Parking Garage with attachments 1-3PREPARED BY: MATT MORLEY
Director of Parks and Public Works
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
MEETING DATE: 03/15/16
ITEM NO: 7
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 3, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: REVIEW THE WORK OF THE COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE ON PARKING
AND INFRASTRUCTURE:
A. DIRECT STAFF TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH BARRY SWENSON
BUILDER AND PRESIDIO DEVELOPMENT.
B. ESTABLISH A CAPITAL PROJECT AND APPROVE A BUDGET
ADJUSTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 FROM FISCAL YEAR 2015/16
YEAR END SAVINGS TO RETAIN CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR
NEGOTIATIONS.
C. RETURN TO COUNCIL WITH A DRAFT AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF A MIXED USE PARKING FACILITY WITH ONE OF THE PARTIES.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review the work of the Council Ad Hoc Committee on Parking and Infrastructure:
1. Direct staff to begin negotiations with Barry Swenson Builder and Presidio Development.
2. Establish a capital project and approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $20,000 from fiscal
year 2015/16 year end savings to retain consultant services for negotiations.
3. Return to Council with a draft agreement for construction of a mixed use parking facility with
one of the parties.
BACKGROUND:
On August 4, 2015, staff provided a report to the Council (Attachment 1) on the status of the Parking
and Infrastructure Ad Hoc Committee (Committee). The Council approved the release of a Request for
Information (RFI) to seek input from interested parties on a public private partnership with the Town for
the construction of a mixed use facility on Main Street adjacent to Lyndon Avenue. An RFI is a
procurement method used to gain information and gauge interest on a subject with very basic high level
guidance provided by the Town. The RFI allows for flexibility on pursuing a potential project and
allows interested and experienced parties to provide input on feasible projects for the location. The RFI
was structured to include several goals, including the Towns interest in entering a ground lease for the
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: REVIEW THE WORK OF THE COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE ON PARKING
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
MARCH 3, 2016
BACKGROUND: (cont’d):
property, the need to achieve a significant increase in the available public parking already provided on
the property, and the need to meet the Town’s Below Market Price (BMP) housing requirement as one
portion of the property was purchased by the Town with restricted funds.
It is important to acknowledge that the structure of the RFI and the responses to the RFI provide a very
preliminary look at a potential project. Much work will be done to determine the viability and
components of a final project, should the Council decide to pursue this direction. The Committee
undertook exploration of this project to identify alternatives to the Town self-funding increased parking
through the construction of a parking structure.
The latest meeting of the Committee is provided as Attachment 2. All meeting agendas, supporting
documents, and minutes for the Committee are available on the Town’s website:
http://www.losgatosca.gov/2229/Parking-and-Infrastructure-Ad-Hoc-Commit
DISCUSSION:
The Town received two submittals in response to the RFI on October 29, 2015. A summary table of the
RFI proposals is provided as Attachment 3. The firms that submitted are Barry Swenson Builder
(Attachment 4) and Presidio Development (Attachment 5). Both submittals were similar in nature with
a reliance on a fairly significant number of residential units to provide the financial viability for the
project with modest parking increases and small amounts of retail. The Committee reviewed the
responses and interviewed both firms to ask questions and further explore the submittals. The responses
are included in the staff report to the Committee as Attachment 3. Through this review process, the
Committee expressed interest in additional information, including:
Reducing the density of residential in the proposals.
Increasing the availability of public parking.
Ensuring at least six BMP units are included in the project.
Both firms provided follow up information in response to formal inquiries by staff indicating that the
additional requests could be met through changes to the project so that the residential units could be for
sale units. This would mean a change in the ownership of the underlying property instead of the ground
lease as originally put forward by the Town. There are various means to achieve this outcome, which
will be explored should the project proceed to the next stage as recommended in this staff report.
In their follow up information, one of the firms identified a reduction of about a third in residential units,
a potential increase of 75 public parking spaces above the 120 currently available, and the ability to meet
the BMP needs of the Town. Although this information continues to be preliminary, in considering this
information, the Ad Hoc Committee became sufficiently convinced that a project on the site is viable
and therefore should move to the next phase with full Council direction on next steps.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: REVIEW THE WORK OF THE COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE ON PARKING
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
MARCH 3, 2016
DISCUSSION (cont’d):
As mentioned above the RFI is a first preliminary look towards the viability of a project. The RFI
makes no commitment to the firms that provide submittals and as such, those firms take on the expense
and risk of providing information. Both of the firms have committed resources to exploring this project
and have been available for multiple Committee meetings to provide input on the potential for a project.
