Staff Reportlowx o MEETING DATE: 08/04/15
ITEM NO:
A`o COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JULY 23, 2015
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LES WHITE, INTERIM TOWN MANAG
SUBJECT: PARKING AND INFRASTRUCTURE AD HOC COMMITTEE
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN COUNCIL:
A. ACCEPT THE REPORT ON THE WORK COMPLETED BY THE
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE AD HOC COMMITTEE.
B. DIRECT STAFF TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR A
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP TO DEVELOP A PARKING
GARAGE.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
1. Accept the report on the work completed by the Transportation and Infrastructure Ad Hoc
Committee.
2. Direct staff to issue a Request for Information (RFI) for a public private partnership to
develop a parking garage.
s : GIs a
On February 17, 2015 the Town Council established an Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) with
the goal of advancing a broad variety of infrastructure, transportation, traffic management, and
parking strategies for the Town. Subsequently the Mayor appointed Vice Mayor Spector and
Councilmember Rennie to the Committee. At its first meeting, among other items of business,
the Committee refined its purpose to focus on a downtown parking garage as the number one
priority. The Committee also determined that meetings should be open to the public with posted
agendas and minutes in keeping with Brown Act requirements for a public meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The Committee has met six times as of the date of this report. The first two meetings set the
goals and the work plan for the Committee, which ultimately led to a focused discussion on
options for Parking Lot 6 and adjacent properties (Attachment 1). The main part of the parking
lot, identified as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 510-44 -039, is owned by the Town, as is APN
PREPARED BY: MATT MORLEY
Director of Parks and Public Works
Reviewed by:
Town Manager ILtITown Attorney
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PARKING AND INFRASTRUCTURE AD HOC COMMITTEE
JULY 23, 2015
DISCUSSION (cont'd):
510 -44 -037. The third parcel, APN 510 -44 -069 was purchased by the Town for approximately
$1.5M with low income housing funds and retains the obligation for six below market rate units.
Because Victory Lane bisects two Town owned parcels, it also became part of the discussion.
The Committee reviewed the housing requirement for six below market rate units and
determined that this requirement could potentially be met through a mixed use facility on the
site, such as a structure that has ground floor commercial, second floor below market rate
residential, and parking above and behind these functions. The Committee identified addressing
this housing requirement on site as a priority.
Another key component of the Committee's discussion was the net addition of parking for the
downtown at no cost to the Town, including accounting for any additional parking needs created
by a mixed use structure at the site. This component has been included as a priority.
The Committee identified the goal of a public private partnership to develop a parking structure
on the site of these Town owned properties. The Committee heard three project solicitation
methods for achieving that goal. These include:
1. Request for Information (RFI) - The RFI is meant to judge the interest of the private
sector and gain information on where that interest lies. Typically this method is used
with a very general request, meaning less detail from the Town. The request would ask
for information on what a developer believes might be possible at the site, potentially
with several key questions for the developer to address. The private sector will provide
responses to both demonstrate interest and to help influence which project components
may be included in future requests. The RFI is usually followed by a Request for
Proposal (RFP). The advantages of the RFI include the opportunity to obtain input from
the private sector with no obligation to the Town. Information from this process will
educate or inform the content of the RFP.
2. Request for Qualifications (RFQ) — A request for qualifications is meant to establish a
pool of qualified developers for the project. To utilize this scenario, the Town would
issue a request for qualifications. This typically describes the goal of the project in broad
terms and a summary of what the Town would look for in a developer (e.g. relevant
experience, financial stability, etc.). The developers would provide information to
identify their qualifications. The Town would select one or more of the developers with
whom to negotiate terms of an agreement. Because the Town has some unanswered
questions, the RFQ process may not serve the needs as well as the RFP process.
3. Request for Proposals (RFP) — A request for proposals is meant to establish a firm list of
developers from which to select one or more with whom to negotiate. Typically a
proposal would have more detail in a project scope and deliverables, providing both an
increased up front commitment from the developer and greater clarity to the Town on the
end product. Information obtained from an RFI might provide some of the information
included in an RFP. A strong RFP would identify the requirements from the Town in
detail.
