HomeMy WebLinkAbout0524.094TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
HONORARLE CIIT COUNCIL
FROM: em' MAN.-\GER DEPARTMENT: PLA1"NING 8
.~GENDA DATE: No'ember 28, 1994 CMR: 524:94
SUBJECT: OrdinailCf" Estlllb'ishing an Tn-Lieu Parking Fee for the Uni\lersity Aveoue
P3rKing Assessment District
R.EOlTST
TIl:: Cit: CDun~tl ;~ a~~;;:J It) r'.~, .. te\\ th~~ n;;Xil~ ,Iudy :ina ~:O~l anaiysis for the in-lieu parking
7-'~,e, and 10 ;3.,jupl Ir,i;' of(JinJr,.:.'.? (-5(.i\bii.shirlg the fl."~ and th~ procedures for its collection and
RJOcmL\lE,,'n,\ 110.YS
Staff fcc(:mmel1ds. (hat Couilci! (0.) approve Ih:: allach!!d Negative Declaration; and (b) adopt
tnt artachcd draft ordinar1ce providing for Ihe coliecl!orJ of an in-lieu parking fee of $19,(XX)
lind estab!ishlng th>! prcx:edures feT its. COlleclion and management, including coileclion of
lht: f~ at r~e tiTTle of huilding )'ermil i~,s.jJan,;;e. The Planning Commission recommend~ that
the In-Ii::u fee be established at S17,300, ~nd (hat it be collected 3t or prior to building
occupar1cy. The Planning Commis.5iol1 fllr1h~r recommends that Cuuncil direct staff to
Geye!op iln in-lieu parkin~ fee for res;identiaJ development within [he assr:ssment district.
~fPLICATlO:-;S
When tm: new downlown commercLal (CD) zOrling regulations were adopte-d by Council in
1986, the in-lieu parking pro\'ision was emtisioned as primarily, if not excJusivrJy, for use
\\.idl development of sites where no on~site parking eouid be physic.ally provided. The
proposed in-lieu fee aJlows thai regulation Co be implemented. Please refer to the attached
P1.&nning Commission report for further details.
EXECJmYE SmL\L~RY
This staff report forwards both the staff and Planning Commission recommendations to
approve an in-lieu parking fee and the proce.dures for its collection and management.
Tht Planning Commiss.ion's recommendations differ fTom 5taff's in three areas. First, the
CommiSSion unanimo'Jsly rt!commerds (with Conlmlssioner Glazier abseIlt) that the fee. be
e~tlj;bJished al $17,300 per required st.~Jj. ratn!( tnan staffs recommendation of $19,000.
P:l.~ lo{4
.. /
l
'The Commission beli.t'ves thllt the" \"(J'${ of building a parking Splice should be ~parate from
the cost of financing it. and :-ecommends Ihal the bond i!.!'uancc:: cost not be included in the
fee. Staff's recommendation iiOCl~s a proportional s.hare of the up--front (10 percent) cost
of financing a puking project through the sale of bonds (Ie""".! the 'bond issuance cost').
while the Planrun~ Commission"s recommer",';ation does. nD! incl'Jde this component. Staff's
rationale for includlng the btlnd issuance cost is that the fees are-e~pected to come in slol,1.'ly
enough that • parking projec1 <(WId no! b.o b"Lit so!dy with ioe,_ It is .. pe('!ed that a
parking $lnJcrure wOtJld h.ave 10 be finan.c('.d ..... ilh bonds. with a Srll!lI increment contributed
by fees tlrt"~y coUect«!. or later with reimburs.em~n! from f~s:, Thus, bond issuance: costs
would be incurred. and lhe in--Jiel1 f~ should ioclude its share of thaf cosL Two members
of the dc::"'elopment communit)" p~senl at the Commission meetillg supported A fee of
517,300 and not inC'hJdin~ an.",' propcrt:onll $hare of up-frar.l financing co~tS.
The second poir.! of diffen:n:~ ~t\l,C~fl lht'" C(:r11mi,,~i(1f1 ~qJj s:3if,. n.·':'.:;mm:;':l1datiorlS is the
time when Ihe fel! is r~quired to h:-p:-tid Sl,!lf r~,>lllimcr.js 1~121 (he: tec be pod at tile: time
of bL1i!din$ permit iss.u.1n.:.:: ri,i, 15. tliC p,,',inl in H;~i.· \\ h~n t[l;:-Cit:-has. the mO.q le ... ·erage
0v,er an .l)lpiicant. tu t"n~ur" lh.lt Ir;: t;;'",: f~ piJ jn ~~ lir;~d) ~q'ln~r:-,. wilh the least
expendi!ure or st.-lIl-r,;'·~·'):Jr .. ·C:5 10 ..:o]):;,..:t tl;;:-fc::, r-rl,'ll1 J f~"""'rH!J1J:, 11;,I>."tPlng payer. Th:::r¢
lends to be Q. ~r"CI! d~al :1"..'.1('.' CflC!fi. "n~'·t:: .. J,:J illl;:.' :jr',,j ~I ~I'n:'::'i\ h,-:'l L'~~ lil--.dy col~eclion
uf the fee. \I,'her. it is rWI (::quird III ti-t" ff.lid until lh" tim,' f'( F'(l1>;,;-! 0~·(.up;;n~)'. Furtht:r.
!.Wte law f,oYemit1g !he co!l-: .. '~:u:-: \If d-:\"ekpCf fns r'~qlllrn til.!! kes (or hou5in,g projects
nO! he collected u~til O'::U..lp.['.cy, but a110 .... ~ uli~~ l,', ;""011.;-.:1 fees for commercial projects
prior to issuance of a bui Idillg rlCrm i L R{'pr~!-("nlat! \ cs. of the dC'.'.e"iop l11ent Cl.)m mu nity slated
that the fce should not be colie.:-;t.'d until o,clIf!anc.\ (If Ihe projeci. \l..hidl is '\>\'h("n the
p;lTking demand is ger-.er-iied, To do nt~·.:r" i::.-:;-\\ e;Jid subje .. 'l a dt' .... c-lop:'r to an unnecessary
fin:mcial burden (roughly 51500 per )('.H pn slaH W fiI1QIl~'e th;;-p~)menl of the fee al an
interest rale of ei~!'H percent) The:" COlllrrli~siun emere.j inw ce:m.iderOlble discus-sinn with
staff on this i~uc. and felt Ihal staff should np!orc whetha some disin.:;entive could be
established (slIch as.a late charg~ or r-.:fusal 10 !urn on utiElies), so thllt the Cit)' might be
reasonably wre of coJiecling the-kc a! or before building occupancy_ The Commission
unanimously recommended (with Comm~!;.!.ioJlt'r Glali~r abs.enO that the fee be paid at, or
prior 10, the time of buiidLOg occupancy.
Currently, L~e Cit), coHects 3.!mi!ar fees for both housing and transportation. FIfty percent
of the in-lieu housing fee is payable at the time of building permit is.slJance; the remaining
50 percent is payable !>eforc o:::cupan,:.y. The traJls~xma:jon imp:tct fe\! is. payable in full at
the. time of building permit issuance. Staff behe .. 'es that, disincentives notwithstanding, the
best time to collect an)' fr.::e l!. at the lIme of issuance of the building permit. Nevertheless,
if CooneiJ detennincs that all or a portion of the feo should b.: paid in connection with
building occupancy, the appropria!e time would be prior to -final buildin.g inspection
approval". Occupan-::y perlllit~ are not tf3C~t!d 1:1 the-City'S perml! tracking system, nor are
they necessarily issued for all d;::velopmenl proj-eClS.
CMR:57.4:94 ~ge Z 01'4
•
(
i •
•
Thirdly, the Commission feels thai the in-lieu f .. should also apply 10 residential buildings
or additions within thl! pa.rking assessment district, and unanimously recommends (with
Commissioner G!szier absent) that Council direct staff to consider deyeloping suC'-h 1I1
ordina~. Staff believes thai this recommendation is beyond the scope of the :nexw study
and the propose<l ordinance, Applying the f~ to hou,ing might be possible and/or
beneficial. However, it would require R complete analysis of the existing do~ntown
regulations and supportive environmental documentalion. 115 weI! loS the asse~ment district,
to detennlne whether such a proposal would cause any financiaJ or en\'irorunentz.l impacts.
Such an analysis probably could be dOll< by staff in consultation , .. ith bond couns<l.
However, s.taff cannot estimate the cost of such a study at this rim~. If the Council wi.shes
to explore the possibility of applyint; the in-beu fee 10 housing, or to otherwise broaden the
scope of the fee, which currently applies only under th(' c:\isting downtown regulations, staff'
recommends t~at the, ordinaf!ce, as propt)sed, be adopted now, arld thaI su-ff br.-directed !o
study the-option of applying itle fee to hou--sing.
flSCAL IMPACT
There is no fls..;al impact to tile CIt, ,0\ the ~.\'&ff r(cl)mm~r:,j~\!or,;.. If, as )h~ Ci..Wnmi,.;ion
re.commend'3, the fee does not include a proponional 5r..ar~' of ~.r.e Up·frll~1t CG:.I "I' f1f1an,'ing.
such CO$.is will be borne by property OWr!N5, nOI the City. at 'SoUl'll t!rr:~ th31 (1n [.5s('"~s.iTlcnl
dis.trict is formeu, If, as the Commiss.iQrI ro::commcnJs., (h::-ke i<. J~s.igrl;,~,d l.(l be-::-(;Oll.~-:te-d
at project occupam;y, the-Cit)' might incur addiljoll~1 cos.ts. tu (:011('(! Ihe ftc. if a raytr were
unwilling or recalcitrant.
.EOO:rnONlIfEN[AL_ASSESSMEN'r
An Envircnmental Asse5.sment rer~on1mending, a Neg41ive Dt:claration h3S been (,("lmpie-ted
and is attached to the Planning Commiss.ion siaff re-pr)l1.
A ITACfiMEl'\'TS
1. Environmental AssessmentfNe:galive Declaraiion
2, Revised In-lieu Parking Fee Ordinance
3, Planning Commission Staff Repen dated September 14, 1994 (induding the Nexus
and Ccst Basis Study In-lieu Parking Fee)
4. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of Septtmber 14, 1994
CMR:524:94 Page 3 of-4
•
i'repered By: Carl Stoffel. Tl'3nsportation Engineer
-&f{ X:~k4 a< NNETH !C SCHREIBER ~ Department Head Review:
City Manager Approval:
<Xc Palo Alto Medical Fo"ndation (Jay Tho!"Waldson)
Chamber of Commerce (Susan Frank)
Chop Ke"nan
Jim Baer
John Bser
Ed Storm
Rex)' Rapp
Warren Thoits
CMR:S24:94 Page 4 of 4
ATI'ACHMENT 1
Er:vlrtHwp.ntal DcclJ=ents -Cit, of Pe:lo Altc
'NVIRONMENTAl ASSESSMENT
Project Oescription/T1tle: Ordinance to Establisb In-lieu Parking fee
loci.tion/Address: Uni¥ersity Avenue Parking A!:sessment District
S~nsorin9 Agency/Applicant: City of Palo AltQ/Transportat1Qn PiVision
Address a~ Telephone of Applicant: City Hall. 250 Hamilton Ayenye. Palo
~JtQ. CA {(lSi 329-2~________ "
App 1 i Ci:t i 0., for: A.'ll'endfilE'nts to...£Q.. Regulat ; ons (PAM( ~jl apte~~l ______________ _
(e.g., loning c~ange. subdivision af property, architectural re¥iew, use
pe~1t}
Zoning at Proj:!ct Lecation: __ ~R._. ______ _ Fee Rf!'cejpt No .. r!~LJ~!L
~wnu: OF Of TERM INA liON
8as€d upon review 0f the project files, ttle undersigned mr~ber of the Planning
(lcp ~rtmen t hCi scone 1 u,:led:
IXI Mjtig~led Negative Declaration: No EnvirDn~enlal Impact Report is
required. The reasons for a Mitigated Negative O€claration are:
! n y i mp a c t-,~_~c-'J.r1 ____ p_~-, __ mJ JJ9.~l~_g_~t..Q ___ ~_llj __ {tScJqO_tftc:._.? __ I1! ____ J.~y_?J ____ c. __ ~., .~_~§_~x_t9_~_5t ____ U:L __ 1b __ ~
attacheo Project O~scrlptLon and analysis. A record of proiect
actipn is availjble for review in the Palo Alto Transportation Diyj~ion.
Sixth Flgor. City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue. 8 AM . 12 noon and 1 PM -
5 ElL Mond3)' . FridilY.
[I The project !flay have a significant environmental impact. An Environmental
Iapact Report will be prepared.
\
Phnning Depart..,,,t Official: ~ dh/P.I .;)vry¢~ C~
Phnning Director. ~115ii:.lt-t!f~I!'J:-Oat.: h5,/2'i/1!L_
The proJect has been approved, DalE':
iht! project has beer! denied.
[IANOO 94-EIA-23
.~--
>
>
,
EII'I11!CIIIEN1' AI. OOGJI£~ T S • PAL n ALl 0
INlllAl STUQY' ••
I. Proj.ct Tttle/Address: Qrd;OiDce to Establish in-Lieu parking Eer in
t~ l'nivrr:sih Ay.nMf Puking Ass!ssMnt [}, strill.-. ___ _
II. hojKt Oeschption: Tl'!e City of Pilo ~JtQ is proPQslng tR adopt in
grdin,"cr tn,t would isl~.e exi sting CO dj strict Pltkjng
regulation> that prpy!de the oOPQrtunity for elJ9jblg PPW deyt]Qpmeot to
pAy i ftc In lit y of providing ictu.l Pirkjng spaces tnat would nOn8a11y
lit ["NjirJQ.
1ft. Enrirct'Mnhl Setting~ Urban downtgwo <-entnl Q4,aintis dj.ctrict. gi'ied
tpJQs, urnn dmrotqwr; tqffir-rtQjse. ___ _
lV. E":'iiro~ntil I~ .. ct C!<'ecklist {L'(~Ji!lin1tj,,~n of all ·ye:;"' answers are in
Ser.:tio!'1 VJ
I. UL:..n. ',/il1 the propo~aJ re~:.J1t in:
,,," Ur:5.t~Yle ~ar(h cCJr1;Jjtic'1s or (,~~r.ge'S
in ;eJlo~,c ~ub5t,r0(tures?
b. [JiSTuptiC'n'S, djs.pl2.c.e~ents, CC:-pil('
llGn or o¥~rcoyerj~g of the sCll
C. U'liilnge i" tap~raphy o. gr{'iund
surface relief fe~tures?
d. The drstro[tton, covering or mcdl·
f\(at~{jn of i.f'l)' ~ji\iqu,= g~o.lcg\c ex
Physitiill feat~res?
£' . .An,.,. increase in wind or _ater erasion
of ~oils. eith~r on or off the site?
f. Exposure of peop'~ or property to
geo1091C hazirds such as earthquakes,
laridsltd'E!s, IlUdslides, gfo'Jr.d failure
Qr si.11lT hizards?
g. Chl.rtges in siltaticn, deposit1on, or
erosion whic~ ~y ~dify t~e channel
of a ri ... ·e-r or the bed of a bay or
if) 1 et?
'* Adilpted frOCl Ap~Mi.x I, Cl1 ifornia Suidelines for Implementation of
CEQA, ~~r 14, 1976 .
•• Updated MiiY J982, ,Iuroe 1983
E IACKl 94·EJA·23
1
.L
2. Air. Will the propO~ll result in:
a. S~b5tintlil lir eafs~1ons or de·
teriorltlon of &abient iir quality?
b. The cUi.tion -::f cbjection.able odon?
c. A 1 teriil;t i on of air lIC~eeent. II) j store
teaperature, or any change in eli
~te, eit~er lo~ally or ~ionll?
3. 1J.t.tr, Will tt'tfo propos.~l result 1n:
i. Chinges in absorption rites, dri;nige
patterns. or the rate dod Ulow,t of
surface .ater runnff?
b. Alt€raticn~ to the coyr~~ or flow of
fl cod 'lfaters?
c. Ois.":~ilrge intl'l su..-fu12 ",'a(.on, ur ,~:
~ny alterat10n of surface _Jler
q'..;alit),. inclt.:cilng bt not 1p .... ,it,j
t€~per3L~re, dissolvej o~yscn Qr
turbiditi?
d. Alteration of ttl€' diro2'o:tl0i1 or rate
of fl c-,.. of ground \o!'a.ten?
e. Exposure of people or property to
water related hdz~rds ~uch as flood
ing or tidi!l )(aye?
f. Chafi9(!' in the GI.l<ll'ltHy of gr()und
witers, either H1ro'.Jgh dlrect
addit'ons or w'thdr~wal~. or thro~~~
inter,~ption$ of an iquifer by cuts
or exciI\lations?
4. ~1ant I ifg. Will tne propos.;i r!sult 'in;
a. C~ange in tne di¥ersity of species, or
nUDber of ~r.y sp~<ies of p\int5 (,n
cllld"ing trees, s.hrubs, grass, crop~,
micrt:lflora. and aquat;"': plant~)?
b. Red~cticn of the nuabers of a~y
un'que, rarp. or erdar:g~r~ species
of plants?
c. Introduction of ~ew spe(ies of
flACKl 94·EIA·2J
2
..1 __
..L
. .L
..L
plants into an area, ~r in a barrier
to the "ormal repienlsh~nt of
existing species?
d. Reduction in acrea9~ of any
a9ri~ultural crop?
S. Anj,aJ Life. ~i1l the proposal re~ult in:
a. Change In the diversity of ~pec1es,
or af any spec1ts of .ni.als (birds,
land an1~als including reptilts,
fish and shellfish, be-nUde orgardsIII5,
insects or Microfaun~)?
D. Reduct ion of ti'1-e nlJrnb~rs of any
llnique, rare or e~d~ng€red species
'Jf animal~?
c. Introduction of new species of
anirn~ls into an area, or re~ult In
a barrier to the migr~ljon or move
ment of animal s7
d. Deterioration in E'xisting fjsh or
wildlife habitat?
6. No;~_~. Will the proposal result in:
7.
8.
a. Increases in ~xjstir.g noise levels?
h. Exposure of peopl~ to S!Vere noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will tn€ proposal
produce new light glare?
Land Use. Will tI1e proposal result in
a substantial alteration of tne present
or planned land use Qf an area?
9. E.ner.9.'U..Natural Resources. Will the
proposal result in:
a. Use of substantia'i amounts of fuel
or energy:
D. Substantial increase in demand upon
ex i s t i fig SVU rces of er.ergy, or
ill
[JACKl ~4-[lA.23
3
-)-
_1_
ElACKl
require the development of new
sourtes or energy?
c. Inclease in the rate of use of any
natural reso~rc~s?
d. Substantlal depletion of any nonre
newable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal
lnvolve a risk of an explcsion or the
release of hazardous substancES {tn·
eluding, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides. them1cals or radiation) in
the even t of an acc i den t or upset?
II • PODU 1 at j on/HolJ~5_n9:.
c. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution. density, or growth rate
of the hUman population of an area?
b. Will till.? prof'osal effect existing
housing. or create a de-mand for
artditional housing?
12. Trarull.9rtat.tQ.n/Ci reu1 at ion. ,h 11 thp.
proposal result in:
a. Generation of sUbstllntial additional
ill
vet! j cu i ar movement? _1 __
b. Effects on eXl£ting parking facili 4
ties, or demand for new parking? -X-
c. Alterations to present patterns of
circu(ation or mo~ement of people
and/or goods? -X-
d. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
_L
x
¥enicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ~
13. public Ser-yices. Wlll the proposal have
an effect upon. or result in a need for new
or altered go~ernmental Sirv;ces in any of
tne following areas:
i. Fire protect icm?
94-ElA-23
4
(IACKl
b. Po11c~ protection?
Co Schools?
d. Parks or ather recreational
heil tt1es?
e. ~1ntenince Qf p~blic facilities,
inc' !.I4ing roads?
1. Other govern.e~tal services?
14. Vt1litip5. 'Will the propo:.ai result in a
rlt;'l!d for no:?\Ii systellls., or substantial
alterations to ttl€' following 'Utilities:
~. p~W~( or natural gas?
c. J(ater?
d. Se~er or septic tank?
e. Store!'! water drainage?
f. Sol id waste and dispos~l?
15. H~~an Health. Will the proposal result
in;
i. Creition cf any health hazard or
potential h~altn ~azard (excludir.g
IiEnt.l healtn)?
b. fxposure of ~·eC'ph to potential
heal th hazards?
16. A,sthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstructiQn Qf any scenic vista
i)!'" view apen to the publ ie, or will tne
proposal result in the creation of an
ii~sth€!t"icaJl'y cffc-:nsi .... e site open to
p\.lbl it vi!li?
}7. Recreation. Will the pro~osa' result
in an ilDpac.t upon the qual ity or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
ill
94·EIA·23
5
_1-
.::
......... ~--::....-------"--
18. Cultyral Resou~.
i:. Win tnt prDpo~.ii rE'suH in the
iltfrat}~n of/c~ t~e destruction
of a pr~i st,,"r-i, or ~i storle
lrthleologio:.al site?
b. ~; 11 tht prop.ou 1 ruu It in ild ~
~erle physic~l or ~p.sth~tlc effects
to A prehistoric ar historic
Ix:ndi"9', structu~; O'r obje-ct"'
c. oo.c-s t~f' pr~lX!sal tuve the poter.tj .. l
to ciI'Jse 1 ~r~)'slc'l ching!! which
Irould affect "1"Iiq,,e (J.ilt1Jral "'dlue~;?
d. i'i"11 O''1>? ~rG'~.»~l r£-otri-::t ['):;Qirg
r.e': ;(]ic~~ or s~.:-re'.~ IJS~5 ',,;H'1ifl th;;
pvtent !.:i ~~paC't are,;;?
ill
ii. Cees the 'p1'OJ~ct hate thE' ~.;Jtellti<il t,)
de9ra~e th~ q~ill it)' of Un: en,,·iror""'~nt.
sub~tarlt:.a.1 ly rej;.Jo: ttw Mabitat of a
tis.h or .. ildlife spec 1 f.'i. , c .. use a fish
.;)r 'Wi jcl if~ popu1 iitl(j.,"", ~o dr0l' belo ....
splf-~w5t~in1n9 level5, threate" to
~limi!'1;!:tc a r-]ent or anir'la·~ cO:-r'-.J!"Jit)"
reduce th! nu~be( or restrict the
ringe of ~ rare or €J1d~ngered plint or
ini~~l or 21;~inite i~ort3nt examples
of the aijc. periods of Ciljto~nli
his.tory or prehistory?
b_ Oof'S the project hi¥E' the potential
to acnle~e sh~rt-t~r., to the dis-
1~~lntI9E ~f lo~-tena, enviro~nt~l
goals? (A sho~t-terD i~act on the
M\I; rOilllel'lt is; <me whic!'! ~ccurs in a
rel.tively hrtef, definiti~e p~riod
of ti~ ~ile lon9~term i~acts wii1
endure · .... ell intu the future.)
c. Does the project ha\'e ilapacts which
~rr in<li¥ld.ual1y 1 iP.t'iteci. but
cUlM.ihti¥ely cOrlsiderable? (A pro
je-ct ..:&.)1 iapact Of. two or JI(lre
separ~te resources ~here the impact
EIACK1 94-EIA-2J
6
_x_
on each resource is rel,tively
... 11, but where tne effect 0/ t~.
tata1 of those i~icts Of! t~e
envlronaent 1s slgntftclnt.;
d. Does the project ha .. e en .. · t ro~n:t.l1
effects which ~111 cause 5~~stintill
adverse efftcts on h~~ beings,
either dlre<tly or hdlrectly?
ill
V. Explanation of ·yes· answers in e"Y;ro~ntil checklist.
See-att~ched.
[IACKI
,
9~-flA-ll
7
.'
Ordinanoe eatablishinq an In-Lieu ParkiD9 •••
tor th. U~iv.rl~tf AVenua Parkiuq ~ ••••••• Dt District
Proieet J)§seript,i2:Il
The city of Palo Alto is proposing to adopt an ordinance that 'Would
implutent the existing CO dis'trict par-king regulations (Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section lS.49.100) that provid~ the opportunity for
eligible new non-residential development in the University Avenue
parking Assessment District t.;) pay a fee in 1 ieu of providing
actual parking s.paces that would normally be required. The fee for
each requir-ecl parking space. would equal the incremental cost to the
·City of providinq a net new public parking space in the Assessment
District. When the City proceeds with a ne~ parking project in the
downtovn, the accumulate~ fees would be used to construct all or
p3rt of that project. A specific proje~t is not being proposed ~t
thif; time. An er.vironmf!ntal a:s:sezsr:1ent .. .-ill be prepared prior to
approval of any parking project.
On July 14, 1986, the City Council certified the Final EIR for the
Downtown study, and approved the project described in the Stlldy.
With respect to parking, the council amended th\i! Co'"-prehcnsive Plan
as folloW's:
1. Imposed a cap on developlf1ent so as not to increase the par}r.inq
deficit beyond 1600 spaces;
2, Agreed to re-evaluate parking exceptions wh,=n such exceptions
result in an unmet p~rkin9 demand of 225 spacesj
J. Encouraged Planned Community zoning for par~ing structures;
and
4. Implemented the 12-point parking program.
The city Council also mad~ the following zoning changes relatecl to
par~ing as a result of the Downtown Study: required all new non
residential development in the doynto .... r:; area to provide one parking
space for each 250 square teet of flovr area, ~ith some exc~ptionsl
and allowed the provis ion of off-site parking and in-lieu fee
payment in certain appropriate situations.
The propos~d neW ordinance that is the subject of this
Environmental Assessment would add provisions ~equired by state la~
to implement the in-lieu fee adopted by the City Council as part of
the. Downtown Study actions in 1986. No new regulations are
'.
, .
propoB.~ that ~ould affect par~in9~ Further, ths current parking
deficit of 1490 spaces Cas of September 1993) is less th~n the 1~86
deficit of 1600 spaces. Therefore, the 'Environlflental Assessment
tor the proposed o~dinanee is based on the 1986 Downtown Study ErR,
in addition to the followinq dJSCU9Sion explaininq items from tha
Initial Study prApared for this project.
Explanation of Checklist Item§ 12(~~~U)~. ___ T~r~aDD~s~p~o~r"t~a~t~!~·2~nLUL
W.culatioD
TWo potential impacts from the above amendments have been
. identified:
1. L9catio(l_ and Use of .lll::Lieu st...~. J:.. neW' public parking
project that is financed all or in part by in-lieu fee~ ~ould
not. n-ecessarily be located in the vicinity of the ne .....
developments that paid the fees. In some: cases.. several
de'r'elcp~ents :;.cattered throughout t.he .!I.ssessment District.
£!light pay i n-lieu .f€~s th3t. are aggregated to paj' for a single
parki~g project.
AS more specifically di:;.cussed in the staff report (September
14 r 1994 REC'port to thS! Planrlinq CO!!llQission, Qrdinance
Establishing an In-Lieu fee for the UniversitY-AYenue Parking
Assessment District}, the new parking projects most liKely to
be implemented I:.'ill tend to be located ...-here the existing
parking deficit is the rdqhest. Thus, a nelo! parking project
will most likely provide new parKing supply where th~ need is
greatest. This aggreqative benefit would tend to offset the
smaller disagqregative parking deficits created by new
developments paying the in-lieu fees ar,d not constructinq
their own ne~ individual parking facilities. This will also
tend to keep t.o a :minimum any additional traffic caused by
drivers circul~tin9 to find parking.
The. stalls c-onstructed with the in-lieu fees will not be
~eserved for use by the new developments that paid the fees;
rather, they will De av~ilable to customers and employees of
all Assessment District. businesses. Public u5age of these
stalls is a net' benefit to the Assessment District, as it
94,"'SIA-23
Auqust 25, 1994
", -.~--.'-
Page 2
•
\
would usually :result in i:lore intensive use of these stalls
(I.e., qr.a.t._r 'tut'noven than if they vere reserved for a
~rtieu18r business. In summary, the location and usage of
in-lieu stalls, compared to that of private stalls dedicated
to a 3pecific business, does not create a slqnificant n~gative
i_pact.
2. Tf!!ppqrory laCCillltilotion o( Unccn.tructed ...In..-Li6U Stalls,
As .ore specifically discuss-ed in the Septellber 14, 1994 Staff
Report. the .adoption of the 1986 Downtown Study included
.itigation .e~sure5 to address the long-term deficit of
parking spaces in the do...-ntovn area. Inherent in the in-lieu
parx.i119 progr..!t!l is the c!"E-ation of a tel':'lporary deficit of
paL~:ing spaces t>~ca1..lse ot t.he t.~~e lapse Defore in-lieu fees
cC'-lld ar:tu~li:r· r.-€ -:;:(In'.en::02d into ne',.,.' pari;in,) stalls. Ho .... 'ever,
b-c:c~u.s-E:' thE'. p'.!q:ose of tilo::! in-l ieu progr,:m is to construct the
.i.n-lieu st.ails dS soon as a pilrkir-,g project is feasible,
,"'h(ltl';'"v€l. acc'.)..-::c.:lat.ion b'..lj las up ... ·auld be t:.emnora;:-y and short
ter,·, 'The City bas the option. of \lot ",'aitir:.g for in-lieu fe.es
to aCCll~ulace to a large enough ~~ount to build ~ new parking
faciliry financed entirely by those fees, Instead, the City
could bui 10 Cor b~y into a parking project that is only
partially funded t:ly in-lieu f-'!es, Within the next J to 5
Y6ars, it: is es:timated tha.t IJP to 50 unbuilt parking stalls
could accumulate te~porarily fro~ the in-l,ieu proYisioll" It
is likely t.hat these SO stalls .... c-uld be incQ!:"porated irl one or
!lore new parking tacilities that could be completed in the
next five years. In the long term, it is estimated that up to
an addit.ional SO unbuilt in-lieu stalls could accumulate
temporaril:y". Thus, in. the .. orst case, 3.s.:;uming that no new
parking facilities ... ere built in the near future, there could
be a ~dxi.um teaporary accumulation of 100 unbuilt spaces due
to the in-lieu program.
The impact of the temporary shortfall created by the in-lieu
proqra:r: is not siqnific~nt, for the: following reasons:
94-:EIJ..-:n
August 2S, 1994
Page J
,a) The shortfall is ta.pora~y and short-tera. The purpose
of the in-lieu prQ9ra.::II is to fund t.hll! I"luaber of r'l;ew
parking spaces equal to the teaporary 5ho~fall.
(b) The City h~s creaced ap?toxizately 10C ne~ pub1ic parkinq
spaces dOwrltoVl'l sinc~ 1980 {without in-lieu fees). The
city and down~own p~ope~ty ovner8 continue to seek vay.
to increJller.tally jncr~a8e thP.' supply ot p-oJblic spaces,
.uGh as ~y restripinq suitable ~xistinq parking areD8,
and temporarily uSing availabl. private lots tor public
parking. In addition; a f.~8ibility study is nOW
beginning tor a n~~ public ~rking facility on an
existing do;.mto'w1"l. public lot, 'Which cO:Jld lead to
con$tructicn of ~uch d pro)ect within t~~ next three to
five Y€01rs.
(c) If the 100 cpac~s is C'o:=bined '."ith the-c,,)tT{>-nt deficit of
1490 spiH;:es, lhe tot'll is 3till l~s.::. th"-n th~ ;rax1.!!.\..l:;
deficit of 1600 spaces ,J::.Jc,pted in the [;:::,mto\o;'n Study
policif's. The 100 spac:,'s I:> c,~·nc~i.·jf,("abl'l belc ... · Ute
trigger of 225 u;~cuilt sp.:lces I?st"_ablish-ed (lj' t.t-.e Dow~tc\o{n
stud)' as a point dt .. ;hicn re-l"valuation of th~ City'!:
parking exception pOlicies .auld tre undettakt!."r., In or.del"
to =.ir,ir.!iz@ the potential ter.t:'orar-y cu::ul~t.ive i~ract of
unbullt stalls resulting fro:i:l the in-·Jle-;J progra'!ll, the
e:ds:ting ~onitoring pr-cgr'drn .... 'ou)d ~ expanded to include
a count of unbuilt in-lieu sya~es. 'Ihe nu~t.€.r of unbuilt
in-lieu stalls would t.hus. be inch.:.ded in the total of
unbuilt stalls ~hich counts towacd the 225 trigger point
for the: city's reva.l:Jation of p.!IIrxin9 regulations and/or
for planning for a ne~ p~rking !a~ility.