Both firms have framed the project in terms of levers. Moving one lever requires another lever to also
move. For example, increasing public parking decreases other uses, such as residential, and this affects
the financial viability of the project for the developer.
The structure of the RFI allowed for several next steps, including issuance of a Request for Proposals
(RFP) based on the information received through the RFI, to negotiate with the firms involved with the
RFI, or to determine no project meets the needs of the Town and discontinue the process. Because two
firms have committed significant resources in responding to the RFI, staff recommends negotiating with
those firms at this stage, with the goal of selecting one of the firms with which to enter into a contract,
based on the progress of negotiations.
By taking this next step, the Council will signal to the developer that, given the known information, the
project is desired at this location. By providing this direction, the firms will have greater assurances that
the Town is serious and interested in proceeding in good faith. This will result in a greater willingness
for the firms to expend additional resources to further the plan.
Should this project continue forward, the developer will need to follow the typical development
application process of the Town, including environmental studies and clearance, and development
permits. Should the developer wish to deviate for Town standards, those exceptions would need to be
approved on a case by case basis by the Council in alignment with standard development processes.
The staff recommendation includes negotiation with both firms, with the goal of bringing to Council a
draft agreement for the site with one of the firms. Negotiating initially with both firms will aid in
keeping the terms competitive. Because this next stage includes real estate negotiations, staff
recommends that the Council address this through standard property negotiation methods.
The nuances and complexity of this project necessitates additional assistance for staff in two areas. The
first is in negotiating a draft agreement that appropriately represents the position of the Town, including
third party review of proposed financials and recommendations on terms specific to the project. For this
work, staff recommends a consultant with experience in representing municipalities in public private
partnerships. With direction from the Council, staff will conduct a consultant selection process for this
service. Additionally, specific legal services will be necessary to assist with contract documents.
Funding of these services can be negotiated into the development agreement. This will require an initial
funding outlay by the Town to engage the services, with reimbursement through payments into a Town
managed account funded by the developer. This setup will further ensure the developer engagement
towards serious negotiation and will protect the Town from the expense of negotiating a draft
agreement.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: REVIEW THE WORK OF THE COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE ON PARKING
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
MARCH 3, 2016
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the Council:
1. Review the work of the Council Ad Hoc Committee on Parking and Infrastructure.
2. Direct staff to begin negotiations with Barry Swenson Builder and Presidio Development.
3. Establish a capital project and approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $20,000 from fiscal
year 2015/16 year end savings to retain consultant services for negotiations.
4. Return to Council with a draft agreement for construction of a mixed use parking facility with
one of the parties.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Council could direct staff to discontinue exploration of the project as it has
materialized or craft and issue and RFP to expand the reach of the project.
Staff has not recommended these alternatives as the commitment of the firms engaged and the viability
of a project provide the opportunity to move the project forward based on the work the Committee has
already completed.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff recommends establishing a capital project and approving a budget adjustment in the amount of
$20,000 from fiscal year 2015/16 year end savings to retain consultant services for negotiations.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
This is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.
Attachments:
1. August 4, 2015 Council Agenda Report
2. February 9, 2016 Ad Hoc Committee Report
3. RFI Submittal Summary
4. RFI Submittal – Swenson
5. RFI Submittal - Presidio
lowx 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 ATTACHMENT 1
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
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
MEETING DATE: 02/09/16
COUNCIL PARKING AND INFRASTRUCTURE
AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2016
TO: COUNCIL AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON PARKING AND INFRASTRUCTURE
FROM: MATT MORLEY, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE – FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FROM
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)
INFORMATION:
At the December 18, 2015 meeting, the Committee reviewed submittals from two companies in
response to the Town’s RFI for a downtown parking garage and received verbal presentations
from the two companies that provided responses. The Committee requested additional
information as follow up in the following areas:
1. Explore ideas for increasing parking available for public use.
2. Provide documentation on the benefit of selling the property versus renting the property.
3. Provide an analysis of BMP units.
The staff questions and responses are provided as Attachment 3 to the agenda. Both companies
believe that additional work is necessary to further develop the idea and to refine numbers of
parking spaces, residential units, mix of use, and other variables. This work will require an
investment in time and money by both the Town and the involved company or companies. All of
the information provided to date is very preliminary and conceptual in nature – none of the
information is absolute. A project that develops from this effort will likely include many
variations from the already provided information as a result of negotiations.
