. Both buildings have entrances and a shared trash enclosure located at the west end of the notch in the northeast corner. The south side is bordered by a single, unreinforced masonry building running the entire length of the lot. That building houses the corporate offices of the K & J Coffee organization, an antique store, a furniture store, Q Billiards restaurant and The Yoga Source. A niche located approximately halfway on the elevation of the masonry building contains the back door to the furniture store and the apparent front door to K & J Corporate Offices. Final Report LOT R High/Alma South Lot Dimensions 112’x225’ Square Feet 25,200 Number of Existing Stalls 71 Zone Designation Block Designation Parking Deficit in Zone Purple 12 1700 Overall Parking Structure Feasibility Good DOWNTOWN PARKINGSTRUCTUR[ i:~.ASIBILITY STUDY Accessibility and Street Capacity Primary access and egress from this site is from five one way curb cuts, three on High Street and two on Alma Street, a high traffic volume thoroughfare. Site accessibility good from High Street, some- what dangerous from Alma. Street Capacity is average on High, very high on Alma. Refer to Chapter 2 for additional information on parking capacity. [] Surrounding Land Use Adjacent to this lot is several buildings containing commercial and ~ businesses, restaurants, and professional offices. City Lot P is located across High Street as are additional commercial and retail businesses and restaurants. Across Alma is the Palo Alto Train Station servicing CalTrain and Amtrak. 25 [] Soil Conditions Initial review of existing data indicates the soil conditions to be adequate to support a multi-level parking structure, including a one level basement, constructed with conventional shallow foundation methods. Refer to Appendix A for full report, Function/Aesthetics This lot sits in the middle of the block and any new structure would have two street front facades, one on High and one on Alma. There are several adjacent buildings with enWances fronting onto this lot. One half of the circulation takes place on the street. This site is on the liinge of the Parking Assess- ment District. Summary of Lot R Based on the information above, we give this lot a rating of Good, based primarily on the following: -Lot dimensions allow for an economically feasible parking structure -Lo~t~l in most deficient zone. []Watry Design Group Page 23 Final Report DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FF.ASIBILITY STUDY Lot S is located in the northern central section of the Downtown Parking Assessment District, in the color zone designated as Lime by the City of Palo Alto. It lies within the block bordered by Florence Street on the east, University Avenue on the south, Bryant Street on the west and Lytton Avenue on the north. All four streets are two way streets. Access to Lot S is from two two-way curb cuts, one located on Bryant and one located on Florence. The lot is 135’ wide and 218’ long. A 4’ wide, 6" high curb sits in the center of the lot. There are two gazebos located at the southeast and southwest corners providing benches and a telephone. This lot is currently an .attendant lot providing long term parking for a small fee. The lotis bordered on the north side by three buildings: One is a two story Victorian style house converted into a professional office building, one is a 3 story building addition to the Victorian office building, the third is a one story annex to the Senior Center across the street which is owned by the city. The Victorian office building has entrances facing Lot S and is set back from the property line. The lot is bordered on the south side by a number of businesses but is separated from them by a service alley approximately 20’ wide. Lot L is located in the northern central section of the Downtown Parking Assessment District, in the color zone designated as lime by the City of Palo Alto. It lies within the block bordered by Florence Street on the east, University Avenue on the south, Bryant Street on the west and Lytton Avenue on .the north. All four streets are two way streets. Lot L-is a small, approximately 11, 000 square foot lot located on the northeast corner of Lytton Avenue and Bryant Street. Access and egress to the lot is from two one way curb cuts located on Bryant Street. Lot L is 118’ wide and 93’ long witha 12’-6" by 25’ notch located on the southeast corner. A tree sits on the Lytton/Bryant corner with a canopy diameter of approximately 40 feet. Lot L is bordered on the east side by a two story professional office building. The lot that separates Lot L from Lot S on the south side of Lot L is 25’ wide and 105’-6" long. A single story annex to the Senior Center currently fills the lot. Both the lot and the building are owned by the City. No entrances are located on the side of the buildings facing Lot L. Page 24 Warty Design Group Final Report LOT Bryant/Florence Lot Dimensions 135’x218’ Square Feet 29,430 Number of Existing Stalls 82 Zone Designation Block Designation. Parking Deficit in Zone Lime 10 1575 Overall Parking Structure Feasibility Good DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUD Y Accessibility and Street Capacity Prima~ access and egress from this site is from two bidirectional curb cuts, one on Bryant Street and one on Florence Street. Site accessibility is above average for this study. Street Capacity is average. Refer to Chapter 2 for additional information on parking capacity. [] Surrounding Land Use Adjacent to this lot is several buildings containing professional offices, commercial and retail busi- nesses and restaurants and an armex to the Senior Center. Across Bryant Street is the main Senior Center building and a public park. Across Florence Street are additional commercial offices as well as City Lot F. City Lot L is also located on this block. Soil Conditions Initial review of existing dam indicates the soil conditions to be adequate to support a multi-level panking structure, including a one level basement, constructed with conventional shallow foundation methods. Refer to Appendix A for full report. Function/Aesthetics This lot sits in the middle of the block and any new structure would have two street front facades, one on Florenceand one on Bryant. There is one adjacent building with entrances fronting onto this lot. All circulation takes place within the boundaries of the site. A separate service alley runs along the Southeast side. This is the largest lot in this study. Summary of Lot S Based on the information above, we give this lot a rating of Good, based primarily on the following: -Lot dimensions allow for an economically feasible parking structure -Central location ~Warty Design Group ’ - Page 25 Final Report DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTUR[ irI:ASIBILITY STUDY ,LOTL Bryant/Lytton Lot Dimensions 93’xl 18’ Square Feet 10,974 Number of Existing .Stalls 27 Zone Designation Block Designation Parking Deficit in Zone Lime 10 1575 Overall Parking Structure Feasibility Poor [] Accessibility and Street Capacity Access to this site is from a one way curb cut on Bryant Street. Egress is onto Lytton Avenue and Bryant Street from two one way curb cuts. Both egress points falls within the 50’ zone from the comer, making potential access problematic. Street Capacity is average on Bryant, high on Lytt6n. Refer to Chapter 2 for additional information on parking capacity. Surrounding Land Use Directly adjacent to the site is one building containing professional offices and retail businesses and a small annex to the senior center. Across Bwant is the Senior Center main building and a public park. Across Lytton Avenue are building containing professional offices. City Lot S is also located on this block. Soil Conditions Initial review of existing data indicates the soft conditions to be adequate to support a multi-level parking structure, including a one level basement, constructed with conventional shallow foundation methods. Refer to Appendix A for full report. [] Function/Aesthetics ¯This lot sits on a comer and any new sl~ucture would have two street front facades. There are no adjacent buildings with enlrances fi’onting onto this lot. A portion of the circulation takes place on the street. This is the smallest lot in the study. Summary of Lot L Based on the information above, we give this lot a rating of Peer, based prinuu~ on the following: -Lot size prohibits an economically feasible parking structure -Location on block minimizes access/egress options Page 26 Design Group ,Final Report A public design workshop was held on Thursday May 16th, 1996 at the Palo Alto Senior Center. The purpose of the workshop was to seek input from interested parties regarding the location and design of one or more parking structures to be located in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District. In addition to notices placed in local newspapers, flyers were sent to approximately 1000 people including property owners, merchants, business and neighborhood associations etc. Approximately 25 citizens participated in the workshop. The workshop began with an introduction by Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer and Project Manager for the City of Palo Alto for this feasibility study. Nick Watry, Principal of the Watry Design Group, then described the overall workshop process and goals the workshop sought to attain. All participants then broke into one of four detailed areas of concern: Design, Traffic, Cost and Site Issues. Each group spent thirty minutes discussing issues relevant to their topic. A list of issues developedin each of the four groups can be found below. The whole group then reconvened for an hour to summarize the findings and issues of each specialty group and to reach a consensus about how to approach them. The workshop was then adjourned. Design Traffic Small Group Findings & Issues The following are brief descriptions of points made and issues raised during the course of the workshop. Opportunity to improve environment Retail - Restrooms - Farmers Market Valet Parking more .efficient Public art - how to get into project Lot O - negative impact on neighboring lots Mixed use favored by many How can the structure add to the environment Elevator - visible for security/traffic flow Passive security - open stairs and elevators 2 hour limit of colored permit zones contribute to traffic congestion Emphasize parking accommodations for bicycles throughout downtown area More bicycle use could decrease traffic Business districts outside of Assessment District are over parked day and evening (High & Everett) Green zones are exempt from colored parking zone 2 hour restrictions. City is attempting to expand number of green zones All day parking is needed in greater quantity DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FF.ASIBILITY STUDY i WatryDeslgn Group ......Page 27 D~VNTOM/N PARKING STRUCTURE[EASIBILITY . STUDY Final Repo~ Is City’s program to encourage carpooling expanding? Is this helping to reduce traffic A new parking structure at Lot "S" could affect Senior Center access due to increased traffic flows High Street functions better as "one way" Senior Center needs to maintain adequate parking Cost Funding: not only Parking Assessment District Liability for bond assessment district Work with Stanford on how to charge Fear of pricing out retail tenants 2% to 5% premium for "architecture" Assessment basis - use vs. square footage City should share cost with PAD Other alternatives to a parking structure should be looked at People won’t walk to a distant structure Paid lots not full (for long term) 1200 people on waiting list for parking permit Investigate residential parking permit system Site Issues $ Lot Lot R Front/back door Poor sight lines on Alma Not good for below grade O Transformer ;" Trash Pick up Lot S/L Impact on Victorian Possible lightwell Use street to turn around Construction time: small - 6 months; large - 1 year Phase construction of 2 structures Efficiency