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PARKING AND INFRASTRUCTURE AD HOC COMMITTEE
JULY 23, 2015
DISCUSSION (cont'd):
To facilitate the discussion, staff presented "issues" associated with a parking structure in the
form of issue worksheets (Attachment 2). The issues consisted of information the Committee
felt it needed to explore or questions it needed to discuss. These issue worksheets include the
recommendations of the Committee with respect to each. During the review of these issues, it
became apparent to the Committee that some information was not readily available for a number
of issues or that reaching too much specificity on some issues might stifle the creative interest of
the development community. As an example, the Committee discussed the construction cost of a
garage as one issue.
Through the discussion, the Committee identified significant variables to the construction that
would make identifying a project cost extremely difficult, including mix of use, height, above
ground versus underground parking, etc. The Committee explored options such as conducting a
Town funded feasibility study to identify potential costs or allowing for the information to come
forward through the project solicitation. In the latter option, the developer would be asked to
provide a pro forma cost for the project. Obtaining the information through a project solicitation
could address many or all of the issues the Committee identified at no expense to the Town.
This led the Committee towards the RFI (Attachment 3) option for soliciting interest.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends accepting the report on activities of the Parking and Infrastructure Ad Hoc
Committee, directing staff to issue an RFI for a public private partnership to construct a parking
structure downtown. After receipt of the RFI submittals, the Committee will review the
responses and determine if the Town is ready to issue a Request for Qualifications or Request for
Proposals for the development.
Staff further recommends that the Council assign the next project or projects to the Ad Hoc
Committee following the Council's Strategic Goals priority setting session scheduled for August
18, 2015.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Town Council could direct staff to
1. Solicit requests through a Request for Qualifications. This would allow the Town to pre-
screen potential development partners based on their qualifications.
2. Issue a Request for Proposals. This would allow the Town to identify the best proposal and
move forward with that project.
Both of these directions are not recommended as a number of questions remain unanswered and
these can best be answered through a RFI process.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PARKING AND INFRASTRUCTURE AD HOC COMMITTEE
JULY 23, 2015
COORDINATION:
This memorandum report has been coordinated with the Town Attorney, the Town Manager's
Office, the Finance Department, and the Community Development Department.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
This is not a project as defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact.
Attachments:
1. Parking Lot 6 and adjacent properties
2. Parking garage issue worksheets
3. Request for Information (RFI) draft
ATTACHMENT 1
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Issue: What are setback requirements? Open ❑
Options: Closed
1. Setback as prescribed in Town Code.
2. Modified required setback.
Information:
I. The Town Code and zoning for the parcels in question would require a setback of 10 feet on
front and side streets. This can be waived with the following findings:
a. The setback provides for adequate pedestrian circulation;
b. The setback is compatible with the adjacent buildings and complements the
buildings in the immediate vicinity; and
c. The setback provides adequate clear site vision for vehicular traffic.
Additionally, because the property abuts or is across the street from a lot in a residential
zone, the code requires a 15 foot side setback and a 20 foot rear setback. The rear
setback also must increase one foot for each foot of building height over 20 feet.
2. 235 West Main (across the street) has a 10 foot front setback.
3. The building on the corner of Main and North Santa Cruz has no setback (3 N. Santa Cruz).
4. 16 Lyndon (Dance Studio) has no front setback.
Timing for Decision:
Ideally the decision would be made early to allow for accurate sizing of the structure(s). If no
guidance is provided, default will be to the most conservative.
Level of Importance:
Moderate to High
RFI Essential
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends no required front setback and side and rear setbacks to comply with the code.
Additional Information Required by Ad Hoc: Decision on building height.
Ad -hoc Committee Recommendation: Main Street: no setback; Lyndon: code compliant; back setback:
dependent on height
Page ( 1
Revised May 15, 2015
ATTACHMENT2
Issue: What is the Housing requirement?
Open ❑
Options: Closed
1. Pursue Housing on site of current parcel owned by Housing Authority
2. Pay off housing obligation, releasing restriction on property
3. Meet housing obligation across multiple Town owned adjacent parcels
Information:
The obligation and commitment for low/ moderate income housing appears to be 6 units. This
information will be confirmed by the Town Attorney.
1. The Town could choose to develop all of the obligation for housing on the parcel owned by the
Housing Authority.
2. The Town could choose to pay off the obligation for housing. This would allow for non -low
income housing on the site.
a. Options for other funds may include Town reserves, the General Fund Allocated Reserve
(GFAR), developer contributions to the project, bonds, or other solutions.
b. Specific to the developer contribution, this item could be explored during negotiations
and might mean the developer would pay the Housing Authority the market rate for the
property as part of the total development opportunity.