94-1:lA-23
AUgU9t 25, 1994
P~ge 4
\
·'~ -'
A 'IT ACHMEl'IT 2
ORDlliANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CIT\' OF PALO ALTO
AMKNDING SECTION 18.49.100 ICD PARnr«;
REGULATIONS] AND ADDIRG C!!Al'TER 16.57 ro ESTABLISH
A Fl!E ON C~CIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
UNrVEl!SIT'f AVENUE PARJ(ING ASS E SS!'reNT 0 I S I"R rCT AS
A.>; ALTl!RNATIVB IN-LIEU OF FULLY SATISFYING PAP.UNG
REQUIREMRlITS
The council of the City of Palo A.lto does ORDAIN as
folloW'S:
SECTION 1. Background, Intent and Purpose.
A. The Downtown Study Environmental Impact Report I tr.e
"ErR") was prepared pursuant to the California Environ.rr,E;mtal
Quality Act to fully identify aDd analyze potent:ally signif~ca.nt
envirol'..I'('.ental i.rr,pacts of propoeed change-s to ':ity re5'lJldtion~~
affect.ing traffic, parking and lend use in do,-rntm .. 'D P~lo Alt.o The
Council certified the adequacy and cOi1'.plet.el'l~ss ci :::he 21S: ar .. j
approved the Downtown Study 00 July 14, 1986.
S, The EIR de-mon8tratps-that E'xistil'"'/f f'a.::kir:::3'
facilities funded by the University Avenue Parking As s€-sSI:',em_
District (the-"Assessment Di8trict~) do not have suffici€i1l
capacity to meet current demand or to absorb the additional parking
demand projected tc result from future development vithin the
boundaries of the Asseestt'.ent District. According to the ErR,
available parking in the Assessment District was t'u! ly occupied as
of 1994, vith a deficiency of 1,220 parking spaces in downt.o-.m Palo
Alto 'Which spills over into nearby residential areas. The erR
projected that new development in the Assessment. District to be
pe~tted by the new Commercial Downtown (-CO-) zoning regulations
through ~995 would pr~~uce demand for an additional 2,~60 spaces.
The BIR proposed as a mitigation measure tr~t new nonresidential
development in che Assessment District be required to provide 100
percent of its parking needs or. under limited circumstances, to be
allo~ed to pay an in-lieu parking fe~.
c. on August 28, 1986, the City Council enacted new
regulations for the CD zoning district. With ce~tain exceptions.
those regulations require nonresidential development 'Within the
boundaries of the Assessment District to provide one pa~~ing space
per 250 square feet of gress floor area within a dey~lo'DlZient
project. (PAMC, § 18.49.100.) However, recognizing that-this
requirement could be unduly r-estrict.ive with respect to sorn:e sites,
the regulations pennit paymeot. of an in· lieu parking fee to finance
the provision of publ.ic pa.rking spaces in off rsite locaticos.
(PA."IC, § lB.49.100Idl.)
D. The October 22, 1993, ~Conm.ercial Downto-wn (CD}
Monitoring Report-identified a parking deficiency in th~ do~town
area of 1,490 spaces as of AuguBt 31, 1993.
1
!H1Il1L...00310I!l
•
-__ • __ n. _____ .' 1" ••
.:..--"' ...... ----...~--,,-,----".
E. The City Council haE' determined that construction of
additional parr-ing or payment of a fee in lieu thereof iB needed in
order to ensure that new development. in the downtown area of Palo
Alto does not exacerbate the existing parking shortage. The:
purpose of the in-lieu parking fee established by this ordinance is
to establish a mechani&~ for funding the provision of parking to
serve nev, nonresidential developments which are not able to meet
the parking requiremenL Bet forth in Section 18.4g.100.
F. In-lieu feee collected pursuant to this ordinance
will be used to finance the construction of llew parking facilities
to meet the inC'%:'eased parking demand caused by ne .. nonresidential
develC"pments which do not provide the required park:'nq. The amount
of such fees will equal the full coat of providing the required
number of parKing spaces. Pee revenue& will not be used to
mitigate the existing park.:Lng shortfall.
G. The City Council determines that there is a
reasonablE: relationship betwesn new nonresidential development
within the boundarie~ of the Assessment D18trict and the resulting
need for additional parking faci 1 it ies. The Cit.y Council turther
dete:rntinea that there is a Teasonaole relathmship bf.!t· ... '2eo new non
reSidenti~l developrru;;nt and the use of in-lieu teE' n?Venues to
finance construction of 61..lch additional parking facii.ities _ l-.s
mOI.-e fully set forth in the document entitled ~Nex\le and Cost Basis
Study -In-Lieu Park.ing Fee," prepared by the City of Palo Alto
Transportation DIvision, dated Septet!'..ber 1994. and in the scaff
report (CMR: ___ ), cost estimates supporting the fees levied
pursuant to this ordinance are reasonable estima.tes of the-cost of
providing the necessary parking facilities, and the feeB to be
generated by new development wi.ll not exceed the total costs of
providing parking to selrVe the parking demand created by sud~ ne""
de'Velap.r..ent.
R. The scarcity and high va.lue of land within the
assessment dist.rict make it most likely that additional public
pa:tking will be provided by the construction of a multi-level
parking structure on an existing public parking lot; although a
sinsle elevated cleek. above an existing public parking lot, an
underground garage beneath an existing public park-ing lot, or
incorporation of public parking into a private development are also
feasible potential projects. The factors considered in selecting
the actual locat.ions for parking facilities will include the amount
of localized parking deficiencies and the potent.ial for future
nonr~sidential development.
SECTION 2. section 18.49.100 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.49.100 Parking r~gulation8. The provisions of Chapter
10.83 regarding loading requirements, bicycle facility
requirements, parking requirements for residem:.ial uses, and
parking requirements for nonresidential uses outside a parking
assessmeDt district, formed and assessed under Bond Plan G
financing pursuant to Title 13, shall apply in the CD district.
2
'HJH71K OOJIOl9
\
('
H~r. with respect to on-site and off-site parking space
requirements for nonresidential uses within an assessment district
wherein properties are assessed under a Bond Plan G financing
pursua.."lt to Title 13. th-2' following requirements shall apply in the
CO district in lieu of the requirements of Chapter 18.83:
(ai on-Site Par-kiog. Any new development, any addition
OT e.nla.rs~nt of existing develo~nt, or any use of any floor
a.rea that has never been .assessed under any Bond Plan G financing
pursuant to Title 13, shall provide one parking apace for each two
hundred fifty gross square feet of floor area, except as may be
exempt from such requirement by the provisions of subsection (b) ot
this sectioo. The purpose of this subsection is to regulate the
o~r of park.ing spaces req-.Jired> Requirements for th"e size and
other design criteria for parking spaces ehall continue to be
governed by the prry?isions of Ct~pter 19.83,
(b) EXceptiofl.9,
Dr:~rviced in 8ub::::ect i on (a)
io}lawi~9 inst~nces:
The requirerr,ent for on· ~ite parking
of thia section shall not apply ;i.n the
(1) Sq-uar~ foot:age for:
[i) Handlc?~ppe.:l. acce8a which 'does not.
incr:~as€, th~ usable floo"C area. as determined pursua.nt to Secti,-;:;n
18.~9,06'J(t.l (1):
conjunction with
18.49.060 IbJ 12);
iii)
seietr.ic
An increase in
l-ehabilitatior..,
sq\1are
pursuant
footage in
to Se-ct ion
\ iii) Historic structures in Cacegories: 1 and
2. Bach historic structure in Categories 1 and 2 may take
~dvant3.ge of the following exceptions during thE' life of the
building;
(A) An increase in square footage of a
h.istoric building in categcl-iea l and 2, pursuant to section
lB.49.060(!Jl (3), and
(8) A conversion to commercial use of
a historic building in Categories 1 and 2 that .is fifty feet or
leS9 in height and that has most recently been in residential use,
if such conversion is done in conjunction wit.h exterior historic
r~:t>.a.bilitation approved by the director of planning and community
environment upon the recOIImlendation af the architectural review
boaJ:'d in consultation with the historic resources board. Such
conversic,n must Dot eliminate any existing on-site parking.
(tv} A miJJor increase of two hundred :squa,re
feet or less, pursuant tD Section 18.49.060Cb) (4);
included in the
904L1I71ac OOJIOl9
(v) At or above
FAR calculations. as
3
grade parking.
set forth in
though
Section
'--1Il
/. ,
'.
•
19.49.060(a;. shall oot be subject to the on-site parking
regulations of subeeclion (a) of this section.
(2) vacant parcels s !-..a 11 be exempt frOO'. the
requirements of !nJ.bsection (al of this ~ection at the time when
develop:nent occurs as p:::-ovided herein. Such development shall be
e.xempt to the extent of park.ing spaces for everyone thousand
square feet of aite area, provided that such parcels were at some
time assessed for parking under a Bond Plan R f ina-acing pursuant to
Chapter 13.16 or were subject to other ad valcre:r. assessments for
parking.
(3) No new parking spaces will be requi red for a
site in conjunction vi th the developtr:-E.-nt or replacement of the
amol..UJt of floor area used for nonresidential use equal. (,0 the
amount of adju:3~ f!d ~qu.a_re fc-o::.age fc:r-the 8i te shown OD tbe
engineer's report for fiscal yea~ 1985-87 fQ~ Lhe latest Bond Plan
:::; financing tor parkir.::3' ilCq'..lisition {n-.l:-::pro·,·e"em:s in that certain
are-3. of tho?_ city c.elin-?'3.te~ ell '-he :'"dp of th02 tJrdver:9i.ty Aven\le
parkinG a.sseSS;T·e-n~ d istl-in. 0T.r. it l.e·.j, "t>:O}:-08f'C g(..li"nljaries of
University Aven\.!e Off Stl-'2J:,-::' ?'-ir\:~ .. r:·:J },-"'reject $:1"15-·63 MSeSSmei1::
Distric(, City of Pc;~o ?'.,. __ ~t·.-), CC'.nt>' c,t S_:mt.a ClciLEj'j St3.te oC
CdlLfonJia,' darc:-d ~~nr_'\t't'r JO . .3.9~'a, al~cl 0,1 rUe:> ....,ith the cir.y
(;1 erk. i:G .... e~-el:, squ:.".re l: o,Jr"~.:.ag€ · ... hi.dl ... ·J.~l devclnped for
nenres) dent ial fY..lrp.:.ses or ""':11 ch has 'h::!2D US2·j far nonresidentia.l
purposes but". ",,-hich is not "Used for such pllq.<)SeS dU.e t,,· vacano:y at
the tiG'.-e ':It the enginee=-' s re:p-:lr-t shall be ir.cluded in the aI/10'"mt
of tloor area qualifying tor this eXE-J"r.ption_ No exempticil from
perking :>:equire:::r£:DtB shall be aval.la.ble "ItIh-el'e a residential use
changes to a Tlcores:iderlt ial use, e;:(.::-ept pursuant lo subdivision
(1) (iii) of this fH;.bE.ectioD..
te) Off-Site Pilrking_ Parlting reql.!in!:d b}' this chaptel
may be prO"'.rided b:( off -.site parking, provided that such off· site
parking is within ~ reasonable distance of the site using iL or, if
the .5ite i8 within an aasess:ne:ot district, within a reasonable
distance of the assees:oent district bo'..:.ndary and approved in
writing by the director of planning and com:mmity ~nvironme!lt. The
director shall assure that sufficient covenants and guarantees are
provided to en&UI-e use and ma.intenance of such par);:ing facilities,
including an enforceable agreement that any development occurring
on the aite where parking is provided shall oot result in a net
reduction of parking spaces p~ovidpd. considering bath the parking
previously provided and the parkins; requir'ed by the proposed ~lse.
(d) In-Lil2u parkicg Provisions. rn connection with an .....
expansion of the fiupply of public parking spaces within the cD
coamercial downto'W!l district, the city shall allocate a number of
spaces for use as ~in·lieu parking~ spaces to allo",-development to
occur on aites which would otherwise be precluded from development
.::lue to pe.rking ccnsr.:.-aints imposed by r.tJis chdpter _ Off-site
parking cn SLlCl"l. Gites may be provided by paYP1ent of an iu-lieu
monetary contribution to the city to defray the ccst of providing
such parking. Contributions for each required parking space shall
equal the incremental cost of providing a net new parking space in
•
•
-'#--
/
an assessment district project plus cost for the adoi~i6tration of
the. J'rCSram, all. a. determined purtI\>IIJtt to Cbapter :1.1,,57 of Ti,U"
.-~,'~:":~,~. ,pade, by the director of pla..o.ning and cCftmJnity enVironment, whose decision shall be final. Only sites satisfying
one or more of the follo",ing crite~ia. as detp:rnd::ed by the
director of planning and coann1nity environment, st~ll t~ eligible
to participate in the in~lieu parking program:
(Ij Construction of
nacessitate destruction or substantial
historic Btructure;
on-site par~in3 vould
d~~liLiQn of a deBigr~ted
(2) The site area i8 : ee' eM!9 ten thousand square
feet ~:~ and it would not be phY9ically feasible to p'!"O'.~ide t_he
required on-site parking;
0) The site is greater than u,n tJlO'J!.Hn-j -sq'...!.3.z.-e
feet, but of such .an unusual confi('H.l1:at.io'1 ths.t :;'t 'IIf':''..Jld not :Ce
phys:ically feasible to pI-ovid"" the re,ru",no.j ,x;·site p;aY,:':i::3;
(4) The sit·:; L"i located in an .;tce3 • .. ·here =:1(>'
policy precludes c\!rb cutn 01:." ot'ner",is!:-p:revl::.~t~~ llSr:: Df tr.e 3ite
for on-site p~rking;
(52 The site ~aB other pnysical COllstr3ints, ~uch
as a high groundwater tablf:, -.,.,hic'n prec:-lune pt"ovisio!1 of on 5i(€
parking without l'e~l!laf' :P~l-ng-~ .. i;l19_sil ,~tL. 19]!' --~f'
extrac")rdinary expense.
{e) Underg-round ParkiDg. Und.erground parXing oeeper-
than two levels below grade sr-.all be prohibited unless 3 SOil8
report or engineering analysis derwnstrates tha~ regular plJ.mPing of
subsurface water will not be required.
~QlL...l. ChaptE:r 16.57 is hereby ajde:i to Tit le 16
(Building Regulations} of the Palo Alto MuniCipal Cod~ to read as
follows:
CIIAP'I'IiIt 16. 5 7
Dlct.n!O' P),'KUIG l'KB RlIt JIlIN ~lDIIMT1:AL
~ ,llit THB CCJiMDMM, liC&iltAi (Q)}
ztIIimlGi!UTI!lCT
~ .. 'S'1 ... 020 n.dinitiOl1.8~ For ~ purposes of thiE chapter,
~"f~~ ... d4tinitions SMU apply;
l .. > ...... s_t district' means ell<! llni"" .... itl' Avmwe fli$~~lIj,~ . District .
5
'Nllj71K OOJI019
.(I»~C1ty' _ the .C1ty of Palo Alto.
len .•...••• If,I'It •. -theDownt;own Study Bnvir=-ental ~
~{:~i;C~19llS,and .r=:t.ified by the City coun.:ll ""
~:';"'3.&".' .
1<11 ..~._ apa)'lMnt in 1ieu of the provision Df
~""""~·apilCH·
' .. 1 •. ·.1"wId·1IIe/UIIi the !1niversiey Avenue Parlting
IW It !:ti$t;:riict In'lieu Par!ting Pund.
{f) *l;r""" floor are .. -shan be defined as set forth in
eeet~ ~.04.930of this Code.
(g} -:set new park.ing space" means a public parkir..g space
that is constructed at. a particular location in the assessment
district. in excess of any ~~istiog public parking spaces lost or
removed from that a..ame location.
(hl '-po..mlic parking space· IDf:!anE a parking space C1(l~
arA ope~ted by or on behalf of the assessment district,
1O.57.G3()
(a) The fee fOl" each 250 square f.eet of gros9 floor area
in a de~lopznent: ahall. equal the sum of the construction, land
acquisition, "if 8.¥)y" and administrative costs attributable to the
provision of .. """ ne>rparkin9 space, ... established by the City
council ""the basi" of calculaticr.8 made by the chief
transporbtt iw. officiaL TIl" fee s,"",11 be $ 19 • 000 per 250 square
.f .... tofgross:tloor area. This fee shall be adjusted annually by
t:hechiaft~ation official, by an amount equal to ~be change
in ·ebe·.·.· cOlUltrUetiOll. <:OIIJt index f or the preceding year, as
Cl«e~ for th<e Ban Frallciaco Bay Area by the • Bngineerin!1 5<> ....
1lJ>eo.rd. ··tbe.~"lUllCo.ostruction Weekly.
16 .5' • 040 '.I':1al.Aq of .paylleCt.
~.~ll>fi· paid .10 full to the city building tMpectioa
ISivisioU·'::piiQ,,· tiC> issuance of a building penoit for the
i1e\Ie~t;'
ereation.ot 6,peoial ~.
~·r.tll.::~ ..... t4l>li.l;ed ll.IIpeCial !1nivereity Avenue ~~ ..... t.I . .}i·~#et1i). •• Ueu Parl<ing!IUM (the 'fund'), into
~etiir",t:\':f~,..JaiIi;Il!UI'Y interest t:ilereoJl, shall be depoaited. The
~,~::,~."'jnt .. :lileIl:ae.a·..."arate capital. facUiti .... account
in· • .........,r.X'O.avind any eomrnillgling of tbe fees witb other
re~a~ :t:und,s',or accounts,.of the'ci.ty. Upon receipt and entry to
the ..... eeoUXlt',l..t\g .rltcord& . forth" fund, sue!> monies abal.l be ~l,~~tted to.the uses prescribed in Section l.G.57.D60.
9411111.K 00310111
L
+,:-:.
:;~~,,~ -
1~.S7.~ 11 .. of f_.
DoaWClld.'"' iathe tuIId ?lIa11 be eligible far expenditure
~ <~>"~.~<publiepatid;"!f. epacea If1thin the . '7. <'c~iClttQ Mrve _ l>I'rl<ing needs of the district
........ lIr~,~Utllat. pa.j.dr:.he t ....... a. det~ by _.~ ".. 111!F ~ ;)%Udal, subject to.1:he approval. of the ettt.,..,. Pitt' 'U rtle'iHtiee a"" <CC1lBt'rUJ'te<S pdor eo .,.,poalt of ",rum . < t . -.u_ into the tuIId, then fees may be used to .... lJoburae
tIMl~~. spenUturee_.ill ~<:e of. receipt of f_. In _......,....u-=t ... in the fWllS .be used for regular 1IIa1nt"",,",ce Cf,.'t.:tac:U!t.ie8 0<' ~ Gy'.pII%ltiDg facilit~"'" not avaUable to._a.,.. .. __ -.. of bwJ~ :Located "" the ... ,,""""""'t
~. '1'IIe priorities for expendltlll'1>8 of meniea in the fund as
......... varl.OWI types iUId locations of parking facilities _11 be as
det~ by the City Council r a..fter c0U9idering the
recqmmendati~n of the ~hief transportation cfficial~
10.51.070
The -uses P:l.\:.."POsed for expendit.ure of the monies in the fund
shall b-e reviewed annually by the CJ ty Council along with its
review of the <:1 ti~' s capital i....'T!proYe!ri< prograJ.'1l, and the :r.o:;;,ies
from the fund shall b4! appropriated for such €!~nditl.lre in the
~r provided by the Palo Alto Cit.y Charter and Munic1.pal Code
for adoption of t.!:!.e a.w:ual budget.
on an azwual basis following the enactment of til:!"
ordinance f the chief trar..sponation Official shall review the
estimated cost of the described parking. the continued need for
t.hat parkiIig' and the reasonable relat.iooehip between such DEled and
the l.JDpacta of pending or anticipated nonresidential development
wit.hin the a8Be!1sment district. The chief transportation official
shall report: Jlia or ber f indillge to the Ci ty Council at a noticed
public liearing and re,,~ any adjustmer.t to these requirements
as may be needed.
if .ertY prov;;don' of t/liill <lbapeer or the applicability
therect t¢ anypersop or entity ie L'eJ.d to be invalid by a court of
~ ju.r.1!o&et1cm,. eu:cll illvaJ.i4i ty sball lIot aftect lUly other
provisiOl1·oft:his chapter which can<be 9iven effect withoUt the
invalid proviaiono or application; and to this end tne Provisions
of .~" ."haPl:sr are declared to be severable.
SECTIQ~t. This ordinance was ad~pted at a duly noticed
public hearing. All supporting studies, :t'eports and data were made
available to the general public for a pe~icd of at least 10 days
prior to the publJc hearing.
SECTION 5. The City Council cert.ified t.he Final EIR for
the Do~t.own Study and approved the project d~scribed in the Study
on July 14, 1985. One of the provisions adopted in that action was
to aut.horize payment of an in~lieu fee for parking. This ordinance
7
~J1I7IKOO3iCil"
L '-'-, .... ,,"--..
i.IIIplements the fee. No new regulations have been adopted that
would affect parking. Further, the ClJrrent parking det:icit of
1,.90 wpace8 (as of September 1993) is less than the 1986 deficit.
Therefore, the Council finds that the Downtown Study SIR may
adequately eerve as the basis for the environmental assessment and
negative decl&ra~icu {I94-SIA-23) prepared for this project.
Accordingly, the Council finds that thi9 project will not have a
significant effect on the eovironment.
SRCTION 0, 'I1l1a ordinance shall be effective on the
thitty-firet date aft.er thE date of ita adoption; provided.,
hO'W'eV'er , tbat. ia ac:corda.uce with Government Code section 66017, the
~ee hereby adopted ahall be effective 60 days after adoption of
this ordinAnce.
INTRODUCED:
P;,..sSED:
AYES:
l.ITRST:
Clty Clerk
APPRO\1BD AS TO FORM:
Sen:lor Asst. City Attorney
,..1117"0I»10l9
8
APPROVED:
~4yvr-------------------------
City Manager
Director of Finance
Director of Planning and
Comcah~1ty Environment
Chief Transportation Official
I
ATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING COMA-fISSION
SUMMARY STAFF REPORT
£!!.9 ; n ,1[!~,~.L.E.s..I1: h : i s.b.in';m.~.n I.D __ : __ Li·~.'.J... P..-: : ;... i:1'; F e~' J c' r mG.: -:. ___ U.Di~~(" rs it),
A \'e I:LbLC: Paxki.D.Z-__ t\j~:; ~:s rr;~ nJ. Oi.~:lr; ~!,
REQUEST:
The Planning Commission is .lsked to re'.'i.ew llie I~.\US :;wdy arid co~: analysis for the
in-lieu parking fee; and to ret..'cmmend 10 COUilCii ~dc,pifon of the fe-e and fhe procedure:;
for its COIl,:,ciion and marlJ.gernent.
RECOMMENDA nONS:
Staff recommends that the Commi~ion recomme,~ thal Council {a) appro .... e tile attached
Negative Declaration; and (b) .wop< the atl.ached draft ordinanc~, providing for th~.
collection or III in-lieu parking fee of S!9,OOO. and establi!>hing tix procedures fClr its
collection and management.
!'OLlCY IMPLICAT!QNS:
The policy impllc.ations of in·lieu parking were -considered by Council Jil 1986 when
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and new developffie;nt regulations for the.
Downtown, including the in-lieu provisions of the commerciaj CD regulations (pAMe
Section 18.49.100), were adopted. When the CD regulations were adopted in J986, the
in-lieu parking provision W~..5 envisioned as primarily, if not exclusively. for use. wit11
development of sites where 110 OfHj[~ p3rkiJ1g (ould t>--.: physicall)' pro\'ided. Tile
-------------_._----_ .... _----
c---~---.--.-.-..... -
-'
=----_.,._._ ........... .
proposed in-lieu fee is nnticipated to be also used in situations where some, bUI not alI,
of the required parking can be accommodated on site, In lny event, new development
in the Downtown will continue to be limited by the project specific and the overall square
foolSge limits eslOblished by the sdopled Downtown Study policies and ~gul.tioos.
EXECUllVE SUMMA!Y
This report briefly discusses the background of the in·lieu puking provision tlw was
established by Council in 1986, as part of new CD District regulations, and summari=
the cost onalysis contained in the attached cost basis study, The next .. and cost basis
srudy (Attachme.tl)est&blishes the required onus belW«O the r.e and new development
proje<1s and provides the basis upon which L"e cost of providing parking in the downtown
area can be established, The 'tudy concludes that the in-lieu fee should be S 19,00) per
requirt-d parking: staJl, based 0<1 the cosl per adde:d parking stall for a multilevel sL.'"lJcWre.
This repcli recummends adoption of thai fee, as. well as Ihe pnx.·edure~ neccssarr to
collect and manage (ht! fe.e.
nSCAL IMPACT
There is no tiscal impa(:1 to the Cit)' of the staff rccomm<;nOa!iOll or tb,-·. altc,"llallvt's. ArTy
fiscal impacts accrue: to the downtown prDpert)' and b,"L~ine.s$ owners. If the in·iteu fee
is set at a rate that turns oul to be tess thall the co~1 of net new space:. in a future City
parking project, [he unfurKIed amount wC'uld be passed on to .11: downlOwn property
owners as an incre-ase in the assessment fer the projecL
. E."IVJRONMENrAL ASSESSMEl\T
An Environmental Ass.essment recommending a Negative Declaration has been comple~
and is included as'Attachment 3,
PREPARED BY: Carl Stoffel
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: )f~:;'{;<J,~':..=-__
Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director
of Plan"; ng and Com m uni t)' Environment
SUBJECf: Ordinance EMabljst\ing ao In-Lieu Parkin, Fee fur tbe t1njyen;ity
A)'t~nae Parldn& Assessment DjsDict
RECOMMENDATIONS
SWf recommends thaI the Commission recommend thaI Council (a) approve the allJicbed
Negmive Decl ..... tion; and (b) adapt the attached dnft ordinance, provi~ing for the
collection of at1 in-lieu parking fee of S19,OOO, and establishillg the procedures for its
collection and management.
BACKGROUl\'D
Palo Alto Municipal Cod," (PAMC) Chapter J 8.49 se l , f(lfth regulations governing
development in the CD Commercial Downtown Disrrict, which were iriSlltuled iii 1986
as a result of the City of Palo Alto Downtown Study. The CD area lS shown ill the map
of Figure I. Section 18.49.100 sets forth parkt'lg regulations for the CD district.
Generally, this section requires thai any new de.vdopmenl, addition. enlargement, or use
of ,my pre.vious.ly tmass.e-sliied flO<Jr area in Ihc CD districi mUM plOvide. park..ing at the rate
of one space per 2-,,"0 gross square feet. For CD district properties located within the
Assessment District, Section 18.49.100{d) provides that the Cil)' may receive an Ln~iieu
monetary contributioIl (i.e.) "in-lieu parking fee") from eligible new development in th.e
Assessment District that is unable to meet the 'Parking requirement of Section 1 R.49.100.
To be eJigible to participate in the in-lieu parking program, sites mu.st satisfy one or more
. of the following criteria liste.d in Section J 8.49.1 OO(d) ~
(l) Construction of on-site parking would necessitate destructlon or
substantial lkmolition of;a licsignated historic structure;
(2)
(3)
The sile area is less than 10,000 square feet and il wouid not be
physically feasible 10 provide the required on-sile parking;
The sile is grealer than 10,000 square feet, bUi of such an unusual
configuration Ihat it would not be physically feasible to provide the
required on-site parking;
(4) The site is located in an area where city pel icy precludes curb cuts
or ot.\terwise prevents use of the siw for on-site parking;
(5) The si Ie has ather physical constrai"ts, such as a high groundwater
table, which preclude provision of on-site parking without regular
pumping of subsoil water or other extraordinary expense.
\
i
I
I
FIGURE 1: MAP OF CD DISTRICT Boundary line ___________ _
Staff believe; that criterion (2) should not be in~'1' ... ted so a> l<> preclode reasonable
development thai othcrwi.se meets the site de'w'eI"Pment regulations. and the in-lieu fee
should be available as an option where some. but not all. of Ille required parking could
be C:01Utructed on sl\e$ that meet one !:If mo~ of the fi,,-c criteria. Thus, it is not the
intent of this criterion to require Ihal buildi:1g sizes be limited orli)' 10 those sizes for
whiclJ porlrin8 can be prov;do:I with"". U$C of the in-lieu payment.
As. funher point of clvification regarding criterion (5). pumping of subsoil water is not
permitted. so the last phrase of criterion (5) will be amended In the attached ordinance
to read:" .whicl1 prttlud< provision of on-site porlcing without e.lrlIoniinary
expen..te .•
The p-roposed arnero1'ifeniS Iv 'he CD [;,jsl.ri<:t reguhltcru., which are the, subject of th~!s
staff re-pc',rt, ~t fonh (il u~ iegaH) require-d re-i3.1i0f"l5hips. betwun the ir.-liw fee and )l~W
d("\,.elOj'1mCfll. {Ji) lh:e am ("' .. m! ,)1 ~he kt.'" .7:iHJ the procedure foik,''\'~J 10 eSlablish that
~H·n0tli'll. ~nd (iii! tht_ m,~i:n~J \11 .... h.:h \h·~ Cii.~ \,\111 coll['C1 :mc\ maflaf{'" the fee.
The policy imrlica,ion~ 0f ii1-Il~u parlln.1;; \-lieu: .. ;)~sid.:"red by CCIH1cil in 1986 when
amendmer,Ls io the Compr-ehem,\"e Pl-an aM new devdoprnC'ilt regulatiuns for the
Downtown. including lhe in-Ilcu pio\'isiono; of th:! commerci&l CD regulations (PAMC
Se{:ticn l SA9, lOC)), were. <;do~ed, The flJndam~fltaJ purpose of the in-lieu provision was.
to pw\-ide 3. mecharus.m W ~lhr ... ' tie\'dopment to l)CC"ur on a ~ma\l lmmber of ~ites that
were undeveloped and un.zblc 10 have on-sjte r.arking (pnrnarily because of small sire,
unusuaJ conflgunrion arxjfor a 1,")C!tion which effeclj..,'C'ly precluded a curb cut or other
access to on·s.ite. parkl0g). it Wa!. 21SI,) r-ecognired that there would be ot.ier unusual
circumstances whc:re on-site parking ~'3..S eilher oot phys.icalJ)' feasjbl~ or not desirable
(primarily becau.s.t uf pos.sible conflicts between new parking and oth,,:-,r policies, including
the desire 1'.) avoid curb cuts and parking; in prime pedestrian-oriented retail areas)_ These
considenulom. led To the fl\le criteria for use of the in·!ieu f~ that are identified. in the
p<eViOO5 "BACKGROUND" section.
While the establishment of the amoonl of the in-lieu fee is a further definition of existing
pclicy. conditions ha""t changcJ be!w~n 1986 and 1994, and the recommended in-lieu
fee is anticipated H.> be availab~e for sltuatiofls where some, but not all, of the parking
""juiremenl can be mel on site. An «amp!e is the proposed redevelopment oflhe parcel
at the comer of Emerson Streel .and Lytton Avenue (recornmel1dea fOT approval by the
Ptanning Commission on Augwt 24, }9(4) where some of the required parking spaces
are available on site and L': remaining p;,rking rcq~jrement ',\'ill be met through the
haeS or,
---_ .... $r ....... >_ .. > ___ I~------
"
\
>---
payment of an in-lieu fee. Howe .. r, IS i, the case with the Emernln Street project,
application of the recommende<! fee would stili involve meeting one or more of the
previously identified five criteria listed in Section 18.49.100.