of scale - above grade/below grade R/P (or F/S) bridge not cost efficient A survey was developed and distributed at the workshop. The survey consisted of a list of decisions typically made in the design of a parking structure. Participants were invited to fill out the survey and return it to the eo~ttee. The results of that survey can be found in Appen- dix B. Page 28 IFatry Design Group ,Final Report For presentation at the workshop, a total of 30 schematic design options were developed on Lots O, R, S and S/L. These options were presented to the public and the Project Study Committee for questions and comment. A summary of these options canbe found on pages 32- 33. For a full report on these options, please refer to the Interim Report. Based on the parking supply and demand analysis, evaluation of the existing site characteristics and the comments received at the Planning Commission and the Architectural Reveiw Board meetings, Watry was directed by the Project Study Committee to further develop schematic design options on Lots P~ S and S/L. The results of this process are presented in Chapter 4. Figure 3-2 on the following page shows the influence the proposed structure locations would have on parking in the downtown area, This direction is in general agreement with the Downtown Urban Design guidelines which identifies two locations, Lots S/L and Lot R, as appropriate for new above and/or below grade parking structures. DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY I Warty Design Group Page 29 DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Figure 3-2 Parking Assessment District Parking Supply Radius Map Cowper-Webster Garage Final Report Ramon Civic Center Garage The above map represents the areas of influence a parking structure may have in a particular area. The assumption is that a person would utilize a parking structure if it were within 2 blocks walking distance from their destination. Existing structures are represented by open circles. Filled circles are used to represent areas influenced if a parking structure were to be built on the lots R and S/L. Approximately eleven percent of the PAD falls outside the influence of these areas. Page 30 Warty Desigu Group Final Re~or~ DOWNTOWN PARKING SIRUCTURE.F[ASlBILITY STUDY As a result of the Task 2 process, 30 schematic design options were developed on Lots O, R, S & S/L Out of those options, 5 were chosen by the Project Study Committee for Warty Design Group Page 31 Final Report DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE [I~ASlBILITY STUDY Shortly after finishing the Site Selection process, 30 schematic designs were developed on the four lot options (O, R, S & S/L). Most options explored each lot with respects to number of levels and whether or not basement levels should or could be added. The chart below depicts ~ design information from the Interim Report the PSC used to choose which options to explore. Two options were developed on Lot O, which was deemed to be too inefficient for further study. Those numbers have been included below for comparison. Option 1 0 2 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3a Option 3b 3c Option la Option lb Option lc Option 2a Option 2b Option 2c Option la Option lb Option lc Option 2a Option 2b Option la Option lb Option lc Option 2a Option 2b 0 2c Option Option.4 Option Option 1 2 3 4 5 Single elevated deck, 1/2 under ground Sin le elevated deck with 4 Single elevated deck, 1/2 under ground Single elevated deck with speed ramp ~ Multi-level structure, 2 elevated decks Multi-level structure, 3 elevated decks Multi-level structure, 4 elevated decks Multi-level structure, 2 elevated decks Multi-level structure, 3 elevated decks Multi-level structure, 4 elevated decks Multi-level structure, 2 elevated decks, 1 below grade Multi-level structure, 3 elevated decks, 1 below grade Multi-level structure, 4 elevated decks, 1 below grade 2 future Multi-level structure, 2 elevated decks Multi-level structure, 3 elevated decks Multi-level structure, 4 elevated decks Multi-level structure, 2 elevated decks, 1 belowgrade Multi-level structure, 3 elevated decks, 1 belowgrade rade ,Multi-level structure, 2 elevated decks Multi-level structure, 3 elevated decks Multi-level structure, 4 elevated decks Multi-level structure, 2 elevated decks, 1 below grade Multi-level structure, 3 elevated decks, 1 below grade Multi-level structure, 4 elevated decks, 1 below rade 4 elevated decks, 1 below grade, w/retail & restrooms5 4 elevated decks, 1 below grade, w/retail & restroorns, alternate5 4 elevated decks, 1 below grade, w/public park & restrooms5 4 elevated decks, 1 below grade, w/public park & restrooms, alternate~ Stall counts are approximate based on schematic design options Initial construction cost and counts will be approximately the same as option 2a above Total stall counts and square footage incorporating any future levels will be approximately the same as option 2c above - Cost will increase with the progression of time No Elevator included No below grade parking under retail section Page 32 Final Report 44,400 132 336 76 56 $28 $1,243,200 37,000 101 366 76 25 $20 $740 000 44,400 132 336 71 61 $28 $1,243,200 46,600 126 370 71 55 $20 $932,000 68,000 177 384 71 106 $26 $1,768,000 92,000 231 398 71 160 $25 $2,300,000 116 000 285 407 71 214 $24 $2 Option I Option 1 Option 2 Option 3a Option 3b ~3c 76,800 254 302 82 172 $26 $1,996,800 102,400 341 300 82 259 $25 ¯ $2,560,000 128,000 428 299 82 346 $24 $3,072,000 102,400 338 303 82 256 $31 $3,174,400 128,000 425 301 82 343 $30 $3,840,000 153,600 512 300 82 430 $29 $4,454,400 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 Option la Option lb Option lc Option 2a Option 2b Option 2c 109,800 349 .315 109 240 $26 $2,854,800 146,400 469 312 109 360 $25 $3,660,000 183,000 589 311 .109 480 $24 $4,392,000 146,400 466 314 109 357 $31.$4,538,400 183,000 586 312 109 477 $30 $5,490,000 219,600 706 . 311 109 597 $29 109,800 319 344 109 210 $34 $3,733,200 146,400 439 333 109 330 $33 $4,831,200 183,000 559 327 109 450 $32 $5,856,000 146,400 428 342 109 319 $39 $5,709,600 183,000 548 334 109 439 $38 $6,954,000 219,600 668 329 109 559 $37 $6 200 Option la Option Ib Option lc Option 2a Option 2b Option la Option lb Option lc Option 2a Option 2b 2c 219,200 655 335 109 546 $37 $6,110,400 219,200 -648 338 109 539 $37 $8,110,400 215,200 668 322 109 559 $30 $6,456,000 214,400 665 322 109 556 $30 $6,432,000 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Design Group Page 33 DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FF.ASIBILITY STUDY Final Report Of the 30 initial options developed, five were chosen by the Project Study Committee for further study and refinement. The Watry Design Group took a closer look at the issues on each of these sites, including new ideas and comments received from the workshop and subsequent Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and Project Study Committee meetings. The options chosen were: Lot R - Option 3a Lot R- Option 3b Lot S/L- Option 3 Lot S/L- Option 5 ~,Lot S - Option 2c .... The Committee also decided that Lot S/L - Option 3 & 5 and Lot S - Option 2c should include an additional basement level in order to increasethe number of net stalls gained. It was also decided that all options should include public restrooms. In the next few pages eachoption is discussed in the following manner: A description of the scheme, floor plans & a section, a more refined opinion of probable cost (as compared to the preliminary estimates on page 32-33), and summary of project information. Included in the summary is a figure labeled "Deduct for Design". This is the number of stalls expected to be lost as the design of each structure is developed. Lot S/L- Option 3 includes an additional column under the Opinion of Probable Cost and Building Sunanm3~ sections. This column contains cost information about the structure without the retail portion. This allows an easier comparison of the affect of the retail element on the structure. All costs are in 1996 dollars ...... Three level structure with speed ramp This option consists of two elevated decks (short span) with entrances from High Street via a speed ramp located in the northeast comer notch, which continues to spiral upward to provide access to the upper floors. The three existing curbs have been removed fi’om the ground level and the parking has been configured to form a vehicular circulation path that does not involve either Alma Street or:High Street. A concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall provides the fire separation between buildings as well as slab edge support at the perimeter. Comments This option allows for the same level of access to existing building entrances as is currently provided. Special fire protection consideration will need to be made for the one pairofdoors located on the adjacent buildings on the west side of the lot. It may be possible to use deluge sprinklers at the perimeter to eliminate the CMU walls and create a more open structure. This may also eliminate the need for mechanical ventilation. The speed ramp will allow cars to access the elevated deck without cutting offpedestrian access to the two buildings on the east side. The circulation pattern created by the speed ramps requires driving around the entire floor plate. While this provides an optimum number of stalls, it alos reduces the level of service to the user. Page 34 Wa~ Design Group Final Report Ground Level ~i~ VV VV VV VV VV VV VV ~ Second Level DOWNTOWNPARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Third Level Section Final Report D~>~’~TOWN FARKING STRUCTURE. [EASIBILITY STUDY Total Square Footage Division I -General Requirements Division 2 - Site Work Division 3 - Concrete Division 4 - Masonry Division 5 - Metals Division 6 - Wood & Plastics Division 7 - Thermal & Moisture Protection Division 8 - Doors & Windows Division 9 - Finishes Division 10 - Specialties Division 11 o Equipment Division t 2 ~ Furnishings Division 13- Special Construction Division 14 - Conveying Systems Division 15 - Mechanical Division 16 - Electrical Subtotal Performance & Matedal Bonds @ 1% Job Overhead @ 5% Mark-up @ 5% Construction Cost Design Contingency @ 7% Construction Contingency @ 15% Construction Bid Total Cost Hard Cost Per Square foot 71,430 $110,505 $1,069,654 $111,000 $60,000 $10,400 $15,400 $48,421 $42,400 $75,000 $186,667 $147,402 $1,876,849 $18,768 $93,842 $93,842 $2,083,302 $145,831 $312,495 $2,541,629 $35.58 Full A & E Services 9% Soils Report 0.2% Site Survey 0.1% Inspection 2% Testing.1% Traffic Impacts 0.1% Construction Manager 1.5% Project Management 6% " Marketing 0.2% Public Art 1% Miscellaneous 0.3% Subtotal.