3. Using the adjacent Town owned property (currently parking lot 6 and potentially Victory Lane
and the sliver parcel adjacent to Victory Lane) might provide for more efficient development
opportunities, such as providing low income housing across multiple parcels.
a. The Town attorney will provide information on whether this is possible and what steps
will need to be taken to pursue this.
Timing for Decision:
If the Council desires an absolute such as absolutely (or absolutely not) developing affordable housing
on the site, this determination should be made prior to a feasibility study or RFI/ RFP.
Level of Importance:
High
RFI Essential
Staff Recommendation:
None.
Additional Information Required by Ad Hoc: When to include community input on BMR requirement?
Consensus that this will occur as the work of the RFI goes to Council.
Ad -hoc Committee Recommendation: 6 BMR minimum with mixed market rate desirable across all
Town Owned properties.
Page 12 Revised May 15, 2015
Issue: What is the construction cost of a garage?
open ❑
Options: Closed
I. Comparable structures in similar jurisdictions provide examples for the cost of construction.
2. Develop a detailed cost estimate of a proposed project
Information:
1. Staff is providing supporting information on mixed use parking structures and the associated
costs. This could provide a relative order of magnitude for the size of the project and the work
can be completed quickly (see accompanying document).
2. Staff could complete a detailed cost analysis or feasibility study. This work would be done in
contract with a consultant with expertise in the field. Depending on the level of accuracy
desired, the Council would need to provide guidance on many of the issues in question. There
would be a cost for this analysis.
Timing for Decision:
1. Comparative costs are provided.
2. A decision to conduct a feasibility study should be made early.
Level of Importance:
Low
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends utilizing the comparative data provided as a tool with the understanding that Town
needs and requirements will have the greatest effect on the project cost.
Additional Information Required by Ad Hoc: none
Ad -hoc Committee Recommendation: Ask for cost information within an RFI. Utilize staff
recommendation pre -RFI.
Page 13 Revised May 15, 2015
Options: Open ❑
1. Develop around Victory Lane
2. Vacate Victory Lane and use for the project. Closed
Information:
A discussion with SCC Fire is still pending.
Victory Lane provides alley access to the business along N. Santa Cruz and emergency access to SCC Fire.
Provision for an ongoing solution will need to occur, depending on the development. A large turn
around at a dead end of Victory Lane will impact the size of any structure.
Victory Lane could be incorporated into a structure and still allow alley access with a bridging structure
over Victory Lane. This could be a good "like to have" for a developer.
The required setback along the back of the structure may provide the necessary access. Victory Lane is
—20 feet in width. A rear setback may be 35 feet or wider.
Timing for Decision:
A decision could be based on how developers solve the issue or through a Town funded design. This
would put the decision timing after a feasibility study or after an RFI/ RFP.
RFI Essential
Level of Importance: Low
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends allowing developers or a feasibility study to address this issue with guidelines
provided by Council. Guidelines to include:
a. provide for continuous through traffic to service the businesses with fronts and rears on Victory
Lane
b. provide access to Fire per Fire requirements. Hammerhead turnaround or minimum overhead
clearance along Victory Lane
c. Incorporate potential setback along church property for access
Additional Information Required by Ad Hoc: none
Ad -hoc Committee Recommendation: Leave feasibility and options to developers to research. Ask
developers to address easements for utilities, access, etc.
Page 14 Revised May 15, 2015
Issue: What does the Town want for additional parking? open ❑
Options: Closed
1. Allow or encourage roof level parking.
2. Allow or encourage subterranean parking
3. Provide guidance on how many publicly available spaces are needed to make the project viable.
Information:
1. Roof level parking may push the limits on height, depending on limitations set on that item.
Roof level parking would maximize the use of the properties. Consider guidelines for screening/
parapet height. Proposed solutions can be solicited through an RFI/ RFP process or prescribed by
the Town.
2. Subterranean parking will be very disruptive to surrounding streets during construction.
Subterranean parking is much more costly than above ground parking. This may be necessary to
maximize parking on the site. Council could provide guidance on whether this is desirable,
necessary, or not important (possibly in relation to height and desired spaces).
3. Currently about 136 spaces exist in the combined parcels. A guiding factor either for prescribing
or asking a developer through and RFI process, might be the increased number of publicly
available spaces expected from the project. To the extent the Council would like to see a
particular increase, that number should be identified. Alternatively, the priority of maximizing
publicly available parking could be set as a project goal and developers could provide the
number through and RFI/ RFP process.