Staff does not anticipate subSiantia.! use of the in~liev fee" for de .... elopmcnt con$i$t~nl ",1.th
the CD zone's 1: 1 floor area ratio. Thi, conclusion is reached ptimarily becaus.: • large
number of sites are already developed at or close to • !: 1 floor are.! .-.tio. and Building
Code provisions prohibit, except in unusual circumst&rk%s, windo\lr"s on property lines
where an odjacem building could be =tructed. Comer properties are far mere likely
to be redeveloped because upper floor.; can illCO<pOrate Ole ",ind",,', ='sary to oblain
office rent. .. sufficient to warrant the redeyelopmenl costs,
'!'1lere are much greater policy impliC'3Ii('n5 of t. ... c use or .an in-lieu fee-if the
fC'-commended criteria for application of the fe.: were to be r<:'~'isi\cJ. A~ "'ill::!',] ah,?\'e,
the 1986 downtown regulations. govern !h.e pres.ent f1rl'r~::1~J.!, ) l": {his mC're limitro
application may not aJiow the fi~:r.ibi1iI)" i0 work witb the aT"!(!t:ip<,.!c-d dlOlLig~,,-, :n r~ta;1 alxl
c·ffice environment", tn the dUW!'1W\!"fl in ~he 19SI{..Is. Staff iM'!nds. II' identIC-:-' th!\:..: p\',ll~'Y
implic.ations ill Ll. sl.!b~eq'}er.t Tepon 10 the: Ctl~' CU'JIi'.:il.
DlSCUSSIQIS
The development ofth~ recommendation:. in th;s report are-dO,l.elf rdaled to the in,lie-~._~
concepl deveioped in 1986, as pal; of the Downtown SluJy. Srot:cificaUy. staff t"nvisior.s
use of the fee in the following situatior.s:
• New de"'clopment on parcels thaI meet one or more of the Tl,,-e
criteria identifie<i earlier in this report and contAined in Section
18.49.100(d) of tile zoning "'gularia!\-', and where proposed
development can have some or IlOfle of,~ required puking.
• New Planned Communit, zone de¥e!opments that meet the 1'&=1
size and configuratjon crileria in 18.49, 1 {)()(d). pro\'ide substantial
public beneftlS necessary 10 q'Jruify flJr a PC ZOrle, !Hld s.!tjsfy ot..p.er
City planning and design objectives ., identified in the
Comprehensive Plan and otllcr related documents (e.g., Downtown
Urban Design Guide).
Use of the in-lieu fee beyond the aDove two situations should ~nta!l consideration 0f
broader poJicy issues.
---;"'~'---''''''''----''''"' -
•
If the fee is Ol!opted, the City should carefully modlor use of tl1e f~ to determine
whether the usc is appropriate, or whether the .pplk.ability of the fee should be
constricted or expanded.
New PUblic parking Projects and Their Cost
PAMe Section !8.49.IOO(d) requires that the in-lieu fee be based on Ihe in=mental cost
of providing. net ",".W public parking space in the Assessment District. The nexus and
cost basis stlUJy (Attachment I) presents information regarding L~e location and type of
new public parking projects, and the cost per net now (added) parking .tall to construct
such projects.
The study dL~usses st\leral feasible scenarios fOT puhlic parking in the University A .,'enuc
Parking Aosessmenl District (please refer to Table I in the attached study). These
s~nmos are narrowed down to the fom most approprizJe fer implementation. Aftl!r a
review of private parcels and public parkl:1,g lots where a parking project might he
constructed. nine potential public parking projects are identifie,d (Table 3 in the atl.ache.d
~tudy). From these, it LS conc1uded that a multilevel structure on Lots. SIL, R, or RiP
is the most Ekely. The co.st per added parking stall for a mullile.,.,,1 struciurf, is. calcUlated
to be $19,000.
RecQ..ITUllend:ltjQI) for Amo\lot of In-lieu F('{:
The recommended amount for the in-tie_u parking fee is S19,(X)(), ba!;ed on the cost per
added paridng stall for a multileyel .• !ruc!ure. The fee would be adjusted annually on July
I of each year based on the Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco area, B3$ing
u-,e fee on the m\Jltilevel structure has some advantage~: (a) it is unlikely that a pro~r1y
owner would be overcharged for any parking project; and (b) provision of in-lieu stalls
is encouraged by a lower fee, and public usage of in-lieu stalls benefits the downtown.
as such usage usually results in more intensive use of these stalls (i.e., greater turnover)
than if they were reserved for a particular business.
The disadvantage of selecting the fee for a multilevel structure is tlJal a more e"-perlsive
parking projec1 would be underfunded. Howeyer, U,e financiaJ consequence 10 the
Assessment District of underfunding can be relatively small.
Draft Qrdinance Implemelllior the In-lieu }>alkine Fee
Attachment 2 is the draft ordinance implementing the in-lieu parking fee, including the
mechanism by which it is to be collected and managed. The existing authority is found
in the CD Regulations of Title 18 (Zoning), in Seetian 18.49.100. This section has been
amended Co refer to the new provisions implementing the fee v~'hich, for cunsis!en.:y with
other development fees, will be locatod in a nowly-adopted Chapter 16.57, in Title 16
(Boilding Regulations). .
Pq:. 7 of'
/'
.i
i ,
i
The new regulations have been draftOO to comply with Government Code sections 66000
et seq., which govern the collootion of City-imposed development fees. They include
tertlIin findings reg.roing the relationship of the fee to the development that i~ require!
to po.y the fee, as well as the relationship of the purpose for the fee (i.e., parlcins ,paces)
to the development that pays the fee. The finding', and the amount of the fee, are
supported by the Ne,.' and Cost Basis Siudy prepared by the TransportAtion Division.
Specific provisions include:
• Pa)'ment of the fee is re<juired prior to issuance of. building permil.
• The amount of the fee is indexe<J for inflation.
• An annual review is required to cOlltil1uatly justify the. fee.
• Th.e fet is placed in a separately accounted fOT fund, which can ~ used
orJy for constrm-:tion of new parkjng tc, serve non-residential development
in the UI11versit), Avenue Parking District.
ALTER~A TIVES
Tabie A·3 in the appendix of the cost bi'l.sis study identifies alternatives for the amount
of the in-lieu fee,
2.
The tee can be set at the average cost of nine parking project'"; ide:ntified. in
Ihe study, which is $29,200 per adde<J parking siali. On an average basis,
this fee would fund construction Qflhe number of spaces for which the fee
was collected for allY of nille parking project~. As with any average,
howe\lcr. there is th~ problibilicy of a mismatch between the average and the
actual. With the higher fee, there is a smaller lil<elihood of underfunding
the in-lieu stalis. The disadvantages are (a) potential discouragement of the
types of cleveiopment fostere<J by the in-lieu fee provision; and (b)
possibility of overfoooing the in· lieu stalls if a multilevel parking structure
were built.
The fee can be sel at the highesl cost of the nine likely parking prcjects
identifie<J in the ,rudy, which is $38,100 per added parking stall. If the ir.
lieu f~ were established at thi s level, no parking project envisioned in the
study would be underfun:le<J. However, it could be unfair to an individual
property owner who wishes to develop a downtown property aM, if the
owner were nOi abie to provide the required parking. would have to pay a
fee that mighl be higher til.n nee<Je<J.
•
i' ,
USCA!. IMPACT
1bere is no fuca! impact 10 the City 01 the ,WI recommendotion or the oltematives. Any
fucal impoclS accrue to the downtown property and business owners. If the in-lieu fee
is set at I r&le that turns out to. he ~ess fhan the cost of net new Spi:tces in a future City
parking project. the unfunded amount woold be pASSed on to all downtown business
ownen as ." i1K"l"'e&.$t in the a.ssessment for the project
An Eovin-..unental As=sment recommending a Negative Declaration has been C<Jrnpleted
;md is iochx!cd ~ Artachmenl 3.
On.;c tr.e ordinan;:t is l\pprov~d adopling \~e in~!ieu fee and the collection and
m::t;1J.gC'm~nt sySlc"ITl, 110 fUrlha Coun .... il :!Clion is required before toe fees nln be
coib.:-te.d 1llC Fi,l1IiC,e Der,ar1ment ,I,'ili $,:-1 up lr.e me,::h,mhm rt':quiTw fordepos.it of the
fees ;if,d lLc intL'it'_q coil,~~i{'·i t~,(,J~on. On 3fl 3rHiual b,~~is, as part of its review of the
C.:p;tal lmpro,'t'nlt'ni Program. Coun..:i! is rt"'luir<.o to review the: uses. propos-ed for
eA~~ndiwre of the mcn.ii!"$ in nle' in-lieu fund,
ATIAcmm,,,'TS:
I. Ne.~u'S and CoSl B:;.si" Study
2 Draft Ordinance
'3. Environmental Ass.e!smenl
Prepared by: Car; Stoffel
DivisiooJlXpar.mem Head Approva~:
cc: Palo Alta Medical Foundation (Jay Thorwaldson)
Chamber of Cammer", (Susan Frnnkj
Ch"" Keenan
Jim Baer
lohn Baer
Ed Stann
Roxy Rapp
W arren Thoit~
•
NEXUS AND COST BASIS STUDY
IN-LIEU PARKING FEE
City of Palo Alto
Transportation Oiv,s;on
September 1994
•
NEXUB AND-COB~ BASIS STUDY
IN-LIEU PAREIMG FEE
'the purpos.e of this study is (a.) to present an ana lysis. of the
le~ally-required relationships between the in-lieu p~rking tee~ the
parking project it is intended to fund, and the developaent
projects to whi~h it is applicable; and (bj to select and justify
the aJIIount of the in-lieu feo, based on the lIIost p['obable futul:"e
parking project in the Univ~r5ity Avenue Assessm~nt District.
SU!OW!T
section I of this study discusses the or igi,r and purpose of the in
lieu parking :fee. Als::o discussed are the 1."e:latior.stlips bet ..... een the
corn~ercia 1 develo?li'ent to whic:, the fee appl ies, the parking np€"::i
g~nerated by that d~velopment. and the cast of that parking.
Section II of the study identifies the nost likely public Pdr~ing
project that could be inpler:,entel..l in ttH: University ~.venm,
AS$essn~nt District--the cultilevel structure. lts cost ~G
developed based on ex~mp!es of projects that-have actually been
constructed. The report concludes and recom~ends that the in-li~u
fee be establisned at $19 1 000, adjlJst.ed a.nnually on July 1 based on
the Construction Cost Inde>.: for the San fr<!.'icisco area. The
appendix continues the cost analysis to other scenarios for public
parkinq fad lities in the Assessment District. an,1 discusses
alternatives for the amount of the in-li~u fee.
SECTION I: N!IOB ANALYSIS
section 66001'a) of the Government Code requires the City to (i)
identify the purpose and use of a development ftei (il) determine
how there is a reasonable relationship betYeen the us~ of the fee
ana the type of development project on ~hich th~ fee is imposed;
and (iii) determi~e how there is a reasonable rel~tionship bctyeen
the need for the facility for which the fee is to be used and the
type of development on yhich the fee is i.posed.
PI DOmVW" aWD!
The 1984-86 Downtown Study ~as in~tiated by the City Council to
address the increas~ng parkinq and traffic problems in the Qowntown
area. Incre.8sed parking deficiencies and traffic cr;)ngestion hacl
resulted, at least partially, trom a surge in downto-.m office
building construction since 1981. In 3uly 1986, the City Council
approved the Downtown Study, certified the tinal EIR, and adopted
Page 1
•
nu~erous measures affecting the downtown area.
measures affecting parking are the following:
The primary
.. A limit was established of 350 1 000 square feet of 'neli
developaent beyond that e~isting in 1986.
• A blended parking rate of one space per 250 square feet
of floor area lias established. Exceptions are allowed
for handicapped access, seis1!lic or historic
renabilitation, and additions of less than 200 square
feet.
• Parking can he provided ~ff site under certain
circumstances.
• Fees can be p~id in lieu of providing: ne .. parking spaces
on or off site, under certain circumstances.
• The 1986 parking deficit of 1600 spaces should not be
exceeded by ne'W development. Re-evaluat ion of park 1..Ilg
pol icies ... ·ill take place ""hen the unrn(?t park ing demand
createct PJ' the above exceptitms e)!ceeds 22::' spaces. 1\
v;c>rii tor ini:;f program .... as estilblj shed to monl tor thes'l?
numbers.
e Staff was directed to undertake a f~asibility study to
evaluate an additiona.l pUblic parking structure do .... nto ..... n.
• Underground parking was limited to tlro'O levels P€loW'
ground unless regular pumping of subsurface water will
not be necessary.
Q A twelve-point parkinq program was adopted, addressing
t.he use and design of the existing dO\llntown parking
facilities.
The Downtown Study established that, as of 1986, available parking
in the Assessment District was fully occu~ied, with a deficit of
1600 spaces (Oowntown Rep9rt, A Summary, January 1988, page ~C).
The additional growth of J50,OOO 6quare teet of non-residential
development approved by city council for t}-.e dOW7ltown area, ttJough
very limited, would nevertheless increase the parkinq deficit:.
Thus, the Downtown study proposed, ana the city·Council adoptpd,
mitigations and regulations that require commercial development in
the ~sseS5ment District to provide 100 percent of its own parXing.
However, tne study also recognized that certain parcels would be
unaole to provide their own parking on site, due to site and/or
zoning constraints 1 so it established two possible alternatives:
(1) the development could provide new permanent parking supply off
site, but nearby; and (2) eel'tain qualified developments could pay
the City an in-lieu parking fee equal to the cost that the City
~ould pay to provide a net ne~ public parking stall as part of an
Assessment District parking project. The second alternative has
been included in the. CD district regulations as £lAMe section
Page ;;:
•
I
I
'1 ,
•
·-----
18.'9.100(d). While provision for an in-lieu parkin~ fee cur~ently
Qxists in seotion 18.49.100(d" the fee itself was not established
and is the subject of this study.
The te"C1ll$ "Assessment District", "public!! , and "Cityll are used
interchanqeably in thi6 study to refer to parking lots, projects,
and facilities which are paid for by :neans of assessments on
p6rcels located in the University Avenue Parking Assessment
District. These facilities are owned and managed by the City.
PVlPOI' AlP 08. 01 rHIL'ROPOS,P lEI
'l1le ~ and. .YG of the proposed fee is to provide funds for the
City to construct or purch~se new publj~ parking stalls as
substitutes for stalls that are not provided by certain new
comaorcial developments in the University Avenue As~essment
District specified in section 18.49.100(d).
Under the curr!;'!r'\t ptoposr'li j the city · ... ould accu!I1ulate money (["om
in-lieu fees until it had enough ~o finance a n~w puhlic parking
pro)ec-t. In practice, howev€'~, th~ fees may not accumulate quickly
eno~gh. A more likely scenario is that the city would proceed with
a ne~ public parki~g project based on other needs in addition to
th~ need 'to build in-lieu spaces. The in-lieu fees .tha.t had
accul:;ula't.E-d at that tipe ""'0\110 be used to pay for the number of
spaces tor ~hich the in-lieu fees had been collected, and the City
,",Quld issue bo~ds thl:Ol.igh an assessment district pr:acess, 01' by
other means j to pay fo[, the cost ot the renlainder of the spaces
included in the project, ~he new parkinq st«lls provided by the
ir.-JieIJ fe.es are nC'lt intended for-the exclusive use of the specifiC
develcpments that paid the tees. Rather/ the parkIng stalls would
be designated P.ither a.s per'll1it parking (available to any Assessment
District employee), or time-limited public pa.rkinq (availa.ble 1.:0
anyone), in the same manner as all other public parxing spaces in
dovntown City parKing facilities.
The primary .advantage of the in-lieu fee is that it permits
developsent In the Assessment District under the CD district
r-equlations, albeit under quite restrictive circumstances, that
otherwise would be precluded due to the CD district requirement
that ~ll develop~ent provide its o~n parking. For example, there
are a number of sites where/ becallsf! of size and/or location,
provision of anyon-site parking is no~ possible. AlSO, an
existing business that m.eets the eligibility r-ecr<Jirement£:
~stablished in PAMC s~ction 18.49.100(d}/ and does not now have its
o·.,.rn parkiTlg, or rOO1!L for any, could expand in size/ and pay t.he in
lieu fee to cover it.s parking requirement fo~ the increased square
footage. Otherwise, the business wOllld not be able to expand,
unless it could find nearby permanent off-site parking/ which is
usually difficult to find. There ~ill also be si~uations where a
development can provide some of its required parking on siter \.lith
part of the parking reguire~ant satisfied through the in-lieu fee.
Another advantage at the In-lieu progralfl is that" the in-lieu spaces
are available to any employee or customer in the downto~n area,
Page 3
just as are the other public spaces downtown. public usage of the
in-lie.u stalls benefits th@ dOlflltOvt'\, as such usage usually results
in &ore int~nsivE use of thes~ stalls (i.e., greater turnover) than
if they vere. res@rved for a particular business. 1'he primary
disadvantaqe ot the in-lieu fee, as it i:e;; current.ly proposed/ is
that 80~ d-evelop=ent may ~ccur .... ithout an immediate corresponding
provision of parking, The~~ may be a delay of some ti~e before in
lieu f.4!8 coul.;;i actually be conv~rted into ne.' parking stalls.
Hovever. this delay vas ~ccounted for in the Dovnto~ study ErR and
in the Negative Decl~ration for this project. It was found to be
accept.a.ble 55 long .... 5 the temporary det leit caused by parking
exceptions and ~y collection ot the in-lieu fees remained below 225
Gtal18~ and the total deficit did not exceed 1600 stalls.
'IUTlQUIlL.'nnp PSI Of nil It"! MP TaE lIlE 0' Pnx.LOPM...~ 'ro
gt.Q-DI. __ .l:IE IS APPLICNILE
The lllJ,n of dc .... e !op~en'[ to "'r. lch the in'-l ieu fee is dpplicable is
that port:::'on of ;ce',,! cc""";€>rclOl.l de\!81op;:-,~~nt in thB Assess-ment
District th~t is un~hle to pro\'ide 100 percent of its own required
par~;ing, as. ,c;.'t tor-th in P./._"':C Section lE:.~9.100(d). That
deveJop~ent generat~£ ne~ parki~q de~a~d that ~ould increase the
?ar~ing de:(icit. i.f r,a;.-):i.n'~ s\..~lls. -",c.t"e. not_ provid€d in £.o';:\e otho;.r
~~nn~r. The usg o( the fee is to provide those stdlls which that
d~velop~enc does not pro\rid~.
~_1tf.t.An9.~5R!P en-nEts NEttO fOR PUJ.l1ig _______ STMl.S ANO TEl: TYPB OF
~!;YnQfHprr ON 11'1'1 I CH THE FEE _l~ __ :n~.Pg~.t_p.
The ~ for pal'~ir.q :stall:;;. do·.mto· .• :rJ is docuI"enteti in the Do .... ntown
. Study (discussed abo",e.) and Ute annual do·.mtowH r'.oniloring: reports.
Til€-Octobi!'r 22, 1993 IICQ!"'merci31 Do· ... nto·.m (CD) Monitor~ng Reportt1
identities a deficit of 1490 sp~ces as of August 31, 1993. This
continuinq deficit indicates that e~isting parking facilities are
insufficient to handle existing, demand, dnd therefore results in a
continual .... ait-list fot" existing parking facilities in the
Assessaent District, \orhich has o!I negative impact on the employees
and custoaers of exi~tinq co~ercial development. The deficit also
negatively iapacts the surrounding residential areas by causing
dovntown eaployees and CllstOJl)f!["S t.o park in these areas (!L0\fDtovn
~:tudy, pratt EAR, City of Palo Alto, December-19S5, p. VLJ.13j
also "1990 On-Street Parking Survey", City at" Palo Alto
Transportation Division).
'rh~ ~~ of development on .... hich the fee is irnposed--ne ... · comme.rcial
development in the do.nto\.in Assessment District that is perthitted
to exercise this option according to the criteria of p~~c
18.49.100{d)--qenerate$ new parking demand that ~ould increase the
parking deficit, if parking stalls were not provided in some other
manner. Th~ funds generated through the in-lieu fee allow the
construction of nev packing facilitiEs to s~tisfy the additional
parking dei!land t:hat is not r:".et through the provision of parking by
the new development.
Page 4
•
!,r.ATXQIIBIl BrnrJR! TlILMOIDrr_-.9LTBI nt-LIEU FEE NlD tHE CQ§..LQZ
It. UU;:t1lQ ltALL
Section 66001 (b) of the Goverrment Code requires that the C.i ty
determine thol'lt there is a :reasonable relationship betwe.en tl'Ie
specific ~unt of & aavelopment tee and the cost of the portion of
the public facility that is attributO!lble to (i''lecessitatf':d by) the
development project.
City regulations specify that all non-r~sidpnti~l development in
the Assessment Dist't'"ict provi·-j.e on-sitl! (or approved otf-$ite)
parkinq spaces at the rate of one spaca per 250 gross square teet
of developl!illent. This req.,lirement is. baited on studies that cnoa.'l on
an 4veraqe basis throughout the Assessment District., non
residential dev~lopaent gen~rates the need fer parKing at this ra~e
{oovntOlrlD P419 Alto Farisi!'t9 stru;tur~JU.Qilit:y .l:naly?i~, Volu.e
.t, Wilbur Saith and "''3sociates~ April 11, 198;£, pp 26-28,. also City
Manager's Report Offi:623:3, Decem:l~~!" 9, 19B3, City of Palo Alto)"
Based upon eliqibilit.j' requirer'1cnts establ,shed in PAMC
19.49.10{}(d~, t.he ir.-l).e\\ te.e-nay bg ~ccep"~..-:.d b): t.he-cit"l for part.
or all of the spaces requi~:ed by Cit]-' regulatior,5 for a ne .....
developJr,enti and that fBe Glust equa.,i the tuJ 1 incrc:--en.t;:o:l cost of
providtng a net ne .. parkirl'~ 5p3ce in a ne'",' ,;"'5es~r:ent Dist.rict
parking ~rcjectJ including tne cost of ad~injsttation of the in
li~u program.
It is, ther~fore, reasonable to lZVj the ful2 cost. cf i=1r.::>viding n~ ...
parkin'-:l facil i tJes on C! per-requi! ed $l)-dCf; b.'isi s on nf:~"" non
xesidential de\l'elop1!\ent. in the )..sseS~r,€Tlt Dist.rict for the rlU'I:l.ber
of parking spaces th<!lt such develop1':1€"nt is un.:lble to provide,
bec.:1use such developu:ent gene["dt~5 J 00 percer-It 01 the 1'1E'1oo' park. inS'
demand for which the in-lieu fee is bt:~ir.g l~vied. Tht"' develaper
pays only tor the ~pecific nu~her of spaces t!=~t the developer's
project is unable to pr"vide on site or ~t-.:'IpprQ..,ed off-site
location:E;'. The full cost of new pa.rking st<!olls is established in
Section"II of this study.
SEC'!'lOlC "II: fJETZRliI)f1\,TI014 or Ili-LIeu 'FE'!
FOR A NEW PUBLIC PAaXI"G PROJZ~
IN TUE UXXV%RSITY AVENUE P~lNG AS8~S8MEHT O:STRI~
The c;:)st analysis proceeds accordinq to the fol1mdog steps.
1. Identif}' the fea.si.ble scenarios tor public pl!llr~:ing facilities
in the Assessment. Distr~ct.
2. From ~hosel identity the ~ost appropriate scenarios for
implementation.
J. Id~ntify the-pot.ential ll.Jcation-s for future parking projects,
based .on consideration at the develop!:l:ent potential and unl!let
parking demand at thQse l~caticns, and identify tne parking
projects appropriate for those sit~s. Select the most likely
site and associated parking project.
Page 5
•
.. ".
4. Determine the cost to construct a parking stall in the most
likely parking project.
5. Recommend th~ amount for the in-lieu fee, based on the cost
per added stall in the ~ost likely parki~g p~oject.
STiP 1. FJaBZBILITY or PARKING r~CILITIEs.
The first column o~ Table 1 lists four types of public parKii"l.g
facilities that exist now, or could ~ construct~d in the future,
in the University Avenue Assessment District. These facilities
could be constructed on the sites of existing City p3lrking lots
(coluan 2 of Table 1)( or ir. conjunction with private developments
'such as tne 250 University/Ramona Plaza project (columns J and 4).
TAB1.,E 1
FEABIBILI~Y OF PARY.!NO F~CILIrrES IN THE l~rVERSITY ~VgNU2
PARKING ~SS:ESS.HEN1' DISTRIC'j'
r np, OF ''''';I~;;--~! IJIJILT ON!liNDER 1 Br)!~~~-~~~ f';'~,.'",u --_. ·--1
aUJL'l C'1' f'k.lVFlrc:
I Fr.CILITY II EXlS1'JNO C~T':i L~rrD {fOR :::kLE L,,,"';::' (D? s.~ r. ~
j PARY.1NC> Lor ~ Cn'i' TO CIn NDr L";-, f INCLUDltiG LAND CLUDtNG LiU;D
! CO~!) con i
Surfaefi! F-I!riting Lot (') (2) Il)
Already e,..ists Would nc,+_ '''' \oiould not b.
De~. (4)
built built
Si,u>lle Elevatp.:d (~} (' ) I' Feui::'la Would r.ot b. ,,'ould Il'-'t. l~
b,.ti.1 t-_ t.I..iUt
iH.ult.i..lliilvliIl st.r .. cturo ef) (0)
I
(' )
,NY inc;lude Feasible Wl..tt! 0< Fe,u • .i.ble Fea.sible
b ... enMrnt bvel) without first
floo.t" t"et&i.l
Two-lAveL (0) (ll) (12)
Underground GUilge--I'tluible with 0< f'easitlle Pf!-lIeibl-e
\,Ioder 8xi8ting Cit;y wit;hout II ir
parking lot or under
pri~ate building
ci~htil I
The numbered cells of Table 1 identify 12 scenarios that cover the
range of I'easonable possibilities for public parking projects in
the ABsess~ent District in the Ioreseeable future. Tha 12
scenarios a~e described below.
SurfOC~ Parking Lot_1§cenarios 1-3)
The surface lot is the most common existing parking facility.
HOlrJever, it is unlikely that the city or a private lando""ner 'o.Iould
build new surface parking lot:;,;, other tharl for 'temporary purposes,
beca.use of the high value of land in the dovnt,o-.m ateCi.. Th·.ls,
surface par~in9 lots were not included for additional analysis.
Page 6
t .. '1"'_"'_~--·----'
1
•
,!
___ ~'; ____ ~ __ ~l.~,·.'~ ____ '_ ....... _. ~._."
Single peck over Existing (@t (scenarios 4-6)
DUe to the high value of land downtown, it was assumed that. it
Would be financially impractical for a landowner to build. an
elevated decx on a privately owned site, so Scenarios 5 and 6 were
MC)t included for further consideration. similarl}~, it 'Was assumed
that the Clty would not purchase a new site on which to constnlct
a decK j or any new parxing facility, as the City already owns
several parking lots spread throughout the: Assessment District that
could be utilized. A sin~le e.levfttad deck oller an existing City
parking lot is considered to be a possibllity--one that ia typified
by the parkinq deck on Lot 5 on Ca~bridge Avenue and the recently
co.pleted parking deCK on Lot J on cambridge Avenue, both in the
California Avenue Parking Assessment District.
HYltilevel parking structure (sceDariQ~~
This type of facility is typif led by th.e 'r>lebster-cowper Garage,
..... hich now has seven levels of parking, tncluding one basement
lev~l, an at-grade level, and five above-grade levels, il1cluding
the roof. Stanford University parking structllres I, II, and III,
and the downto',m Moun-cain View, Santa Cruz, and Redwood City
structures also typify this type of facility. Such a facility
could have one or t' ... o hasement levels, on€ gl'oumi l~vel, and \.lp to
five above-grade levels, to stay within Palo Alto's existing height
limitation. Underground parking deeper than t'Wo levels below grade
is prohibited by the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.4~.100(e) I
.... nless regUlar pU!Ilping of sub-surface water would not be required.
The entire structure ..... ould normally be devoted to parking. One
variat.ion of a multi level struct·ure w"uld be to have retail
portions on the ground floor, with parkin9 above and below. Other
varia.tions involving use of air-rights for other uses above parking
are discussed in the appendix.
A multilevel parking structure could be built on the site of an
existing City parking lot (Scenario 7) I or a private developer
could build a structure on private land and offer all, or a portion
of t.he parking tor sale to the City through an assessment. district
process; with or ~ithout including the cost of land (Scenarios 8
and 9).
TwO-Level Underqroun~ Garage (Scenarios 10-111
One or two levels of underground parking could be constructed under
an existing City par}:ing lot, with parking maintained. on the
surface level {scenario 10) I as suggested in the October 1993
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. ~yen though it would be less
costly to build an above-grade structure, there ar~ reasons why it
miqht be preferable to construct undergrol.md parking: unenclosed
surface parkin91 which seems to be preferred by business district
customers, could be preserved; future options for a surface and/or
air rights project could be pre,servedi there :n~y be windo'ois , doors,
private parking areas l or other aspects of buildings adjacent to
the parking lot that would preclude or be impacted by above-grade
Page 7
="'-="'---------_._, .. ,-."
\
•
constructionj and, a concern for aesthetics -might not favor an
elevated structure. Scenario 10 includes the possibility of
.urf~ce a.nd air right.~ development in ccnjul".e-ticn 'Wit.h undergound
public par~ing( as discussed in the appendix.
Mother scen.,do (or underground parking is for a private developer
to construct a cOl:l.iDercial building with underground parking on
priv~te land. If the d~veloper ~ere able to provide more parkin9
than required br City regulations, the deyeloper could offer the
excess parking for sale ~o the City through an assess~ent district
p~oc~ ••• with or without inclu~ing the cost of land (Scenarios 11
and 12). scenario 11 is typified by the favorable arrangement fQr
additLonal parking in conjunction vith the 250 universitY/R~mona
Plaz .. project.
Ti'!ble 1 and Step 1 descril:ed 12 par-king facility scenario.,,> for
publJ.c parking pro5e.::t~ in 'the Assessment J)istrict. .From tile above
dl!,C\,.lssic.r., c,f,ly J of t.hE::c' 12 sC€i!3r-ios 6!"e considered "to be
fei'i:~ il:>le Ln-fu(.u.re projects. In Step :2, these sever. are further
n"'n-c· .. ·ec de ... ';--: to 'the fO"Jr r.,,:)~:t a~ipropT iate, or "developable ll •
As eXplalnGd in Step 1, neither the City nor a private property
o.me.r ... ·ould be lik-E'ly to build rr.:ore perrr,ancnt surface parking lots,
nor .. ould a private property o' ... ner • ... ho owns :3 surface parking lot
be likely 'to build dn elevated deck on such d lot (Scenarios 21 3 1
5, and 6-in Table 11. N~lr 'o.,'Ou1d a private property owner be lik'91y
to build a );;"Jltilevel parKing structure on priv3te land, because
there 'lo'Quld be l§inimal, if any, leasable hui lding space included
(Scenarios s and ~). Downtown land is too valuable to be used just
for parking. even multiple levels of parking. '.litt'. minimal lease
inca.eo to th~ owner. In Scenarios 11 and 12, it is more lHCE=ly
that .!; property owner woul.d offer parking for sale to the City
wi thout including land costs. recause the owuer would probably
des.ire to provide a publ ic benefit in order to gain cert.ain
develop.lIIent right.s. Thus, Scenario 121 whictl does not include lend
costs, is considered to be more appropriate than Scenario 11, which
include$ tand costs+
pq",....,~ Scpw ..... TI, l~ Page 8
Most APPropriate Scenarios
The reaaininq four scenarios tr,at are t.h@ :'!lost appropr iate fer
i.ll.p18lJe1lt"tjon in the Assessment District i!!lre SCEnarios 4. 7, 10,
and 12, shovn by the shaded cel)s i~ T~ble 2.
T"'-Bl..£ 2.