~.4% $228 $5 $50 $25 $38 $152 $25 $7 ,747 083 542 833 416 542 124 498 083 416 625 909 So~t Cost Per Square foot $7.61 Total Hard & Soft Costs $3,085,538 Page36 Total Cost Per Square foot Final Report Third Level Second Level Ground Level Total Square Feet Parking 23,330 24,000 24,100 71,430 No. of Total Stalls Square Feet Retail 0 0 0 0 No. of Existing Stalls Third Level 59 0 Second Level 54 0 Gmund Level 53 71 Sub-Total 166 71 Deduct for Design 10 0 Total 156 71 Square Feet/Stall 458 Net Gain 59 54 -18 95 10 DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTUREFEASIBILITY STUDY Hard Costs Construction Bid Total Cost $2,541,629 Cost/Square Foot $35.58 Cost/Stall $16,292 Cost/Added Stall $29,902 Total Costs Hard + Soft Cost $3,085,538 Cost/Square Foot $43.20 Cost/Stall $19,779 Cost/Added Stall $36,300 The above figures include cost for design and constuction of this option. See Chapter 5 for additional financing costs and total District Assessment. Design Group Page 37 Final Re[7ort DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Four level structure with speed ramp This option consists of three elevated decks (short span) with entrances from High Street via a speed ramp located in the northwest corner notch and which continues to spiral upward to provide access to the upper floors. The three existing curbs have been removed from the ground level and the parking has been configured to form a vehicular circulation path that does not involve either Alma Street or High Street. CMU walls provide the fire separation between buildings as well as slab edge support at the perimeter. Comments This option allows for the same level of access to existing building entrances as is currently provided. Special fire protection consideration will need to be made for the one pair of doors located on the west side of the lot. It may be possible to use deluge spfirdders at ~he perimeter to eliminate the CMU walls and create a more open structure. This may also eliminate the need for mechanical ventilation. The speed ramp will allow cars to access the elevated deck without cutting ot~pedestrian a~ess to th~ two buildings on the east side. The circulation pattern created by the speed ramps requires driving around the entire floor plate. While this provides an optimum number of stalls, it alos reduces the level of service to the user. 4 Page 38 IFa~y Design Group Final Report Ground Level Second Level DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURF. FEASIBILITY STUDY Third Level Fourth Level Section []Warty Design Group Page 39 DOWNTOWN PARKINGSTRUCTUR~ ~’E, ASIBILITY STUDY Total Square Footage Division I - General Requirements Division 2 - Site Work Division 3 - Concrete Division 4 - Masonry Division 5 - Metals Division 6 - Wood & Plastics Division 7 - Thermal & Moisture Protection Division 8 - Doors & Windows Division 9 - Finishes Division I0 - Specialties Division 11 - Equipment Division 12 - Furnishings Division 13 - Special Construction Division 14 - Conveying Systems Division 15 - Mechanical Division 16 - Electrical Subtotal Performance & Material Bonds @ 1% Job Overhead @ 5% Mark-up @ 5% Construction Cost Design Contingency @ 7% Construction Contingency @ 15% Construction Bid Total Cost Hard Cost Per Square foot 95,530 $o $110,505 $1,551,474 $114,000 $60,000 $12,400 $15,400 $68,319 $42,400 $0 $75,000 $236,072 $181,907 $2,467,477 $24,675 $123,374 $123,374 $2,738,899 $191,723 $410,835 $3,341,4~7 $34.98 Full A & E Services 9% Soils Report 0.2% Site Survey 0.1% Inspection 2% Testing 1% Traffic Impacts 0.1% Construction Manager 1.5% Project Management 6% ¯ Marketing 0.2% Pub,cArt 1% Miscellaneous 0.3% Subtotal 21.4% $300 731 $6 683 $66 829 $33 415 $50 122 $200 487 $6 683 $33 415 $10,024 $7t5,072 Soft Cost Per Square foot $7.49 Total Hard & Soft Costs $4,056,529 Page 40 Total Cost Per Square foot Final Re oft Fourth Level Third Level Second Level Ground Level Total Square Feet Parking Square Feet Retail 23,330 24,0501 24,050 24,100 95,530 o o 0 0 0 DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY No, of Total Stalls No. of Existing Stalls Fourth Level 59 0 ThirdLevel 54 0 Second Level 54 0 GroundLevel 53 71 Sub-Total 220 71 Deduct for Design 10 0 Total 210 71 Square Feet/Stall 4,55 Net Gain 59 54 54 -18 149 10 139 Hard Costs Construction Bid Total Cost $3,341,457 Cost]Square Foot $34.98 Cost/Stall $15,912 Cost/Added Stall $24,039 Total Costs Hard + Soft Cost $4,056,5’;;9 Cost/Square Foot $42.46 Cost/Stall $19,317 Cost/Added Stall $29 184 The above figures include cost for design and constuction of this option. See Chapter 5 for additional financing costs and total District Assessment. Warty Design Group .Page 41 Final Re[~ort DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Seven level structure with retail This option consists of 2 below grade levels, one at grade level and 4 elevated decks (long span). Entry to the structure is from Bryant Street and Florence Street. This option includes a retail element into the parking structure. It has been recognized in previous downtown studies that a comer location, such as provided by Lot L, is a prime site for a retail or restaurant establishment. Also recognized is the demand for Public Restrooms in the downtown area, which have been included. Comments Although the purpose of this study is to create as much parking as possible in the downtown are~, and recognizing that any retail would add to the parking demand, the inclusion of only parking on theeomer of Lytton and Bryant would be inconsistent with the City of Palo Alto Urban Design Guidelines. Comer lots are premium sites and the general urban design plan for downtown Palo Alto encourages prime comer lots be developed as retail or restaurant. Also noted is the need for more public restrooms in the downtown area. This option adds a retail/restaurant space and public restrooms to the ground floor extension ofLot L. The addition of retail typic~ly results in a higher level of architectural detail included in the structure, consequently increasing the cost per square foot figure. This option increases the stall count by approximately 30 spaces per floor. Because the Lot L portion is a "dead end" configuration the efficiency decreases slightly. The lightwell adds greatlyto the overall ambiance of the structure by introducing natural light and ventilation to all levels. This is especially beneficial to the below grade levels. An additional benefit is that post-tensioning cables can be pulled in the lightwell, increasing the constructibiltyofthe structure. TheBryant Street elevation is now approximately 275 ’ long. A number of issues regarding the inclusion of the retail element in this structure require further resolution. Should the City own and lease the retail space? Is the retail space included as a p~.~ of the project or sold separately for private development? How will the retail component be funded ~ntially if it cannot be part of the assessment district financing. How important is a retail component to this project? While the issue of a retail component does not affect the overall feasibility of a parking structure project at this location, further discussion and resolution regarding the retail component will need to occur as the project moves forward. Page 42 Sub-Basement Level Basement Level Warty Design Group Final Report Ground Level Second- Fourth Level~ DOWNTOWN PARKING " STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Fifth Level L t I1.~11 -I~--I’ Section Walry Design Group Page 43 Final Report DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Shaded column represents structure costs without the retail space. Total Square Footage 230,370 Division I - General Requirements Division 2 - Site Work Division 3 - Concrete Division 4 - Masonry Division 5 - Metals Division 6 - Wood & Plastics Division 7 - Thermal & Moisture Protection Division 8 - Doors & Windows Division 9 - Finishes Division 10 - Specialties Division 11 - Equipment Division 12 - Furnishings Division 13 - Special Construction *, Division 14 - Conveying Systems Division 15 - Mechanical Division 16 - Electrical Subtotal Performance & Material Bonds @ 1% Job Overhead @ 5% Mark-up @ 5% Construction Cost $1,550,900 $3,547,189 $164,000 $213,600 $78,400 $84,400 $310,900 $82,400 $450,OOO $150,000 $629,650 $396,000 $7,657,439 $76,574 $382,872 $362,872 $8,499,757 Design Contingency @ 7% Construction Contingency @ 15% Construction Bid Total Cost $594,983 $1,274,964 $10,369,704 Hard Cost Per Square foot Full A & E Services 9% Soils Report 0.2% Site Survey 0.1% Inspection 2% Testing 1% Traffic Impacts 0.1% Construction Manager 1.5% Project Management 6% Marketing 0.2% Pub,cArt 1% Miscellaneous 0.3% Subtotal 21.4% $933,273 $20,739 $10,370 $207,394 $103,697 $10,370 $155,546 $622,182 $20,739 $103,697 $31,109 $2,219,117 Soft Cost Per Square foot $9.63 * Includes costs associated with the retail space Page 44 Total Hard & Soft Costs Total Cost Per Square foot Final Report Fifth Level Fourth Level Third Level Second Level Ground Level Basement Level Sub-Basement Level Total Square Feet Parking 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,5OO 35,000 30,000 25,000 228,000 No. of Total Stalls Square Feet Retail 0 0 0 0 2,370 0 0 2,370 No. of Net Existing Stalls Gain Filth Level 107 0 107 Fourth Level 111 0 111 Third Level 111 0 111 Second Level 111 0 111 Gmund Level 105 109 -4 Basement Level 88 0 88 Sub-Basement Level 86 0 86 DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Sub-Total 719 109 610 Deduct for Design 20 0 20 Total 699 109 590 Square Feet/Stall Hard Costs Construction Bid Total Cost $10,369,704 Cost/Square Foot $45.01 Cost/Stall $14,835 Cost/Added Stall $17,576 Total Costs Hard + Soft Cost $12,588,821 Cost/Square Foot $54.65 Cost/Stall $18,010 Cost]Added Stall $21,337 The above figures include cost for design and constuction of this option. See Chapter 5 for additional financing costs and total District Assessment. W&ry Design Group Page 45 Final Re[7ort DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Seven level structure with park This option consists of 2 below grade levels, one at grade level and 4 elevated decks (long span). Entry to the structure is from Bryant Street and Florence Street. This option includes a park element on the comer of Lytton and Bryant. It was felt by the PSC that this would help soften the impact of the structure on the comer as well as creating another green area in the downtown. This option also includes the same provision for Public Restrooms in the downtown area as Option 3 does. This option was further refined by the PSC, the result being that the L portion of the structure was set back from the property line in order to reduce its perceived mass. Comments This option takes the same basic structure as Lot S/L Option 3, but removes the retail element. This does not add any parking spaces to the project, but it does remove the additional parking spaces that would be required by the retail element. Additional park space may be used to tie the design to Cogswell park across the street. Conversely, more park space may be considered a redundant element or an inefficient use of the land. Sub-Basement Level o o Basement Level Page 46 Final Report Ground Level Second, Fourth Level DOWNTOWNPARKINGSTRUCTUREFEASIBILITYSTUDY Fifth Level .! Section Design Group Page 47 DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Total Square Footage Division I - General Requirements Division 2 - Site Work Division 3 - Concrete Division 4 - Masonry Division 5 - Metals Division 6 - Wood & Plastics Division 7 - Thermal & Moisture Protection Division 6 - Doors & Windows Division 9 - Finishes Division 10 - Specialties Division 11 - Equipment Division 12 - Furnishings Division 13- Special Construction Division 14 - Conveying Systems Division 15 - Mechanical Division 16 - Electrical Subtotal Performance & Material Bonds @ 1% Job Overhead @ 5% Mark-up @ 5% Construction Cost Design Contingency @ 7% Construction Contingency @ 15% Construction Bid Total Cost Hard Cost Per Square foot 228,000 $1,563,400 $3,547,189 $164,000 $213,600 $78,400 $30,400 $310,900 $82,4O0 $150,000 $629,650 $388,000 $7,157,939 $71,579 $357,897 $357,897 $7,945,312 $356,172 $1,191,797 $9,693,281 $42.51 Full A & E Services 9% Soils Report 0.2% Site Survey 0.1% Inspection 2% Testing 1% Traffic Impacts 0.1% Construction Manager 1..5% Project Management 6% ¯ Marketing 0.2% PublicArt 1% Miscellaneous 0.3% Subtotal 21 $872 395 $19 387 $9 693 $193 866 $96 933 $9 693 $145 399 $581 597 $19.387 $9~ 933 $20 080 $2,074,362 Soft Cost Per Square foot $9.10 Total Hard & Soft Costs $1t,767,643 Page 48 Total Cost Per Square foot $51.61 Final Report Fifth Level Fourth Level Third Level Second Level Ground Level Basement Level Sub-Basement Level Square Feet Parking 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 35,000 30,000 25,000 228,000 NO. Of Total Stalls Square Feet Retail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. of Existing Stalls Net Gain Filth Level 107 0 107 Fourth Level 111 0 111 Third Level 111 0 111 Second Level 111 0 111 Ground Level 105 109 -4 Basement Level 88 0 88 Sub-Basement Level 86 0 86 Sub-Total 719 109 610 Deduct for Design 20 0 20 Total 699 109 590 Square Feet/Stall 326 DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Hard