NEXT STEPS:
The use of the RFI process is intended to explore the project at a high conceptual level. At this
stage, identifying specifics is premature. The goal is to get enough information about potentials
for the site to provide direction on next steps or more generally, this type of project could work
or this type of project will not work. Based on the information provided to date, the Committee
may wish to discuss the following:
1. Does the potential increased number of parking spaces warrant continued pursuit of
additional parking through a public private partnership?
2. Is the type of development necessary to deliver the parking reasonable for the location?
3. Are the below market rate units enough to meet the needs of the Committee?
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 2
COUNCIL AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON PARKING AND INFRASTRUCTURE
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE – FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FROM
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)
FEBRUARY 4, 2016
NEXT STEPS (cont’d):
4. Are there other solutions the Committee would like staff to explore?
5. Does the Committee have enough information to provide direction to staff for next steps?
The RFI process has served its purpose to this point and staff recommends that the Committee
recommend to the full Council one of the following:
1. Refine Town requirements and direct staff to formulate a Request for Proposals (RFP).
2. Develop a structure for and negotiate directly with one or more of the current
respondents.
3. Develop a report to the full Council based on input from the Committee, recommending
or seeking input on next steps.
4. Recommend to the Council not pursuing a public private partnership to develop a parking
structure at the site with supporting reasoning.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Ad Hoc Committee review and comment on the attached documents
and based on the discussion, determine the next steps for the project.
ATTACHMENT 2
1 ATTACHMENT 3
Responses to Town Questions provided by Swenson –
As a result of that meeting, we’re looking for help with the following information. We’re
not asking for schematics or layouts at this point, with the intention of helping minimize
the work involved.
Introductory information provided by Swenson:
If we were to purchase the property for "X" amount with a Development Agreement with the
Town that includes building out a certain amount of parking stalls (possibly condo-out the
garage) alone with a certain amount of BMR* units, the financials definitely move in a
positive direction. When we speak about doing a Garage Condo, we're doing this to create the
ability for new home owners to buy units and take title to a condo, and not to deliver
ownership of a garage condo to the Town. The Garage Condo will still remain in the
ownership of the Developer, but part of the Developer Agreement would be to provide a
certain number of stalls; then, the developer could charge for parking / not be restricted from
this perspective.
1. Remove the limitations on a ground lease and look at sale of the property with the
following needs-
a. 6 BMP units and
b. 12 BMP units (6 additional)
c. Maximized public parking (use condo model for public parking)
If you were to increase the amount of BMRs to be included in the project, the land sale price
will decrease.
Another idea would be for the Town of Los Gatos to reinvest the funds from the sale of the
property in subsidizing additional BMR units. Leveraging the funds from the sale could
potentially add an additional 6 BMR units to the development.
2. Under the guidelines in number 1, what do for sale units look like in terms of density
and size?
a. Is it feasible to reduce the density from this number?
If you were to increase the number of stalls required, the sale price of the property will
decrease. Under the guidelines of Question 1, most likely the density of the project would
decrease (think town home style condos compared with micro unit apartments).
* The Town uses Below Market Price (BMP) instead of BMR, but for the purpose of this work
the terms are interchangeable.
ATTACHMENT 2
2 ATTACHMENT 3
3. Under this scenario, what revenue to the Town would you expect from the sale of the
property?
Depends on total number of units. When considering the project revenue on a per unit basis,
for example, the offer would be based on an approved number of condos, and would fluctuate
based on what actually gets approved. (A true public-private partnership)
4. How many total dedicated public parking spaces would be reasonable?
a. Are there other ways to increase this number?
As far as the number of stalls, the feasibility depends on the number of market rate units that
can be approved including their type and size. An idea would be to increase the number would
be to allow the maximum amount of town home style condos and reduce the amount of BMRs
required. Both "levers and pulleys" are interconnected.
5. We’d like your perspective on a pay for parking model for this location only,
assuming all other locations remain free. We can categorize this as informed estimates and
that actual price sensitivity will need to be determined.
a. What rate would be reasonable?
b. What revenue could be expected annually?
A pay for parking model would need to be studied. Perhaps the Town can commission this
study and present to the Town Council the findings of such a report. As of now, we do not
have data for the Town of Los Gatos that supports a pay for parking model, rates, or expected
annual revenue.