Timing for Decision:
RFI Essential
Level of Importance:
High
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends emphasizing the need for increased parking as a primary goal of the project through
an RFI/ RFP process. The RFI process should provide ballpark information. The RFP could weight the
importance of parking to emphasize or de- emphasize it. Negotiations will ultimately determine the
outcome.
Additional Information Required by Ad Hoc: none
Ad -hoc Committee Recommendation: Roof parking OK. Architectural elements to obscure visible
parking desired. Options in RFI for underground and roof parking, with no Town requirements.
Guidelines to developers to maximize the parking spaces as a goal of the project.
Page 15 Revised May 15, 2015
Issue: What is the traffic impact from a mixed use garage at this
location? Open ❑
Closed
Options:
Conduct a traffic study in association with a project or assumptions related to a project.
Information:
A mixed use development will require a traffic study triggered by the traffic generated by the
commercial and residential use. This traffic study will predict the volumes of traffic as it affects
surrounding intersections and streets.
Staff believes that there is a potential for increased neighborhood traffic going to and coming from
Highway 9, unless mitigation is provided.
A garage by itself does not generate new traffic from an engineering perspective. A garage at 246 West
Main may redistribute parking in the downtown area and shift vehicular traffic accordingly.
Timing for Decision:
Early decision if an independent study based on assumptions is desired. Project will provide a study as
part of the requirements.
Level of Importance:
High
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the traffic study occur in conjunction with the project development.
Additional Information Required by Ad Hoc: none
Ad -hoc Committee Recommendation: Collect information associated with the RFI and how the
developer might address this issue.
Page 16 Revised May 15, 2015
How a properties fit into the equation?
Open ❑
Options:
Discuss opportunities with adjacent property owners. Closed
Information:
Staff has conducted the following outreach-
1) Phone call to leasing agency for 16 Lyndon Ave. No record of property owner telephone
information is available. No response to date.
2) Phone conversation with representative from ownership group of 3 North Santa Cruz. Notes
from conversation include:
a. Current exclusive parking is a big benefit for the 3 N. Santa Cruz building. If that parking
is included, some work would need to be done on how to handle that parking allocation.
Is it that number of spaces in a parking structure or specific spaces?
b. The developer has some question on the massing of a structure, how that would affect
ability to develop and how it would fit with surrounding buildings. Expressed a need for
guidance or information on thoughts on this subject.
c. As a separate entity (McCarthy Ranch) has explored a for - profit parking only structure in
Los Gatos. Found that a need for parking from 70 -90% of the time is necessary to make
such a structure viable.
d. This developer would be interested in exploring the property wrapped with retail. Feels
they could make the numbers work with some basic guidelines.
e. Inclusion of residential would be a trade -off with parking. Allowing a combined market
and below market residential solution may be of interest.
F. The inclusion of 16 Lyndon Ave in the project footprint would be helpful but the Town
should let the development community pursue this.
Timing for Decision:
RFI Essential — Town willing or not willing to partner or otherwise include adjacent owners.
Level of Importance:
n/a
Staff Recommendation:
n/a
Additional Information Required by Ad Hoc: none
Ad -hoc Committee Recommendation: Let this item resolve itself through the RFI process.
Page 17 Revised May 15, 2015
Issue: What requirements does the Town have on the flt of the buildi
into the character of 1
Options:
Provide recommendations:
1. Screening of parking along Main Street.
a. Allow for entrances on Main Street
b. Parapet height on upper level.
2. Architectural Style
a. Style should complement adjacent buildings
3. Same questions for Lyndon Avenue and back side of property.
Information:
Provide general guidance to the developer
Timing for Decision:
Language should be crafted for a feasibility study or as RFI guidance.
Level of Importance:
RFI Essential.
Staff Recommendation:
7 ■
Staff recommends including language similar to: The structure should fit with the character of the Town
and surrounding structures. The proposed structure should not appear like a parking garage from Main
Street. Access drives or ramps accessible from Main Street are acceptable. Vehicles should not be
visible from the front of the structure on any level (staff recommends being silent on the view from the
Lyndon or back side of the property).
Additional Information Required by Ad Hoc: none
Ad -hoc Committee Recommendation: Use the staff recommendation.
Page 18 Revised May 15, 2015
Issue: What requirements are there from the Fire Department for
access?