MOST APPROPRIATE PARKING SC"El"ARIOS FOR THt UNIVE...lffirrY AVENUE
ASSESSMDrl' DISTRICT
n'PW QF PAAA~"" sun.i OH/UlfOER I atTn.T 0frI f'RIV"n: 8UI:L'! Of< PRIVATa
P1'.Cll..lrt ~:usnltC CITY 1..Jo,)ffi lroJl!; 5M.~ ! TO Ci'7Y
uoro P'''' • .u
"AA.U~ em-ro CITY NOT ,.-
I"CU.i~I~ LA."CD CLUDING r~t,jfo
i L"'" cost) -
Surf&c@-PlI!.r'n.r,g !.Dt. I (\.) I "~ (J, i. },~r~",':ii ~~~s ... ·8'.; 1 d r~t t~ ~o~!j 1'1~, 0.,
I C'.J i ~ t. b..J l.it . --... -...•
:Hngle l:l.','ate:i Df'c\:: ~ { .. ) I (5 ) I {6> }
..... j..bl .. ..,~"" ~ rJ r,;:' " I "";:J' . .!lc' n,,:-t'. , ~.. -------,!jL-------+-"'" --+-"-'~"----' I; )o\'Jlt.ileyel ;<it:'JI;:LIJ(O: (1~ ! (13) I en ~ ~ (i'!' ..... y 1.Il.:1.:r!e T ... &,,~bl. Io'io:.r. c ... ~ f~I'!'ibl" F'(>.H·i.bi~ ~
oa.sC'me'"lt leve 1 ) _-i_-~.~t~t>¢"'-'~t~t~L~'~·~'_'_·_i_ '_'''' -------t-------,--~ ,. floor :-.t.~il. _
"I'-..'O-z.e.'IIe-l (10, OIl (H)
Under.g:rO'.Jr'ld Gara9~--"' •. nibl. "tltb or I r .. ,,'Ii l.bl(;l' T .... ibl.
under e,Xi.t.Ln9 Cit,· -..;1.t.}-.out .. ir
p4rki~9 lot cr un~.r ~~9h~S
priv.t. building
81'P 3. IQQTIlIClt.TIOPil OF POT.P-lIAL LOCATIONS F01LlU'!'ORJ
ASSUSgn DISRICT PARl:IlfGmD.C;ILITIIS
After identifying above the tour most tI~propriate pa:t:kinq scenarios
for tlle Assessaent District, it is nece.ssary 't.o identify the
specific locations ..,here these scenarios could be blplemented.
Private parcels and City parking lets in the Assessment [1~st.rict
were revie",,"ed tor this purpose I as discussed bela"'-,
Redevelopment Potential of Private Parcels
Private parcels in the Assessl:'lent. Distrlct were examined for the
likelihood of redevelopment in a for~ that ~iqht include new public
parking, only one parcel .... '3.S identified as having a reasonable
such lil<elihoCid. This is thA 325 Lytton property, in combination
with City Lot K, which h~s been considered by a local developer as
an cpportunit;y to build a ne .... building j.n conjunction with added
pq~." ~1.1~ Page 9
\
-.. -----_ .. _--
pUblic parking underground. Thr:ee other parcels and qroups of
parcels were identified as potential for such re.develop.entr but
are considered to be too uncertain to il'lClude in this analysis
(500-526 UniversitYr 400-420 University/51S Waverley, ana 663
Alma). The PlAnning arid Tr.t\nsportation Division staff uEed. the
following factors in assessinq the redevelopment potential of
private parcels:
• size of parcel.
• Physical condition of structures.
• Physical and economic constraints.
• Viability of current business.
• Intensity of current develop!l1~nt or '.lSi?,
.. 1ndication:s from the C'wner, or other ::>0urr.e J
o~ner's redevelopment plans or d~5position
redevelopment with the city,
r-eqa.["dlr:~l tht!
tm.'ard joint
&m§Y~.rulL..Pot e nt i aL.Q.L. _.f~;.~"t: .1JJ.9. .~E'i~.{).~ j l}g-LrLt._~ .. _ ... f.QL. .. ): -e "*"
Patkinq Faci.U.!...i~~
Existing City parking lots were examined for t~le possibility of
redev~lopment according to one of the f0ur p""l:"k:i.ng facility
scenarios listed above. The process used by the It clnsportatioil
Division staff was based on the follo~ing factors dnd intor~ation
sources:
• Pt,ysical constraint.s of the p~rcel, lnciud I ng size, access
li:nitations: from the streEt. and access needs of adjacent
private buildings, including doors, windo~s, and private
parKing areas.
• Phi'sical location of the lot 01:: parcel in tt,c block, including
its relationship to the el~vations of adjacent buildings.
• Data froIll
efficiency
multilevel
a li=ited 1989 City
of convertinq surface
parking {Transportation
analysis examin~n9 ~he
parking in City lots to
Di'olisl..on. May 24, 1989}.
• Conceptual designs produced in 1992 by the watry Design Group
for Lots DI 0, and S/L.
• Guidelines from the Downtown Urban Design handbool<.. October
1993.
• Possihl~ sale oy leas~ of surface and/or air rights C~ a city
lot (included consideration of Iactors swch as lot 3lze and
location) .
• Complexity of redevelopment., such as closure of a publ ic
Page 10
•
I .~
street or alley, abandonment of a public riqht-of-way,
encroachment on or under puplic property.
• City of Palo Alto 1994-95 Capital l~provement project {elP)
No. 19530, 'lDowntol,ffl Parking structure Feasibility Study."
• Relative unmet p~rkinq demand, as determined below.
E"tiMtioD of Unmet Parking pemand. 'rhe likelihooO of
iJllpln.entation of a public parking project is affected not only by
the av.ilability of an appropriate developable location~ but also
on the unmet need for parking in that area. For example$ if
there wet'e high dellland for parking near a Clty par}:ing lot that had
potential tor redevelopment as a new or expanded parking facility,
the City might be more 'inclined to consider that redevelopment.
Likewise, a private property owner' who is considering redevelopment
of a site in an area with high parking demand might De more
inclined to construct extra parking as an added public benefit~ or
enter into a joint developrnent project with the City. Thuz., the~e
is a need to establish a measure of ~nmet parki~g demand at each
location in the Assessment District.
'l'he method sple(:ted was to divide the ,lI"sseSSjT,ent District into
blocks as def ined bj.· the major cross streets, then into ~e(.:tors, as
defJ,ned by the conjul1ctiof', of tOil!' bloCKS, Fer ~ach blecK, the
nUj~bet' of pubJic off-street parki ng stalls was OeteP,\ined. Thi So
constituted a measure ot" the parking supply on a block-by-·block
basis. 'The.n l using tl"1e 1994 Assessnent Di~trict engineer's report
and t:ol1, a tally was made fot' each privat..e parcel of the parking
required, less the parking pI'ovided on site. This constit"uted. a
measure of t.he parking demand on a block-by-block bi!llsis. -The
supplr was subtracted fro1!1 the derr,and, yielding a relative deficit
in each block in the 1..ssessr.\ent District. Fin':l.lly, the dp..fi<:it
calCUlation ..... as translated into a deficit index for each block
(highest deficit = 1), as shown in rigllre 1. This index should be
considered as a 6urroq~te representation of the actual deficit.
Waat is most important i.e the use of a m.ethod tha.t produces a.
reasonable representation of the deficit and that is consistently
applied throughout the aI"ea, enabling the relative intensity of the
deficit to be compared on a block-by-blocy. basis.
Ur..met parking demand, as measured by this deficit index! was
considered in the review of existing City parking lots for
redevelopm.ent potential. For example, Lot D h~s significant
physical constraints relating to circulation and the need to access
adj~cent properties that make it a difficult lot to redevelop,
However, these physical difficulties are offset to some degree b'l
its location in an area of high unroet parkinq demand. Thus, Lot 0
has besn included as a potential future parking project, albeit of
less likelihood of implementation cOMpared to other locations.
Ba.sed on the criteria listed above, seven City parking lots that
are considered to he reasonable possibil i ties for inplementation of
specific new parKing projects were identified. Figure:2 and Table
:) Show the identified projects. Parking projects are listed in
approxim~te decreasing order of likelihood of imple~entation.
Page 11
-
I
I
I -'1
,j
I
.
0.25
Jlunl
0.08
0.51
0.43
BloCk Deficit Index
Iblock bounded by major
streets or block bounded
by major streets and,
Assessment Dislrict.
boundaryl
Sector Dtlficir fndex
(ayerage of deficit
indices of b~ock.s
adjoining at
intersection)
Scale:
0.68· 1.00 high deficil
I 0.34·0,67 medium deficil
0.00· 0,33 low deficit
~.....,.... __ -=,~ ! , I
/i,:e Ill, '1t:~:11 ["":@:""il'l
E ,~ ... -'~ .~ 1=
~fai 1;'1 JL 1 r o~: 1 I
4 eZ\'·\\T 0.65 : r'i..!CCC~ __ .....,
'l~["" 0&1 1111 ,@@ 1~1',"',-,-?"@1~LJ ~ ~ = ccc~~~~_===~
-, ?35 ~.87 II JI IQii-l ~ ~ ". ~L--.J
---=".......::;.54l~ d 6
' " I ~ll '"'"""J ~l~1 I
0.33 l\Ot~~ J r 0.61 l!1 I,io\ ,
74 L--.J~I I <----;'=~ .. ,.bd'1~h!"JI'IIIIIIIf1IIt1UrllllllnuulllruIIIIIIIUIIJ
FIGURE 1; DEFICIT INDICES
FIGURE
L
LOCA nONS OF POTENTIAL PUBLIC PARKING
PROJECTS THAT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE
UNIVERSITY AVENUE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
,._-
\
~\
'" I
\
TABLE :.
POTEllTIAL PUBLIC PARKING PROJECTS THAT COULD BE lKPL.D1E:;TED H'
THE UNIVERSITY AVENUE ASSESSHEN'I' DISTRIC'T
<lIS SIL
Lot R with or
"",itho~1 L":H P
L.(;I Po ",.:, :In (1(
~it.lK'ul L".I! P
IL", D
:1
~Ll): V
1-
u..110
TYPE OF F ACIUTl'
-=G~!-' i-le-':<:-' -~r-_~"-:'~-i_~-~-..
---------;
~2 I-:,' .. I~ 1]" kr.!,''r''~':tCj "",n ~'"(. i-\i: '.':~ "~Il.,":: , --------------{
Lot 0 ~ it'v~i~ u;.Jergr,';,;nJ ~iLh r.!r\;t'.~ (,;'1 -",g(.!~r
Lm K a.n.1 325 t'>r'1\'31c t'1Ll'IIJlng mer:t I:::.eh urXkft;f'''J:<J r-'~~I~'\)
L)norl (',cm('l;n~ ';;(1mhineJ Ii.,;th llr r!!;h,.' ~~\er L'I!.!-~_. ~_~_J
Projects on Lots D/ 0, dnd the Lot K/325 Lytton combination are
considereo to be less likely than the other proj€cts because of
the greater physical constraints of Lots D and 0 related to
internal circulation and access needs of adjoining properti~s,
and the vagaries of the real estate market. associated \r{ith 325
Lytton. parking structures on Lots SIL, P, and R are considered
to be .ore likely than underground parking with or ~ithout ~ir
riqhts dev~lapmentf because a structure is less co~plicated and
less expensive {refer to cost analysis in appendix) than an
underqrQund or air rights project. FurtheOllOt"e, a structure has
been identified more frequently than other typ~s-ot pcnk:ing
facilities tor those locations, as evidenced by the Urban Design
Guidelines and the Cit~,js elP project. The elP pI'oject will
study the feasibility of building a parxing structure on a
downtown City parking lat, which could lead to construction of a
structure within che n~xt three to five years. The study is
expected to focus on a Wepstec-Cowper type of structure (i.e., an
al:>Ove-grade structurE: :..n conjunctio:"l \o'ith one or ~ore underground
levels) on Lots S/L, R, or RIP.
Page l'
.....
•. !"'~
, ,
./
n •
-, ,
i
1--,
! ,
i ;
,I
I
rl
i
I
city lots not included in Table 3 are not considered to be likely
candidates for redevelopment primarily because of small size l
location, and/or physical constraints such as the access and
circulation issues mentioned above. Analysis of conceptual plans
produced by the Watry Design Group fC'r Lots 0 c,md 0, and the cost
analysis presented in th~ appendix, indicates that cos~ per add~
stall for a sin~le elevated deck vould be too high to be included
as a like11 project for the locations listed in Table J. Also, a
single deck does not reflect current public and city thinking tor
these sites. Existing City garages (Webster-cowper I Civic
c~nter, B, and Q) were not considered in this analysis because
significant alteration is neither needed nor reason5bly feasible.
The parking projects in Table J constitute the cu~rent best
assessment of potential new public parking projects that could be
implemented in the University Av-e.nue Parking Assesst!\ent: District
in the foreseeable future, ..... ith the mult i level structure being
the most likely type of parking facility. The two Most likely
locations for a multilevel structur~ are Lots S/L and Lot R vith
or 'Without Lot P. In the future, the c.!t~' or dncth€r proper-ti'
owner may determine 'that a different parkil1g facility is ~ore
appropriate for a particular location than the onas identifed, or
that one nat listed ~ay turn out to be a potential project
loc~tion. Notwithstanding these in2vitablc uncertainties, 3
rnultil~/el structure ~n Lots S/L or RIP serves as a redsonable,
rational basis for future planning for a public pa~king preject
in the Assessment District, and as ~he basis for the in-lieu f~e.
~Tf!P 1. DERlYATION at' COS1' PER STAt.t. ___ FO~L)I(tJ'LTrLEVE'L PJ\RJJ.:ING
S:TRUCTUR~
Genera] AssumptiQ~
What the Cost Calculatiop Includes. The c:ost per parking sta 11
pres anted belo~ includes all hard and soft costs, from PTOj~ct
conception to completion--roaterial .. labor, design, arChitectural
and engineering services l testing, inspection, fees, any special
conditions such as hazardous materials removal and utilities
relocation, and administrative costs associated with development
and construction of the project.
Costs of bond issuance ~ill be added to the above cost in S~ep S.
Interest cl ... arges for bemel debt service should not be included in
the in-lieu fee, and thus are not included in this cost calcula
tion. Whatever amount of in-lieu funding e:..:ists. at t.he time of
project financing l will be used to pay do ..... n the total amount 'to
be financed. For example, it the next parking structure were to
cost $5.0 million, and $500,000 had accumulated in in-lieu fees
(including earnad interest) r the amount to be financed through an
assessment district precess ..... ould be $5.0 million, less $500,000,
or $4.5 million, plus appropriate financing related costs.
Page 15
~ -
('
:1
Cost per Added Stall. The in-lieu provisions of PAMC
le~49.100(Q) require that the in-lieu fee be based on the incre
.ental cost of a net new, or added, parking stall in an As·sess
lIent Oist.rict p3rk:inq project (the terms "added n I'\nd II net new fl
are used interchangeably in this stud~·). For any project built
on an existing parkinq lot, onl)' the added ~talls (i ,e., the
additional stalls above and b2yond those already existing on the
projec~ site) represent an increase in the parkinq supply.
Typically, the primary purpose of a parking project is to create
.ore parking stalls tnan what already exist at the project
location. Thus, the real cost of that project is determinea by
dividing the project cost by the nunber of those edditional, or
added stalls oreated by the project. The number of added stalls
is equal to the total number of stalls in the new parking project
'!!linus the mmber of stalls that existed prior to the project.
This effectively raises thE; cost per stall for a project built on
an existing parking loti compared to one built where no parking
previously existed,
ThB stalls in e>!isting city su:ctace lots have alreCidy been paid
for by d.::,wnta .... n businesse$. Removing ttlese stalls and :r.;,>building
t"t1.em in .a ne .... paJ;."king facility repl'esents a new cost that results
solely fron the construction of that ne'.! facility. 'I'h.:! cost of
that re~oval and repJace~ent be~o~es ~n illseparable el~~ent of
the cost of the new project, Thus, the difference be~ween the
cost per stal~ (based on ttle total number of stalls in ~he
project) and Ul€ cast per added stall e3sentially re:presents the
cost to replace exi~tinq stalls, This difference is greatest for
a facility with onl}' two lev~ls, as the cost to replace existing
stalls is spread over only one level of new parking. The differ
ence decreases with an increasing number of levels in the facili
ty. 'l'he cost differential between t.he cost per stall a".d cost
per added st.all can also be viewed as a surrogate for thr: per-
stell cost of new land if the City had to buy vacCint land to
construct a parking project, instead of constructing it on an
existing City-owned parking lot.
Replacement: Ratio. In most parking facility designs i.nvolving
multiple levels built on an existing City parking lot, fewer
surface parr.ing stalls would he able to be replaced on thQ
surface, and fewer constructed on each of the above-and belo~
grade levels, than "Were eXisting on the surface prior to the new
project. This is because ramps, columns I and other structural
elements usurp some of the space avail~ble for parking. The
"repL .. c-ement rl1tio" (r) is used in this study as a measure of
these losse.s in moving from surface-only parking to parking on
two or more levels. Besides the structural elements, other
factors influence ~he replacement ratio, including the design of
the circulation system, the size and shape of the site, and
structure setback restrictions. Another fuctor is the latest
parking dimension req~irements (e.g., an increased percentage of
compact stalls in the new design can increase the replace~ent
ratio, while new requirements for parking for the disabled can
decrease the replaoement ratio). The replacement ratio is the
Page 16
,j
----.-.---,--.---~-.--'-
average number of parking stalls per level in the new project
divid~ by the number of parking stalls in the existing surface
lot. The lower this ratio, the higher the cost per ~dded parking
stall.
It is n~cessary to select a representative replac€~ent ratio to
be used in the cost calculation. Yollo"_ing is a list of replaee
aent ratios that have been calculateo tor several existing and
conceptual parking f~cility d.es.igns for Palo Alto surface parking
lots.
CUlbridq. Iov. Lot 5 Structur. (old) (!. SO
C~ri~ ~V~ ~~ ; struetare (ne~l 1.03
''It.rtl .. t: ...... d.aiql"l #2 f<;n V..lt 3 {Kilb<Jr-Sl'!lith) 0.96
,\!t_rr. .. :.i",. d,,:siqr, I~ fo~ L<:It .3 (lo'Ubur-SmiU1) 0.88
A"d~·t'"I9E' af t ivE' desl.gr;" ter ShEnT,1J;11 j\,se Lot! lWiltllH"-Sr;1itrl) O. ~l
... ·~!lollt~r-CO"ip.H G.a.(.!ge O.!iD
G&~.~e Q 0.93
cc~.ce;:tL:~l d"!."li·.Fl for :.oct ("\ 5tn .. ..-;vJre Ih·.itf)",) O.5G
CO,"F'''pt'-<ill de-algor; !<:1r I..-ot (1 deck (I· .. ~t")'J 0.61
cc.;:-'~Qp"t',.al de~1..9n fer t-:·t.·~ Sjl.. stn.l\:.'t.\lt2 \W::.t.r'il 0.82
The r~cently-co~pjet€rl Ca11bridge Avenue LD~ ) structure,.with r =
1.03, is ~nu~ua]ly sucessful in not losing (but actu~lly gaining)
st~lls on a per-floor basis, despite the space requirements of
the ra~ps and colu~ns associated ~ith a Rtructure. A contribut
ing factor js that the st~ucture ~~s built up to the property
lines of the site (i.e., no setbacKs), At the other extrf"l!Ie is
t.he Webster-Cowper Carage. .... :ith r = O.~, due prir.'!arily to the
\.muS\lall~' large set.hacK of the g:.rage from the propel::""t.y line5 to
!l',ake l"00.n [Col' extensive landscaping, lighting and ventilation for
the "maerground level r o.nd tbe ?erimeter public walKways. The
""eighted av£:!"aqe rep!aceILent ratio for the above examples is r
a. SO. 'Which has been chose.n as the tII.cst appropriate to he used. in
the cost calculations included in this study.
~tlt;.Yil..tiQn of Cost per stal.Lfor Multi level parking stru~~
'the only exa.ple of a standalone multilevel park.ing structure in
Palo Alto is the webster-Co~er Garage. When originally built in
1986. it was ~ 41B-stall five-leVel structure, including a
base.ent and parking on the roof, and was built en existing city
l~t J which had 157 existing stalls. Since then, developer Jim
Baer added t ... o addition."ll fl001"S that; are restricted to private
use only. Th~ cost of the original facility is used as the basis
for the parking stall cost calculation.
cost Per_.~.l..l.. T .... le cost to build the Webster-Cowper Garage l
exclusive of financing costs, is $5.4 million, expressed itl mid-
1994 dollars r or ~lJ,OOO per st~ll. based on 418 total stalls
{~arch 30, 1989 !!lemorandum, Public Harks Department, lIeast
Comparison, 250 University Versus J.lar}nng Lot Jill. Table A-4 in
the appendix lists a number of local multilevel parKing projects,
Page 17
:;
"~X_
*;:
with and 'Without basemerts, .ith costs per stall r~nging from
epproximately $10,000 tor the Gover~ment Center Structu~e in
Redwood City and Stanford Structures I and III, to $16,800 far
the downtown Santa Cruz structure (the DeAnz~ structur~, at
$3,200 per-:'Itl!tll, i. n.ot incll,lded in this comparison because it
i;;o so auch largp-r than any project th.et would be ,,",uilt: downtown).
Wgbster-Co~r stands approxi~ately at th~ ~idpoint of this range
and/ Mingo a. proje.ct constructed in dovnto,;n Palo Alto, is
selected as the best project tor .. hich to calculate a cost per
stall figure.
Cost per added Stall. ~djusting the ccs~ of the ~ebster-CQ~er
project for the r~plftcement of 167 existing space~, and using the
represent-atj ve r4!'p~ aceltent rat io of D. 8, a cost per added stall
of $17,300 i~ cal..::ulated l .as sho1fl'l be 1 0 ..... ,
r .. C.B .. a\'-g of 1);,6 li'::lt!cS ~r tlC',:.r/i6 1 e)(i~ti.r.1l !!!tall,..;
R~Fr~lgntat~ve proJect t',~"" w~~ld ~~~E S ~e;.ls x 13J.6 ~~2
t,;;t41 '!jt:l.lll'i:
"l!Is.:..-. .lnq a. ccr;p_::-",~t~'2'-, c:::st Gt :i.!.J,O)J./s~d;ll f~.;.',,-~,_-t--.:i!t! ,,,.(''t,.
:o:t'il"l'icc"'"F~r pCC"'l~:-'_, to,:-",l F~,{.O-'"'Ct. CClst ~ )~ e' ..-.l.~~'JI'l;
ir,IJ;, ("C)!;t f<;1J.· "~'0",.:J E>t.J.l~ 0 ~,8 .. t_E· ,-ll1jC'---,i:~'-5'~-="11 s.!7,JO;)
As point~d out at the conclusiGn ot Step J, the aro\~nt of the in
lieu tee should be ba~;~d on the cost F{'r added PQr1~iny stall for
a ~ultilevel parkiny structure, or $17,JOO per st~ll other~ise
required to be ~rQvidej b~ develop~ent projects that meet one or
more of thp in-lieu criteria_
One addjtiona' adjllstment !'ecc~,~ended fo~ inclusion in th~ in-
1 i~\l fee {';onCeTf"I'::o -f in3nc .Lng cost~~. ',nlE-'n 2i ne.' parKing st.ructure
is built in the do .... ntown ~["ea, the project .... .i 11 be financed
through the fcrmation ot an aSS~SS~2nt district comprised of two
basic cCl'lIponents: (a) initi3l, upfront bond is~uance costs (legal
fees, under·.,-:-iter fees, etc.). and to} en-going, annual pond
payments (principa l and interest) throughout the bond issue
period. Since h-Ona issuance co:s.ts (appro::OCltlately 10 pe:rcent ot
the amount. of the bond issue) are ".,:ptront costs and a necessary
pre.'Curs.or to proceeding ,.ith a f\e .. parking stn~ctu'["er the in-lieu
fee should include an appropriate sh~re of such cost. Therefore,
the recommended in-lieu fee 15 $19,000 per added stall j inclusive
of d proportional sha~e of the bond issuance costs ($17,300 plus
10 percent fol:'" bond issuance ccsts), ".:his. fee i.ncludes the full
incremental cost of providing a net ne:· .. · publ ic pa!"king sta.ll in
the Assessment Distrio:;t, as required b~' PAMe SE:!ction 18.49.100
(d). The fee should be adjusted annu~lly on July l~ based on the
construction Cost Inde~ tor the San Francisco area,
A typical multilevel structu.re for Lots 5/L CQuld have a total of
six levels (including base~entl, about 550 total stalls, and
..... ould be expected to cost approximate) y $-" J, 5 mi 11 ion ($13.000 x
550). Such a structure could be cor.str~cted within the next 3 to
page 18
t
!
5 yearlf" during which til!le it is Gliltiaated that up to 50 unbUilt
parking stalls could accumulate fro~ the in-lieu provision. That
nuaber of stalls (or whatc~er the actual nuaber is at that future
tiae) would be designated for funding by the in-lieu fees that
had aCCU8ulated. At $19,000 per required stall, that eaount
would be $930,000, plus interest.
As shown in the appendix to this IiItUQy, the .u!tilevel structure
h~B the lowest cost per added stall of all the racilities 8nA
lyzed. Basing the fee on the ~ultileyel structure has so:e
ad~antage8: {a) it is unlikely that a property owner yould be
overcharged for any parkinq project; and {b) provision of in-lieu
stalls is encouraged by ~ lover fee, and pyblic usage of in-lieu
stalls benefits the downtown, as such usage usuallj' rt'sults in
.ore intensive use of these stalls (i.e., greater ~urnover) than
if they were reserved for a particu.l~r business. The dlsl!Idvan
taqe of selecting the fee for a. ml.llt:.ile-vel structl.l!.-e i.s that a
-mQre e.xpensive pa:rkinq project '.,:auld be underfl1nded, As desci't,).ed
in the appendix, however, tne finClflcial cons~guenC'.e-to t.he
Assessment Dist~ict of underfundinq c~n be r~latiyel)' s~~ll.
\
: <.
APPENDIX
COST BASIS STUDY FOR OTHER TYPES OF PARKING FACILITIES
THAT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED !N THE UNIVERSITY AVENUE"
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
•
APPENllIX
con IIMIS 9=Y FOR 01'IIJ:lt 'rYl'IB OF l'AIUIING FACILITIES 'l'lIAT COULD
BZ IXnllllPTED III i'III! OlttVERBl'rY AV1:1.'UE J\SSESSKJ:IIT IlISTaIC'!'
This appendix appliss the cost analysis of this study to the other
parking scenarios in Table 1 that are considered reasible in th~
University ~venue Assess~~nt District--Scenarios 4, 8, 9 1 10, 11,
and 12.
DA;ry,MIOlI! or cos'!' PER STAl.L lO! OTR'IIR §.Q~jL
The fol1oW'inq costs inolude all developlllE'!nt and construction
related costs described in Step 4 of the study. Costs of bond
issuance ar'!' added to these costs in Table A-3. As explained in
step 4, interest charges for bond debt service ~re not included in
these cost calculations.
7he most curren"t exampJe of a single park.ing decl<'o on a Cit-}' parking
let is the recently-completed project on Lot 3, in the California
;'.vlil-j,ue Busin.ess District. The cost ot this project ,is used as the
basi~ of the cost calculation ot Scenario 4.
Cost Per Stal~. Th£ October 1933 Final Engineer's Estimate fer the
Lot. 3 project , a rer::ord of aU cost;s associated with t-.his project,
indica.tes a total. pI'oject cost of $1.87 million, exclusive. of
financing costs. Based on t;'le total of 186 stalls provided in this
structure, the cost par stall is $10 1000. Table A-4 sutunarize.s
cost and other da,ta for the Cambridge structlJre ~nd other local
parking projects.
cost per Ad~ ___ St~U. subtract ing out the 90 previously existing
stalls on Lot J, and adjusting for the representative replacement
ratio of 0.80 results in a cost per added stall of $26,700 for a
representative single deck project (Scenario 4), a~ shown below.
r • O.B • avg of 72 stalls per floor/90 e~i.ting surface .~&l18;
F:epreM:lt4ti-",e project thus wolJJd have 2 JI: 12 ." 144 tot-al ataU8;
Aa.~in~ a conBtruction coat of $lO,OUO/stall from act~al ~ J
proj8c~, tot-al pr~ject ~o6t • $1.44 ~ill~on;
Thus, coat per add~d etaLL ~ $1.44 milllon/(144-90) ~ 526.100.
Mu 1 til eye 1 ParkJ..D..Q.. __ S trJ4,g!;.yt:g
As determined in Step ~, the cost per stall (bascd on total stalls)
ot' a Ilultilevel structure is $13, OOO~ This is applicable tv
scenario 9 in Table 1, where. the structure does not replace
existing public park:lng. and land costs are not inclucled.
Land Cost.
design and
structure~
Scenar-io S includes the cost of land added to the
construction costs ot the scenario 9 multilevel parking
Lana cost was assumed to be $100 per square foot, based
on t.""e City's purchase of t.hE' Board ot Re~ltors building. This
cost was then distributed. oyer five lp.vels of p,:lrking ~s follows:
418 Bt.llB over ~ l~~lB • eJ.~ .tellBjlevel,
$lOO/Bt ove~ .50 I.Tele .. PO/d on. .ach lev.},
'arkinq 6t .. ll • )55 .r t~r w.nBt.r/cowper !other e'&mpleBl 370-)15
.f t,:>c 150 lJniv.r~ity .. nd Kour.tain 'Ii ...... gar&ge,.);
~nd co.t • 2o.J7S-$1,s.OO/.tall.
Thus, land cost contributes an additional cost per s~al1 ~f $7,500,
for.a total cost o! $13,000 + $7,500 '" $20,500 per stall for
Scenario. 8.
Undergxgy'id Garage (l);g r.eY!g:ls)
The aost rece~t und~rqround parking project in d~wntown Palo Alto
is t:.he 250 lirliver:5.it)'IRa~ona Plaza project, cOn1pleted in lJ91 by
d,e.· ... eloper .}i.!';'I Elder. The project. cOl1sists of a four-story office
building oye::--a t .... o-level uncf!r-gro\tnd parY.ing g<lTC');ge, located on
priv~te lanj. The cust of this facility is used as tIle basis of
the Pdrki~g stall C0St ca}cula~ion3 of Scenarios 10-12.
~0s:L_12.~ .. c_St~U, ,;s part of the nego~ ia t ions for ci ty approval of
his prciec~, Mr. ~~~r offered to c0ns~ruct arid sell to the City one
lc\'cl of Pdt·:'~r":J P€),c'nd ' •• hr'.t .... ·21s r-.e~ded 1'0r the p!'oje-ct.. TtH:~ City
accept~d ~h~ otter at an d9re~J-upcn pr~ce of $2),000 per stall,
negoti~ted prior to cons~cuction ($24,800, expressed in mid-1994
dollars}. This turned O';Jt to be! actually lo .... er than the as-built
cc.st per st.all, as explained bela·",', This type of development
proiect could occur at other do~nto""n locatiuns in the future,
bec;use .many proFert}" O'\oo'noers $UPpoct havin·1 more public pB,rking
do.alto .... 'D, and a prc,per-ty O'.d1er ~dy need to considpr offering a.
p·J.blic h~netit in tht~ torn of public parking in exchange for
cert~in develop~ent opportuniti~s. It is also a.n effective way to
provide sealler-incr~ments ot public parking at locations spr~ad
throughout the do .... nto .... n area, rather than a larger incI'ernent at one
location.
l'1r. Baer provided details about the individual cost components of
the project. With that informatjon, it was then determined which
as~cts of the construction of 250 Univer5ity woulo be likely to be
re.peatecl in a typical dO'.'"1ltown development site, and which 'Would be
considered to be special acco:nJ!!odations to the specifics o:f the 250
University project. From that analysis, a "model project cost
scenario· .as developed, representing the construction cost of a
250 University type of project in a generic do .... ntown location. The
total as-built cost for the 250 University project i~ $28,400 per
parking stall, expressed in mid-1994 dollars (not including land
cost)1 a.nd the estimated 250 University 1!model" cost is $28,000 per
par-xing stall expressed in mid-1994 dollars (not including land
cost). The details of this analysis are contained in an october
JO r 1991 !l'.emoranduro from Jim Harrington to M.fI_I'vin Oven-lay, ItModel
Cost Esti.ttates Per Car St2.11H; and a SepteDber 6, 1994 memorandum
fro: Gary Weinreich to Carl stoffel, sa~e title.
page A-2
L
otJ'Ier examples of totally underground par);inq projects are listed
iii Table "'-4 , but none of these are conside~ed to be directly
co.parable to 250 r)ni .... ersity. The Paseo Padre Project in dovnto"lin
San Jose (one level of parking beneath ~ four-story housing
project) has a cost per stall of $26,600. Tht'_ l1easurll!'x p,\rk in/)
garage in Cupertino (J~ levels be~eath an oft ice bui lding) has a
cost per stall of $28,900. Neither casoe involved cor.;:st,rictcd
construction ne)l.'t to o@'_y.isting buildings, or any other unusual
conditions. In neither case is th~ COSL d~ta as detailed as that
obtained for 2'50 University. Nevertheless, these t\lO exaaples
serve to illustrate the costs associated .i~~ this type of ~rkinq
faeility.
The costs for the 250 University project appear to be-typical and
reasonable tor' that type of proj€'.ct. The project repr-esents one
built according co Palo .lI.,lt.o's con!':tr-u.:tion prac,_h::es and ~€ets
Palo Altc"s requir",!,J;'Ient;:. for parJ:lr:q stall M,d circuldti()f, layouts.
oetailed cost d3ta was available fro~ ~;le dev~lop~r 50 th~t each
cost component-coulc: be anai.y::;p.d [or irs rC,:'!5C'i"bl(>n'!O':S-5 in the
specific ~50 Universit:j-' project, ·nd ),; ~ts applic.;:ticn in the
rocd_-el applicable to a g€iir~r-ic d,y .. 'nto·"n loc:>otl;:)r). T'nE 2~,(l
Unive~sity model, thU5, serves ~s th~ best C03~ ~~sis fc~ S~e~~rics
10"1::::. The cost (Ii S':;:enilrio ':.'2, thus, is. S.::,s,C'ClO :J2r' <::"311, bJ:Sfo"d
c;n 'tot.al st.alls.
Land Cost. Scenal:"io 11 includes UIE c:ust ot li,nd added to the
design '!nd construction costs of d,', undergro;.:.nd par)dng tacility.
As for Scenario 8, lalld cost was assured to be $100 p~r squar~
foot. This was djstcibuted ov('!" t,.'0 ~eyoel,:, of p~-rking and four
levels of building (due: to the ('H)"s SO-fe,et h-:iSoht ll"'!lit, tJ
Cl.aximuJ:l of f01.:r storie'S was a5s-u.-",,1 for a building), as fol}o ... ·s:
131 IjItAlls o'o'er ;-l~"ela .. 6-~,5 st_ .. ll.ejl .... ·el;
SlOOjsf 'Jver 6 l.vell .. S16.iO/s! O~ l!'.!c)'-, l.e;'el;
P .. d:int'~ st-all '" 370 !of tor 2~O Gr,i."';
Land cost -16.70 x j7Q ~ Sf.20v/~~all.
Thus, land cost ,:ontributoe.s an additional CGst per stall o( $-5,200,
for a total cost per stall at $34,200 per stall (S28,OOO + $6 ,200)
for scenario 11.
Cost per Stall and pEr Added Stall for....r'!'.9~-~_l_JlIldergroyDd GQrage
Under an Existing City ParKing Lot, In order to develop the cost
f~r Scenario 10--a two-l~vel underground garage under an existin~
City parking lot, w~th parkil19 on the surface {ground level)--twD
adjustments were made to the base cost of $28/000 r~~ st31l from
the 250 University model. First, parking on the surface requires
more structural support for that level than 'Was provided for the
250 university project, ~here only the static load of a building
needed to be supported on :nost of the grcund level. To approximate
this increased cost, the cost of structural ele~~nts for one slab
ot the gara.ge ... ·as doubled and this added CCo3t ..,.·a,S distributed over
three levels of parking. The second adjustmen~ ... .:'JIS to convert the
page A-3
;'
. i
OJ
ti
" ~ ~. :
--
-.-...;.----~~
cost per stall to a cost per added stall assuming a replaceDBnt
ratio of O.80~ The result is a cost of $34,600 per added stall tor
Scenario 10, as shown below.
Iner •• .-of 25~ in total .tructur~l costa ~c.~ •• or doubli~9 or
COlt of .tructural el~ntM !pr Qne alab to handle p4xkinq or.
tl'le ~.<rt.lC.: $29)lt:
G&r~9. total eoat • 29JK ~ (2eK x 131) • 3.90M;
UIln9 the _1z. of 250 Univlc.tty aa a apecific .x~l., aa.~ 5~
nulCber of .taUa on 9roLlfld 1.vel all or, oth.r lev.la (9cOo'.md
l~v.l h.. .iail.~ loat apace due to ramp. •• do thv Un4eX
gc;:,u.nd llvel_) r thu.a resulting in l.9~ tct.l IIt.ll... '::101 J
lavela, .nd coat/.tell ~ 3.96H/195 • S~:
eal~l.t. co.t ~r Idded .tall with r • O.S:
Exi.ting ataUs· ~1'i6.f3il.8. 81.1,
J.96K/(196 -81.7) ~ ~
Surface and.....AJ.J::. Rights Development on ctty-.fE_rldng L9t.~
Scenario 10 represents tiie cost of ,::onstructinq addi.Cl..cnal parr:ing
und.er an e,.;isting City p<\r).-.ing lot ... 'hiJe !T1dintaining parking 10m the
grolJrld level .• 11., variacion of Scenario 10 .... ·ould .be the construction
of le.,sable building space on and/or ubove the existing p<'lrking
lot. Such a project could be constructed by a pdvate deveLoper if
the City w.re ~o ~ell or le~se it~ surface and ~i~ rights. If a
build.ing were constr'lJcted on t.n~ lot, ;:.11 parKin., ... ·o'..lld i:1!'.'''~ to ce
placed underground--existing/ additicna! public parking, and that
required for the ne~ use. rt would be reasona~le to expect that,
with judicious use of space, additional ne' .. public p,;.ry.il~g could ~
included in such a development l as it .... as :in the 1983 Lot Q/hbitarE'
project. AnothcI" variation of scenario 10 .... ,::mld be for the
leaaable building space to begin on the second or higher floors,
'Witt. park.ing occ-upyinq the lo· ... er levels {such as the single. room
occupancy project that was disc .... ssed irl conjunction 'o.Iith Lot R).
If neither the surface nor above-grade levels were used for
par-Jcinq, the .cost of placing all existing surte.ce parking under
ground would substantially increase the estimat.ed. $:)4 (600 per added
s~all tor Scenario 10. However, it would be expected that the cost
of replacing existing parking, and some portion of the cost of
constructing any new public parking, would be borne hy the surface
or' air riqhts development. It would not be reasonable for the City
to pay more :for new public parking associated ..,ith a building
development on its own p~ry.ing lot, than it would pay without such
a development. It llIiqht even be feasible for the cost of public
parking to be subsidized by 't.he air rights developer, thus lowering
the $34,600 estimat~. Not~ithstandin9 these variables. it ~ill be
assumed in this study that the cost of scenario 10, proviQing new
public parking stalls under an existing city lot, is $34,600 per
added stall, whether or not there is an associa~ed s~rface or air
rights development.
To summarize the above cost analysis, Table 1 is repeated be 1 0""
showing the cost par stall for each feasible scenario.
Page A-4
: ... -'-":"
J
'j'
1'.i: -.
·.
TABLE 1\-1
S~y O~ C08~ or FEASIBLE PAR~ING SCENARIOS IN THE OWrVERSITY
AVENUE PARaING ASSESSMENT DIS~I~'
TYPI 01" PMXINC
FACILI'n
Surface P.r~inq Lot
Single £levatad Deck
Xult-ile'/liiIl Structure
(may includ~ base
~l1t J.R'/el)
" T ... o-L!!vel Undec-
!'r ground Garage--l.ll-,der
I existing City park-.I i.n,] l'.)t or under
jl ~,rivat.~ b\!ild.in~
.".-------------------
BUILT ONIUND£~ E~~
ISTING CITY PARXING
LOT
, II
Already exl.t.
(4)
$26,1COja46ed .tA~l
1$10, OJ}V _tall
(7)
S17~300/&dd.d Btall
rSU(<!OOJ~t.al1
(10)
:5:34 .• 6,."'O! i!dded at.-11
<$:;!O,200/ncll}
eUILT ON PRI
VATE LAND {FOR
SUE TO CITr
I NCLfJDING LM."O
COST}
P)
Would not be
built
(5 )
Would not be
built.
(' )
S2{J, ~'OO/5tall
(ll)
$.3.4,200jatall
BUILT ON P:RI~
VIITE LAND (J"O'R
SA.I..E 1'0 CITY
NOT IN'CLtJDIKG
IAJIfD COST)
'>1
Would not ".
bui.lt
(' )
IfOlll~ not be
b-uiLt
(9)
513,OOOj8t;.1l1
(U)
I $2a, ao~/ kt~l1
I
1. CoetJ~tall i8 bae6d on the total n~rnber of stalls i~ the facility.
1 st~ cell. itldJ.cate
1 "108:' &pprcp.£'la~e 1JC9-
nRrlo~.~. ________________ ~
'I'able 1-.-2 is a sU!"$\a:ry of cost per stall for the fout: scef'oa.rios.
determined in Step 2 of this study tt:' be most appropriate for
implementation in the Asses~ment District.
TABLE ;a.-2
roup. :MOST APPROPRIATE PARJ(ING SCENARIOS IN THE UNIVERSITY AVENUE
1!.SSESSMEJ:T DrSTiUC'l' AND THEIR COSTS
SCENARIO H~E (NUMBER)
SinQle Elevated Deck on City Lot (4)
Multilevel Str~ctur. on City Lot (~ith or
without 1st floor retail 1
Two-lavel Und.rground Garag& Under Private
tsu.ildin ( 12)
Two-level Undergt"our.d Garage lI'ncJer City Lot
(~~~king on ~urface and/or ~ith air right9) (10)
COST I ACDED STALL
S25,700
S11,3M
S:tB,COO
$34,600
page 1\-5
• ;.
i _.---
,
'1 I
I
[ ,
• -------------
~I'CV8SIOI pr ALTI8K&TXV£ lEE OptIO¥S
The proj~cts in Table A-2 cover a cost range of $17,300 to $34 1 600
per added parking stalL Based on Table J of the stud.y and Table
A-2, several alternatives [or the ~lDount for the in-lieu fee, are
prpsentad and discussed hE h'",' , A£ d~9cussed in Step 5 of the
:study, a. 10 percent bOnd issuance coot should be included in the
in-lieu !'ee.
<.
TABLE 1\-3
~LTERNATIVES FOR ~~Ol~ OF IN-LIEU FEE
F~ Bas~d on ~~Bt cost Froject
~ee 8a~ed on Hiqh~~t ~o,t Project
r~e S;!!!l:ed O~ .... ·.'.erage COl!l of tHne
?oj~:t~ in 7aLle J
fP."e '3o\~£-j on CC'!Jt of I-!'Jltilevoii!l
Stf"!,]ct;.!!'f>
$1"),300
SH,5DO
~1t"SOO
$]7,300
~19,OOD
$J~, 1'.)1)
$29,.200
$)9,000
Ju"___ fee aaseq_O_1l J,.9',.,est. Cost Proie_~ __ 1;=-":' __ ~_12........QQ..Q, This is the
recQl"lmendeo 2'.!~ount for the in-lieu fee, Only the lowest cost
project tl!l;llltilevel structure) could be funded ',d thout 1,Indertundinq
che spE'cii ied nu:nber of spaces,
l...L ___ ...f~ __ Jt~ .. SE#d gn Highest __ C:::_Q~_t_project--S38,100. If th~ in-lieu fee
... ere est.ablished at this level. no parKing project envisioned in
this s't.udy 'W'ould be underfunded. HC'toleVeI-, it could he unfaic to an
individual prope:-ty o-.ner ",ho .... ishes to de'/elop a do.ntown property
and, if the a.Tier .... ere not able t.o pr-o .... ide the required parking,
wOlJld ha ..... e to pay a tee that :might be higher than needad.
3. fee Based on Ay@roge c.ost of N)ne Projects in Table 3--$29~,
On an average basis, this fee .,..ould fund construction of the number
af 5paces for which the fee was collected, without underfunaing.
As vith any average I however, there is the pr-oba:bility of a
aisBatch bet~een the average ana the actual.
.!...._ Fee Based on Cost.-2I ~ultilevel structu.n.--$19, 000. This is
the reco~~ended amount for the in-lieU fee. Only the multilevel
structure could be fundea without underiundiog the specified number
o~ spaces. This option differs in principle from option 1 in that
option 4 is based on the cost of a multilevel structure I which
happens to also be the lowest cost project,
Page 1\-6
WltCT' Qr tlIDlRl'UJIDII!G UP ovan!lfDIlfG " PM~ PRQJECT
undutynd.ino
The rollo~inq example proYlde~ 90~ insight into the consequences
of establishinq the in-liE"'J. t~e at an lllllount that turns out/ after
~~. fact, to be lESS than the cost to build ~n in-lieu stall.
In-l.l. ..... f .. iJi •• t .. blh~ .at SlCj,OOO pt:r r.
q\I';"~ "t .. U--tl-neod 01' the e.tim!ltltd co.t pee
a~ at .. u. to conatruC't " ..... ltil.v.l park.ir.=f!
.t n"I ct, u re.
2. OYer tl'-.. n.,.;I; Hv. Y.,J,=.~ irl-11 ...... r ..... r. 001-
l.ct~ teo. dav.l~~~t proj.~~. tor 50 Btall_ ~t
$19,OC'),Iatall, !t,.'r II t.o:al at $9~O,OOO (for
~~llcity" ••• ~~ t~.t ~o i~tpr •• t i, •• rn~f.
3" J\. ~S\)-tl~,I'.l 5-". 1\1"'8 l .t:n. • .;:t.ur~ )... bu,lt fivfo ,'''!!'U"lI
f.~ f.:'>'><, at '" tctliL C[~'·. of $7.2 Il'_d!i.on, or
$l6,CC'ej per IElt .. ll. 5'J or t~t"8-e ",tal! ... ~t'@ <:!~~ig
-.u 1i!::I 'to c... r.;t.'!~d b,.· thll! Lr;-l ~e-."' flli''C''' collp.cted
h'r ..... ) '~.~l. IS":'·:',CI.:>C!I.
.... ,",,," ex ~~.~ ~r.) .lot <:::-:: lo':Hcr. tt; .. stn.ct'Jre i,;: built
~;~~ U"~ r.l. ... l:.s·. '6':'> e~':-;-' adde::! 9t~11 CObts ~1.2
r"l.tlk:. ({".·')-il("1 $:2!.l(·J, _'nln, is ~2,:ncl ~t"
::;'./I,ll ~~r'! tt . .J." t."c <l:-~" ... r,t ""';·.<'!t'!i5-r:e(: for ti-1e
~'<'-ll"""; ~~e,
The fctJ.o ..... ·l.~q tilble-sr::' .... s U.f:! ~;:p!lln on l\.'U·IIi''!Io!l-fro;o,,(;. District fE-ea tc.r
the ,!,oo·.-e (;.U'~:
1\~--pr'O)(~~.'-ltr ,ll,r>r"\uol 1tmount to
tao. Paid by ;a. I L F-ro~tty own~
Oi!'r. 'j'r'(,D~c;ih ill N~' Park},rlQ
A •• ~ •• ~nt District io. the
S~ $t~~~~wr. I •• au~a 25
y •• r bond, 7.~\ intetest, 10\
coat or i •• u.n~. and r ••• rv~l
A. AG ... ~nt ot f~ll proJect $O.J)4/s~~.re foot
~~nt; no ~r.-1iu~ ~.e. ~~llect.d--
$.1 ,200,000
S. Aa ...... nt of full P~O}~t SO.190Jaqvar. tOOt
~~t 1 ••• in-li~ t ... collected
.t $l',OOO/.tall (S9~O,OOOJ--
$6,250,000
c. As ••• ..ent of t'UL\ proje-.-:-t. ~o. 2e3/iiql.:arl!! !t>-.::t
A:.IIIC>\.lflt l$s. l..n-li4lu feel' that Iofo>lld
r-'&Y8 b4-er. collected i( fre Mild ~ol:!n
~&l to coat ~c &dd~ B~all ,~~ x
$21,200· Sl,060,OOO)--$6,140,OOO
This example shm,,'s that the inadvertent shorttall of $2,200 per
required stall for the in-lieu tee, ~hen applied to the construc
tion of 50 in-lieu stalls in a parking structure, is passed on to
all dovntown property o~ers as an increased assessment of $0.005
Page A-7
\
! :
•
per square foot. {$O~1.90 -$0. 2as.}. Exis.t.ing aS$£.ss'IM!nta total
approxiJllately $0.10 per square foot. The incr't.entilliJ. financial
consequence of collecting an in-l ieu tee t.nat turns out to be
insufficient, "'hen spread out o .... er: the full .assesslt.ent district and.
tinaneingi period, is relativel:.' small. In return for this saall
increased aa~es .. ~nt which, quite possibly, =ay not actually
JBaterialize l the businesses 1 property c"ners and qe:nera.l publ ic
realize the follo~in9 ben~fits from provision of in-li8u PArking
spaces: (a) pUDlic usage of the in-lieu stalls usually results in
~re intensive use of th~se stalls (i.e., qreater turnover) th3n if
they were reserved tor a particular business; (b} a lover In-lia~
fee helps encourage some beneficial development or chahge. in use
that developers might otherwise feel is not econo.ic~lly feasible.
rt the in-lieu fee collected per requif'~d stall turns out, after
the fact, to be !.'!Q..t.,g than th~ coc>t ot" an .i.n-!ie>.J st2!ll jn the
parking project described in the above e:..:C'!:.ple, "the exces:;:: "'-o':JJd be
d~ducted f~om the cost of the re~~inder of th~ pdl-}.ing project n0Y
financec! by in-lieLi fees. The .).sse5s:;;ent to bl? paid e J' ~ll
property owners for this project 10iculd rherefo;re ~ in'';-.n;t!i~nta 11y
..l2ltu. Py an a'roount siillilar to the ano ..... e f>:.:aJ:ple, than i':. ,"'ould
otherwiSE ha1lt been A$SE=.scd i£ it · .. eren't: tor the e-xcessive in
lieu fee. In this manner, the entire assess~ent distrjc~, rather
. than the individual propert.y ow'\"'\t!rs · ... IV:::· paid ~Ol:" th'£! ii--,-lieu
spaces, receives the "refund" from the overfun~in~ of the in-lieu
spaces. It has been concluded that a refund proc~dure tor the in
lieu payers would be too cumbersome to administrate etficien~ly.
This would be especi&lly true if the refunded a5sess~ents were made
several years after their payment " and/or" property ovner :saking
the original payment no longer owned the property.
Page A-B
""""-----_ •... _' --_._--
.' ,
~ .. '.' .... "
"" .
'-8:.
"
~
' ..
'.,'
'J~(.
~,WI+""'''''.fJ'ea::;u .HQ.};:I\'r-R~q"5t4" ,;; .'i!f",.'''trr'I''"'~·
T:\ble A--4
COST OF PARKING STAl.lS AND OTIlER INI'ORMATION
-~-==-.. -=="'= -
I COSTJINFO JiEM PR,OJf:CT
~O UniversilY Web~ietIC"'wper 0:nuge Lot Q Gat'.~ Duwntown StNcrum, ,
P.to AI!o Pili,,) Allo Palo Alto iSmta C.,u. I
rot,.l Cosi/Stai! (1) ($/tblll, JidjtJ'5tcd 28,400 )3,000 12.900 16,20() bued on 440
10 mid-I994 pri(~) (26.300 ill '90 x.l ,08) (10.000 in '85 :11_29) ''''''''
Obr.l Cost (I) $3.72t.1 S's.4M S'l,38M
$4.6M in '8/ ~L,&) $1.1M in '92 x ).04
Number ()f St<lll~. AvS/FIOI.lr 131. .vg 65.S ~12. lIovg 8 .... 138 411 .r.h1Il
(Number P,~vlously f:xi!it:ng) (l6i) r(4
)
~O it no comm') ~lUIq
(165)
,
:5. 111(;1 one CIIclos.':ld Number of uvell! 2 bdow l'tnldc. enc1/J500 • Ine! open hBSCl1l('.Jl< 14 h.I~-lt",t:h. below
,!{~e. end haoemenl. -. -
Parking l}R top deck? no "' no ,.'" -'fy~ of Conll!r\u:lion reinfotcoo «merele 1>tmCluttl! ~t~'"l" cDn(r<:l~ .. kck. "WIll 1\ simple tit if'l plllCe. postT
w/~"'''u~1 """' ,"'dk 2 "',, fie'''.' I len!lioood
-<
Com;\rm:tion Conditions Diffio:uit.Tshoring, 1.IIiht.e_~ N(lthr:lg unu~u .. 1 'Nc>{ much kllown shoring n.:::u to
relo.::. hnrnat huildi!1ji:!!. 165 pilell f,;;rr
fotmdttion, uti] rdO\;-
i 1l1'011. dewlI.terin,.
--t983± -
vib""ion IIII{'Inilorina:
Datt" of Cllmpic1lon ~rnber 1990 jI9R6.S" Nov 1991-
I -+ Slall Fw(p~jnl (3) .-". j:'" """,, "... ]: 300·]10,;( avg
370sf Mill( lIl.!I~_"___ .55: d a\'g purL
Other Foolpnnt; 2:5.:5 iFOf'!prm'';: ,uf,>: JIm HarriAitQn full bnck fxade .. JI
K,f W.~l/w"U. JOK"f Ie-Illion",. 7 1<Jr;(
InfD: ],m H!t.N"ingIOl1 I.,">, ""IP",O ''''dmd ',"d,,"I'<). cmlD!:'rc;JlI IIpIlIee <m Is
j4<>,_SK:-f, Inlo: J~~'::~:::~:,,..,.,.. ~ nOor. Info: Mat! f'.~ll
-, ole!>:
(Ii eml md1.ldCfl flW.t~ri.l. laoor, al'{:hik':CIUtt' '" t:nii~rinll', d("'E'), te~linll:, irl~f1c.;:han, let:'~, ('i.;, S ~ C'C; from ENR WK'li 10 COmpult' Inl1.11lion (Kior,
(2) Fitumcr: CO!It~ and land , .. "llI a~ nol incJOOt4 in l(.olal co,,!.
(]) AVf/: i:-. footprint ~1 ,""'erl'<BI; nllmbcr of .tAlI'!: rocr !e'"d (i,t:., ... ~IJllt ... I"I~(']'1l. M~)1. 1" foolpnn! pn nl.lnlNr of 1I<lalhl 00 ..... 1111 WIth "'*). nu~r {lr "ulli.
J .... " ... ,,' .. , ... ,~,." .. ''''' .. "
-.
.... 1
, .';.-
I r ti ,
.~ ,:
•
.., ...
;;i(,;"
" ~'-I ,
rl'~'
~
¥
"
'/
,
I
(
1
!
.. _,::.....-'-.-..:'.-:::1;:..-.:.:."::..--':"""""'V',._!:i_R!!_?itL:~..f"'. _ ._._;:;::.~li!!t~t...:...:..."tL_
'f;tble'! A-4 (COntr~ul'd)
--,.,;.. ... ~-----. COST OF PARKING STALLS AND ')H1ER iNFORMATION
COSTflNFO IiI!M PR.OJECT
DeAnza College Pks $truclwo:-r --,:::------
Pt., SttUclUII:) III RedWlJQd. Cily --I[k, Shu"",,, II
Structu~ Stanionl (f',)[<;ythc) (Ho~W) City Cmtef
St.t.nI0,d Slauronf Sl1'lll:ture
0"'1 CO'iIfStall (I) ($j~~II. adJUIltcd 8.1:00 9,900 il' "00 10,800 Il.(lIj()
to nud·I994 plice~) C L" To~1 Cost (I) 12.IM $10,7 i9.12M $B.J6M ,U6M
(11.3M in '90 x 1.08) 1(9.04M ill '~(j xl. III) !(l:S.IJ6M in "1)9 {R.OtlM In '92 Il.04
~~ of Sull!>, Avg/Floof I F 1469 10&4 i'50 BOo .so
(Number Pr'!\,iousJy EU<ling)
Numt.er of Lev!']", "'1.1.1. inc! psnilll --~~. ------t-(no bQemenl) $, inc! 'II t...~~,-,t ~. wd '::'>1C J, ind ~
b"~l'I'iC'nt. Dpefl bl1"-Crtkrd. 0[= hL'lemt1lt
~[ Parking On top deck? yO'< yc~ yf:' y~, Y'"
Type of ConsttuCliolt --pre,MI concrete, f>;.lst-!,·n~i"flcd Pile JUPVOr!ed
ifu(;tiJc de,i£1I OfL1IJuttJOO.
Moment rmistin,
ductitt'> frame.
Con~tructiOl'l CondltiC'n~ Dothin, UnllS\1lil jllolhHlf, um.:~u..al IIQlhin, unwwal SurrOtlnckd by
I huiklinss, haz mal.
I
utiliriM. boj
1'981
culvert.
Date:. Qf Complelioll DeCember 1990 Spnng 89 ON: 1993 No .. ember '993-
Siall Fvotprint (3) 460 sf ilvi 400 ~f .9.vg I
" --r-
Oth .... 1 footprint = 150K~(.±. son} W«lrj de!!:!g:1. Nat ~'-Oin-! fioul'l; ~I~pped Witty de.. .. ip. Not Info: Jroff Lynch
e floors lite-prod back d<!~lgn-build. IrJo: ba<;k .:k.sip~build. Info:
Jotm Murphy f,xurrl1'\!: SO. 3K.~f. lohn Mhrpby.
jlnfo: Ju1uI. Frernc.n.
jand JC>hn M!)rphy
~ ---
(I) Cosi includts ItIat..,rjal. 13bor, In:hitecNre dE. erlginOl':'ring, dujrn. le!itmg. m~-pecIIOT'i. r~~ . ..,t.;:. Sf eel fmln ENR med to computt jftflation f.:lor.
(2) FinaJ"oc-e CO!lU and lutd cost» In not includftt in total cost.
(3) Avg is foorprint ~r .veJ1l~ number of aull!! p:r level (i.e., I1:htll~J'kvehf). Mu is footprint per m:tn~f of stall_ on (evc1 with mu. number of ItIJls,
pk,\moIla.2 lev Serterllbc:." 1994 16,15 2
~
~
~t
"
f
'.
"1"_',,", N;;' ._"'" +,",,",O.~~,,,, _ ,~~,,«,
T~ble .. \--l (~onrIl1U,,<1)
________ ....;Cr'O;;S:.:T:..;;O~F_P;..A,,;.R;.;.;;K:.:IN~G STAU~~ AND OTHER INFORMATION
~ CQSTIINFO ITEM I _. --_.K~'h" r\FJ;B?'T·"--~'-----------------1'
'~.1 C(>~IIStill (1) ($l:cu.ll, .dJ~
10 nud·1 ~)94 pf'lcrll)
>----~--
ITol~l em! <I;
Ikiwnlv,n StrHCIUt-t
M('IV~,.jn VI ... ""
'.(,200
-~-'-------..
$) k .... i"" "JI(,l<:y I~'~"M-,.tt,-~
PJII"f'O p.d, .. Pt"Jc<_:' CUrW'~llf~'-'
I
7.~,t(lJ 1,,:'1(·')((1
I{J\w'; C~loN
'ilrt,il"t\jf\l
Rflodw<wld Ch),
110,000
,..o,)I)M ,!'J IHM (f,,;\:M 1n "):,i~',.J.l'l d ltL"vl ,,) '11K.1 S9M
'alhbridl" Lot )
D«'
,.1<> Alto
!S IO,(),))
SUI7M f:--~-'----------
_-_=e.;'(S<'" '" '~~~~'~ ___ i' ~~~~n j
Numhn of StJIIlh, Avg/Fl/l'" ]0'} (J{,<' i: 'i,) f}()(l 111116, hi 93
(Num~r Prt"joliNly E;l;l'!mr.) '. (90)
Number of Ltvdll 4, Il() hll\oCmtn-, --I, h,,~",,", ',"J",. *,:~;;;':;;':;;J r.. In" o"e" t. "., ..... "",,! ',I"(lt~ h(>U~lo~ r" hill:'Mmr.nl
Palbnj[ on lOr d«k? ,e. ,flO ~---~!n~ Y" Y" n I I ----4-----------t----i IliyPf' 0f Cunslnl(;lion p\'t1<'-t~n~loncd ... lab j.:,,-.I ;~ pJ""r ':'l11c:n·tr. M(Jmenl rea,~tml
-. .-,,-11.' -,,,,UIU rl1"~ d\>Clile (,.me
-----HCon~;;-~<':'!{t~ Cc.on(.hhOno; Inothm i unu,\UJI 1!'lIJ' nr.1l1 to ,JI"<::r ~-l·Jr.~i""1 II!':';!'! ." ,,~~,u
flO' ~1:I.rdOC nniN.' 1~::'!'JH'r .. n";/IIT1g
No IUfTO\mdln,
Ibu,ldinp. flu m.t
remQvld I +::lJ~U~j
~DIII(' uf-Compldi£m IM;;.:=r990 1()()4-('-J-~----I' iV.-.9-~-------+90-C%:-'-orllfllel~ .~~4------
8/94. Will open
llf<;l4
II--I ----. . I
39),,( 1"'8 'I'J(l5 ,,1 'Ivg ~l97 .1 ~-..... ,
I:ns ~f max "ull.' ,
U --1---. ~-+-:-~-,.,~ . ..,..----+----,-
i01h('r Iconlinuou~ rllml". I'll foolpTlm -111.5 iC,-)< 'l1!llll~~j hy ~6 for In(o: Jito Fltl;'IIl Engineer'K
sun Fl)()lpnnt (JJ
UVAC. sprinJdcred, K~f. Co',1 tnGlllcd hy i'oot! C<hl~ !kr Jim St)w"'rbrower Estilllll.le, )0;93.
no rest f(X)rn~, J.-Jb fOr sofl CO~I:; JX'f j'-hfnnf. . .lor, from &011 Wahl.
m.1lint~Sf,5K/yr: JIm Hllfrlngtoo Inc! fea., ~rudy 8t
footprint '= JO]5~f sr.ff ti~ . i
~__ ~_~~~~~=,o,=, ,~=~'!"' ____ ...I._~ __ -.Ji
(I) Co..~t indude.~ material, laoot, architecture & rngi~l'i(}g, f.l<!<;igrt. testing, inlopct:lifOn, fccl>. N_-=:' Sf'.Jl Fn4fJ.:I:lC'.o eel from e.NR UllM ioo;CoInputj~ inflation
fllctl:!r.
(2) FiJ'l/Ulce costs and land 00.;1<; lire not included in totll co:<:t.
(3) Avg i~ foolpr-lnt rer aven_st' numbtt of :ltalls per levd (I C" #:-;!all~/"'leveh). Mall i·~ r-Y.)tprint per nu,nh<:,-o( ,.,qlll oa level with max number or lUlls.
J ".,_".2 ~. s.,I<mb<,'. ,,., "" 3
I ~
~ " ,~;-~"
,
•
'.
J
'1
•
!:c ________ .. __ . __
ATTACHMENT4·";
Wednes.dlY. Septp.llber 14. 1994
R~U\lr Meeting
P I ann i n 9 Com m.~i~s~s i-..:.o_n..:..., _~C_ity~o_f _P_a_l_o _A_'_t 0--,
APPROVAL OF MlkU}ES
I. Approvill of July 27, lS9-4 Phr,n1:"1g CoeoiS5ion ~in~tes..
Mi IC HEARINGS
1. 2.4 S l fTI~ AI( HillE E_!~P _____ ~_.Q_~_~) __ J_L_E~.~,~ ~_O;'Ljl R [E J (P~_,~~ n:, IJ 1 ~
1.i..t~ .. 1.:1rJ_R_uJJJL~_~.J tl1tr._gj: A~';;1 H:~t ,Q~l to rUIJ~t; ~ pDrt ior'1
of thO! property frc~' ~~l..l .. 3!)t CD-C(P} CI,,;j FC )I]J t:1 "
F'Jannt>d Corn .. lrlity (f"C) D\$trict 1:'"1 c,r;}er to cC'n50tl,~'~t 17
sir,gle-fa:-:-dly J.Jnits ani fO'.ir $,'(c.:-.-:: i,;r·l~5., :;1s.0 .a c..!i"H,gE' to
t~e Co:t,;·rtd:,::.n:;.ive PI"" {j(;$ig~,at\cn ('r!.: ~:Irti(':; c,f tr.E. :;.ite
froe'] P.:E>~)(l~Jl COrrr:":Jnity ({'TE'rci~l to 1~.IlUple f';:':',il)
Residential. Setb.:'lck vari.ar:ns a~d a t-'2r,t.atin> $"t;..jnision
Il.a.p ilre .1s.o requE'ste-d. E~'Hjrof1~")f!nul AEess~nL A
negative declara~iol'l I'1i!S beert ~f'e?art"d for this pr(\j~ct.
file No,. 94·1e·7, 9t·[P·l, S4SUel. 94·[)I·)D.