ATTACHMENT 2
3 ATTACHMENT 3
Responses to Town Questions provided by Presidio Development–
As a result of that meeting, we’re looking for help with the following information. We’re
not asking for schematics or layouts at this point, with the intention of helping minimize
the work involved.
1. Remove the limitations on a ground lease and look at sale of the property with the
following needs-
a. 6 BMP units and
b. 12 BMP units (6 additional)
c. Maximized public parking (use condo model for public parking)
2. Under the guidelines in number 1, what do for sale units look like in terms of density
and size?
We believe we can achieve approximately 34 for-sale units over a podium consisting of 24 2-
story TH's and 10 three BR family-sized flats. 6 BMPs would equate to 17.6% affordability
and 12 would equate to 35.3%, the latter of which would make the economics of the project
less feasible without some form of subsidy, although this depends on the level of subsidy;
more info is needed to fully vet this point.
a. Is it feasible to reduce the density from this number?
Yes, per above, we would be reducing the number of units from 59 apartments (51 DUA) to
34 TH's/three BR flats (30 DUA) - so a reduction of approximately 25 units.
3. Under this scenario, what revenue to the Town would you expect from the sale of the
property?
Assuming 6 BMP's, and if the replacement parking were not required, we would estimate
that the land value for each for-sale unit would be worth approximately $250k/unit, therefore
a land value of approximately $8.5M. Given that an additional 180 parking spaces would
need to be constructed in addition to the 68 for the residential and assuming an average
blended (surface parked and below grade) cost of a parking space of $35k/space that would
equate to an additional $6.3M in added project costs, leaving $2.2M of land value. Once you
factor in additional BMP's beyond the six, much of any residual land value would likely
diminish, again subject to the level of subsidy with the BMPs.
ATTACHMENT 2
4 ATTACHMENT 3
4. How many total dedicated public parking spaces would be reasonable?
If we assume we can provide the same parking as before, we would be providing 248 spots of
which 80 would be at grade and 168 below grade. Assume each TH unit needs 2 parking
spots, that would be 68 parking spots for the residential, leaving 180 (100 below grade + 80
at grade) for the public and commercial.
a. Are there other ways to increase this number?
While TH's usually require 2 spots/units, if the market accepted 1.5/unit,that would open up
an additional 17 spots. In addition, we could work with our parking consultants to further
study mechanical parking efficiencies.
5. We’d like your perspective on a pay for parking model for this location only,
assuming all other locations remain free. We can categorize this as informed estimates and
that actual price sensitivity will need to be determined.
a. What rate would be reasonable?
While it would make sense to do a more thorough market survey and bring on a parking
consultant upon selection to move forward, looking at similar town garages, such as Menlo
Park Parking Plaza and other similar Silicon Valley towns, a fair assumption could be to
charge $1/hour (note: Menlo Park also issues daily permits for $10/day, annual passes for
$600/year and limited overnight passes so there exist multiple potential parking revenue
streams).
b. What revenue could be expected annually?
If you assume $1/hr for 180 city spots and an average occupancy of 65% from 7 am to 10 pm
(15 hours) that would equate to $1,755/day or $641k/year in gross income. Assuming a
rough estimate of operating expenses at 30%that would equate to $450k/year, $1229/day in
net operating income.
ATTACHMENT 2
revised 12/15/2015
Swenson Presidio Comment
Density
Residential 68 Units 59 Units
Commercial 11,500 4,500
Affordable 6 6
Additional units affect project financials but
possible.
Parking
Development Total 312 248 Total on site parking in submittal
Required Commercial 38 15 1 per 300sf
Required Residential 102 89 1.5 per unit
Public Spaces 172 145 Total minus required
Existing 125 125 verified & adjusted since last meeting
Spaces Gained 47 20 Public Spaces minus existing
Use of Space
Size 173,000 SF 163,000 SF
Height 35' minimum 41.5' maximum
Mix
Commercial, residential,
parking
Commercial, residential,
parking
Financials
Term 99 Year Ground Lease 99 Year Ground Lease
ROI to Town $150,000/ year TBD
Deposit Yes Yes $50-100K negotiated
Schedule
Negotiate 6 mth 6 mth
Entitlements 12 mth 12 mth
Ground Break 24 mth 24 mth
Topic
Downtown Parking Garage RFI Data Points
ATTACHMENT 3