Desk Item'1
�a8s� toe
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 4, 2015
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LES WHITE, INTERIM TOWN MANA
MEETING DATE: 08/04/15
ITEM NO: 12
DESK ITEM
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.
REMARKS:
After the staff report was distributed on July 30, 2015, staff received the following comments
from a Council Member and the attached public comment (Attachment 5):
Specific to Attachment 3 of this Council agenda item (Draft RFI):
1. It seems to limit setbacks to code compliance but committee gave more latitude.
2. It seems to limit height to 35' but committee gave more latitude.
Staff has provided a revised RFI document (Attachment 4) that modifies the language to reflect
the comments by the Council Member. The language has been modified slightly and the items in
question moved from the "must have" to the "like to have" section of the document.
Attachments 1 -3 (Previously received with Staff Report on July 30 2015):
1. Parking Lot 6 and adjacent properties
2. Parking garage issue worksheets
3. Request for Information (RFI) draft
Attachment received with this Desk Item:
4. Request for Information (RFI) draft (Revised)
5. Public comment received from 11:01 a.m. Monday, August 3, 2015 through 11:00 a.m.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015.
PREPARED BY: MATT MORLEY
Director of Parks and Public Works
Reviewed by: 14 Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
Request For Information (RFI) DRAFT (Revised)
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
1. 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.
Rev 2 Page 1 August 4, 2015
ATTACHMENT 4
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. 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
5.4. Compliance with height limitations of 35 feet or inclusion of design elements that minimize the
visual impact from the street from building elements exceeding that height.
5.5. Consistency with existing land use requirements.
5.5.1. The Main Street frontage may allow for zero setback.
5.5.2. Side and rear setbacks should comply with the Municipal Code.
5.5.2.1. Identify locations where it may benefit the Town for setbacks to not comply
with the Municipal Code, the extent of the proposed setbacks, the benefit to the Town,
and the impact on adjacent properties.
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
Rev 2 Page 2 August 4, 2015
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
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.
B. 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.
Rev 2 Page 3 August 4, 2015
From: Angelia Doerner [mai Ito: saveourhood(@vahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 10:38 AM
To: Council; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie
Subject: Item 12 - Parking and Infrastructure Ad Hoc Committee
I am thankful for the progress made by the Committee. The presentation in Attachment 2 was
thorough and succinct.
I was surprised by the following expressed in the Staff Report:
"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. "
I had no idea these meetings were open to the public. I have spoken with Stephanie Angelo of PPW
who was very helpful in explaining how the noticing process was handled. Written notices were
posted at the Library and at the Community Development department. No electronic notices were
made. I would have expected that people who are already on the Town Council email notification list
would have automatically received notices for these meetings as the committee is a subset of the
Council. As I never received any such notices, I assumed they were not open to the public. I heard
the recitals made in opening the Council sessions as to activity, but don't recall hearing that they were
public meetings - I may have missed it. In order to have been notified of the agendas, etc., I would
have 1) known that an Ad -Hoc Committee had been formed 2) been told "somehow" that they were
open to the public 3) would have searched on the site to find where to sign -up for such notices,
and /or 4) have happened to visit the Library or Community Development department during the
noticing period.
found the past agendas on -line, there are no minutes - I have been told that the Brown Act did not
apply to these meetings so they decided not to post those - but that no changes were made to the
drafts. Huh..... so, who wrote the sentence, above, in the Staff Report ? ??
I am disappointed. I would have liked to have heard the discussions and /or debate surrounding this
very critical topic.
I offer these comments in the hopes that communications to the public may be enhanced - to
encourage public participation (like it says on the website) and just possibly, that someone in the
public will have the opportunity to offer some ideas (in 3 minutes or less) at the front -end of such
"collaborative" sessions.
I look forward to feedback received from the development community.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
ATTACHMENT 5