Costs Construction Bid Total Cost $9,693,281 Cost/Square Foot $42.51 Cost/Stall $13,867 Cost/Added Stall $16,429 Total Costs Hard + .Soft Cost $11,767,643 Cost/Square Foot $51.61 Cost/Stall $16,835 Cost/Added Stall $19,945 The above figures include cost for design and constuction of this option. See Chapter 5 for additional financing costs and total District Assessment. ~ Watry Design Group Page 49 DO WNTOWN PARKING SI~UCTURE fEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report Seven level structure with retail This option consists of 2 below grade levels, one at grade level and 4 elevated decks (long span). Entry to the structure is from Bryant Street and Florence Street. The existing Senior Center Annex is left untouched, as is Lot L. Comments This is the largest single lot in the study and the only single one big enough to allow full two way circulation within the confines of the property lines. This provides the most efficient structure possible on any of the city owned lots, including the S/L combination. The biggest potential conflict comes in the way the new structure will relate to the neighboring Victorian ¯ office building on the side lot line. Any new structure will need to respect the proximity of this building. Sub-Basement Level Basement Level Page 50 IFatry D~ign Group _Final Report Ground Level Second - Fourth Level DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTUR[ FF~ASlBILITY STUDY Fifth Level Section Design Group Page 51 Final Report DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Total Square Footage Division I -General Requirements Division 2 o Site Work Division 3 - Concrete Division 4 - Masonry Division 5 - Metals Division 6 - Wood & Plastics Division 7 - Thermal & Moisture Protection Division 8 - Doors & Windows Division 9 - Finishes Division 10 - Specialties Division 1t - Equipment Division 12 - Fumishings Division t3 o Special Construction Division 14 - Conveying Systems Division 15 - Mechanical Division 16 - Electrical Subtotal Performance & Material Bonds @ 1% Job Overhead @ 5% Mark-up @ 5% Construction Cost Design Contingency @ 7% Construction Contingency @ 15% Construction Bid Total Cost Hard Cost Per Square foot Full A & E Services 9% Soils Report 0.2% Site Survey=0.1% Inspection 2% Testing 1% Traffic Impacts 0.1% Construction Manager 1.5% Project Management 6% ¯ Marketing 0.2% Pub,cArt 1% Miscellaneous 0.3% Subtotal 21.4% Soft Cost Per Square foot 190,250 $1,313,415 $2,923,646 $152,000 $160,000 $70,400 $30,400 $329,597 $2,400 $150,000 $565,463 $331,163 $6,045,484 $60,485 $302,424 $302,424 $6,713,817 $469,967 $1,007,073 $8,190,857 $43.05 $737,177 $16,382 $8 191 $163 817 $81 909 $8 191 $122 863 $491 451 $1~ 382 $81,909 $24,573 S1,TS2,S~3 $9.21 Total Hard & Soft Costs $9,9a,3,700 Total Cost Per Square foot Final Re~ort o , Fifth Level Fourth Level Third Level Second Level Ground Level Basement Level Sub-Basement Level Total Square Feet Parking 27 800 27 800 27.8OO 278OO 28.050 27000 24000 190,250 No. of Total Stalls Squam Feet Retail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. of Existing Stalls Fifth Level 84 0 Fourth Level 88 0 Third Level 88 0 Second Level 88 0 Ground Level 79 82 Basement Level 88.0 Sub-Basement Level 86 0 Sub-Total 601 82 Deduct for Design 20 0 Total 58t 82 Square Feet/Stall 327 Net Gain 519 20 499 DOWNTOWNPARKINGSTRUCTUREFEASIBILITYSTUDY Hard Costs Construction Bid Total Cost $8,190,857 Cost/Square Foot $43.05 Cost/Stall $14,098 Cost/Added Stall $16,415 Total Costs Hard + Soft Cost $9,943,700 Cost/Square Foot.$52.27 Cost/Stall $17,115 Cost/Added Stall $19,927 The above figures include cost for design and constuction of this option. See Chapter 5 for additional financing costs and total District Assessment. Page 53 DOWNTOWN PARKINGSTRtlCTURI~ FF.ASIBILITY STUDY Final Report Page 54 Wa~y Design Group Final Report DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTUR£ [F.ASIBILITY STUDY This section describes the assumptions and results of the analysis of financial feasibility of the parking structure options identified in the previous chapter. W&ry Design Group Page 55 DOWNTOWN PARKING S1RUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY The University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District includes most of the principal downtown business district of the City of Palo Alto. It consists of approximately 28 city blocks or pans of blocks covering roughly 80 acres. Most of the area is developed in commercial land uses - office and retail. There are a small number of residential units within the District. A map of the District is shown in Figure 5-1. According to City of Palo Alto data, in 1996 the District includes 252 parcels, 206 of which have been determined to benefit from previous District parking improvements and therefore pay an annual assessment to finance these improvements. FigureS,l:University Avenue Parking Assessment District 28 City Block map The total assessed valuation for.all parcels (net of exemptions) within the District on the 1995/ 96 Assessors Master Roll was $304,020,617. The total includes $297,894,909 for secured property and $6,125,708 for unsecured property. The assessed value of secured property on the 206 parcels on which a benefit assessment was levied in 1996 totaled $273,248,902. Because of the way Proposition 13 limits increases in the values on the assessment rolls, the assessed value would be expected to be substantially below the true market value. Page 56 W~try Design Group .Final Report The analysis presented here assumes that the parking improvements would be financed by the District by issuing parking assessment bonds that would be paid oft" evenly over a 20-year period. The average interest rate on these bonds was assumed to be 6 3/4% per annum. Other assumptions are shown in Table 5-2. In November 1996, California voters passed Proposition 218 which, among other things, changes the procedures for establishing special benefit assessments. The provisions of this measure, which amends the California Constitution, will affect new assessments in the University Avenue Parking. Assessment District. While the potential effects are not fully known at the time this report is being prepared and must await interpreting legislation and/or Court deci- sions, it is likely to increase the cost of debt financing for assessment districts. The financing assumptions used in the present analysis reflect the best information available in December 1996 and are believed to be appropriate for planning purposes. DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTUR£FI:ASIBILITY STUDY The costs to develop each of the five options were presented earlier in this report. These costs are summarized in Table 5-2 along with other costs associated with the issuance of the bonds and the estimated size of the bond issue. Also shown in this table is the average annual debt Table S-2:Total Estimated Project Costs University Avenue Off-Street Parking Assessment District Total Construction Costs (Total Hard & Soft Costs) Cost of Bond Issuance Reserve Fund (5%) Underwriters Discount (2%) Capitalized Interest (6 mo.. @ 6 3/4%) Bond Insurance Premium Total Bond Issue Avg. Annual Debt Service Lot R Lot R Lot SIL Lot S/L Lot S Option 3a Option 3b Option 3 Option 5 Option 4 $3,086,000 $4,057,000 $!2,589,000 $11,768,000 $9,944,000 $125,000 $125,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $182,000 $237,000 $722,000 $675,500 $572,000 $72,800 $94,800 $288,800 $270,200 $228,800 $122,900 $160,000 $487,400 $456,000 $386,100 $50,500 $65,800 $200,500 $187,600 $158,800 $3,640,000 $4,740,000 $14,440,000 $13,510,000 $11,440,000 $336,943 $438,766 $1,336,663 $1,250,576 $1,058,963 Source: Angus McDonald & Associates DOWNTOWN PARKING ST~UCTUR£ F£ASIBILITY STUDY Final Report service required under the financing assumptions described above. The costs which are identified in Table 5-2 include a reserve fund which is established to provide a source of available funds to cover any delinquent payments of assessment installments. Estimated operating costs and revenues for each option are presented in Table 5-3. These estimates are based upon University Avenue Parking District operating costs prepared by the City for Fiscal Year 95-96. This information is presented for general information only. Current City policy, with respect to downtown parking, is to include operating and maintainance costs as part of the City’s operating budget with funds coming from the sale of parking permits rather than establishment of a maintainance assessment district for operating and maintainance of parking facilities Table 5-3: Alternative Lot R R S/L S Option 3a 3b 3 5 4 Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Revenues Source: City of Palo Alto Unit Values Per Space Annual Revenue $145 Annual O&M Expenditures $165 Net Expenditures Number of Spaces $20 Net Annual Expenditures Exi~ing New To~l Exi~ing New Total 71 85 156 $1,420 $1,700 $3,120 71 139 210 $1,420 $2,780 $4,200 109 590 699 $2,180 $11,800 $13,980 109 590 699 $2,180 $11,800 $13,980 82 499 581 $1,640 $9,980 $11,620 Table 5-4 shows a schedule of estimated annual debt service payments for bonds that have been previously issued in the District. This schedule is based upon information presented in the December 1989 official statement for the 1989 Refunding and Improvement Bonds issued by the District. As of 1997, two previous bond issues remain partially outstanding: the Series 1977 bonds (the last of which will be paid off.in 2002/03) and the Series 1989 bonds (the last of which will be paid off. in 2006/07). Page 58 IFatry Design Group Final Report As of October 1996, it is estimated that the District has slightly over $5.1 million in total outstanding debt. (Roughly $400,000 of the Original $791,000 Series 1977 are outstanding and about $4,735,000 of the $6,420,000 Series 1989 remain.) Combined assessments levied in 1996 in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District totaled $709,438, or about $0.335 per assessed square foot of floor area. Table 5-4:Estimated Current Composite Debt Service University Avenue Off-Street Parking Assessment District Source: Angus McDonald & Associates Fiscal Year Series 1968 Ending Series 1977 Series 1980 Series 1989 Total 1996 0 63,748 20,725 609,803 694,276 1997 0 66,304 0 617,175 683,479 1998 0 63,705 0 622,736 686,441 1999 0 65,950 0 631,365 697,315 2000 0 67,905 0 637,871 705,776 2001 0 69,750 0 647,060 716,810 2002 0 70,945 0 658,568 729,513 2003 0 72,030 0 667,190 739,220 2004 0 0 0 672,888 672,888 2005 0 0 0 685,280 685,280 2006 0 0 0 664,860 664,860 2007 0 0 0 662,080 662,080 2008 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Official Statement for University Ave. Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District Sedes 1989 Bonds DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY The estimated assessment spread is based upon the same formulae as are currently used in the University Avenue Assessment District. The assessment is based upon occupied commercial floor area. A credit of 250 square feet is given for each on-site parking space provided. The estimated assessment for each parcel in the University Avenue District was calculated based upon 1996 parcel data (building area, occupancy, on-site parking). The range of estimated assessments for each option is summarized in Table 5-5. Detailed results of these calculations for each parcel are included in Appendix C of this report. The Appendix also shows the Assessed Square Feet that provide the assessment basis for each pared. The Appendix also shows the total current assessment levied on each pared in 1996. It should be noted that under the terms of Proposition 218, the City would pay an assessment on City Hall for the new parking improvements, and this would have the effect of slightly lowering the assessments on all other properties ~Warty Design Group Page 59 DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Table 5-5:Estimated Assessment Spread University Avenue Off-Street Parking Assessment District Source: Angus McDonald & Associates Avg. Annual Debt Service Rental Income Avg. Annual Assessment Assessed Square Feet Assessment Rate/Sq. Ft. Final Report Lot R Lot R Lot S/L Lot S/L Lot S Option 3a Option 3b Option 3*Option 5 Option 4 $336,943 $438,766 $1,336,663 $1,250,576 $1,058,963 $0 $0 $78,210 $0 $0 $336,943 $438,766 $1,258,453 $1,250,576 $1,058,963 2,117,048 2,117,048 2,119,418 2,117,048 2,117,048 $0.1592 $0.2073 $0.5938 $0.5907 $0.5002 * For the purposes of financial analysis, it was assumed that the construction of the retail shell space would be included in the assessment bond financing and that the revenues from the rental space would be used as a partial offset to the annual debt service requirements. In general, even the highest annual assessments per square foot shown in Table 5-5 are tolerable. Typical annual rent (NNN) for leased commercial space in the University Avenue Assessment District is in the range of $33 to $36 per square foot. As shown earlier in this chapter, the annual assessment rate per square foot of assessed area would range among the options being considered from $0.1592 to $0.5938. A maximum increase of 0.44% to 2.43% percent as implied in Table 5-5 would normally be tolerable. One option under consideration is to build parking structures on both Lot R and Lot S/L. Combining Lot R - Option 3b with Lot S/L - Option 3 would produce an annual average assessment per square foot of$0.8011, implying an annual rent increase from 2.23% to 2.43%. A rent increase of this amount would normally be tolerable. However, generalizations about the burden of an assessment should be made cautiously. What is "tolerable" to one business may not be to another. Sales per square foot and operating margins vary substantially from one business to another and can also vary substantially from month to month. The added parking capacity in the University Avenue Assessment District will provide a net benefit to a business if the increased sales of that business more than recovers the increase in assessments. Page 60 W&ry Design Group Final Report As was discussed earlier in this chapter, the value of secured property that would be assessed for the parking improvements considered in this report is shown on the County Assessors Master File to be over $273,000,000. Current outstanding debt of the District is slightly over $5,000,000 (and would be lower in 1998 when bonds to pay for the improvements discussed in this report would be issued). The combined debt outstanding at the time bonds would be issued for the present project would total roughly $19.2 million for the most expensive single option being considered, yielding a 14.2 times coverage ratio. If both Lot R - Option 3b and Lot SiL - Option 3 are pursued, then the combined debt outstanding after the new bonds are issued would total roughly $23.95 million yielding a ratio of 11.4. The bonding capacity of the District appears well more than adequate to support the range of parking improvements being considered. DOWNTOWNPARKINGSTRUCTUREFEASIBILITYSTUDY DOWNTOWNPARKING STRUCTURF.~’F.ASIBILII"Y STUDY Final Report ,,,Final Report DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY This chapter addresses the _potential environmental impact a multi-level parking structure would have on a given site. Warty Design Group ..Page 63 DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report The results of the traffic analysis for the four downtown parking structure options are presented in this chapter. The four options regarding the size (net spaces gained) and location of a parking structure are two different size options on Lot R (85 stalls and 139 stalls) and one size option on Lot S/L (590 stalls), with and without a ground-floor retail component. Access and traffic impacts were considered for each of these potential structures. An additional option is proposed for Lot S only. These results are based on the findings for the Lot S/L option. Traffic impacts were quantified in terms of the daily traffic added to the roadways adjacent to the sites. New vehicular trips generated by the proposed parking structures were added to existing daily traffic to estimate a total future traffic estimate on the surrounding roadways. Daily traffic estimates for each proposed scenario were determined using a tumover factor of 2.8 vehicles per parking stall, which calculates to 5.6 daily trips per stall (see Table 6-1). Total traffic estimates include allowances for vehicles circling in order to find an avaiiable parking space. If drivers were to find stalls immediately, these estimates would decrease, thus lessening the traffic impacts. Table 6-I:Estimated Incremental Traffic Generation Barton-Aschman, Associates Inc. Total Supply Alternative (Spaces) Daily Turnover Rate (Vehicles/Space) Estimated Vehicle Trips DailyI PM Peak Hour~ (Vehicles/Day)(Vehicles/Hour) Lot R 3A 85 2.8 476 50 3B 139 2.8 778 80 Lot S/L 3&5 590 2.8 3,304 330 ~Daily Traffic was estimated as follows: Daily Traffic=Turnover Rate x Total Supply x 2 (Trips/Space) 2Estimated to be ten percent of daily trat~c. Existing daily traffic counts for 1993 and 1996 were obtained from the City ofPalo Alto’(see Table 6-2). Table 6-2: Alternative Lot R 3B Lot S/L 3&5 Primary Impacts on Local Streets Barton-Aschman, Associates Inc. Incremental Existing Percent of Street Traffic Traffic Existing High 195 6,300 3.1% Hamilton 119 10,100 1.2% Alma 76 22,700 0.3% University 81 20,700 0.4% High 335 6,300 5.3% Hamilton 204 10,100 2.0% Alma 107 22,700 0.5% University 199 20,700 1.0% Florence 248 1,100 22.5% University 144 16,800 0.9% Bryant 578 3,400 17.0% Lytton 248 15,100 1.6% DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTUREFEASIBILITY STUDY The 1996 counts were used except for the Alma Street and High Street counts which are from 1993. For some segments, counts from both 1993 and 1996 are available, and a comparison of the two indicates that there has been no significant growth in traffic volume since 1993. Thus, since no growth factor adjustments were made as no existing counts are available for the relevant segments of University Avenue and Lytton Street, counts from adjacent segments were used. Lot R The segment of High Street adjacent to Lot R has an existing daily traffic volume of 6,300 vehicles, while the Hamilton Avenue segment considered has an existing volume of 10,100. The Alma Street segment has an existing volume of 22,700, and the University Avenue segment has an existing daily volume of 20,700. Proposed Option 3a (which provides 85 parking stalls) will produce 476 daily trips (see Figure 6-3). Traffic was assigned to the roadways adjacent to Lot R taking into account the design of the parking structure (including entrances and exits), and the flow constraints of the surrounding streets (High Street is one-way). Option 3a would add 195 daily trips to High Street, an increase of 3.1 percent; 119 trips to Warty Design Group ’Page 65 DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURF. FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report Hamilton Avenue, an increase of 1.2 percent; 76 trips to Alma Avenue, an.increase of 0.3 percent; and 81 trips to University Avenue, an increase of only 0.4 percent. Given the combination of existing traffic plus added trips, Option 3a would not have a significant impact on the streets adjacent to the proposed parking structure. Option 3b, also proposed on Lot R, has 139 parking spaces and will produce 778 daily trips (see Figure 6-4). This option would produce similar impacts as Option 3a. This option would add 335 daily trips to High Street, an increase of 5.3 percent; 204 daily trips to Hamilton Avenue~ an increase of two percent: 107 to Alma Avenue, an increase of only 0.5 percent; and 199 to University Avenue, an increase of only one percent. Option 3b would not have a significant impact on the streets adjacent to the proposed structure. Lot S/L Options 3 and 5 are proposed for Lot S/L, each providing 590 parking spaces, producing 3,304 daily trips. Although Option 3 includes retail development, both options are assumed to produce the same amount of traffic since both are assumed to be equally well-utilized. The existing daily vehicular traffic count for Florence Street is 1,100; 16,800 for the University Avenue segment north of Florence Street; 3,400 for the segment of Bryant Street adjacent to the lot; and 15,100 for the segment of Lytton Avenue south of Bryant Street (see Figure 6-5). The two options proposed for Lot S/L each would add 248 daily vehicular trips to Florence Street, an increase of 22.5 percent; 144 daily trips to University Avenue, an increase of 0.9 percent; 578 trips to Bryant Street, an increase of 17 percent; and 248 daily trips to Lytton Avenue, an increase of 1.6 percent. Although Options 3 and 5 will increase traffic on Florence Street by 22.5 percent, Florence is currently a two-lane local street that extends only from Lytton Avenue to University Avenue. The increase in daily traffic would be noticeable, but the proposed parking structure would be the primary use located on Florence Street, and thus traffic would still be well within capacity and have an insignificant impact. The 17 percent increase in traffic predicted on Bryant Street would be noticeable but would still leave the total volume well within acceptable limits for a two-lane street. There is an additional option proposed, Lot S - Option 2c, which would provide fewer spaces than the structures proposed for the S/L combination. Since Options 3 and 5 provide more conservative estimates, it can be safely assumed that this last option would have no significant impacts on the surrounding roadway system. Page66 Design Group ,,,Final Report Proposed entrances and exits for Option 3a and Option 3b on Lot R are: one-lane entrance/one- lane exit on Alma Street for the entire ground level of the structure (serving 53 parking stalls); one-lane entrance/one-lane exit on High Street also serving the entire ground level (53 parking stalls); and one-lane entrance/one-lane exit on High Street for the ramp accessing the upper levels of the structure (serving the remainder of the stalls - 96 for Option 3a and 150 for Option 3b). Options 3 and 5 on Lot S/L each have a one-lane entrance/one-lane exit on Bryant Street and a one-lane entrance/one-lane exit on Florence Street which serve all of the parking stalls. Options 3 and 5 could also have a Right-Turn Only exit onto Lytton Avenue, which would improve internal circulation. This concept will be further investigated in the next phase. Based on providing no access control to hamper movement at the entrances and exits, one drive lane in each direction can handle in excess of 1,500 stalls. As Lot R. has three entrances and exits and Lot S/L has two, the access/egress will be adequate. DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTUR[. FI~ASIBILITY STUDY Figure 6-3:Estimated Daily Traffic Generation - Lot R, Option 3a Barton-Aschman, Associates Inc. - Based on structure size and turnover rate. Daily Traffic Volume Lot R - Option 3a 85 Parking Stalls Page 6 7 Final Report DOWNTOWN PARKING S’i’~UCTURE FEASIBILITYSTUDY Figure 6-4:Estimated Daily Traffic Generation - Lot R, Option 3b Barton=Aschman, AsSociates Inc. - Based on structure size and turnover rate. l~l~l= Daily Traffic Volume Alma Expressway ~54 ~4m~ 66 Lot R- Option 3b 139 Parking Stalls Figure 6-5:Estimated Daily Traffic Generation - Lot S/L Barton-Aschman, Associates Inc. - Based on structure size and turnover rate. ~4~ Florence Street 248m~248 182~ 590 Parking Stalls 289 Page 68 - --:: : W~try Design Group , Final Repor~ Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Pedestrian circulation-at either site would generally not be impacted. The addition of columns to the ground floor will, of course, present some obstacle to anyone crossing the sites. Lot R would be the most affected because of its short-span design. This design requires more columns than the Long Span design, therefore more obstacles. In fact, these columns fall in between two back-to-back nestled parking strips - areas that pedestrians can not use currently. Lot R is currently used frequently by patrons coming and going from their cars to the business’s fronting on Alma Expressway. On both lots, the number of driveways remain the same, creating no additional impact to pedestrians. One minor exception is on Lot S. Since conversion of this lot into attendant parking, the driveway on Florence Street has been closed off. The options being considered on Lot S will reopen a driveway on that street. The impact to pedestrian circulation from this driveway would again be minimal.. At Lot R, secondary access to the Blockbuster Video building and the adjacent office building would be partially obscured visually from the street. Pedestrian access to these entries will remain essentially as is. Both parking structures would include stairs and elevators for vertical circulation which should improve the parking access as it puts more spaces closer to final destinations. Bicycle circulation at either site would generally not be impacted. The planned inclusion of bicycle parking facilities could improve bicycle circulation in the downtown area. Proper facilities would provide bicyclists with a desirable destination to store their bicycles. This has the potential to increase overall bicycle traffic to the downtown area while reducing actual bicycle street traffic by providing parking on the fringes. Any parking structure designed would contain bicycle racks or storage lockers at the cost of one or two stalls. DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURe. [EASIBILITY STUD Y Assessment of Noise and Air Quality Impacts Based on the traffic impact report prepared by Barton-Aschman and included in this chapter, noise and air quality impacts should be negligible. Assessment of Visual Impacts The Palo Alto Downtown area has been developed over many years and has seen many changes in aesthetic tastes, code requirements and zoning ordinances. This has resulted in a wide diversity of architectural styles and building shapes. Historical and modern buildings sit side by side. In many cases the newer buildings have utilized neo-elassical references of their older neighbors classic architectural styles. One story residences with gable roofs stand next to multi- story businesses with flat parapet roofs. Palo Alto currently has a 50’ building height limit with most buildings having a zero lot line. While a few older buildings exceed that limit and a number of buildings are one story, the majority of them range in the 25’-40’ category. There are a number of"voids" in the downtown area - parcels devoted to parks, plazas and public parking. The result has been the creation of a Warty Design Group Page 69 DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY downtown character that is classically. Palo Alto. The challenge of any new development, whether it be a park or a parking structure is to, at the very least, be a part of this character. Ideally, it should enhance that character. The existing conditions of’the two proposed sites are: Lot R: Currently this is an open parcel providing public and permit parking for the downtown area. Approximately 100’ of the site fronts onto Alma Street to the west and approximately 125’ onto High Street to the east. The north and south sides are bordered by 5 distinct, I to 3 story buildings ranging from 20’ to 35’ in height. The visual impact of a parking structure along the Alma Street frontage will be substantial due to the minimal number of existing buildings and other obstructions directly across Alma Street and the generally shorter height of the adjacent buildings fronting on Alma. The impact on High Street will be significantly less due to the narrower view corridor that exists and the greater height of the adjacent buildings. Refer to page 23 forfurther information. Lot S & L. Currently both these sites are open parcels providing paid attendant parking on Lot S and free public parking onLot L. Combined, they form an "L" shaped Lot wi~h approximately 250’ along Bryant Street and 200’ along a 20’ wide service corridor that separates Lot S from the buildings located on University Avenue (ranging in height from 20’ to 50’). There are two distinct multi-level buildings directly adjacent to this combination lot, located in the interior of the "L". Both are used for professional office space, one is a Victorian style building, approximately 40’ in height. The Victorian .building has been the subject of a number of visual impact concerns, particularly about existing views and lighting disruptions. The relationship and interaction between this building and any structure proposed will need to be thoroughly studied to address these concerns. Visual impact will be the greatest along Bryant Street due to the length of the facade, the height of the structure and the view corridors from Lytton Avenue and Cogswell park. Similar to the High Street view corridor at Lot 1L the visual impacts along Florence will be significantly less due to the narrower view corridor that exists and the greater height of the adjacent buildings. Refer to pages 25-26 for further information. In 1993 the City Council, through the efforts of their Urban Design Committee, presented a dratt of the "City of Palo Alto Downtown Urban Design" Guide, The purpose of this guide was to define the downtown area and suggest a vision for future improvements. A number of suggestions are relevant to this feasibility study. Primary among these is the realization that parking is a crucial element to the success of the downtown and the identification of Lot R and Lot S/L as potential parking structure sites. Also recommended were: Encouragement of 3-4 story buildings along Alma Street (Lot R) and along the Bryant Street/Florence Street block between University and Lytton (Lot S & L). Development of the Civic Cross Axis ~th a strong building element opposite Cogswell Plaza. Page 70 IV~y De~ Group Final Report Develop a pedestrian way along the north side of Lot R to connect Alma Street to High Street. Structural Bays should follow the general 25-50 foot wide pattern of storefronts. Development of buildings or landscaping on Lytton Avenue street comers to anchor the open comers and strengthen the visual impression of the streetscape. Encourage a parking structure with shallow ground floor retail frontage on Lot S/L. Encourage pedestrian friendly uses along Bryant Street and Lytton Avenue at lots S & L. DOWNTOWN PARKINGSTRUCTUREFEASIBILITY STUDY Encourage the development over Lot R and encourage varied building mass and height to create a mini-skyline along the western edge to anchor the downtown. Encourage large scale parking opportunities south of Lytton. The following is a look at the consequences of building on the proposed lots, taking into consideration the above existing situations and Urban Design guidelines. Lot 1L The construction of a parking structure at this location is consistent with most of the Urban Design guidelines: the building mass would help strengthen the Alma Street Corridor; building height, mass and setbacks could be varied to enhance the mini-skyline. The proposed structure would be taller than it’s neighbors but would be consistent with recent approvals for taller buildings along the same corridor. The inclusion of the pedestrian corridor suggested by the Urban Design Guide to connect Alma Street and High Street could be problematic due to the relatively tight constraints of the site. To achieve an adequate corridor, parking spaces might need to be sacrificed. In addition, existing trees and other landscaping would need to be removed due to the construction with new landscaping added as part of the project to offset what was lost. Building either Option 3a or 3b on Lot R would fill a visual void between the buildings located on each side. This would be perceptible from both the Alma Expressway side and the High Street side. Option 3a, with only 2 elevated decks, would fill the void without ~xeeeding the height of its neighboring buildings. Option 3b, with its extra elevated deck does exceed the height and mass of its neighbors. With careful architectural detailing, the proposed structure could successfully mitigate the differing building heights on each side and tie together the facades along the street without overpowering them. Lot S/L. The construction of a parking structure at this location is also consistent with most of the Urban Design guidelines: It will provide a strong building element along the Civic Center Axis and across from Cogswell Plaza; one option will provide a retail (and pedestrian friendly) element along portions of Bryant Street and Lytton Avenue; and Warty Design Group , Page 71 Fina! Re~or~ DOWNTOWNPARKING STRUCTUREFEASIBILITY STUDY overall provide a substantial number of parking spaces. The most apparent drawback of building a parking structure on this site is the large mass of the proposed structure. There is a real potential that the site, the streets, the corner and the adjacent buildings could be overpowered. There are ways of mitigating this potential problem: stepping back the structure at the comers and upper levels; increasing the setback from the property lines adjacent to the Victorian building and the Florence Street frontage; visually breaking up the facade to reduce apparent mass. These measures would, in most cases, come at the expense of parking spaces. The acceptable stall loss to incorporate these measures is an issue that will need to be addressed when actual design of this structure begins. Building any of the options on Lot S or S/L would result in a strong visual impact. The S/L options would create a nearly 50 foot tall mass, extending approximately 275 feet along Bryant Street and 135 feet along Florence Street. This impact has partially been reduced by recessing the Lot L portion by 20 feet. Again, in the design phase.these impact issues will be addressed further and potentially be decreased with careful detailing. The adjacent buildings along the Bryant Street facade approach the 50 foot height limit, which will help to reduce the visual impact. Final Report DOWNTOWN PARKINGSTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Based on the information and analysis from the previous pages, this chapter presents the final conclusions and makes recommendations for number, location and size of parking structures in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District. Warty Design Group Page 73 DOWNTOWN PARKINGSTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY The following conclusions were drawn from the information gathered and presented in the previous chapters of this report. In addition, the recommendations were also derived from in-depth discussion by the Project Study Committee and comments received from the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board meetings. These conclusions and recommendations include: 1) the number of structures and the lots on which they should be constructed; 2) which of the five final structure options should be pursued; and 3) the associated financing requirements of the recommended options. Based on the high parking deficit in the downtown area, it was concluded that on each of two sites - Lot R and the combination Lot S/L - a parking structure should be pursued as soon as possible. Lot R was deemed appropriate because of its location in the most deficient zone in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District: the Purple zone. The extra "notch" of land on the northwestern portion of the lot provides an opportunity to ramp up to the upper levels. The combination Lot S/L is logically the best option among all the city owned public parking surface lots for a parking structure. Lot S is the single biggest lot, and the only one that can allow full circulation within the boundaries of its property line