3. Q~E ESTABlISHJ.jG.AN IN-LIEU PAR(~l.RfliR THE
UNl¥ERSITY AVfNU~ PAR~ING A~SESSH[NT DISTRI(T: This
ordioince would al1-:lw eligible t'lt'W aeHlo~nt in ine
University Avenue parlc'in9 asses.Sllent district to pay" f£le
in lieu of pro~iding actwal parklo9 spices that ~uld
noma11y be re~l!ired. [n\l1:"cra'loe'nt.1 A:>.s.e!>~l!IIenl: A
negative d!chration has t.>een prep-ir~d for tl'l;:;. project.
Fil. No. 94-EJA-ll.
REPORTS fRQlj QFflC lA, ,
4.
5.
Ca.pr!~ensiye Pl.n Adyis~ry Coemittee.
Midtown Study Sroup
J. Slocum
09/14/94
.) .
2
1 )
41
45
--........ .,..--""--
case, lOre housing.
What we hive before ~s is a motion to adopt the attlched ordini~ce
amending tht Planned Ccnmun1ty z~ne in order to rezone ~ne pr~p~rty f~
RM-30 1 CO-C(P) and PC 3111 to i Pl inned ConDtln1ty Distri<:t in order to
const~Jct 17 single-family units and four ~econd units. That .oticn was
Mjde by Cocm1ss1oner Beecham and seconded by Chalrmln Sc~i~t,
HOTIQH PA$SfS: ChaipPin Qjakian: All those in favor, say A~e? All
o~po!ed? That passes on a vote of 3·1, with C~iss1oners Se~cha..
Ojaltan and Schftidt w~t;ng aye, opposed is CQ8Mlssioner Cassel,
CoaIlssioners Carrasco and Schink n~t participating and Ca..issio~er
'luler absent.
The next item we hive before us is ! recommendat'on to Ipprove t~e setbick
v,arianctls with the ittached findings, if1cluded in our packet 'WerE the
variance findin':js., the three Uilt are required,
~: Commis.sioner Scnmidt:
and the attached findings,
.llim!P: By CorrrnissiClner Beech~m,
rTIO'{e approval of the setI:Jac~. ~'lilfiar1ce:;
MQI.l.ruL PASSES: t,t1.llimar. ,P.i~kigD: l~ t.here ar,), fwrt~~~r diHUS-:io!i 0;1 Hli~
rrf'Jtion? What we nave befer€; us is RecQ~en;j"tio{~ .!4 fro~ Pi!~e J of tho:
staff report approvjng t~~ setback variances ~ith the attalhed findin9s is
found ~n Page 16 of the varianc€' finding:;, 1 ... ill say that h;J.~ing roohJ
o .... er each of these findin9s.. I find them acceptable lind COf1si:.tent 'JI'itn
SOft of the re/i;s.oni ng we have u s.ed in the pas t. Ant hOH in f.vor. 5;:)'
l'·ye? Al' tlpposed? That passes on iii vl)te of 4-0, 'JI'Hh Comjs~joners
Carrascc and Schink not ,participatirlg and Comissio~E'r Glazi..:-r ibsent.
Thilt luY€l5 ilppro',lal of the tenhti.,.'e !Oubdivision lIIap wHt; the-lttlc.hed
f1ndinss and conditions, as pro~ided to us in Pages 17 through 22 dated
Si!pt~ber 14, 1994. Is there any disCLission or i: fiCtion?
~: CO!Ji!jS$iOfler Schmidt: 1 ItOve appro\lai of the staff
Recommend~tion 15, the tentative subdivision ~ap with the Jttach~d
findings and conditions.
~: By Comaissioner Beecham_
~~; Cha;rmjn Qjakian: Is there any further discussion on this
DOtio~? All thos~ ;~ favor. say Aye? All opposed? Tnlt p.sses on a \lott
~f 4-0, with Commissioners Carrasco and Scnink not partiCipating and
Commissioner Glazier absent.
That covers all of the topics we had to .... <It! or. tonight. Hds itee will
be forwarded on to the City Council on October 17, 1994.
AGENDA ITEM 3
• s
In the
Unl\lers;ty Aven~e parking assessment district to pay a fee
in lieu of providing actual parKing space~ that would
09/14/94
·17·
i
I ,
I ,
~<,"" -''-..,..-.
~,,,,,,,
----_ ...• , ..
nOnail1y be required. En~ironmental Assessment:
.1t1gated ne9ati~~ deciarat10n has been prepared
project. F1le Ho. 94-EIA-13.
A
for this
Hr. Oyerway: 1 wDcld like to go through some overhead projections ~ith
tne commissicn to give some background on this whole process. The first
point I would like to ~ake is that when the downtown study was done i~
1986, several options wer~ pro¥tded for people to provide downtown
parking. The overriding 0", was that first and foremost, .11 n ••
development MIS SUPp05~ to provide parking en site. That was the prj mary
regulation, and th.t st111 1s 1n effect tod.y. There were soo< .xc.ptions
.ade to that for t~e reis~ns indicited an the screen. The handicap access
seismic rehab of historlt structures and ~1nor increases dtd net have to
~et that requtreEent. There was also a provision that deveiopers could
provide offsite parklng, subject to the approval of the Director of
Planning aM COlMIunity Environment. There was a fourth provIsion that an
in·lieu parking fee could be paid to meet all or a portion of the parking
requlrements for the development. Tho$e were the choices that people
had. Thi! in~lieu fee is one of those c;,oices, and that is what Wt! arf.!
discussing tQnight.
The discussion in the ordinance t~at already exists talks about an in-lieu
fee to bE' Ht e\:juill to th~ iflcrement.al c.ost of pro~'idjr'1g l1et new parking. r will go into ~hat ~net new p~rkjngW is in just a f~w minutes. It
specifiEs that the fee will be that. It does not QO on to ta1k about what
the actual fee is. It also gives SQ~e criteria for the use of that
in-lieu fee. The USf of it has to meet certain criteria. It hiS to be an
historic structure; the site area has to be l~ss th~n 10,000 square feet;
if greater thin lO,OOO square feet, it has to be physically cr financially
infeasible. H lIay be a situation where the city is. limiting curb cuts,
1$ on Univ'ersity AvemJE'. where the cit), would ~ot want the parking to be
pro\l"ided~ even if it co .... ld be, or where there are tliher site constrajnts.
So the applic.ation of thE; in·lieu fee, as worded in the ~~isti;,;g iiu..micipal
code, ;5 conditioned with these requlremeonts. In theory, it ;s only
applicable for developments that meet these requirements.
Tne ordinance does not establish what the a~ount of the fee should be. and
it ~as never been established since 1986. The reco~r.dation to you does
not talk about what the fee should be or what the criteria far applying it
should be. It strictly de.1s olth the dollar amount of the fee and how it
is collfcted and how it is used, etc.
The issues that are important are the amount Qf the fee. There is an
important legal ne~U$ that has to be ~hown, and part of the reason for the
report attached to the staff report is due to the need to sho~ the legal
linkage between the fee belng collected and what you are going to do wlth
it and the whys and the wherefores of that relationshlp, Tnat is
important from a legai standpoint. Ms. Case can speak to t~at, i5 well.
The proposed ordinance al,o ta1's about the collection of the fe. and the
retention af it and uses of it. Then it talks abo~t adjustments thit can
be made to the fee aver time.
In trying to und.rstand how much of • fee would be proper, ; f we had a
structur. presently designed and ready to be built,' it would be very
clear. We would take whatever it cost to buil~ that structure and divide
by the number of spac.es, adjust It, and that wOu'ld be it. The problem is
09/14/94
-l8-
--
,
I
I·
I
I ,
<
!
1
I
i
r
t~at at tnis point in ti.e, we do net know of a structure that Is gOing to
~ built. Howeyer, we art i~leMenting • Capital lmpro¥ement Project
wtlich the cound 1 his .pprov~. in October", we will initiate a
fu .. 'S.tbility study ~ic" wi" look at building another structure in the
downtown area. The focus ~f t~at study, at the present time, tends to be
t~rds Lots L i~d S or P ~nd R, in those general areas.
Llck;~ thit k1nd of spec!fic1ty, we took the next best approach and asked
ourselves what «1nds of prDj~cts could be built in the downto~n area. We
idei1ttfied four of the!B. O:1e 15 a surface lot like we haYe today.
Another " • slngl., elevated deck 11k. they .re pre •• ntly building on
C~rldge Avenue. One is I ~lti-level structurt; the Webster-Cowper
~rlge would be an ex~l~ of that. Another ant would ~ a two-level,
underg~nd structure. Tne one under Plaza R~na would ~ an exa~le of
that. Thtt is a pr1vat! garige, byt in the urban deSign plan, there is
SO>;ae sl!ggest1on of Hilt Sitr.'lE' kind of thing being done under city l(lts,
wit~ park1n9 bE-ing repla-:ed at the surf3c~ level, So you might t1,Po'2 two
le'fels of ur:derground parking wHh SOIll€ use of the air rights. above it for
develoj:'iN'nt, or yCli might have twc le-vels. of pHUng undergr<nmd with
pad:ir:g npla.ced lit the :SrJrface. That particular cattl!gory is meant to be
represented by thts l~st one.
We a150 lookEd at it from tht sense of ~hether we might do it on s city
lot or in co~junction ~ith a. pl'ivate deyelop~ellt. Again, the exa~ple of
pri i'ate d\:ye1op~('nt here WOlil d be the Ramona Pl aza. When that project was
built, o~e le~el was built for the project, and t~e city bought a second
level ud fOr.:le~ an ass;ess.lt~nt dist.rict to pay for it. In the-ory, that
could be done "ga1n in oil limHe'Cl number of cases,
Wh~n ~ started looking at this r.ind of matrix, we quickly determi~ed that
se~eril of these were not particularly appliclb)e. The value of land in
the downtcwn un is too important to build a surface parking lot. Wher:
~~ lOOKed at the single, elev~ted deck, we said yes, it could happen on a
city lot, but it is not very likely to happen on anyone's private
prop~rty, Jt would not be cost-effEctive to do so. Then we started
est~blishin9 costs, I"tluded in the r~port 15 a host of examples of the
costs of thEse different kinds of structures, 9~sically, the cost to
build iii Single, elevated d-2ck over in existing parking lot nas. been
established at 510,000 per stal1. That is whit it costs to do the ane on
Ca&Oridg~ AvenuE. There are other examples thlt we hive included that
win reinforce that Y~lue.
We looked at the multi-1e .. 'el deck. and concluded that, bas.ed on our
experience with the W~bster·Cowper Garage and reinforced by examples dcne
in Redwood City and Mountain Vie\l{, Sl3,OOO was the amount per stall.
These CO$t$ inci~de all of the design and construction costs. I will get
i"to the financing costs later on, but everything relat~ to design and
construction t including the public works inspe,tors , labor and ~ater;als,
fees, etc .• are intendEd to be incl4Jded in thes.e! cos.ts, When we looked at
the underground (beca~se g01ng underground is more expensive), 520,000 ~as
the number. .,..hat "e needed to do was to con .. 'ert those costs per space to
what we s~e as the (cst per net new space or cost per added ~pac~, The
difference is that when we bUl1 d a parking structure on a city parking
lot, we are displacing existing parking.
There are two terms here, On& is ~cost per space n and the other i~ "c~st
L
09/14/94 .
-19-
;"
--,-'
---.. -~., .. ~~-
per added or net new spice." The .. ·ord " .. dded-or "net new" is intende<l to
pel" t~ s£ae thing. The cost of the p~oject is the same under both of
those ,cennlos. In trot first C:oIse, I would be t.aki n9 the total cost of
the project ind divi6i~ by the n~r of spaces th.at tr.e project Is pM)vldi~. In the second CaSE, I would t.lke the total (Clost and divide by
t~ diff~rence bet~n tne nu.ber of space~ t~at Is be1~g prnvtded minus
whit ~I~ there before. fOT exa~'e. wlth a .ult)-level structure,
iSs~i"9 it is iI 500-stilll Qilragf si.i1.r to "ebstI!T-(.c·\tw'"Per, there were
)00 spaers on t~2 lot er1gi~aj}y. It cost S~ ~i'lion to build. S~
.i11iDn over tne 5~ spaces c~s to SJ2,OQO per space to build this
typtCI' ~x~le of I stru,ture. ~ver. if I take that same $tTuctur~
l~ subtr4ct cut the 100 spaces th.t we~ there bef~re, the cost per net
new 5P1C~ or per added ~pac~ is 515.000. So it cost Sl2,COO to ~ul1d it.
~t th-e cost ptr het flew sp.ace ls considerably higher.
iM !~act (If that rl!'phceeent of existing p~rkir1g is basic.a.lly the
difference bet~en cost per $p~ce a~d ccst per net ~e~ spac~. and it
SEr\lP:;; oilS iii )~rrvglt€ {Jr right-of-Io'aj' c-o)ts. If a: penon \lten~ ~oing to
go out ~nd b~y ~ ~ot, you ~ould flrtor in a right-of-way cost. The
replac-e.,*"nt of the C');Htl!'",Cj ,PHJ:.ing, U":€ first JOO spaces. that arE' built,
tl"l€' .e~5fss~nt distrlct is ne! ~Din9 to 9.dn a.nything, Hey .arc.going tD
ha~e to replace thO£f f,rst 100 space~ ~t SJ2,(~~ rrr space before 'they
:!>tart to goilL; so;o:-ething. So J SoH jt ,as a ~urrc,;,-ate for right·of·Iol'o!Y
cost;:;_ ~'het'i YOLI ~o to a ~arKir.g d~~''', til.:, differen.ce becz:;~:>
swbs.ta.ntiaJlya.cCC''lt,"2:tt''d. YaLl M.a','," fp .. 'H spCices to 5~,re'ld it 0"''''(.
Irlsteold cf cui}cirtg i 500"SLa11 gang .. , )/;"l's sa:{ 100<' \If':j1.l1d buihi ~
200-stJl;11 deck, l€'t'~ ol5SU;:I{' th<1t H.e cost per !-pacc is Sotill the s.ame,
but .hen you ~ubtr~ct out the existi~g 5t~11~, the cost per net new space
giltS up si9!1iiicantly, because )'OlJ ire all.ocatin9 Hu~E' JOO spaces over
He TeJII.olIining IOC ir,51ead of o'w'er tlli-remaining 400.
Getting b~ck to this t~ble t~at is projected, that is ~hy, in this
pHticuhr instinct' of .. single, e-lev.ilted declo:.. the cos.! gDes: from 510,000
t>t!r space to $26,OC-0 per net ne;.-space. TIi .. t is .hy, in H1~ flVJlti·level,
yo~ go f~ 513,000 per sp~ce to 117,300 Pfr net new space. That
continues on. The ordiMince thit we ha¥! says t~at the fee will be based
~pon whit is shawn here in red 011 the cost per net new spac~.
As an uUlple, if you lOOk it the cC',st of buildin9 a structure ~n priVate
l~nd, tne~ is n~ re~son why it should cost th~ any r.ore or less than it
would cost the c1ty to do it on a plrk+~ lot. This particular column
does not include i~Y land vilue. Wh~t we n.¥! done in this column is to
add the vll~e of land (at 5100 per squIre f~t). prorated it ever the
nu.ber of floors ir. the building. and 1110cated the "umber of spaces you
could put ir. thE-reo So tl'1e rt;s!Jaant cos.t per space is S20.S00 I>!Ihen the
actual cost, ~~thout the ri9~t·of·waYt !s SI3 j DOO. T~is one is loaded
with r1ght·of-Wi) costs; this one is loaded with replacement of exist1~g
parking costs. Again t t~ese c~sts are costs to c~nstruct. There are
design costs .and there are construction costs. Now I ~ill get to
fininc.ing costs.
T~is d1agra~ illustrates w~at is included in th~ financing costs. In the
first Cite-gory, [}esign and Constnlction. all of theSE costs are included
in t~e nUilbers I showed previously,. They did not inClude any of what we
c.all fin.ancing cost. We have di¥id~d financing cost int(l tloo'O parts, far
Illustrative purposes. One is the up·front financing costs that occur,
L
~:_w,
· .. w._~
. ~
I
I
some of which are a percentage of the loan ~no sO£e of ~hich are fix~6.
Hke c10siflg c.osts on a house. There is ;t "'uiety of c:l1n9<?s Inri services
that 90 into $ett1r~ up an ~ssessmeot district and selling bcnjs, etc. In
addition, you flavt the o"9'(\1ng .bond p.y;zents, which are principal and
interest, wnich go on for 2S or 30 ye~rs, h~vfr 'D~ they are sold for.
The rec~ndit1on 1n the staff report inciude$ a shilr~ of this ~orl1on of
Ute up-front financing COltS. It does not include ~."y S!'\ilr!' Qf tMe otr.er'
on·going portio." I win iliustrate the i~lCt of 1"CfOOing thl.t wiU!
this ntxt projectlon_ I thin. it f.irly cl •• r th.t .11 of the,. deS19"
and construction costs sh~uld ~ included. There ire ~rg~nts thlt ,,In
be ~de to include or not to include the ~p-front fin'-ncl~ costs. I hlV~
never heard anybody argue th~t it sh~uld includt iny rort1~n of tht
on-going, annual bo~ paywents, so j think th~ ~~scuS$ion ;s probabl)
about whether this p~rtton (up-front rina~ci~ c~~tsj 9~ts incl~ed or
not. The lSSlJ't is ...nether or not people paY,in in-liNI fH, ...n;cn
includes i prGP~rtt~nll shar~ of thls yp-f~nt fjna~~ing (05t.
The i~act of thi.lt i.s. s.hown ht}re. Jr\ selecti~9 th~ bll,SIS fo';'" ':5t~bii!'hi!"1"::
th~ fee, we lool:;Bd e:t H'Isonl J:;;lnds of options.. I rril'fe 'ircle~ t~e O~~
that the staff report reco:rli;;l;nds. Before )'{)lJ l~:)" it tr,o~e o~ti"'j),
however, these t~o columns are j~~nrtant. Tl:e~e ~re th~ rD~t p~r ilcd~d
space, taksn from tMat t3ble J jus.t show~d iOU, d~~e~dj~g upo~ the
scenario we are tah.ing ahout. j(1 tr,e fint c.::~~, .! 5har~ of t~.OH
l1p-front financing costs has not Of'Eil arjje,:). In the '3e(O~ij (25e, t~''":'I'
have been added in. For insl~n(e, the e~i~p)e Of th~ Webster·Co~~er .
Garage that can be bui~t for 513,000 per sp~ce, bJt costs S17,300 per 1,Ct
ne~ spac~. is increased to 519,000, abc~t a 10 pertP~t jn~rel,e b~cau~~ of
the ir:clus1on of up-front financin-g co~ts.
We laDled at t~€ lowest ccst as a basis for e~tablisning tn~ f~~ w~
looked at the highest CO$t as a basis. We look~d ~t lveraging t~r~e
different types of s trilct ures > the: oed., the :. t r"jjC tu re OHiO the
underground. WOe looked it nii1€ <11ffe-rent ~~tiOM in the dDOI'!"1towr, are.!.
a.ssessing somellihat Sl.fbj!cti'Yely whit kinds of stT,,",ctIJr€'s !t.ight ~ t:lJiH on
wnat lots. We caae up with nine of them. but the iverlge ~t~tn the nint
and the three is so tlose that it was not worth argu'n~-.bcwt the
diff~rences. The ant ttat Wf! selected th.f:t we feel is th-e IIOst
appropriate is th~ .ulti-level parking 9~r.ge, w~icn is $17,l~j without
the finanCing cost portion, and Sl9,OvO with the finlncing PQrtlon.
The basis for pic.ing the In-11.u fe. i' • ~.bst.r-Cowp.r type of
facility, and the fee we-Ire recoatendins is S19,C(.lO. It ~s Nse<.I U~XHI
and Includes i share of the bo~ iS$ua"c~ f1nanctng cost. Th~t 1s
pr~(Hcated on the assUtlPtion that the next parking structure will be ~
multi-level structure si~ilar to the Web$ter-C~er Garlge .od ~il1
probably be built on lots I and $, or Lot R, or some combination of lots P
an·d R or some combination Gf lots land 5 and P and R, ir, ott"ler words,
those t:.fO ge:neral locatlDn~. That 1S further reinforce<! by the Urba;"l
Deslgn SUidelines whlch identifie~ those two sites is suitable s~tes for
parkin9 structures. In our a.nalysis of t~e existinq parking deficit in
the dr.wntoWTl area, thfse tW{) areas a,'e a.lso important, rather t.hin the
area by the Webster-(owper Garage. fie have sufficient pilrkir.g ill that
area.
The provision also provides for an annual review of the basis for this
09/14/94
-2l -
fe1!. rich year, W~ ~i11 go through and detennine whether or not we still
feel that the multi-level parking structure is the best basis for
establishing this fee. For Instance, after we do this planning and
feasibility study. we will know i l~t more about w~at the next project is
going to b!. When we kn~ whit that is, the fee will be adjusted to
rrflect the particular project that we are headed towards. Each yur, H
will be adjusted to reflect tne ictual knowledge: at th~t point in time ,
regarding the next future project. We cannot 9~ back and changE the v~n~y
we have collected, ~ut it wo~ld change any future money that is paid fro~
that point on. So there Is a huilt-in annual review.
There is also a built-in annual cost; fide)( adjustment, even if we do I"IOt
change anything_ The cost will b< adjusted by a construction index that
reflects inflation and the increased east of doing business. Also, as
part of t~e d~.ntown study, there is in innual mon1toring of the parking
deficit that goes on in the downtown arei!;. That MillS gone (1n each year
since 1986\ and I bellave a cop:.; of that is given to yo .. each year, .e
wnl bE-g~n to include> in Hat report an acc.ount1ng of the in-lieu fee
spaces that nav.a been paid for so you will k.now whE'!tr-ler thi:. number is
getting very large or nllt. We do not tt'.lnk H is goif19 to bE' a very lijrge
number, but the monitorjng process will pick that U~"
The consequences of collecting i~sufficient funds i~ relatiVEly sm~11,
1.f~ indeed, we r.ol1ect $19,00D an-:1 the n~xt structure tUTI1S out to be
$20,000 or $21,000 Dr $22,000 pel" space, we w!ll ha~e underco11ectetl for
~hate~er number of Sp.C2S we have. The burder~ of th~t f~11s te t~e
assess~~nt district. Whatevel' money we collect fro~ the jfl·li~u fee ~il1
be deducted from the tot~l project cost, and the rpst of it ~il1 be
financed. Somebody ha~ to pay the bill, By tradition. in the City of
Palo Alto, that has always gone to an assessment district. l'le city is
not 90ing t~ pick up that difference from its own funds,
Wr,en we looked at the c.onSl?quences of being two or three thousand dollars
short, spread (I\lEr the-fun asseBment district, it is a very small amount
of money. I think. 'We have somE' numbers in the repDrt, and they are Ij'e-ry
s~ali on a per· foot basis. First of all, we do not feel we will be s~ort.
is we are Siiltisfied with the numbers we have collecte-d, but if we are, the
assess;ent district. not the in-lieu developer, wl11 !nd up pickin9 up
that difference.
HO~\ler, there is $~~ benefit t~ the assessment district also. jf a
developer builds his' own parking, he controls. thit park; ng. It is not
available to tne general public. It is a~ailable on thf terms that he
chooses to set up. If it 1s in-l ieu parkir,g. it is going to go into the
public realm, and it will ~ available to more people ~ore of th! time,
and is actually gotn9 t~ be better utilized just because it is going to b~
available more times and is going to be used more often during the day.
It 1~ going to be available evenings, nights and weekends, so t~ere is a
benefit to everyone of .a slightly greater use of the public parking spices
that the in~lieu prov;s;ors are making possible. That concludes my
pres-entatfon.
Com;ssion~r Sr.hink: F:egarding the bond financing costs, arc: thcs~ a
fixed pril;e for the bond I or are those a percentage of the amDunt of r.1oney
that is being raised?
09/14/94
-22-
tis. Case: Typically. it can be ,alctJlate-d as a percentilge of the amount
of the tlands,
C.intDner Sc;blnk: rf half of the money nei!ded to build the park.lng
structure waS funded with in-lieu fees. then you would only have hal' the
bond costs. They would be reduc!d proportl0n~tely.
Hr. Qyeooy: J think that is truf to a significant extent. Some of the
fees are f1xed~ but the majer1 ty of them are based on the amount of the
, Oi!n.
tommission,r Senink: Then what is the rationale for requiring the payment
of the ir.-lieu fee It the time of the permit. as opposed to tne time wnen
the d~nd is cr~ated to use the parking spaces?
Mr. Q\lg""2V~ The topic: has been discussed, and Hlere are argtrments on
both sides. The argument for Mt includiii9 it i~ that if enough in~'i.eu
fees. were collected to build a parking strJ.Jctur~, there would be no bond
finar:cing costs at all. We ~ould just go out and build it al1'J pay for
it. That is the arguiT.ent for not doing it.
Tile reality is, nt:lWeVH, that at the rate at which "~ p.xpect these in·lieu
fees to come in, there never will be sufficient mon~y to do th~l, so th,
city i5 90ing to have to build a parking structur~ in the downtown area
an)'I'!<';Y. In order for the in-lieu feE'> to \o!ork and tak.c ad.'iwtage of tfrat,
they need.! stru.::ture to be built, therefore, part of the cos.t oCi.n.d rLe~6
for tMat structure to be bulit is He front-end finandng cost. An
E;(arr.ple of that is that if you wanted to build a reom onto my house, you
cannot do that unl~ss I first build the house and pay the front-end casts
to do that. There would not be anythin9 there for yo.; to work wit-h, 1
can stin go ahead and pay my share of the pri.nclpal and interest, but I
have to pay a1) of th! front~elld costs. On that basis, you are beins;
a sked to share some of tna t, in proport 1 Orl to the i. n -1 i eu fee, the num~er
of spaces that yau ire being assessed.
Coropj$SiQnEr Carra~cQ: ! hay~ a 1and use question whieh I will addres~ to
Honey. It seems tnat the Co=prenenslve Plan Advisory (omrnittee, the
Planning C~!ssion and I r~ctnt projett that Ed Storm brought on the
corner ~f [Mrson Street and Lytton Avenue went in the direction of doing
a fot space~ or res!dential above commercial, which is s~methin9 we ha¥e
encouraged throughout the last Comprehensive Plan. 1t seems like the
present Coaprehensive Plan is also going In that direction. Given that
that is true. can you co~nt on why you would not consider 1n-iieu fees
for residential de~elopaent as well as for commercia1? Why would we not
ha'ie the same .kind of benefit fer resioenthl development, rather than
cnly for tommercia1?
Ms Lytlt: I think that if th! current Cornprfhens1ve Plan wants to
encourage an expins;on of this kind of prcgrim, that would be a perfectly
lpprDpriate move for them to make in terms of encouraging that residt:nUal
development. This staff assignment was based upon the current
Comprehensive Plan policy and ordinance that literally was drafted under
that document, with some holes in it. So we did not take any turrent
policies beyond our Comprehensive Plan in this assignment. But if that is
a direction that it ,appears as 'j f it is bei ng recorrmended to be reinforced
in this update effort, certainly Hat is a recommendation you could make,
L
09/14i94
·23·
•
-----
that 15~ tc have that (ollowed up with additiofial benefits or abilities
for resident~al d~velo~"t to ap~'Y for thi5.
COI'issjQncr CarrtscQ: ATe you sU9gesting that we reco~nd to council
that they 1nelude this in i re:!.ldenthl component. or do ~e modify this to
say, residenti.) ~"d non-res1dentiil?
Ml.. Lytle: O:Jr reco.eitdation .ould be tftat you allow the Comprehen~he
Plan to takt place Iccord;ng to the c~rrent time li~e. If that is one of
t~ poll~' directions that you want to recommend, you would do so within
t~~t ti.e line, T~refore. In ordinance revision here would come at th~
c~lus;on of the Co.prehensive Plan process as i followup assignment, or
a~ '~'~nt2tjon pr09r~ of thit document.
this ordinance bef{lrl!" you is an extension ar.d i followvp orf the existing
Co.pnher.th"e Phn. It is a 1 ittle late in getting done. but we are stl1l
opoer~tii"9 for He next year under that docUTI'IEnt, so the time has not run
olJL We Ire i!':'.pl~nting tnt' old ~o'i'ies.
~.s. ill.£: I ... o~ld li~e to dda that this is bas~d ~fI th~ "Ny COr1pl icated
and tech~i(~l pro~isjon5 for the as~ess~ent district downtown. ~f at some
point, W~ ~~re to add in 3 cc~ponent with re9ard to residential, it would
rot b~ ~i~ple. Legally, j w~uld adYlse ag~inst that right now, If you
ln~ist~d ~pDn gGi~g ahe;d ~1th it, it would 5~t thj~ project back
5t!c,stal"~tiall)', tl~~7!1'i$~,
.Q,.sir""l'l'1an OidUan: Hy under-stcirldlng is that tonight, we isre not
nec~ssarily lonkj~~ at who this is applicable to, jS that has already been
set. 'lrftat '"e ne leokir,g it is tr-oe JIlethod of calculation for the fee, how
that might be adjusted over some period of time, and the collection
~thod. Th:J~e $eelr: to O~ the key components. We are not talking abou~
.adding to thf e)(ceptions: or subtncting fro,", them.
!'Is, Cjue: T~ill is our recvmendatlon. The reas.on why we are re~o~~oing
thAt ~ 90 forward "liHh it based on the current ordinance prD'I'lS10ns lS
t~lt u~er stlte ~~w, we h~ve S~ ~try strict requirements to follow when
W! Ire en~cting fee req~ireoents for developments. Also 1 th~se provisions
elSe o~t of that envircnmentll asse~s.ent, We would not want to go too
far Jfield frC'!!! that, or W'! IIi9ht be getting outside of the boundaries of
what our enYiror~ntal ~SSeiS5ent can handle.
Ch.Ir"Nr, PhXi,n: The way I rud this, Wi! should not e'ien go anywhere
near thlt. Wh~t you Ire saying, Ms. Case, is that the possibility exists
tonight, lnd we hilve to be very cilreful about how Wi! have to do tha.t,
Ms. Case: That is correct. For 111star.ce, if you had H in mind that you
w~nt~ to allow just about enyone who so d€~ired to pey fees, as oppo~ed
to ~q~;ring th~ to pro~ide parking , that ~ould really upset the
environmentill ap~lle cart at this point.
(bairnn QjJkian: I am net su.ggesting tha.t, but I "anted to clarify that.
l1L (ag:: Right, and Hat is an ir;-:portant thing to chrify.
CD!'!!issioner farrago: I hav~ another question r,ohi'ch is much simpler. On
Pilge 5 of the zoning ordinance, it talkS about those projects that are
L-----
09/l4/94
-14-
i
•
"'"--'+~-'
1neluded ~nd t~ose which ~re not 1neluded. There s~e~~ to be • hol~ at
JO,ooo squire feet. 1 wou1d sU99~st tn~t Wf chlr.gt tne wording on Pagt 5
It .. (2), to ny, on. site or .. is ill !.M.l!uru! lliif..J: fill 2! llll, .nd a WQuld not be physical1y feasible to provide the required on,s He
parting,-Most of thOSf properties ire 10,000 ~Quare feet,
Ms.. Case: I iulized WE: wculd hHi' difficulty collecting 'Ijything fr()(!1
anyone who had exactly a 10,000 s~uart·foot site.
CbtirazD 01at..1...i.[l,: I wi 11 now ope-n tht" public ~elring.
Boxy RIDR. 773 Vnjycraj!y Avgnur. Palo Alto: ~rvin. th~t was a great
presentation. J1. Batr will be p~stnt1ng our graphicl later. 1 hive two
key pof"ts I would like to bro,rtg up. One i:S. Hut wtJen the fn-litu fee 1$
pa.1d, it ;5 re.lly 9ci~ to tN! for s.all d~Hlo~nts. ~cau.s.e of the
cost of illCney, it really ... kes sense for i; de...-eloper to piily H,e i:1·1ieu
fee upon occupincy or w~e-n t.he electricity is turned en. That j~ 'l<ih-E'Ti it
is going to implct pi!;r~:ing, and Mt befcr.e lid nut C:.Jring the st~gl~ of
dtvelo~nt. So I W0uld 1 i,,€ to. enco>Jngc .... L~IJ 1.C! ccr,5oi,j;;r t.f1i1t the
H1~lieu fee be p.lid .. he:l the {j<'vel(,;,"t;j,t 150 (;J-~lEt£j, (ic·t .at the: til"',,; of
the building pe/'"!"H is'S~n.l',[e.
1he other itett H12't I ·"':HIla 11~:~ .IOU to 'Ic":',~ dt:e~'I)' jnto is. the bOI~d
expen.se b2ing adrj~,::J lr.t('> th:· i(~-lie!.! (e-E'. i ft:f?1 H!at SIF:(:E' roC Jr~
p""tting t,;p the osh to pa,' n.;-il'i·li,:;::.J ia, yc:.; \Io%·lci (jot r,en;", the b"n:j
expense. In re~l it)', if this encci\.ira9b E'rln;~~i ce'''i.dl.~,p~nt, there l~ the
possibility that you ~o~)1 not n.~1 in 15~@ss~2nt to paj for the next
p~r~.ing lot. So! W'Ovld lir.e )'o:J tC" )oo~ .It tht yery cl.osely.
One other Com!"Ient is that the rea5or)r'\ th~t t~ef'€' ~l'l'e not beeon ar"IY il1-!ieu
fees paid is that J f~el th~t t~e city, ~nd e~en the de~elopers ~Jve felt
that WE are all th;r.~ing of too high iii dol1ilr ilrtrOUrtt. lt was irl the
S20\COa to 524,000 r.lng~ \o'her. 'We t.H;~J to the Clty pre'o'iousl)'. It just
does not work with. the nwtbers. r Just did i de .... t!lClP~nt in 1'4ounUln
View, ind their in·lieu pi.rklng f~ was SI3,OOO pn-sp.ice. I nive t{1 ask,
,".y do IrrI'I! do an 1n·lle-!J fee? It is. t,) I?nc.ourige de\lelop..ent. It is tv
~rovide .ore pirk1ng and to 5ike thr downtown ~re ~itll. Thank you.
CQ!I!Iissioner Be-eeba_. YOll ltenlioned ilrlcthPr lo'"tion that had a fee of
S)3,000. [5 thlt on th~ Si5e cost basis iilS we h~o prestnted here, or have
ttJ.ey nat Inc:lude-d certain lspects that we hid in ol,Jr presentati on?
Mr Rapp: let De read fr~ a letter fro. the City of Mountain ~)ew to
lie. ·T~e parking il'l·Heu fee is 113,000 per space. This is based upon
the cost of our Bryant Strt:'ct strI.Jctu-re itno reflects the actual
cQnstruction cost~, d~slg~ fees, and ctty overheid. If we wtre lQ include
tne val~e of the lind and the 10$5 of space that exist!d previously. tn~
cast would be closer to S18,OOO per spa~e. However, since tne downtown
parking district is like a homeowner~ a~s?ciiltjcn. all revenues C~ from
downtown husinesses and property owners, not the general fund. The cHy
does not believe it is fair to add the lind and los~ of space to the co~t
of the parking i~-lipu fe~. After all. cur intent is to encourage priy~te
i nilestment in the downt.owTI."
Co~is$ioner Betcha~: What does loss of sp~ce mean in this appllcation?
09/14/94
-25-
Mr. R.pp: I be11eve it is the same as MaT,,;n referTtd to.
Mr. Oyerway: They are reftrring to the nor.·1nclus;on of tnose existing
spaces. Our equi~a1ent n~ber, 90in9 to actual constructlon cost, is
S13?!)OO. When we go to the loss' of space calculi!tion. it goes tJP to
$17,300, and when we go up to th~ bond issulnce cost, it goes ~p to
$13,000. They do not include either one 1)f those ~nr;rements ; n ,""aunta irl
Vi ....
Hr Bapg: One other thing is that one of tne benefits for an in·lieu fee
is that It l~rs t~e assessment .. ~st leases written today are what ire
called triple net leas!!5. So a~y iilssessment ; 5 passed on to the llerch.znt
or retailer. Therefore, h~ ~as to pay a ~igher re~t. If ~ ~re able to
lower the assessment by plying in-lieu fees. it ~ans tnat these
asseSS!M=nts wi 11 Mt be passf!d along to the .. rc:l'lant, ind it rcakes: 1 t IIO'I!
viable for hi:a to hi! s'JccessflJl in busineH ir. doW'ntoWll Pillo Alto.
CQ:1T.115sioner Beecham: Would that i!"".ply that the in-l iel1 fees shol,;lct br
high~r 50 that t~e assessment fees He low",r?
Mr, Rapp: The ti,inking of that is wrong bec~u~! what ~il1 happen is. we
won't de an in-lieu fee and projects will not ~e built. The nu~ber~ just
don't wor~ out. We ha'l"e to eN!'!!; tI:.l a h&ppy /"",,:-dhr", ar,\1 tha:t is. ",~at
Marvin has worked so hard on. I re~lly appreciate ~11 te has do~e fOT
us. We have ~ad M~etings ~;th Mdrwt~, thep Keenan, Wal-[(:l ThoiLs, Jl~
Beer, Jtlhn Baer and myself, aho E.o StOrTI, a.nd ! think jo,';? Ht; 9l2ttin~
clos.. .
CO~.jisioner Beecham: Ir. your experience, ~hat doer, it (ost t<:l inrlude
parktn9 on-site at a typical site versus paying the in·lieu fee?
Mr. Raop: I will let Jlm Baer respond to t.hat.
ChalrmanJ2.iiLkian: Mr. Beer lS our final spNker from the public-.
Jim 9aer. 532 (nanning Avenue. Palo Alto; The tr~nsportition division has
reilly done a remarkable job under a very complex set of Ij,ateriils, afld
not only with a (o~lex set of .aterials but a1so wlt~ an audience that ;s
not easy to bring together. The audience that Mar ... ;'n has IDE't with o'o'er
the past s~veral weeks is Chop Keenan, Warren Thoits, Roxy Rapp. Ed Sto~,
John Baer and myself. You have i ~ide set of interests in that group.
Roxy is anticipating a project for which in applicati~n has been filed, is
has Ed Storm. They are in the final stages of the process ind ~~ seeking
the lowest possible in-lieu fee that they can. They are g01n9 to be the
fi rst ones to be subject to an i n-1 ieu fee. Chop I(eenan probabl.v has tt'1e
best parked buildings in th-e downtown, so his attitude is, ~Jlhen 1 built
flY Duildings, I ~ad to pay for expel'lsi"I'e parking on s.ite, so 1 want a
hefty fee, oth!rwise, yo~ are going to pass your burden on to me," Warren
Tho1ts probably has the most underparked buildings 1 ~'iuse of an older
in~entory, He has the most underparked square focta9f, so a future larg€
assessment hurts him core. He would rather pass on a bigger fee. My
brother and 1 are right in trr~ middle, because we are trying to be helpfl.!1
to Roxy and Ed, and """E: wind up being in a similar position to Chop arid
Wi!rr.an in that assessments will fall heavily on lJS. We have some numh€r
of buHdings underparked.· Gl'llen that set of tr'tJ-ij' strong finan.cial
diff~rences and very stron9 philosophical differences, with Chop and
09/l4/94
-26-
,
!
~
I
I
' ...
i
I
I
I
I
..
Warren forcing lie Oil the one side, and ~d and R1)xy on thE! other side,
everybody came Qut of the first me~t1n9 with the ffiateri.ls Marvin
presented, lInlch Carl Steffel worked on, as well, saying we could not have
imagined 1 bttter, clearer presentation. What you $a~ today Is so
persLlas1ve in its qual Hy that ~e a11 felt __ e had some range Iofhere we
would find agreeMnt. It was an extraordinary bit of material.
At the last lIleeting we attended, it WiS my understanding that we had
agreed that $)1,300 would be the fee. That is also wnat appears on your
agenda. We d1d pot get to ~he techn1ca' level at our meet,ng re9araing
tne bood financing fee, but here would be the aC9urnont not to include the
bond financing fee. The factors are the hard cost of construction, tne
flnancing fee, and a thir<i factor, ..,lcn Is tn.t if It Is, 10 percent
interest rate, nc o~e is going to vote for i bond fund. If it is a
5 pe-rcent rate, you ..,ill hear people say, let's .. go and incur that bond
issuance in order to get i low rat~. When 250 University Avenue came
along. lot J was rewritten as a bond, because at th~t time, we were at an
historic-ally low bond rate. The assesSm€nt district said, this is i! good
deal t{l incur those ul1dertJrit.ing costs. That factor that t"e ilssessment,
as a whole, will deternine whether they take on thp und€rwritj"g costs is
gOing to be based on the availability of i(!tere~t rate financirLQ 'at th~t
ti~. TI'lSit filctor that the i!Ssessm~nt, 1.1$ c. .... ~ole. will determine ... 'helher
they tah on the underwriting costs is going to be t'H2d 011 the intere~t
ratt financing at that ti~e. Therefore, we tho~ght that the bond
financing should not b~ included.
The second f~ctQr is that right now, ~hen fees are p~id for 8HR units,
when an office building of O~fr 25,000 square feet is built, it ~~S ~
housing ~itlgation fee. That fee is paid half at building permit is~uance
and half at occupancy. It is my Uf1dfrst~ndin9 that the BMR in·1 ie-u fe-p. is
paid at occupancy. "ere in a comercial proj~ct., a d2velaper may draw a
bullding permit and not break ground, but you'v~ QOt. one year
automatic-any before you ha ... e to break ground, ana you can get an
automatic one-year extension. So it is not uncOlTnon to pull a building
permit s~ you have vested your code compl1ance rights. and not start
digging yet. A lot of dev~'opers of smaller parcels may finar.ce tne front
end ",r their prDjects out of cash, so I would support Roxy's st.atell"lent in
arg'Uirlg that th2 model s would more suggest that it come-prior to occu.pancy
rattH!r than prior to the buiiding permit. It is a pretty bi9 burden to
impOSe at th~ front end of a project before the parking impact has hit the
assessment district.
To respond to Commissioner Carrasco's questton about a reSidential ffe,
this is spec; fic t'.) the lssessment district. Ed Storm' s in~ 1 ieu space
applies just as much to the residential as it ~oes to the commercial. It
does not discriminate as to .... hether it 1s for cOlfl'llercial or residentia1
sp~ce within the assessment district. The argu~~nt that I would make
against extending this to residential, Tony. is that part of why the
in-lieu can work in ihe downtown is the iarnediate availability of
alternate spaces owned by the assessment district. So a 20~unit
subdtvision on El Camino ~ea' bordering on Barron Park cannot say. let's
pay an in-lieu fee and park them in the downtown. It does not mitigate
the burden that the housing created .-parking in that neighborhood. Here
the built·in solution is that we do have the ability to develop the)e
structures to mitigate.
09/14/94
-27-
...
So .~ think this ;s ~ great presentation and we feel it is time to move it
on to the City Council. It is likely that there will be another two or
thNi! projects in the JO,OOO-square-foot or under rarlge that wO:Jld need to
tlke advantage of this .
I will oil so answer t"'e question of the c.ost to build on-s; te rather' than
off-s1te, H you will grant ~ the additlcnal t1m'. (Granted) Part of
~kinq 10,000 square feft or under as a Dreaking point. if it is not a
corner plrcel, Is th.t it Is virtually iapo"ible to build a
lO,OOO-square-foot parcel at any econom1cs 1n developing it, by the time
yCY d~ r~ing, which r.~s to be wide enough for entry and exit, and to do
i drhe line 1rx1 have an e1 evator coming out of that. It would not b!' iiln
eXlgqerltion to say that they would be 530,000 or $40,000 per spate,
be<iUS! so IUch square footage is dedic.ted to non-parking uses. That is
pirtic~lir)y exacerbated if yau do not h~ve an entrance cr exit so that
y~ could park on either side, If JOU had to loop around 1 you can see
that you ~uld not get many spaces, T~at is why th~re was wisdom in the
original ordinance draft in saying that 1010~a is an arbitrary cuttIng off
pOirlt. If you look at th~ number of lO,OOQ·squHe-foot parcels downtown,
Here are not 'o'er), many, There are not many that are 1 arger than
iO,OOO square fset, and thosp cught to be looked at and say, leoliard Ely's
parcel is just under lO,OOO square feet on Waverley and lytton. If it is
10,DOC! or more, ne "nuld ha .... e to preve that the configuration was. I"iOt
feasible. If It i~ under 10,000, it is pr~sumed to be infeasible.
At 250 0niversity Ave~ue, W~ had very expe~sive spaces in two ievels
b"eCi!I..I'i€ we ned SOi'll€ shoring up of sio'r-buildings iln.n some relocation of
utilities. lhose wound up btlng S23,000 per st~ll, 69 per level. Our
pi~cel ~as 19,000 square feet, but we we~e able to 90 out ~nder sidewalks,
SD probably t~e full extent of our parcel was closer to 24,000 square feet
and $23,DOO per ,t.ll. lh.y probably could hav. b •• n don •• t S20,aOO plr
stall if it were nnt fDr shoring and underpi~nin9 neighboring properties
and the utility relocation. ! think $20,000 '5 about as well as you ~ill
do.
~ssjQner Carrasco: I understood Ms. Case's thougnts on not
c~l;ciltin9 this ordinance, and that it was the (ouncil's directiYe to
stick with the nonre-sident ial zone. However, if a resid~ntial prrlject
were built in tne assessment district, it has the same design constraints
Gnd the S~ physical prob1eas that a co~rclal project would. If we are
going to encDurlg! residential developaent in the assess~nt district,
which is Ule direction in which CPAC seems to be going, as we'll as our
existing CODprehenS1~e Plan suggests, I do not understand why you $ay it
would not be a good idea. j understand why it is not a good idea. to
include it in this ordinance, but 1t ",,·ould be a study that staff would
undertaKe with i different process in ·mind.
Mr Safr: I think 1 am E1ssing something. As to the assessment district,
it is my understanding that this ordinance would apply to G residential
project as well as i nonresidential project.
M"'. O"erway: Tne {lrdinance says it is. for nonresidential.
Mr. Baer: have mi sunderstood,
C.onmissioner Carrasco: So would you support the idea of including
09/14/94 .
-28-
• L
_.--
I
'I
I
residtntial, not in this ordinance, but at SQaIe other time?
Jtr Bur: Abst)iutely. I defer to stoaff en that. Again! the i'lailabilitjl
Df sites 01'1 ~lr:h thr parkjng could be provided jn the assessment district
would apply e~ul'ly vel) to residentill IS tc co~rc;al. in my optnion.
'~101jc:[ B;ei=CPII: At 'your 2S0 University A'oIenue bui1ding, as 1
~nderlt&nd it, yeu hAve BOrf or less the equlval!nt of 24.000 square feet
"""" you .""and undor the sid ..... l.s. Is that <orreet? (lesJ Aod the
cost the~ was lbout S23,OOO per parking spaCE, s1nce yo~ had to shorp. ~p
adjolnir.g buildings. ot~erwise it would ha¥~ C~ to &bout $20,000?
,Yes) Aceordt"9 to t~ ~y this ;s written, I would i$SI~ that that sfte
would ~ot fit any of the flV! txe.ptton c.tegories here 1 so you WDu1d not
be ,able ttl t~ In-li.~ fHS , in II'1Y case.
~ilfr: That is Lorrect"
CC!!I!l?uiQl"ftr B«cr'i-1't: if 'it had t,t'~n ~'ia;hble, wou1d :1'01.i hll .. e 'Hinted to
do this?
!iL..-~il_U: Thllt is ~ ier)' 9"o(l Quo:-sticn. (Ht~;r.i)' HIe CclJtiOfl that ought
to 90 t(l the C i t.J (c"..'"c 11 is. thai. .a I! of t~:e (l";'''~;S agre~d that 'rIe did not
~ant to do a~Jlhin? to creat€ a dis.incE~tfye to ~ake t~e best park\ng use
of CIJr" Sltt!!;" 1he tw:') thir.')s thdf an? ;n~Uerlt in Hi~ in-lieu proposa1 is
that if tr.P.,! r:-e~c-e publ ic s~':ce~, tile), Ui' r:ot captl't"ed for our pri'.·at~
use. So ~~ would s~lend a few t~0usard ~ore to capture private use. A
second factor ~D~ld b~ if y~u are re~ote. Right nD~, on lot J, if th~y
.re near in ~nderutiljled structvre, it ~o~ld ~ilke sense not to build the
most expensl .. "e spaces on your sHe If yeu could poly an inrllEu fe~. even
if t~ose in-lieu f~t$ were u;ed .. ~re remotely. So th~t is another
factor. How closf! ue you to i'l'aihb1e park"ing? That will be one of t~e
issues when the fuslbility study is cone re9ardir1~ wl1ere the next pad .. ing
sfri,Jctur,. lItil} be built. 'rOll '10/\11 have owneiS ,;;'yaluat;~g ... hit are the
aHernative iI\laihbilitie!:..
I want to idd two other i~~ortint thoughts, which I hope will be Clrrt~
frOli the .pla~n.ing COIIlisSio!\ to the Ctt)' COI,lncil" 'There is a hugely under"
use<! p.uldl"\g resour'Ct in City Hill. We ire urban enough that for employee
plrting, if you vilet·?irK~ ! floor-~~-a-half, you would increase by
about 400 spolces for 01 relithely low cost. Ir. filet, the increased permit
fees on the approJt~te 400 sp.ces would cover your v.let employee. We
think that the resistlnc! to thlt is somtthins that wcu1d be overcame, in
t;.e. Two yrlrs liter, we would not reaeeber that ~eople used td fuss
abcut hnln9 to lu¥t t~tir keys. You CQu)d ha\lf SOllIE' ,classes of permit
parking that was valet and some that were nolo ihe cost of these spaces
is n!>body'5 ilJiaglllatio:1. "'e all hope they (an be built for 519,000, but
none <If us .ilri! confident that they can be. ~e ha'ie honestly said to
Tnnsporht i 0;'1 thilit tnese ire expens i \Ie !Jropos it; on s on smalls ites . So
t~,t is one idea we hop€ the city will reilly lOGk at as a way of creating
a lot of ease of parking in the downto~,
The ether jS. think about what this applies to. ~ou will still ha~e pes,
Ed Storn had a PC for one reason only. He did not park. Roxy l$. going to
come along ~ith a PC where he is adding so~ extra square foetage and
needs your permission anyway. The in-liell fee is an element of that. But
at 250 Unh'eT'sity ~:.,Ienue, if we c.~me in and ~aid> illfe .ant 10,000 more
L
09/14/94
·29-
square feet. and by thf way. we dQ not ~int to park. if ~ ir~ txce~ing a
one to one fl{)or uu ratio. plus tht allO'1tE'o b(l!'luses for the district,
In1 new square footlge btl~ added outside of t~e 111o~~d zone h~s to ,~
forward' ftlr your pe'-'!$s1on in a PC, At that t1ae. you cowld say, forge-t
it, we ire not giv1n9 you SQuire footage ind let you PlY l19,Oon to park
to do In in.lleu .-hen it only ~~sts you .522,000 to parJ:: em YOl.'r owY'1 sHe.
So tnat protection is tnt bigger one tMat gets to tne ,oncern j btlip~e
yo~ are raising, Bern.
CQRllfuiongr kechi!!: If 1 can dr.!1lI a conc.1us ior: frOCl Vllat you ha'J'e said,
based on the value of having private parki~g a~ the locaticn ~ln9 at
your site. you would consider Ilaying 20 ~ercent IIOr~ t/'tal'1 the in·1i!'J fee
to have those two feltur~s?
Mr. Bur: Yes, and Ch<lp Keenan argues that IIOrt e~i='ert 1y ..mer. he Siys
tnlt there is $~ cents per foot that you Cipture if yOlO an! parking it
threi! stills per thous.ilnd ino if you H~ pHkir,g at less than thre.e stal1s
per thollsand prh·at~l.v. whether t~3t is lOt or 2S~ per foot, it is 'in
that range, Yo~ irE' really ~Qt a space lJ!'1les~ yi"1U na,.·!:' F,.'r 0.11 f·a:r~.ing.
Cowper ,",as 2\'01 .... eo becausE' of tha.t Nr:t:irg l1it. t,,-,t it 1',,1::, (.·:.t b'::f":'"J J
factor, But the W;Jlgre€f; building i:-r:o~ a s~'ac,:. {';;'f d var}et'( of
reasons. One is. that it Cl.1E'S [lot. ~!a'~E' \';'.'ei1at,111ty ~f Pf]',ate p~r;;ir:g cr
it:J,"Hii<!te1y adjacent parUii9. SO .YOU ,"'·;:.uld ~.r(:,·,'ide )c·,.:r C ... ;1 ~~rJ,lr'9 for d
small difference.
~ll"!'lIissjoner Beedram: ~":-i.l1d yul! .a1s:j edlJ(ilte i;': Dn kn.jr; " bit r·:,r,,·.
make tne analog)' to thE' ber:d of taKing" !':.ort9?l9e" i,lU! or] ~i ~.·n:s(, N
nna~"cjng my car, and the adyant.ige to IT\<; of fir;a!;cir!g as oppose,} to
pay; ng out of pocket, 1f the cit)' builds;) structurE' for the aSSEHf':'..;;nt
di Urict and tne rates lire high, therefore He ESE>ssr"'.er,t di stri ct Hys
they will not do a bond. How do they Pili)' for it?
"Jr. Baer: Well, they lioT'1't. I am reall), saying t!'1lt the t;rr,;ng ir, SQ>1'>€
rear wind{l\ls, you lIIould have ilissessment district wnH<; 5.oI;)'ing )o'a:it iii
iii n<Jte , we ate at the pea.~ of a publ ic finance ~arket, and we 5.ee we .care a
ye-.ar away from a national g.eneral e1ecti.cn. let's. h'ait arod see .... hat
hapj)l:'ns. You can Sfi! thil in very consol t-d~led o-.mers.hip, pubi i(
assesslllents for things like freewiY iJl':)lro .... ements in Trilc)' ",,~ere t'""O <)wners
were resp~nsible for the whale payment. Th~y will debate abuut the time.
It is not iii very good example I have used as ipplying to I 200~o.~er
B5sess.ent distrtct.
CDfIII!i$sioner Beec"a,: So in ilr.-ost e'lery Ca.Sf, doi n9 il bond i:'i not iln
option, You would hil~e to d{l a bond if there is no ether way of finilncing
it.
Me Baer: One important factor that ~ar'o'in has made informatior. aVillable
to us a~ut (and perhaps the Planning Commission should know ibout) i~
that our bond rate for parking in the downtown is 3.2¢ a ~nth, 32c a yeir
per fool.
Comissiongr Beecham: What is a b'Jnd rate?
Mr. Bur: We own a buildir";g of 10,000 square feet. What we po}' tr,
parking bond fees as part of our property taK bill is 32( per year en that
ID,OOO squa~ feet, so that is $3,200. If our rents are at S3.00 per
--__ ~< .,.,~ .. , J' .. ;.."
09/14/94
-30-
squar! foot in the downtown. we ire paying 1 percent of our facility cost
toward parking, That 1s pretty extr~ordin~r11y low. Part of wnat the
ownership, col'!ct1v!ly. is s~y1ng is that a~ our rents have gone from
$1.50 ot the tl .. let J .is funded to S3.00 In this er., we often say w.
are und.rfunded. P.r~!ng Is a blgg.r problem th.n fInancing. It is tl ..
to doub1eo that ,lsseuMnt, ~r ever. .orE. WE' won't Mear scream~ from
retailers about thlt the way we .1gMt have when it was a bigger percentige
of their total r.nt.
CR"1ss1oner Beecha~: In ter.s of 1ncludir.g the c~st of the ~ond In the
nusber which takes it up by 10 percent, what 1s your rationale ({lr not
Including the tost of the bond?
Mr. Bur: I would Ix!' inventing one IIOtE' important than tMe rnl issue,
which Is th,t I theught .e had .gr ...... t. wh.n-the 9roup of us .. t, thit
it was at S17,300. 1 am not sure ~ether ~e would not ha¥e ~re people
speaking if we had debated H at Sl9",{lOO. 'We might have naa Ed Stonn and
his buddies and a fe~ others here saying. wait a second, or leonard fly,
who may be an applicarlt in the future for this sa.ying, ... ait ~ sec(I;;d, we
thought ..... e 'Were in alignment .at Sli',300. So 1 unnerst~no the H'.asoning.
My bi.gge.~t argu~e-nt would be Hat 1 thougt;t 'We I1o.d agreed lJpor, S11,300.
CQrmllssjcl'1er Beecham: I understand t~ilt th~t j ~ I>Ih.at happened at the
meeting. As we ha¥e it now, does jt ma~e sense to include the bond or
not? 1 ~m working to find out what was the reason for not in,luding it.
Jf either of you can help us. to. understand th:at, ! 'fiCli.Jld apprHii!:t€ H.
Mr. Baer: 1 will create a couple of scenarios. 1 think th~se are t~in9s
we have th{:lu'9ht about before. One of those \IIiould be exactly .... hat you
talked about .. putting a IIlOrtgage on your !101M!. l;n't it ~etter to
finance than to pay cash? One of the things that is happening with the
tn·lieu fee is. wouldn1t 1t be gre~t if they could sa}" h:t ~ finance
more than my pr~·rata share of the parking bend? let me pay ~j S15,000
per stall 1r, bOl'rowing at S percent interest. rather t~an funding H at
bank rates of 9 percent interest. It would n~t be an issue. It is th~
fact-that the in-lieu payor is paying in hard, difficu't·to·fin~nce
dollars.
Th~ second is that in the list of ad.antages and ~isadvJntages thlt Marvin
laid ~ut about whether we were picking a rate that 1s too low, and whit is
the danger and exposure of that, as of picking one thlt is too high, 1s
that over a $5 millien to $7 oillion .ss.ss ... t Dond, which i, the kind of
range we anticipate toming up, ~e Ire really tilk1"9 about soaething that
~ay have a .agn1tud~ at the outsld~ of i quarter of I .ll110n dollirs
being undf!rfunded. I may be ;I 1 ittle sloppy wHt1 th.t figurE', but the
o;mcept is not off. If we are it 250 spaCES l.iI'lderfunded. thit is a hlJge
number. There is no way we are going to na~e 250 in·)i!u SPiCfS, so it
$1,700 per space, or.e hundred is a pretty day dre~ bl9 n~r to me. At
$1.700 times 100 spaces, is 5170,000 out (If kHhr Gn i 57 .nlion bond?
Commissioner Beecham: What is the tenm of a bon~?
Mr t Baer: tllink lot J is 15 years.
,Mr, Qverwav: lot J was folded into Plaza Ra.mona, ind I bel ie'lle th~t one
is at 15 years. Sometimes they are for ZO yean, sOCDetiae.5. is long is 25
09/14/94
-31-
-_ .................. _--.---
)'urs.
Mr. Bier: ~Qthtr piece of information is that we do not park in office
ilying, to distinguish It frOft retail bec~use retai' is so hard to
8ei5Ure, we do not park In our office at anywhere near to four per
thousand, We hive do~ three or four of our bUildings, WhlCh are n~t our
hrger bulldings, $u,h as 250 Unhierslty Avenue. The l{lwer level is for
30 9 000 squire feet used by Oi91ta1 EquiP=ent. There are 69 spaces there
with 15 unused spices. Di;ilhl happens to be a low-intensity user. At
wells fargo SI"k, there are probably 40 or SO unused stalls In the
underground glTlgr there. The law firm does not happen to park at a four
per tho. SInd ritl •.
At 525 University Ayt~ue. they ~!Vt relsons for advocating their fl9ures,
but they would argue that theirs 1s st'tRWhere ~tweer. 2.B and 3.1. Our'
~xperience would be t~at .e ~re ;n the 2.8 to 3.2 rangE, depending upon
the type of office user. lilt-lis Farg<J tank is pretty hard to meClsure. If
you go there at lvnc~ Ind there ire Z~ peoplf ~tandin9 in liMe, It is ~ard
to get a count of t'!I'.plcye~s or at 11 (ornaio, For owr office users, J
think ~taff would agrff t~at ~e h~ye a se~Sf th3t we art well under 3.5
and prab,"-bly c1oQs~r to 3.2 il1 thl' do'!(!')to\lffl, ~o aMther argument ,"ould be,
We gTe not 'H)'1l'!9 let's go do .. ~d'Jtoric ~~ tf1i!it would change ten years
from n~w, so _e are clOSfr to four, rh~ parti,ulir type of users we h3ve
h;d in the l~st ten years do not park at fOL!r per thousand.
Chaim3Jl._.9j.~.J<.ian: Seeing no other SP~.iI~(!rs" J will dose the public
portion of the nuriil9 and bring it back to the c:orrmissior.. Are thHe any
questions for staff?
Corrrnis:;igoer Schmidt: A couple of p'eeks-ago when w.e l()cked at the project
en [;renon Street and lytton A"-linue "irl regard to in-lieu fees, the t{)pic
ca~ up ab-out paying the fee at a diffEr~nt time, which has been ~ntioned
sf.'IIeral times this e't'ening. I believE ~s, Case said that it is easier to
collect it at the beginning than, at Ule end. We have again hurd tonlght
frOG the public that thit iiming bf! changed. Would you spfak some ~re
about that? Is it pos.sible to dQ any $ort-of phi-sed fee collection?
Soaethir.g at the beginning and so~tning at the end, as occurs with some
other types of fe~ collection.
Ms. Cas!: I would like to have Nancy respond to the administrati'lle burden
is!Uf, i:H.lt with res~c:t to the timin9, t~e cnly requlre.ent that we are
ur~er with respect to legal requirements is, if we were taiking ab~ut
hGusi~g. we are required, und~r state law, not to collEct it until
occupancy. But with respect to non·r!sidenti~l, ~e ha~e the ability to
collect It earlier. So legallYl it could be colll?cted earlier or later.
Ms. Lytlt: Thp. administrative issue is whether or not you ha~e a willing
payee. If you have I willing payee, It is not a ~atter of staff being
particularly lazy and unwilling to spend their tim€ on this iMherent
problem. It is a matter of how much resource 9Qes 1nt.o the c:ollection of
the fee. At building permit time, people pay up_ There is no issue.
They are trying to ... est a right tnat they are go1019 to lose. There reany
is not much time, effort, energy, or city ey.p~nditure that goes into the
collection of that fee. There tends to be a great d€al more effort,
energy and ti.e and a less likely coll.ction of the fe. at occupancy. The
reason for that is that one is under a great deal of pressure at occupancy
09/14/94
-32-
.ti"-
----
I
I , ,-
i
I
I
hiVing to de with oth~r fitt~rs. Perhaps the mayor has scheduled a ribbon
c'J"tting ceremony for the store opentng that weekend. That is sOfJ"I'E'thjng
thlt the newsPGP~rs hive written about; peopie have plann~d a big party
t"'~re. Pollticil press!..ll"'t! is on us to a11ow 1 in some way. occU'pancyof
t~e butldin9' Tnen we are in the position of having given aCCUpinC)
wit~t ~a~nt. That cln t~ke time and resourtes out of the public
~gency. perhaps leiding to tM€ hiring of a collection agency. etc. after
the occupancy is granted. We do not hay~ as strong a club at the later
ti~. It is not i~5s1bl~. legaliy, we ~ave the right to do it at
eHtM!r i!~. It 1 s a matter of ho.; ~ch pu't'>lic expenditure you ire will !ng
to put into collecting that fee. You art going to nave tne likelihood of
.ore publ}, expenditure at on! point than you would at the other.
cwtujoou Schlljdt: And thit irgument would apply to ilIrlY sort of phased
collection, ,f you co1i~cted hi1f ~t the beginning and half at the end.