Open ❑
Options: Closed
I. Provide detailed access requirements per the County Fire Department
2. Provide notice to developers that the Town is open to use of Victory Lane as long as the
project meets County Fire Department requirements.
Information: Staff discussed the project with County Fire. Fire currently has engine access on Victory
Lane, but not truck access due to overhead utilities. Fire was generally open to building across Victory
Lane with at least access for engine height. Fire has specific requirements for turn radius and height
clearance to reference. The use of Victory Lane can be an important part of the project and may
become even more important if adjacent property owners enter the discussion. The variables are many
and nailing down specifics at this earlyjuncture is difficult.
Timing for Decision:
At a minimum a reference to working with Fire should be included in an RFI.
Level of Importance:
High
Staff Recommendation:
Allow developers to work with County Fire to determine options for construction.
Additional Information Required by Ad Hoc:
Ad -hoc Committee Recommendation: Direct developers to work with County Fire to determine options
for construction. Add: Do whatever we can within the code to minimize the setbacks and let the
developer bring that as the boundaries.
Page 19 Revised May 15, 2015
Issue: What are height limitations on the structure?
Open ❑
Options: Closed
1. Allow for code compliant height requirements.
2. Provide guidance on height requirements that are more likely to be approved.
Information: Town code allows for a building height of 45 feet. The building at 235 West Main Street has
a height of 35 feet. The building on the corner of Santa Cruz Ave and Main Street (3 Santa Cruz Ave) has
a height of approximately 35 feet with ancillary structures, the spire on the corner, significantly higher.
Timing for Decision:
Pre RFI
Level of Importance:
High
Staff Recommendation:
Set likely height limitations at 35 feet so that the development community understands what it can
expect. Provide guidance on elevator or equipment room heights.
Additional Information Required by Ad Hoc: None.
Ad -hoc Committee Recommendation: Restrict height to 35 feet. Include options of additional height
for infrastructure with a possibility of going up to but no higher than 45' for the supporting
infrastructure, including a preference to move anything over the parapet height back from the street.
Page 110 Revised May 15, 2015
Issue: Is paid parking an option or must the parking he free?
Options: Open ❑
1. Paid parking Closed
2. Free Parking
Information: Initial information from developers demonstrates that paid parking where substantial free
parking already exists will not be a successful business model on its own. When the addition of
residential and commercial development on the site is added, there may be alternative business models
with both paid and free parking that developers would want to explore.
Timing for Decision:
Pre -RFI for limitations.
Level of Importance:
High
Staff Recommendation:
Require information through the RFI on whether the preferred proposal includes free parking or paid
parking.
Additional Information Required by Ad Hoc:
Ad -hoc Committee Recommendation: Accept the Staff Recommendation to require information
through the RFI on whether the preferred proposal includes free parking or paid parking. Add: include
consideration of reserved parking as a revenue stream and consider limited time options.
Page 1 11 Revised May 15, 2015
Issue: Is the Town willing to invest in a project?
Open ❑
Options: Closed
1. Allow the development community to fund the project.
2. Contribute financially to increase the community benefit in some definable way.
Information: A development that takes advantage of a low or no cost ground lease, commercial, and
residential construction fronting parking may be a viable project financially. However, the Town could
choose to contribute to the project to increase the benefit to the community. Staff recommendation is
to leave this open ended for the development community to respond to, including describing the
community benefit an investment by the Town would create.
Timing for Decision:
n/a
Level of Importance:
Low
Staff Recommendation:
Allow the development community to fund the project.
Additional Information Required by Ad Hoc: None
Ad -hoc Committee Recommendation: The proposals and information requests should focus solely on a
developer funded project with the Town contribution limited to the value of the property.
Page 1 12 Revised May 15, 2015
Request For Information (RFI) DRAFT
Downtown Parking
Introduction
The Town of Los Gatos prides itself in a vibrant and historic downtown. The downtown succeeds as
a destination for shopping and dining for the region, the state, and the world. This success has led
to a long standing and increasing need for off street parking. The Town Council has recently
reemphasized the importance of this topic.
The Town seeks information from qualified private sector firms on public — private partnership
opportunities that meet the demand for parking and which may also address other Town priorities.
The Town is open to a breadth of solutions and provides guidance in this RFI as to particular areas of
interest.