with 90 degree parking. In conjunction with Lot L (and the city owned land between them) this site has the most potential for reducing the parking deficit. Lot S/L is located dose to the center of the PAD and in the second most deficient area: the Lime zone. Additionally, the inclusion of Lot L, situated on a comer, presents a good opportunity to include a retail element in this structure. Lot R and Lot S/L have both been identified’as good sites for a parking structure by the Palo Alto Urban Design Guidelines. This report also recommends the inclusion of a retail element on city comers. Thirty schematic design options on four Lots~t combinations were developed during the Task Two process. These thirty options were reduced to the five options studied in Chapter 4. Taking into consideration all the input received to date, the five options have been narrowed down to two, one on Lot R and one on Lot S/L. They are as follows: Page 74 Final Re[7ort Lot R - Option 3b One surface level, three elevated decks - four total levels 95,530 total square feet 210 total stalls - 71 existing stalls - 139 net stalls gained Option 3b (3 elevated decks) was chosen over Option 3a (2 elevated decks) because of its extra level and higher number of net stalls gained. Since Lot R is located in the most deficient parking zone, gaining the most stalls possible is the primary concern. Height .and mass of the structure is equally important. With its extra height, Option 3b has the potential to overpower the adjacent structures. Conceptual elevation studies were done to investigate this concern and they indicate that, by careful design and detailing, the apparent mass of the structure could be satisfactorily reduced to fit into its context. DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTUR£ FEASIBILITY STUDY Lot S/L - Option 3 One surface level, four elevated decks, two below grade levels - seven total levels 228,000 total square feet 699 total stalls - 109 existing stalls - 590 net stalls gained Option 3 was chosen over the other S and S/L options because it provides the most parking possible while utilizing the Lytton Avenue/Bryant Street corner in a manner consistent with current City developed urban design guidelines. The Palo Alto Downtown Urban Design Guide recommends that corner lots, because of their prominent locations, be developed with retail. It also recommends that any construction along the Bryant Street corridor between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue be a "strong" element. The most apparent concern arising from the public meetings and hearings is in regards to the height and mass of this option, especially along the Bryant Street facade which is approximately 275 feet long. Although this option would certainly result in a "strong" element, there is concern that it would be an overpowering one. Adding a retail element is not only consistent with these design guidelines but adds an element to the corner that breaks up the facade and reduces its apparent mass. In addition, by setting back the Lot L portion of the structure from the property line, the apparent mass can be further reduced in spite of a "strong" structure element. This option also includes a lightwell. Located in the center of the Lot S portion of the site, it extends through all seven levels allowing natural light to the interior of the structure. This is particularly helpful in increasing the ambiance of those levels located below grade and creating a more welcome environment in what is generally the least desirable levels in a parking structure. It should be noted here that neither option contains parking control equipment or provides for any in the future~ With the current exception of Lot S (where paid, attendant parking is being experimented with) all short term parking in the University Avenue PAD is free. There seems Design Group Page 75 ZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZ ZZ ooooooooo~<<~~ooooooooo NNN~ NNNNNNNNN DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Re o~ to be no reason to change the present policy at this time. It is also recommended that those levels that are historically used less - below grade and roof levels - be utilized as paid permit parking levels, as is currently done in the other structures. Lot R - Option 3b will provide an additional 139 stalls.at a cost of approximately $4,056,529 or $29,184 per added stall. With the formation of an assessment district to finance the project, the total project cost (inclusive of financing costs) is approximately $4,740,000 or $34,100 per added stall. Lot S/L - Option 3 will provide an additional 590 stalls at a cost of approximately $12,588,821 or $21,337 per added stall. With the formation of an assessment district to finance the project, the total project cost (inclusive of financing costs) is approximately $14,440,000 or $24,475 per added stall. The average annual assessment for Lot R - Option 3b is $438,766. The average annual assess- ment for Lot S/L - Option 3 is $1,336,663 . for a combined total of $1,775,429. Individual annual assessments average around $0.2073 per square foot for Lot R - Option 3b and $0.593 8 per square foot for Lot S/L - Option 3 for a combined total of $0.80 per square foot. The $0.80 cost per square foot for two structures is not an unreasonable cost, indicating that the two parking structures, being recommended are feasible. Each 0fthe remaining options, Lot R - Option 3a, Lot SiL - Option 5 and Lot S - Option 4, are variations of the two recommended options. In each case, these options are reduced in size and scope. It is understood that if the two recommended options are feasible then the other three would also be feasible. The bonding capacity of the District appears well more than adequate to support the range of parking improvements being considered. The following is a tentative timeline for theremainder of the project: January 1997 - April 1997 May 1997 - July 1997 August 1997 - April 1998 May 1998 - August 1998 September 1998- July 1999 August 1999 - April 2000 City Council Approval Scope/Contract Negotiations Design Phase Formation of Assessment District and Bidding/Award Phase Construction of Lot S/L.- Option 3 Construction of Lot R - Option 3b Page 76 W.at_ry Design Group ~endix Geotechnical Evaluation Letter dated March 11, 1996 discussing geote~hnie.Al evaluation of the downtown area. DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURF. FEASIBILITY STUDY Design Group LOW j ASSOC IATES Environmental/Geotechnical / Engineering Services March 11, 1996 1167-1i WC031101 WATRY DESIGN GROUP 1500 Fashion Island Boulevard, Suite 200 San Marco, California 94404-1556 PALO ALTO DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA Attention: Mr. Wes Stout Gentlemen: In this letter, we present the results of our feasibility study for the above referenced. project to be located in Palo Alto, California. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of developing a parking structure or structures within the Parking Assessment District in downtown Palo Alto. Our services were performed in accordance with our letter of agreement for consulting design services dated March I, 1996. For our use we received a site plan indicating the limits of the parking study zone and potential parking structure locations within this zone. We understand that at least 16 sites located within the Parking Assessment District in downtown Palo Alto are being considered for development of one or more parking structures. The study area is bounded by Lytton Avenue tO the north, Forest Avenue to the south, Webster Street to the east, and Alma Street to the west. New parking structures are being considered to reduce the current parking deficiency in the downtown area which is estimated to be approximately 1,500 spaces. Although conceptual design is yet to be completed, new structures are likely to be of reinforced concrete construction with a slab-on-grade floor at the lower level. We understand that options for both at- grade and below-grade structures are being considered. ._ As part of our study, we reviewed subsurface data in our fries from previous geotechnical investigations performed in the downtown Palo Alto area during thc past 15 years. Ln addition, we reviewed geologic and seismic hazard maps in the report titled "Potential Seismic Hazards in Santa Clara County California, CDMG Special Report 107," Rogers and Williams, 1974. GEOLOGIC SETTING The San Francisco Bay Area lies within California’s Coast Ranges geomorphic province. Most major physiographic features in this region trend in a northwesterly direction and reflect the underlying geologic structure. San Francisco Bay and the alluvial and estuarine deposits beneath the City of Palo Alto, at the southwestern edge of the bay, occupy a structurally controlled basin within the coast Ranges province. Late Pleistocene and Holocene sediments (less than 1.0 million years old) were deposited in this basin as it subsided. 1600 South Main Street, Suite 125, Walnut Creek, California 94596-5341 (510) 938-9356 FAX (510) 938-9359 Walnut Creek Mountain View Watry Design Group 1167-1, Palo Alto Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study The City of Palo Alto is generally underlain by older alluvial fan deposits consisting of fine and coarse grained Pleistocene material. The existing Pleistocene alluvial sediments consist of interbedded clay, silt, sand, and gravel that originated from higher mountain elevations located west of Palo Alto. The depth to bedrock varies within the downtown Palo Alto area, and is typically encountered at depths ranging from 200 to 250 feet (Roger and Williams, 1974). SUBSURFACE Based on our review of boring logs contained in our files, variable fill up to 5 feet thick was encountered in several locations within the study area. The fill consisted of medium stiff sandy clay and medium dense clayey sands with occasional debris or concrete rubble. This fill was likely placed during the original development of a particular parcel to raise the site grades. The fill, where it exists, is underlain by native stiff to hard. sandy and silty clay to depths ranging from 9 to 14 feet below the existing ground surface, The native surficial clays have a relatively low expansion potential. The upper clay stratum is underlain by a relatively continuous layer of medium dense to dense silty sand and gravel extending to depths ranging from 20 to 30 feet. This granular stratum is underlain by very stiff silty clay and clayey silt to a depth of at least 45 feet; the maximum depth explored in our previous borings. GROUND WATER Free ground water was encountered during previous investigations at depths ranging from approximately 25 to 37 feet below the ground surface. The depth to ground water generally decreases towards the east end of the study zone. Fluctuations in the level of the ground water may occur due to variations in rainfall and other factors not in evidence at the time measurements were made. ~3NCLUSIONS Based on our review of available .data, in our opinion, development of one or more parking structures within downtown Palo Alto study area would be feasible i’rom a geotechnical viewpoint. Typical design considerations that are common for developments in this area include: the potential for strong ground shaking due to regional seismic’ activity, earthwork requirements for reworking existing f’tlls, and basement excavation support and underpinning of adjacent buildings, if necessary. In our opinion, these considerations can be adequately addressed by means of conventional grading and foundation design. Due to the relatively stiff and dense subsurface conditions within the study area, in our opinion, both at-grade and below- grade parking structures can be supported on a shallow foundation system. This foundation system would likely consist of continuous pe~meter and/or isolated spread footings. Since the near-surface soils have a relatively low expansion potential, slabs-on- grade can likely be supported directly on compacted native soil or fill. Watry Design Group 1167-1, Palo Alto Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS: NO kFIOwn active faults are believed to exist within the study area, therefore, fault rupture is not anticipated. Strong ground shaking, however, can be expected to occur during moderate to severe earthquakes. This is common to virtually all developments in the San Francisco Bay Area. EXIS’HNG FILL, Depending on the quality, thickness, and extent of existing fills, the upper 2 to 5 feet of near-surface soil may need to be reworked to provide a uniform layer of compacted fill beneath new structures. This would likely consist of excavating the existing fill within the footprint of the proposed structure and recompacting the material to modem compaction standards. The excavated soil can likely be re-used as engineered fill material. For parking structures constructed below grade, reworking the fill would not be necessary. BASEMENT ~CAVATIONS: The subsurface soils within the parking study area can likely be excavated with standard construction equipment. Support of the walls of any basement excavation would likely be required, and may be accomplished using soldier beams and wood lagging, by temporary slopes if space is adequate, or by the use of tiebacks. The choice should be left to the contractor’s judgment since economic considerations and/or the individual contractor’s construction experience may determine which method is more economical and/or appropriate. Support of any adjacent existing, buildings without distress may also be required. CLOSURE The information presented in this letter is based on our review of available published documents and irdormation contained in our files. We recommend that a site specific geotechnical investigation be performed to better evaluate the subsurface conditions and potential geologic hazards once a specific site has been selected. We would be pleased to provide a cost estimate for these services once Phase I of the feasibility study has been completed. This letter was prepared for the sole use of Warty Design Group for applicaU.’on to the conceptual planning and design of the Palo Alto Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility study in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time and location. No warranty is expressed or implied. We hope this letter provides flxe information needed at this time. If you have any" questions, please call and we would be glad to discuss them with you.. Very truly yours, LOWNEY AssociATES Associate Engineer AMM.0RD:SJN Copies: Addressee (2) Page 3 Final Report - Appendix DOWNTOWNPARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Survey Results Summary results from the survey handed out at the Downtown Parking Structure Design Workshop held May 16, 1996. Warty Design Group DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS Page 1 Parking Structure Design Questionnaire ~ Downtown Palo Alto May 16, 1996 Respondent (optional): Survey Results Site 1. Issues Should retail establishments be incorporated into the ground level, street front facade of the parking structure? YES III NO COMMENTS -Essential to retain street vitality -We have enough retail, not enough parking Parking on grade - asphalt concrete paving and/or concrete stab on grade, decorative pavers. Bicycles: racks and/or lockers provided? Site lighting - freestanding or building mounted? -Use artists to design paving -Encourages alternatives modes of .transportation -Building Mounted preferred What access to rear of existing retail is required? Pedestrian only, trash, deliveries Neighborhood relations - how will building be presented to public/neighborhood? II -For trash and deliveries -For trash, deliveries and pedestrians -Mostly retail businesses will benefit -Community outreach meetings -Diplomatically Utilities 1.Garbage control, cigarette urns, trash cans, dumpster locations and access to be provided? YES IIII NO COMMENTS Emergency generator: On site or off site remote? Emergency generator to cover exit lighting only; or to keep elevators in operation? (Options will affect size of generator and size/location of room to house it, as well as costs.) -Use battery packs for emergencies 3. Storage room(s) size and location(s). Hydraulic vs. traction elevators. How many, speed, size, etc. Note: choice affects speed, capability and type of elevator machine room required. Vertical and horizontal transportation = escalators, elevators, stairs, moving sidewalks, bridges, tunnels...etc. I II 5. Sand oil separator?I. -For.support/cleaning equipment -Hydraulic []Main Office: 1500 Fashion Island Boulevard, Suite 200, San Marco, CA 94404 Te1:415o349o1546 Fax:415o349o1384 Sacramento Office: 7015 Morningside Drive, Loomis, CA 95650 Teh916e797~0786 Fax:916~797*0786 ~ *j:~proje ctsL9533\workshopLs u r-taly.doc Lighting concepts, utilitarian or any specialty effect lighting for directional flow? What average foot- candle level for structure and for activity nodes? Page 2 YES I Restrooms in structures, size, accommodate how many? NO COMMENTS -Usually security lighting’to bright -Involve P.A. Utilities Dept. II Lobbies at each level? Grand lobby at ground level? Enclosed vestibules? Air conditioned spaces? Heated spaces? -Only in L~t L/S comb’~ 9.Drinking fountains. How many, locations? Chilled I IIwater? -Lobbies - yes -Art - yes -Heating/AC - no -Only in Lot L/S combo 10.Telephone banks with TDD machines. How many,II Iwhere? -At ground level 11. ATM convenience machines? Where, how many?I ~1 -Existing banks are nearby 12.Smoke detectors, heat detectors? Which or both? Connected to fire stations? Connected to audible and visual alarm or both? How does alarm mode affect building services? (gates all open? close? extra lights come on?...etc.) 13. 14. 15. Advertisement spaces?III -Maybe - if they pay big Convenient car battery jumper stations?II I Electric vehicle charging stations? Locations, how many?II I -See P.A. Utilities Dept. for specs 16.Truck dock program requirements: Number of docks, size of docks, special dock equipment, etc.II Security 1. 2. Secudty offices? Size? Functions? Location? YES NO COMMENTS II -Probably not needed Secudty cameras throughout levels and/or at entries?III 3. Fenced Pedmete~ 4.Gates with locks, card readers, bar code swipes, ticket spitters, loop detectors or other controls? Main Office: 1500 Fashion Island Boulevard, Suite 200, San Marco, CA 94404 T¢1:415o349o1546 Fax:415o349o1384Sacramento Office: 7015 Momingside Drive, Loomis, CA 95650 Tehg16e797e0786 Fax:916=797e0786 ~ I *j:~rojects~9533\workshop~sur-taly.doc Parking control equipment - booths at entries or deeper in structure to allow queuing of cars. Gate arms, rolling grille doors, booths, loop detectors, etc.? 6.Glass-backed elevators? II -Deeper, gate arms III I Page 3 Open stairs or enclosed in a vestibule? Code minimum or more generous?II -Open stairs, code min. width Patrolling guards or parking attendants? They would need an office, break room or similar space. -Mixed use will provide "eyes on street" Traffic Flow 1.Painted arrow and markings of lanes. Thermoplastic paint or typical traffic paint. YES II NO COMMENTS 2. "Botts" dots as lane indicators and flow patterns.-San Jose Airport for example Plastic bollards, steel bollards, concrete bollards, concrete filled steel bollards. Signage - vinyl lettering on signs, reflective, electric signage, audible signage? -Per ADA -Simple, Cost effective o Exit signs - are electrically illuminated preferred over newer glowing signs? 6. Double-striping of stalls or single striping.=Single striping preferred Exterior/Interior Finishes YES NO 1. Painted ~ 2. EFS, EIFS I 3. GFRC I 4. Tile accents I COMMENTS 5. Architectural metal work Main Office: 1500 Fashion Island Boulevard, Suite 200, San Mateo, CA 94404 Te1:415o349.1546 Fax:415o349o1384 Sacramento Office: 7015 Momingside Drive, Loomis, CA 95650 Te1:916~797.0786 Fax:916*797=0786 ~ *j:~projects~9533\workshop~sur-taly.doc 6.Brick cladding 7.Precast Finish II Page 4 8.Metal Pickets 9.Painted interior- columns, soffits, curbs Other Issues Parking stalls: City of Palo Alto Standards (Compact / Standard) or (Unistall) Ratio of types of stalls - Handicapped, Van Handicapped, Busses drop-off and pick-up, motorcycles and bicycles,? Ground floor traffic and clearances depend on the interaction of the above items. YES I NO COMMENTS -Use P.A. standards -Existing "special" facilities are adequate - deficiency is for "garden variety cars 2.Are accessible parking stalls grouped together at ground, or spread out over building? -Talk to Disability Consultant -accessible parking on ground Wheel stops: Precast wheel stops? Integral raised curb for wheel stop? No raised curb islands or perimeter? Interface between edge of slab and exterior rail. Or no wheel stops? II -Recycled plastic wheel stops "Piped" in music and/or Public address system? Exterior rails - Precast rails, cast-in-place, concrete block walls, cable rails, block reils with EFS finish, steel rails, Landscaped perimeter rails. IIII -Definitely no -Precast rails -Cable rails -Steel rails Stairs - Precast concrete, prefabricated steel stairs, metal pan with concrete tread, or cast in place concrete stair, etc.? -Use most cost effective -Depends on structure design Stair rails - painted or bare steel pipe, galvanized, metal grid or weave, solid block, open metal, etc. -Painted metal o Expansion joint materials ’ inexpensive metal slip plate at horizontal joints, or more expensive watertight types? 9.Fire extinguisher cabinets - surface mounted on IIcolumns, recessed into walls? 10.Monumental objects at entry: Flag poles, civic art, lighting, clocks, etc. -Watertight expansion joint -Inexpensive -Recessed preferred -One vote for surface mounted 11. Water proofing of walls, decks, etc...III -Civic Art -Flagpole -Lighting -At decks Main Office: 1500 Fashion Island Boulevard, Suite 200, San Marco, CA 94404 Sacramento Office: 7015 Morningside Drive, Loomis, CA 95650 *j:~projects~9533\workshop~sur-taly.doc Tei:415e349o 1546 Fax:415=349o1384 T1:916o797=0786 Fa.x:916*797~0786 I 12. 13. Graffiti-proof paint or vandal resistant finishes?III Flooring changes as function changes: (i.e.: Concrete = auto traffic, Pavers = Pedestrian traffic) Page 5 -Use art as a graffiti prevention method II 14.Planting in and on structure, and irrigation of Ill planting? -If possible 15.Light wells to get natural light into the center of the I I I I -A must structure? 16. Elevator towers - to be celebrated or hidden?-Votes for both 17.Pedestrian use storage or locker rooms for I I I -Definitely personal articles? 18.Covered walks across top level? Enclosed and air I IIIconditioned? Heated? 19. Kiosks, directories, Informational boards?IIII 20. Pedestrian benches? 21. What is the maintenance plan for the structure? III I -They go elsewhere - this is for parking, not sitting 22. Is landscaping part of this project? What are city standards? Comments: - Traffic flow and Exterior/Interior finishes should be a part of an integrated graphics package for the structure. o See City of Santa Rosa Downtown parking structures for good design criteria. - Build fast - 2 level in 6 months - then tackle larger structure. Main Office: 1500 Fashion Island Boulevard, Suite 200, San Marco, CA 94404 Te1:415.349o1546 Fax:415=349.1384 Sacramento Office: 7015 Momingside Drive, Loomis, CA 95650 T¢1:916.797o0786 Fax:916o797=0786 ~*j:~orojects~9533\workshopLsur-taly.doc Final Report - A~Tpendix DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FF.ASIBILITY STUDY Estimated Annual Assessment The following table is from the Assessment District Database, supplied by Angus McDonald and Associates and contains the parcel number address, assessed square footage, 1996 total assessment and the estimated annual assessment per parking structure option. Warty Design Group E Ozzzz~~mzzzzz ~ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ zzz oooooooooo~ooooo~oo~oooooooooooo~ Z