Ms. Lytle; You fa.'Ou16 have the assurance of getting it with less resource
expenditure, partially. and ~ore resource eKpenditure p~rtially. This is
not i rulf; it is ~ tenden~y.
CQ!'T"i,siO!"l~ __ r ____ ~_~gco;_b_~_~: J D€1ieve Ujil;t ilt our h:>t meetlr"1g, when His is'SLlf
n~ l1P, staff said the)' wowld (.i:""-:' bad ""'ith arr assesslT'ent ar:li provide us
'lriith !:'lC're inf(ll"1":'.atior> o:~ the ir:f)-.lct of r'[1ving poricy fro."'! one ttl the
other. I m~y have ~is~ed it in th: st~ff reprrt, but do you h;YB ~ny more
,r,fcr:--at'vn fc,r us. on tMe ·ir-pac.t of da,\i9"\r,9 the poi icy from (',I',~ dh'ect~cn
to Ule oUi'r?
~s lktle: Nothing, othEr tha~ ~hat ~a~ been covered
repert. That is the level ~f analysis thlt was do~e.
olc:!.dreS!.ed il'\ the re~ort .. a~ I IJroderst.wct \to
in the staff
It was just
C-omiss!oner Eucha}}l: 1 apparent1,)' ~iss-ed jr! Hie staff report that. issue
belng addrl!!Hed. I apologize for tf'lat. 't!IlIere in the r.eport is It
~ddresse-;j?
!!s. little: What .. as decided was that they would respond vfrbaily to trl&
isSLlE" rather than irrclu<1ing it in the staff r.eport • .as I am learning here
at ttH! table. T~ere was no analysis in the staff report. The issue ~f
~1ch f~s we collect ind where, we are clear on now. That WlS recownt~d
'n the testi.ony earlier, that the transportation mitigation fees ire
currently collected up fr~nt; the housing BMR 1s split; and housing
co..erciai fee is at the time of ~ccupancy.
COMlujQntf" (.rruco; Regarding Mticing, the agenda tonight says that
t~e st.ff rec~nds th.t the fee be $17,300. The staff report says
119,000. Does that have to be renoticed if you go with S19,OOO?
Ns, e,se: Ho. the staff report is not controlling. in case you are
referring t~ a Brawn Act issue. The agenda is what is controlling.
ChilM!in Ojakian: The agenda says S17,300.
,",s. Case: It does not ,'lave to go back. The amount of the fee is not
5ubstantlvf, as. far as the Brown Act issue is. concerned.
lliirman Ohkhn: It appears that we ha .... e several items before us. We-
09/14/94
-33-
"
" I
have to look at wnethtr .-e-.,ill apprO've the negiltive dechr .. 'Uon on this
itHi. Also, we hnt! the adoption of th-e drift ordinanr.e. If J a!l'>
fath(lal1ng ..tilt people hil~e bun Siying tor.ight or. the secor'ld H.$u(-, 1t
looks like d1scuss1or, could centtr ilrou~d three ar~a$. One is the ~thod
of calcul.tlon, {Ind ; did not h~ilr toe .any p~ple cosment against net
new spIces being us~ u r.1rt of the fCl"Wll a) I and iII.!.)'be S~
r.:omi5sioners 'all"t to CO'ISICnt Otl that, i!jlj/or how yC'u c .. ~ up lliith the
figure of S17.300 or S19,OOO based on S~ different types of struct~res
ilnd kow you bl~tded that tQgether to co.e ~p with that n~r.
A1SG ~r the .ethod ~f C;lCU}iltiD~, there is. of ~ourse, this whole
1ss~ ~f what fin~nce c~lrges s~ould or should not be lncluded in there.
If that is ~1nt fl, t~ .eth~ of cllculiltion. then Point 12 would be
1OQki~ at t~ -.ethods of adjust.ent.-Und~r thAt. there Wi~ ~~
ca.ent in the report .tbc-ut tyirl9 this to indu1~9. In essence, irld hlv1rr9
an annual r-e~ie. of SOlIe sort to t!\lil IJi\te.
Th~ Hird thing that see:':'ls. to (C~-€ LJ~ i!> tlH:ii:'9 abo-..rt colledion. Is it
done .at u;(' tj~ of t~e pef'l:"it or is. it d~i:f' ~t the t;1""f' (if occupanry Dr
sc~>';' '1Hjatlor. ti1ereof. Hr:-,sr: :;i"'e~· to .~O' t~(· 'I:e .. ' thirgs that ~,c-,:,pie hOi'o'!,;
been ge~tl~g it. If we co~~r t~os~ t~Q 2r~3S ar~ unj~r t~e se~on~ on~,
get lnto $O~ of these Issue:::, ~'e .odil /',=' .... ; ,j,:i1~ ~ pr€"tt)' 90':;Jd j~,l:l of
addressing this.
~C:"ni..Jl_tQ_r'_~L ___ I; __ Ci: __ ~ __ ~_E;'J: Lit pssibl", (L> (e,lled thH fe-e at d point in the
begloi1ing or middle of cCh::.tI'JJctic:l, or do "'~ hJve n:;> c'~r!tl'o) Q,'er than
Ol"tce we i:ssue a oliildlng per.:'it. ca~1 ::c.':lstrw;:tior. begin <It iLn.,. ti~? iihat
'We are beirtg told is Ulit we is.s.\.l~ iI b~ildifl9 ptJn1it, and the pruject !rI,ay
not be built for a yeH cr !lore, nilt s.e!c'l:1s. 1 ikE'! ~n 1Jnreasor.able .3r.lount
of ti.-e. It cowld be built tQ::'oOrTc .... 81Jt d0CS tl1e city actlJ.:lll, has no
contio' over ..-hen canstn:ctioi"l start:.: 15. tI'.~re no ti!l:-i> in t_~e middle?
M..i~: Thilt 1 s true. 1ne constn;(t lOr. c.ar. ti~e pl ace as long as the
penait is ilctive. We do not have-contro1 o~'er when.
CnajY71an Ojakhn: That ciJuld be iI dcublt·eoged sword. On the Cril! side.
if JOU collect it it pe~it tiNe a~d it is not constructed fer a·_hne.
that is t~ Dur ad\la.ntige in some ways t~ the city. ~aybe it is an
incentive to bul1d the thing Quider. Or. H!e other side of the c{lin, if
you do no! collect it at that point in time. ob~iously ~~body Cin hold
off on con~trtlct1o!'l for a.lthil~ becaus.~ they hnf not paid the money.
aut fro. whit you said ~fore, there iTe !oee other aechanis~s that could
~ used, et,'en it the tilM! of Cl>nstruc.tioo, to help gUilrantee Hit
pa,YJtlent. One might be that you ~tt"ch S~ ::;ort of a late charg~ if it is
~ot paid 2t the point of occupancy. It could b~ another 5 p~rcer.t. There
arf lllethoos out there, and I Olin sure we cOlJld COM' liP witrl something. I
nave neard both arguments tonight, a~d you could S4ke an arg~ment either
way. We could go with the l~tter and still put In some disincentive for
not paying on time.
(umissioTi€; Beecham: Fro,,; staff, 1 ... auld like
hi s.tory of the di ffi cuHy and eXp€flst> of tryif19
builder at point of occupancy permit is~uance.
to pay at that point. and because the mayor has
we do. in fact issue th~ occupancy pe~it, what
L
09/14/94
-34 -
lO f1nJ o-ut !nor;: on the
to (ol1e.:-t funds from Q
If a builder is reluctant
a grand cpening~ etc., and
avenues are available to
--
the city to collect the funds?
Ms. Lyt1t: T~!y ITe t~~ same Ivenues th;t are available to Iny ,gency.
W. would first go through normAl channels of ootlf)'ln!) tn.." We then hire
a co1lection IgencYt we take th~ to c{)urt, i.e .• the SltJ\E' cl'1iln!'ltl:s th,t
anyone else has.
~1s$loner Beechtm: When the city does that, ~hit percent~g~ of loss do
we take from that collection?
Ms. (lse7 ]f we turn it over to a (Ql1ection agEncy, it is generally
SO percent. Lately, tke City Attorney's office has been doing those. We
recently got. f •• fr .. a rec.lcltra.t dev.loper who hos .,tu.l1y boon In
t~ city for quite. few yeors, He paid part of the fee, then did oot p.y
the relli1nder. The city t~e,., agreed to eT1ter intc. an igreeeent w'rth that
develoger which allowed him to pay the fee a little lIter. Then they
either did fil~ or thr~atened to file bankruptcy insteid. Tha city did
finally get all or most of the money, but there \."a$ quite a bit of
1 itigation in .... olved. in w!lich 'He, .... e did nol ha.'E' to gin the r'"c,ne-j' ~o
anyone else, bl!t thHe is a fair a~(lunt of ti~e ~:<per;d2d.
Cqmis"ionr,r Beecharr;: Ho\o\l ~an)' '(i::o;es h~s. that happ-:-I"d:d il1 th.,; last fi .. e
years, would yeu say?
Ms. Case: I can think of (lr1€ inst;.HlcF; thi!:L ~3~, qO:1€ to tt!~t €~hr,t, "r,,:;
one other that has ceme to OUf offie!. I d~ not·~nc~ ~O~ often this
-occurs. I ilSSIJmE' there at'~ SO,T:e that get resoh:ed before-beirro SH,t to
our ~ffice. I do not know about t~cse th~t went to collectjon-age~(je5
before ~ started doing our o~n litigation.
Ms. Lytle: I know of about four lnstilnce~ "'hue 'WE" tHIl'P hi:d to in\iolve
sOO'~ ~nforcement collection agency, but keep ',I", r:o.ind Hat WF, no-w iilyoid
collecting at that phase. Our gOi!l is to try and get fee~ c:)llfCt.ed in an
earl ier phase. Most times when Ife nil ..... ! an i!ll~act !rtitigHion fee, we tillD€'
It to the bulldiog per.lt issuance,
COllll1l.ssioner Beecham: Are thosl! fOIJr in addition to the two thit ~L C~~e
referred to?
Ms. Lytlg: Yes, t~ey did not Mile it to the att~rney's office in te~s of
enforcement.
Commissioner Beecham: O¥er ~hat period of t;~ did th~y tak~ pi ace?
M~, LVtl§: That has been during the six years I have been here.
CQrnni:><:jgner Beecham: How many people need to pay ;none.)! at the time of
occupancy peMm1t? That Is four or six out of how many cases?
Ms. lytle: Hundreds,
COlmlissiQner Beecham: It is a ~ha;ne ;1 t;l! city loses mcney, but eLl a
percentage baSiS, it is not very high.
Ms. lytJe~ \lie do not now collect many fees at that time. That is the
only qualifier I could say, The hundreds are all fees that are col'ected
09/14/94
·35·
, -
earlier or later,
dlfflcult to de an
• ltlg.tlen f ••• we
We have not done an
ana1ysis , very time
hive collected over
analysis. and tt would be very
tansum1ng. of all the different
I peri~d of time .
Commissioner Beecham: Of the four you are aware of, do you know how much
.aney we lost on those, approximately?
~tll~ No, because we have not traditionally traced our t~~, as city
staff, and CDnsid~red it a ~net~ry issue,
eo..iss1nner Begcbam~ WerE they not goin9 out to collection agencies at
t,l.t tl ... ?
~: Before that happens, there is internal staff tiae. Th~n it
goes to the finance dep~rtment. Th!y are the ones who have cooperated
with us in getting collection agencies,
Commissiqner Beecham: In those (ase~, had we iss~~d the cccupa~(y permit
and were still owed money?
fu----b:£1J..t~ That is correct,
,0mi$siDnerJll.th£!:J: Why did we is:;ue the oCtup.anlY perr.dt jf the)' o"ed
us mcn2Y?
Ms. Lytle: We were pressured to do that, for a number of r~ason~, We
.... .ere prtssl,ir~d to allow <lccu;>a.'II;:Y, and th~ fee was. fOTgi \'en Clr a story was
accepted that it would b~ forthcoming, That is. not an unusual
occurrence. There is a lot {If fone that comes to bear at that stage in a
building's con~tructiGn.
COl'ill'lissjQr~r Beecham: ! am sure we wowld $;11 J ike to s~e flexib,l it),. 1n
any case.
Ms. LytlE: Yu, and our gent-ral attitude is to be customer· service
oriented, givin9 people the benefit of tn~ doubt,
Cgmmissioner Schink: Nancy. you could just have a hard and fast rule that
stated that the occupancy pennH would nDt b~ issued withot.!t the payment
of tnE fee, regardless, or if it WEre in the ordinance, wouldn't that be
1 i.iting?
Ms. Lytle: You could have it. I don't know t"at it would work. but yes,
you could nave it. IT, my experience, it is not l;~ely to hold. It is law
now. in tne ordinance. So the rule is. there, It is just one that is a
v€ry tough one to stand tall on.
Cnrnmlssioner Sch1nk: Once the occupancy permit is issued, can it be
revoKed?
Ms. L yt 1 e : 1 ilSSUml.:! it can.
CommissiQner Carrasco: You also have control through the uti);ti~s
departm~nt to not supply power. Secondly. I am net sure if Palo Alto has
an occupancy permit. Maybe the building perrnH is admlnisteral, You
might have to gi~e final inspection if all of the administrative.issues
09/14/94
·36·
;
"-,-
i
L
I
I
I'
! ,
Irt reaedied and everything is in there. Perhaps that is what you are
spea~;~ ~f. But if there Is a lot of pressure, I do not see that as a
good reason. If there 1s pressure, that means t1iat sorr:--eone really want.~
to occupy the bul1dir19, and that is iii great ~ay to extract more than the
fee, If you wanted to.
~: CC4l!!i ss iqnrr Sc:hink: move approval of He EIA and approval of
t~ ~raft ord1nlnce, with two revisions. The first ;s that the fee be
$17,300 .nd thot the in-lieu fee should be paid at the time or issuance of
the occup.anty permit or prior to occuplncy of the building. The question
of to. $17,300 i. pretty straightforward. That Is the cost of the parking
spice, excl~;n9 bond origination fees. Wnat was described to us was the
cost of or'ginating a bond, costs only incurred for financing purposes.
SP it Is pretty cut and dried. Tney are separate issues, and that fee
should be kept .ep.rat •.
nit! second point is, ..... hy should we wait six months or a year into the
process for ccl1ect1ng those fees? It is becaus~ there !s interest
involved in the a;cney. 8y P':.y rOlJgr. c.ilculations, WI! are ta.lking .. bout
close to a thous3nd dol13f$, If a project went along, right from the
st~rt, within six ~onths, using an 8 pErcent interest rate ~ith t~e ~sual
loa~ origination fees, t~at i~ 1n extra thousand dollars ~e are asking the
builder lc pay if he PdYS up front, as oPPDsed to the time h~ is placi~g
the demand ~n t~e p~rkinQ spaces. So 1 feel 1t j~ reJsonable that we as~
that j t tit' pa'rrl at HI~ t1rTie of t1CCUparj()'.
s£co~o: 8y Commissioner Carrasco.
Cbll; rm~~ill: The mot ion that we have bE'for,p us i 5 to accept the
staff recolir.endation en Page 1 of the st.:aff repoi"t: Staff recomends that
th~ c~issi~n recommend that countil (a} approve the attached negati~e
C'ec-1oil.rationj and (b} adopt tt1e attact1~d draft ordinance, pro~idir-9 for the
collection of an in-lieu parking fee of 519,000, and est!bltshing the
procedures for Hs collection and management. TMre Hi;> two re .... isions.
One Is to set the parkir,g fe. at 517,300, .nd th.t it be collected .t the
ti~ of occupancy as oPPoled to issuanc~ of the building p~rmit.
'Q9Missicner~rri$cg; The re~son why I second~d it ;s that it is cleaT
that the real tost of the parking space ;s 117,300. There i$ no bond
finilncing it tha.t pOint, so there shoJJld not be a charge for the bend at
th.t point. It should be the re.l co.t of the parking space. The second
reason for seconding It th.t I like the Ide. of paying the fee at the
point of occupancy. as that is. where the real problem is (',reated. That is
when people are otcupying the building and ,.,111 need parking. Therefore,
tnat is. the appropriate time.
There is another issue relating to hardship, which Jim Saer spoke to.
That up· front money is really e~pensive money. 1t is not financed and is
out ~f pocket, developer money, which is ~ard to come by. It is much more
expens1v! to do it then tha r , later,
J wO:Jld add a friendly amendment, which is that we :5trongly recommend tc
council that we add a different process for non·residentia.l construct ion,
to be in place her~ to direct staff to come up with a separate ordinance
that allows residential construction to use the same benefits.
09/14/94 .
-37·
i'
I
i
I
I
I
Ii-_.~ ____ .. ,
.-----. -----
PI$. Cue: would suggest thilt 11,')1..' do that IS I sepHate Mt jon.
~1,:s.i?ne~ ClfrISCO; A11 right.
CbJjrlfn OJ.ki.n: Any othEr ea..ents on the eotion ~f~re us?
CQllissioQrr BtfcbJ!:
the lPPlic~nt does not
cost in constructing a
This is " qlJ'2.5.tion to the lu'Ker of the IOOtion.
Pi.Y the bond cost, bot in het , there is il bond
f~cility, who does pay the bond cost?
If
C9"11S1oncr $chink: The bond costs ar~ for the bond. It is a percentage
of tl\t: eMGUnt of -aMy thlt netds to be rilis~. You are redl.lcing tMf
..ount of .aoey that needs to be T~ised by the in-lieu fte, so that ~as my
~"e"stion tulier about percenhgu. That !>ond fec is ]0 percent. It is a
1~ crisin~tior. f~, essentially, .r.d sin~e y~ ire not having to borrow
thtt .,ch -.on!!!)' beciluse you hi'{e H,e in-l ;eu fee, the res.t of the people
wn{l AN iJsir;g the p,.rki ng spaces ...,hc. He paying in the asses:;:m-ent di strict
are p~ying for it.
Cf'4r'1~siQ1'q:r 8t;!echa~.: So assiJ~ing t.hat Hoe in·lieu f~e is p.dd before Ue
stn<t'Jre is built ar:d the ~Oi:.j f1et''ds, to be issued. is it at the city's
o~1ic'!'1 on ;.I",etr,er Dr not UI€Y a.chajl, apply the in-lie'.! fu tQ fE'QUCt' HIE
bond reqlJ I red?
(9':T',j~_L"-'J': __ I: ____ ~;J_hJI!.t: '1'1250, .ar~,::! He tri;-ky ques.t i011 .... 'ol!ld beco'l\e', in tnt!
flJtur~: ;::fter yo'-l iS$.ue (! t,ord, if you are s.til1 charging in-lieu feE'S,
ar~ you guing to us~ t\1C)~e in~11eu fees to reduce your nand indeb-tednen?
If net, lnd yo~ continlJe to k~ep the~ and accrue them, then jg~in, JOu
sr.ouio Tlot c:hU'9E the bend fees, If you start US\r.g in·lieu fees t.Ct
re-dLicE your b\JM 1noeoU'dn-e-ss, Hen "it is justified to charge that bond
tost,
COI!!!riS:;;iQ(1"r B~j'£ta'!!:: Perh.lps :'ihff can t"lel? ITo:: to understand tt"lis. In
tne pArking ~ss2ssment struct~res we have allocated, dQ _e normally build
th~.in adv.n'~ of g~tt;ng f~es or after getti~g ffe~? Do ~e anticipate a
need, a~ build it, or do ~ Wilt until there is. a ne~ out there and we
have c;llected fees, lnd tnen build it?
HI". Qy@T'ltlay; We hiVE never co 11 ected fees in advance. A 11 of the
structures that hay~ been done in .y ten years, and 1 am $ur€ even
preceding thlt, hai ~n through ,sse$~senl districts. A project is
identified, wnetker it is i surf~ce lot or a structure. ~nd an ass!ssment
district is fon.ea, bonds ~rf sold ~nd property DWners are assessed to pay
th.t off,
Ms ('Sf: let me idd tnat tnl> fee l~ set up so that it tar. be utilized
i~ two w~lS. Jt tin either be collected before a structure is built or a
structure could be built and j ,ertain n~r of spaces reserved for
r!iBburs~nt by liter fees that are paid. So it is set up to acccmrnodatf
~ither scenario, or both.
Cc~lliiQner 8eecham: My confused concllJsion is that 1:-1 terms of
including the band cost and the in~)i~u fee, 1 ~ould sa)' not to do it,
b1sed on two ways of looking ~t it. Jf the in-lieu fee is paid before the
struct~re is build, then theoretica11y tne bond can be reduc~d by that
~unt. If the structure is built first, and some years later,
09/l4/94
-38-
i
'--~
developaent occurs il;,.d an in-lie'Ll fef! is. p.id for spa(es ,,!lee-ated It the
tiDe of cons.truction for the iSte~s.er.t district: then one ~an say th.t
the city his ger.er.al use of these spices that ire not being lJsed by
Inyone. T~e ~ity essp.ntiilly has the free u~e of it. They ;re paYlng the
interest on it, but otherwise. the ctty has total ~se of those SpiC~S. So
I am not sure 1t aakes a big difference. but It is enough of I difffrtnce
in eitJ'Ier direction Uut 1 voul{j fe-el coefortilble ln saJ'ir,g tl'lilt the bond
cost .hould not be Included ir, t' ... costs.
CQlW1$siQner Sd'l!jdt; I u in support of lne 517 .30t. figlH"e for tnt
vlrious rei sons that nlve been ~ut fort~. 1 ~ still so.ewhat puzzled
about the apPNlpriot. tlolng of fees. I do not I ike piyill9 t,eo ,11 up
front, but ... 1so • little hesitant to .. k. th ... 11 .t the 000. W. did
a~k if there I~ Iny other possible trigger points during c~nst:uttior. to
saYt this 15 t.he 1)01"t of ftf p;yaerot. And cOIJld stop c~n$tr'..!~tion if the
fees were not plid. If 'We do not hl'¥e-in)' better till1;ng s\Jggesticns irrd
col1ect10n IDethc-d. I ",o~'d support the (ollecticn at Ut fro,;! r.a.t!ier tn4in
at thf b.e9inning. If t!'lue is s.~ other crei!t;vt' thir.;. tc a"..:,>, t -"ol.lld
support it. Saslc.all)" 1 a!"1 in agree':"!€nt Piit~; tb"~ ·".:.tion.
~C1lM":is1ton~L~~u.tl: l .. r. in 'S'J~r"rt of the S17,3D~ f".,. 1."'1
comfortable \lll'ith cnargil"19 Ule '~hoh' Hs.e~~I""t:nt district !'..:rr t~,E" coit Qf
the bond. I im cD~fortable with the fart that alth~L,~h t~e r.~b~r of
o'rlners 'fino gath~red to dls,:uso;; this and r.::-co to ~ C'c'~~rc"i S~ J.ia.~ J
rehti\'.ely 5~illl grot:p OlJt of t~'f t.0L:1 nu-'_b=r cd 0'''''10'(,:' 1r> the <::~5.td(t,
that figure has. S.C'fle' agreeJ:'>€nt e .... CJr~g the,:. Hie)' i!:i'€' C-C-;ll"c:";)sir'J ,a~!j::g ~
variety of vje~oints, which J fj~d relpf~l.
Like Kathy, I .... ·ould lik~ to h,,'t':2 .$~thing in Hlt~ r1idJ1e of th~ process,
which J was lOOKing for ur1ier .... ith r" .q~estion. [."; n,t'rE' SON' otl':er
trigger p~int that work~? ~hat I a~ being told )s that th~re is none. 1
a'so have ~ixed feelings. After all, this is the ri1y, and ~e ne~d cur
IItOney. and we .... int it up front. At the sa~ tim:>, we want thE' de.,~lopment
to happen, so I HI torn on this lssue, I 111,11 support Hoe DOt ion at ttl; s
ti!l'e, but if stiff an tome up "an SOCDe interilll S.til:ge. 1t4ybE thlt can be
100ked at in th! meantime.
Chairman Oi.akian: First of ill, I w.nt to thank the stiff. 1t is r:ot
something thit typica,lly c~s before the c.o."1IllSS ion, ilr>d )'ou halie done in
excellent job of liying it out for us to digest .mat is .going on.
Obviously, we h~ye done that by tne deg~e of dtbite we arf havir.g over
some of the finer points.
From hearing the motion and the com.ents of other c~issior.ers. 1t sounds
like we have tacitly accepted the prinCiple of net new spaces inc tt"te
formulas you have ~se-<l to arrive at the figure of -517,300. I need to !'lote
that. Also, it sounds like for the ~~djustjng ~thods." t~!re is a need
to nave in ar.nual review to keep ev~luatlng where this number is set It,
and lDoking at tne indexing factors as they relate to it lre acceptlbl~ to
people here. It (0BE5 down to a couple of issuts around wheth~r we shoul~
or stHHIld not include Ue bond amount as. pi!.rt of the cost of the in·1ieu
fee and the point of collection.
I basically '9". with the motion before "' .nd tr,<' figu,. of HI,300,
realizing that we .,ill look -at this p':fiodiCilly and see if the number
remains valid. The second isslJe on tne point of collection is one we are
09/14/94
-39·
r ,
i
i
I ,
\!'
groping with. 1 think C~1ssiGner Cassel's comnent is probably the right
one. So.ewhere between this ~et;ng and tht council's considerftlon of
the it~", the shff should rea"llze that sinct we are groping Jltith that,
they may want to address that a little further, looking for some other
apprGiches. Maybe some of that can come from the developmEnt c~un1ty.
T~ bottom line is that ~ want to collect the IOney. That plays into
SOlIe of th~Sf oUter numbers ~orking out. J always try to avoid the
negative, .so wtlen I deal wtth business lIatters, I try to h'Ke the approach
thlt .... one ,. 90'"9 to provide us ~ith what .... nt. Th •• if that does
not happen, .aybe you haye .... things that ire factored in th<re. ",ybe
you want to look It th~s I"d say oxay, a f1rst-ti3e offender, Issu.ing
that someone ~ight want to build again, 1f t~ey do not provide the feel
aaybe we .ould pr<ly1de ._ .ort or penalty .g.lnst th.... Or .ttach i
penalty at the t1 .. of collection th.t 1f 1t is not paid, ther, Is
soaeth1og t~it happens to ~ke that n~t as palatable to do. Those aT! my
tDRlnents •
Commissigner C3rras!;,Q.: Will you chiinge that wording of "10,000 sQI.J~re
feet or less'?
!:!.l., .. Ja~.,g: We will do that. "'~ 'Will asswii"~ thlt it is a part of the
mot ion.
M01l9_ti..PA~J~: Chairman Qiak,an: The motion is. to approve the s.t,",ff
·reco~;rnendii.tion a~ found on Page I of tile staff report of Spptf~be'r 14:
St~ff reconT1l+:!l1ds that the corrmission recO,''!r.'cnd th<lt COL;riCil (il) a.~-PNV€:
the a.ttached negatille declarition; and (b) adopt the atti!che6 draft
ordinance. providing for the collection of an In-lieu p~rking fee of
$19 1 000, and establishing the procedures for its collectiQn and
rnana9~!Tlent. with the following rell;sions. ).ie recolT'rTIend th~ in-lieu
parking fee to be S17.300, and to require collection of He fee,at th'E:
pOint of oCf,upaney, not at the point of issuance of the building penr;it.
All those in fa'.'cr, ny Aye? All opposed? That passe> on a vote of 6·0,
with Commissioner Glazier ab~ent.
HQIlQH: Commjssjoner CarraSCQ: I ~ve that the Planning Commi)sion
strongly recommend to the City Coun~11 that we look at a diff~rent
ordinance and/or direct staff to look at developing in ordinance_thit
would anow residential projects to enjoy the UIM! prillileges~ given that
they have the same constraints as the non .. reslde~tial proj~cts for which
we ha~e developed an ordin.nce.
~, By C~issicn.r Ojakian.
We have a motion befor~ us requiring an in-lieu parking fee of residantial
buildings or add1tior.s wit~in the CD zone par~ing is~essment district of
the downtown areQ, Is there any further discussion on this motion?
Commissjoner Beecham: As moved, what does staff see as a direct result.
that is, will ~taff prepare a report, or Simply forward it on to the
council? What comes next if ttds passes t<lni9ht?
Ms. lvtle: ThH motion would co on to ,our.,n with the report tnat
transmits this ordinance.
CO!l!'!!issiQn~r Beecham: Then it will be council's decislon on whether or
09/14/94
-40-
i'
-----------.. """" ... _-.
not to direct staff to furth'r dev.lop the idea.
M.s. lytle: That i, correct.
c2"t$s~Qner Beecham: To the ~ker of the motion, ~y assumption in
housing is that it almost a necessity, downtown, to be in an ;ssessment
district. ~ ~ssumes that people whD live there would be w:lltng to park
the~r cars in a downtown lot ind walk to their corda, ett. I wonder how
,ucces,fu1 do you think that will be?
C?"tssioner Carrascg: I think the marktt wfll filter out how devflopers
.re going to r.act to this. You n.ed the v.hi,l. to allow th .. that
option, gi.en that th.r, .re small lots and • dense, urban patt.rr of
developaent downto~, sl~~iar to co.nerci.l de¥el~pment. I suspect that
people lre 90i"9 to put in , .... _unt of parkinS on the lot. for the
~~nt of parking thty cannot get ~n the lot, they will use commercial
spaces d~rin9 the e~enings, just as Abitare and other residential projects
downtown do. We ar! leoking at lower parking rate~ for those kinds of
projects, and develop.ers are going to be pro .... idir,g som~ parking on the
site, and people will park {Iutside, juo;t as F.!\lErY0rli? does: in do,,'ntm'l'n
nijrt~ (lr SOFA.
CQm'!issjQ!'1!r Srhin..~: One of tnt! most important aspects of the in-lieu fee
WiiS the Ra.~ in which it helped prctect s.mall buildings frGiT! being torn
down when sorn~one .".anted to add s{)me Sq:JHf' footage, rl'Eviously, the
lnc.enti'lE was to tear down iil.ll tt1.e sfIlill1 bl1ildinas and ass€lTible the
parcels so you can build a big parking garage. ihe idea was for the city
to C~ up with thi~ in-lieu fee to protect the small par~els, and owners
could add on small aJIlounts of square footage. Tf,e most l09ica1 wa.y to a.dd
~n square footage is to add S~ space on the third floor and ml~e them
residential units. That is ~hy this motion would be an especi~11y
..elningful addition to the ordinance.
ConmiS$ioner Schmidt: That is certainly done in bi99cr r.:Hies liKe San
Francisco, where you ha~e off-site parking for residential units:.
MOTlaH PASS<S: Cha!rman QJakian: I will support the motion, because .hat
we are trying to achieve is the abi11ty to pay for parking in the downtown
to co~er the deficit we could have. I d~ not s~e thit it matters whether
it Is caused by residential versus comnercial. There is still 90ln9 te be
I deficit and still be a tcst to overcome it. Is there any fortner
discussion on this ~tion? Ail those 'n favor, say Ayf? All opposed?
That passes Dn a vote of 6·0, with Commissioner Glazier absent.
REpoRTS FROM OFfiCIALS
AGENDA ITEM -4 Comprehenslve Phn Ach:iscry Corrrnittee.
CQ!!issioner Schmidt: At toe joint meeting with the City Council las\
week~ Vice Mayor Simit1an raised the question, how were we going to make
th~$ a usable document? .... hat happens from the paint where it is now,
c.onsisting of nearly a thousand poric.ies and p~ograms, four Urnes the
number in the ctlrrent Comprehensi\le Plan, to its e~entual finCil version?
How does it evolve from wha.t it it now to a final document? We w€re
re~u~sted to come to the m~eting ne~t week with an answer to that. I
09/14/94
-41-