PC 052511 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Williams responded that these are solvable things that are done all the time. Mr. Fleissig stated that the key point is that this is a phased project and will not be built all at once. He noted that there is a lot of opportunity regarding how it will be phased and that there may be shifts over time depending on phasing and depending on the demand. He added that phasing is a very cost effective way of building this very expensive parking garage. Commissioner Blank inquired if this was a marketing decision as much as it is a planning decision. He noted that from a planning perspective, the Commission considers the things the Commission normally looks at. He further inquired if, from the monetizing perspective, this provides the greatest opportunity for monetization, more than Option 2 does. Mr. Williams replied that it does. He indicated that it would be fair to want just a freestanding parking structure, as in the first strategy; therefore, that there has to be a built-in incentive for a multi-use parking structure. He noted that multi-use parking frees up developable land; it provides incentives to sharing and going more over operational issues around multi-use parking, which makes the BART parcel more valuable as there will actually be a greater amount of development on site because not as much of the site will be used just for parking. Chair Narum inquired how tall the multi-use parking garages will be. Mr. Williams replied that they would be the same as the six to seven stories on the other side of the freeway. He noted that one of the nice things about this is the structures then allow buffering of the development from the freeway because the freeway is the biggest issue relative to development of the BART site. He added that this scenario would have longer rather than square parking structures, which provides more buffering for the development sites themselves from noise, air quality, and pollution issues. He stated that what they would look like from the freeway as well as from the development site can be discussed under the design guidelines. He noted that this is a strong strategy as the parking structure would not be visible from Owens Drive because there will be development in front of it, thereby giving a nicer appearance along Owens Drive and against the freeway it is buffering; whereas in the stand-alone and the joint parking scenarios, the parking structure will be visible from Owens Drive. Mr. Williams stated that similar to the other TOD guidelines and regulations, a number of different building types and scenarios could be anticipated on the site: an office scenario; an office and hotel scenario; a residential and hotel scenario; or a partial office, hotel, and residential development scenario. He indicated that it has not been defined whether all three elements should be there or that there cannot be just one, as well as which option goes on a particular site; however, the City could anticipate that a savvy developer will be trying to balance all of the different market forces and will probably be looking at some mix of uses, with a greater proportion of one over the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 25, 2011 Page 8 of 21