The information provided through this RFI will be presented to the Town Council for review and
consideration. The initial intent includes the use of information gathered through the RFI to further
guide the Council in viable opportunities. The information will likely provide insight to the Council
and help the Council to prioritize the Town needs, with the goal of issuing a follow up request for
proposals (RFP). The Council may limit the RFP submittals to the companies that submit in response
to this RFI or may open the RFP process to additional participants. The Council may also modify the
process to add additional steps or to move more directly to negotiations with one or more qualified
partners. This RFI shall in no way limit the options available to the Council.
The most qualified development team will have significant urban mixed -use experience and a
demonstrated ability to develop successful, high quality civic and /or mixed use projects, including
parking structures. Experience working in public — private partnerships is desired.
The Project
I. The Town has focused this RFI on the potential for development of three adjacent Town owned
parcels on West Main Street (attachment X). The RFI is structured to provide information in a
format of Town "must haves" and Town "like to haves." The Town requests that respondents
address each of these items, including commentary on how each item inhibits or increases the
viability of a project.
2. The Town envisions a multi -story parking structure on existing Town owned parking lots with a mix
of uses, including commercial and residential.
3. Parcel 510 -44 -069 was purchased with Town Redevelopment Agency funds for the construction of
below market rate housing. The housing use will include these below market rate housing
requirements.
4. The Town's list of required elements or "must haves" include:
4-1. The project must substantially increase the available parking in the downtown.
4.2. The project must include at least 6 below market rate residential units.
May 15, 2015
ATTACHMENT
4.3. The structure must fit with the character of the Town and surrounding structures.
4.3.1. The proposed structure should not appear like a parking garage from Main Street.
4.3.2. Access drives or ramps accessible from Main Street are acceptable.
4.3.3. Vehicles should not be visible from the front of the structure on any level.
4.4.The structure must not exceed 35 feet in height.
4.5. The project must be consistent with existing land use requirements.
4.5.1. The Main Street frontage may allow for zero setback. Side and rear setbacks must
comply with the Municipal Code.
4.6. Prevailing wage will be required.
5. The Town's list of optional elements or "like to haves" include:
5.1. Ground level commercial
5.2.Additional below market residential units and/ or market rate residential units (beyond 6
minimum).
5.3. Underground parking as a part of the solution
6. The Town provides the following additional information for consideration:
6.1. The Town expects to enter a long term ground lease with the developer for the project.
6.2.The Town is open to incorporating a portion of Victory Lane into the project boundary.
Developer must coordinate feasibility with County Fire, address easements, and comply with
land use requirements.
6.3.The development team will be responsible for obtaining all environmental clearances,
entitlements and permits at the development team's expense.
7. Submittal Requirements Provide information on the following topics:
7.1. Statement of Interest
7.2. Development team
7.3. Experience of the team and comparable projects completed by the team
7.4. Proposed project description.
7.5.Conceptual Design
7.5.1. Project Height
7.5.2. Mix of uses
7.5.2.1. How will the use address the Town's BMR requirement
7.5.2.2. Square foot size of each space category
7.5.2.3. Total number of parking spaces expected
7.5.3. Conceptual design, either verbally or illustrated, for the Main Street elevation
7.5.4. Additional design documentation as necessary to convey the intent of the project
7.6. Financing Strategy —
7.6.1. Overview of financing strategy
7.6.2. Preliminary project pro -forma documentation
7.6.3. Information on the development team's financial capacity for the project
7.7. Properties included in the proposal, including incorporating adjacent properties not owned by
the Town.
7.8. Easements, access rights, public safety access.
7.9. CEQA
May 15, 2015
7.9.1. Traffic mitigation ideas especially around traffic and neighborhood streets
7.10. Community Outreach Plan
7.11. Sustainability elements that could be a part of the project.
7.12. Operations plan to include:
7.12.1. Property management
7.12.2. Free or paid parking
7.12.2.1. Reserved parking
7.12.2.2. Time Limitations
7.13. Identify any development and building code issues requiring resolution
7.14. Additional information relevant to this project.
8. Instructions to proposers
8.1. Pre - proposal teleconference will be held 2015. Attendance is strongly
recommended.
8.2. Questions or comments must be submitted to the Town by 2015. Responses will
be communicated in writing to all recipients.
8.3. Proposals shall be submitted by 2015. All submittals shall be electronic in PDF or
DOC format.
8.4. The Town may schedule interviews with proposers subsequent to review of submittals.
3 May 15, 2015
THIS PACE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK