HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-20 e-packet@6:00Tuesday, April 20, 2021
6:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
TELECONFERENCE MEETING
Special City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
April 20, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
TELECONFERENCE MEETING NOTICE
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS N-29-20 AND N-63-20 ALLOWING FOR DEVIATION
OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT & PURSUANT TO THE
ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY DATED MARCH 31, 2020 AS
THIS MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT NECESSARY
BUSINESS AND IS PERMITTED UNDER THE ORDER AS AN ESSENTIAL
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION.
The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff
and the public while allowing for public participation.
Councilmembers Coleman, Flores and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego and essential City
staff will participate via Teleconference.
PURSUANT TO RALPH M. BROWN ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, ALL VOTES
SHALL BE BY ROLL CALL DUE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS PARTICIPATING BY
TELECONFERENCE.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY VIEW A VIDEO BROADCAST OF THE MEETING BY:
Internet: https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council
Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26 or Comcast, Channel 27
ZOOM LINK BELOW -NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED
Join Zoom meeting
https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/88115113428
(Enter your email and name)
Join by One Tap Mobile :
US: +16699006833,,88115113428# or +12532158782,,88115113428#
Join by Telephone:
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 6833 or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free)
Webinar ID: 881 1511 3428
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021
April 20, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
American Disability Act: The City Clerk will provide materials in appropriate alternative formats to
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please send a written request to City Clerk Rosa
Govea Acosta at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, or email at [email protected].
Include your name, address, phone number, a brief description of the requested materials, and
preferred alternative format service at least 24-hours before the meeting.
Accommodations: Individuals who require special assistance of a disability-related modification or
accommodation to participate in the meeting, including Interpretation Services, should contact the
Office of the City Clerk by email at [email protected], 24-hours before the meeting.
Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City of South San Francisco to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting.
Call to Order.
Roll Call.
Agenda Review.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
HOW TO SUBMIT WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE THE MEETING
Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting via the
eComment tab by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date.
Use the eComment tab located on the City Council meeting's agenda page. eComments are also directly sent to
the iLegislate application used by City Council and staff.
Comments received by the deadline will be read into the record by the City Clerk or designee. Comments
received after the deadline will be included as part of the meeting record but will not be read aloud during the
meeting. Approximately 300 words total can be read in three minutes.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021
April 20, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
HOW TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THE MEETING
Members of the public who wish to provide comment during the meeting may do so by using the “Raise Hand”
feature:
• To raise your hand on a PC or Mac desktop/laptop, click the button labeled "Raise Hand” at the bottom of
the window on the right side of the screen. Lower your hand by clicking the same button, now labeled “Lower
Hand.”
• To raise your hand on a mobile device, tap “Raise Hand” at the bottom left corner of the screen. The hand
icon will turn blue, and the text below it will switch to say "Lower Hand" while your hand is raised. To lower
your hand, click on “Lower Hand.”
• To raise your hand when participating by telephone, press *9.
• To toggle mute/unmute, press *6.
Once your hand is raised, please wait to be acknowledged by the City Clerk, or designee, who will call on
speakers. When called upon, speakers will be unmuted. After the allotted time, speakers will be placed on
mute.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Study session regarding update on new Downtown Parking Garage (Heather Ruiz,
Management Analyst and Alex Greenwood, Director)
1.
Adjournment.
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-262 Agenda Date:4/20/2021
Version:1 Item #:1.
Study session regarding update on new Downtown Parking Garage (Heather Ruiz,Management Analyst and
Alex Greenwood, Director)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council receive an update on the new Downtown Parking Garage
(“Project”)and provide direction on next steps.Specifically,staff is seeking guidance on which site
alternative(s)to pursue further,and whether to continue approaching the project as a public private
partnership (P3) or further investigate the City delivering the project through traditional methods.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Due to the formatting limitations of the City’s agenda management platform,the full and complete staff report
is being attached as a PDF to this report. Please refer to Attachment 1 of this Item for the staff report.
Attachments:
1.Full and complete Staff Report regarding update on new Downtown Parking Garage
2.Attachments to the Staff Report
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/15/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
1 of 10
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #: 21-262 Agenda Date: 4/20/2021
Version: 1 Item #:
Study session regarding update on new Downtown Parking Garage (Heather Ruiz, Management Analyst 1 and
Alex Greenwood, ECD Director)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council receive an update on the new Downtown Parking Garage (“Project”)
and provide direction on next steps. Specifically, staff is seeking guidance on which site alternative(s) to
pursue further, and whether to continue approaching the project as a public private partnership (P3) or
further investigate the City delivering the project through traditional methods.
BACKGROUND
In 2016, the City’s consultant, CDM Smith, conducted a parking study to review the existing parking conditions
and parking forecast demands in the Downtown area. The study found that by 2026 an additional 228 parking
spaces would be needed in Downtown South San Francisco for the midweek/midday peak period. These
findings were validated by the City’s consultant, Kimley-Horn, in November 2017. That 2017 study
(Attachment 8) also found that parking occupancy rates in the Downtown will generally continue to increase.
To accommodate this parking demand, Kimley-Horn recommended constructing a second public parking
garage south of Grand Avenue. Subsequently, Kimley-Horn and staff explored sites on Baden Avenue,
specifically, the Old Firehouse (201 Baden) and Parking Lots 5 and 12 (on the 300 block of Baden). However,
due to each site’s infeasibility, staff then identified the City Hall parking lot as a potential site for a future,
partially underground parking structure. The parking lot has potential to add additional parking because the
City already owns the property, and it is large enough to support an efficient design.
In 2019, staff commissioned Watry Design, Inc. to provide conceptual designs, construction cost estimates, and
a parking pricing analysis for the City Hall parking lot site. At an October 22, 2019 study session, the City
Council gave staff direction to advance two conceptual design options:
Option 1, the base design, which included a partially below-grade parking structure under what is now
the City Hall parking lot. The estimated construction cost was $31 million.
Option 2, which improves upon Option 1 by spanning the City Hall superblock from Maple to Walnut
Avenues along Miller Avenue and including below grade parking, a rooftop park, and a new office
building to replace the City Hall Annex Building. This option was determined to be a suitable candidate
for a P3 and was estimated to cost $58 million.
In August 2020, staff selected WSP to provide P3 advisory services and determine if a P3 is t he right delivery
and financing model for bringing Option 2 to fruition. WSP was tasked to validate and update the previous
downtown parking studies and explore specific options from a technical, financial, and commercial perspective.
WSP has explored potential delivery options, including P3/alternative delivery models, alternative design
concepts and their revenue potential, and preliminary financing costs of the project under a P3 structure.
2 of 10
DISCUSSION
WSP has and continues to work diligently with staff by providing detailed and analytical deliverables, gathering
information from staff as well as industry and public sources, refining City priorities, and analyzing the project’s
potential at various sites to increase parking in the downtown area. This includes development of technical
design concepts, examining parking policies and rates to better align supply and demand, as well as P3 financial
modeling with a Public Sector Comparator (PSC) Value for Money analysis.
Project Goals
As part of the analysis performed by WSP, and in working with an interdepartmental group of staff, the
following project goals were established. Formalizing project goals informs selection of the delivery approach
best suited for the project, narrowing the project scope to maximize competition and value to the City in any
procurement process, and further inform decision-making on other critical issues to ensure a successful project.
1. Increase Parking
The City wants to increase parking in the downtown with a modern facility, or facilities, that are future-
proofed for technological advancements and evolving land use patterns. The resulting increase in parking
should be approximately 228 spaces.
2. Financial Certainty
The project should minimize financial risk to the City, relying on parking revenue and land value for the
delivery of public assets to the maximum extent possible, while optimizing efficient operations and
maintenance of public facilities. To achieve this, the City will consider tax credits, alternative funding, and
financing.
3. Green Space
The City has identified a need to develop flexible, active, and well-maintained park and open spaces that
align with the City’s Master Plan to serve a wide range of user groups. Preserving or improving the existing
playground space is a critical goal as well.
4. Sustainability
All of the improvements delivered under this project should do so in an environmentally sustainable and
resilient manner that furthers the City’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, meeting or exceeding
green building standards, and providing resilient green spaces that increase water conservation and energy
efficiency.
5. Architectural
The design of any new facility adjacent to City Hall must be consistent with or complementary to the design
of City Hall and not obstruct the views of City Hall, from either within or from the surrounding streets.
Additionally, the design of the parking structure and surrounding green space should reflect architectural
practices detailed in Shape SSF 2040 General Plan.
6. Annex/Joint Development
The City Hall parking lot project alternatives replace and modernize the government office space currently
housed in the Annex and leverage underutilized land to deliver complementary commercial space and/or
community-serving amenities.
Site Analysis and Design Options
Twelve sites (identified in Figure 1) were analyzed throughout the Downtown area as a potential location for
new parking facilities. Most were eliminated because they are not large enough to support the desired number
of parking spaces, are too far from Grand Avenue and other drivers of parking demand, would require costly
3 of 10
site acquisition and construction, are already planned for redevelopment for other uses, and/or an expanded
facility would not be in keeping with adjacent buildings and overall neighborhood character.
Figure 1: Evaluated City Parking Lots
It was determined that the current City-owned surface parking lots at City Hall and 319 Baden Avenue are most
viable based on:
Proximity to activities driving parking demand;
Cost to build and maintain a new facility (including property if any);
Alignment to the Shape SSF Plan, and;
Adaptability to future trends.
The City Hall parking lot concept includes an underground parking structure with connectivity to City Hall and
replacement office space for the City Hall Annex, creation of a new playground and park, and a flexible design
to adapt to future needs. The City Hall site was analyzed under two scenarios and the Baden Avenue under one
scenario in which different layouts, number of parking spaces, and other variables were explored. The City Hall
parking lot was evaluated under two scenarios: an underground parking structure with two or three basement
levels (the 2-Level City Hall and 3-Level City Hall scenarios). The 2-Level scenario includes 146 new parking
spaces, a 23,436 square feet office space, and a 42,750 square feet roof top park. The 3-Level scenario includes
234 new parking spaces, a 33,672 square feet office space, and 39,150 square feet rooftop park. A portion of
the new Annex building in either City Hall scenario could be used as a pre-school facility for 60 to 120 children.
The Baden Avenue parking lot design would deliver parking through a robotic solution and has access to Grand
Avenue through the 3rd Lane alley. The Baden parking lot was evaluated under one concept: an aboveground
six-level building in the existing lot.
Future Development Projects on Existing
Parking Lots
Existing City Parking Lots
4 of 10
The pros and cons of each site are described below as well as a breakdown of the parking and office space
provided by the design concepts in Table 1. Attachment 1 to this report includes plans and renderings for the
design concepts.
Pros – City Hall
New park and playground facilities
New Annex Office
Potential joint development with commercial or community-serving tenants
Future-proofed and adaptable
Proximity to City Hall and Library
Architectural integration
Greater P3 viability
Cons – City Hall
Higher capital and O&M costs
Pros – Baden
Proximity to parking demand
Lower capital and O&M costs
Better parking enforcement
Cons – Baden
Limited future-proofing and adaptability of facility
Only provides parking
Impact on adjacent properties
Less P3 viability
Table 1: Alternative Design Concepts
2-Level City Hall 3-Level City Hall City Lot Baden
Total Parking Spaces 230 318 220
New Parking Spaces 146 234 180
Existing Spaces Replaced 84 84 40
Office Space (sq ft) 23,436 33,672 N/A
Further details from this analysis are available in the Site Validation and Design Concept Report (Attachment
2) and Real Estate Opportunities Report (Attachment 4).
Delivery Strategies
WSP has analyzed three specific delivery options to show the full range across the P3/risk transfer continuum
in the Delivery Options Analysis Report (Attachment 3). Risk transfer is one of the key benefits of the P3 model
and will ensure that the costs of schedule delays, budget overruns, and other unanticipated events are paid for
by the City’s contractor rather than the City itself. A DBFOM model as described below provides the greatest
level of risk transfer. A more detailed analysis of project-specific risks is available in the Project Risk Analysis
Report (Attachment 5).
1. Design-Bid-Build (DBB)
5 of 10
This is the most common delivery method for projects of this kind and the City is using it on the Civic Center
Campus, among other projects. Under the DBB option, the City would retain asset ownership, be responsible
for provision of service levels, setting parking rates, maintenance, and retain project risks and rewards.
The DBB methods consists of three sequential project phases (design, bid, build) with two separate contracts
that are procured by the public sector: one for desi gn and another followed for construction. DBB contracts are
typically evaluated on a cost-only basis and reimbursements are based on a time and material basis. Under this
option, no maintenance, operations, or financing support is provided by the private partner and most risk is
carried by the public sector in exchange for maximizing control and flexibility to allow for future changes.
Because the City would retain ownership and responsibility under the DBB option, redevelopment of the Annex
with commercial office space would be less likely. Under a DBB option, the City is exposed to change orders
and claims by contractors. This approach may also result in a longer implementation schedule, as elements
would be procured separately, and potential design and scope changes may result in additional delays. As a
result of these risks being taken by the City, the DBB option includes material financial uncertainty for the
City.
2. Design-Build + Operations & Maintenance (DB+OM)
Under a DB+OM option, the public sector procures two separate contracts; one for the design and construction
of the facility and another contract for a different private partner that operates and maintains the facility under
a performance-based regime. DB contracts are typically awarded on a best-value basis and contractors bid on a
fix cost and schedule. Procurement of the O&M partner would require an early assessment of the assets and
current operations by both the public sector and interested operators t o promote transparency and optimal risk
transfer and performance on the project. Ultimately though, the O&M partner will not take on the risks created
by the DB contractor’s work.
The public sector will still be responsible for financing all aspects of the project, including the risks of both DB
and O&M change orders and cost overruns. Moderate levels of risk transfer can be achieved, but the interface
risk between the public sector and two private partners limits the extent of life-cycle optimization. Under the
DB+OM option, the City would retain asset ownership and significant control, including parking rates and for
setting maintenance and service levels. As a result of these risks being taken by the City, the DBB option
includes material financial uncertainty for the City.
There are limited examples of this delivery method being used for projects of this kind.
3. Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain (DBFOM)
In a DBFOM contract, a single private partner is responsible for delivering all aspects of the project, including
all or a majority of the financing. The contractor is also responsible for managing the project O&M and
infrastructure life-cycle costs. Under this structure, a single point of contact integrates delivery and allows the
developer to achieve higher performance, innovation, cost and schedule efficiencies, and risk optimization. The
public sector still retains ownership of all facilities and control through performance-based enforcement
mechanisms. Under the DBFOM option, the City would be responsible for setting the project policies, service
levels, and parking rates and will typically be supported by outside advisors to ensure the desired outcomes.
The inclusion of O&M along with the design and construction of a project normally increases the likelihood
that a private sector investor would contribute equity because there is a long-term opportunity to earn a return
on investment. P3 developers and their lenders will perform a detailed analysis of risk and risk transfer to
determine whether the internal rate of return on the equity investment can be safeguarded or if the risk exposure
is too great. While private sector financing for a project is “at risk” in the sense that poor performance can
reduce the amount of revenues or payments made to the developer, the fundamental principle is that the private
sector will be repaid its investment and any financing will be repaid with interest by either the City or the users.
This equity investment can help keep the P3 developer’s “feet to the fire” facilitating improved project
6 of 10
management, taking early steps to avoid performance issues and other actions that would be the City’s risk in
the DBB and DB+OM options. Private financing for a P3 is usually, but not in all cases, more expensive than
typical tax-exempt bond financing, but can be outweighed by risk transfer, life-cycle efficiencies, innovation,
and improved performance to drive overall value. As a result of fewer risks being taken by the City, the DBFOM
option includes less financial uncertainty for the City. For this delivery option, the City would not typically
begin making payments until construction is complete.
The DBFOM method has been used on the Long Beach Civic Center and several recent parking projects across
the country. More detail on those case studies can be found in the Market Sounding Strategy (Attachment 6).
While all three approaches described above have potential to adequately solve the City’s priority goal of adding
parking, the DBFOM structure complements this goal with greater innovation, life-cycle management, and risk
transfer. The potential disadvantages are outweighed by the benefits and can be overcome with careful planning
of the City’s current and future needs and smart contracting. This is demonstrated further in the Value for Money
discussion regarding preliminary cost estimates under a P3 and a Public Sector Comparator (PSC), below.
Pros and Cons of a P3 (DBFOM) Delivery Strategy
Public-private partnerships are best suited to large, complex projects in which innovation, risk transfer for issues
like construction schedule and budget overruns, and life-cycle management and maintenance of a facility are
of significant concern. When properly structured, these benefits outweigh the additional cost of private
financing. In fact, the private investors’ stake in whether the project succeeds incentivizes innovation and
performance. Pros and cons of delivering this project via a P3 model are identified below.
Pros
Efficient O&M – A P3 will typically include a performance-based contract for operations and
maintenance of the facility and incorporating that responsibility into a single contract leads to
innovative designs that result in long-term savings and improved outcomes. This could include
improved customer service, responsiveness, and better parking enforcement to ensure improved
availability and revenue collection.
Holistic approach – If the City chooses to deliver multiple components (parking, green space, and
office), a P3 partner is probably better able to coordinate the delivery of all three in a comprehensive
manner. This is particular true if commercial tenants are included in the new office space.
Cons
Procurement/Contract Administration – A P3 may require higher upfront transaction costs and more
staff time, particularly for the City’s first P3 project. To get the full benefits of the delivery option, the
City also needs to ensure staff are familiar with the P3 procurement process, the suite of P3 documents,
and be prepared to enforce the performance mechanisms of the P3 agreement which incorporates key
performance indicators. As much as possible, this will be automated through reporting systems and
standards and streamlined through staff training and standard operating procedures.
Limited Flexibility/Control – While a P3 can deliver whatever facility or services the City needs,
changes after a P3 Agreement have been executed can be expensive. This requires thorough upfront
analysis to know the project goals, scope, and budget. Market sounding, a thorough procurement
process, and contract negotiation can help select the best collaborative partner and resolve potential
issues before they arise, whether during the project development, construction or operation phases.
P3 Financial Model
Based on the proposed DBFOM delivery strategy, WSP developed a P3 financial model to show anticipated
cost and revenue for the City under the four design alternatives listed in Table 1. Conservative assumptions
were generally used for all inputs to reduce the risks of future changes in market conditions. Even if no changes
occur, the results of a competitive procurement may yield more favorable results to the City.
7 of 10
Table 2 shows the estimated costs for each new facility option under a P3, including design and construction,
operations and maintenance, financing, and transaction costs (consultants for procurement and debt issuance)
over the 30-year term of the P3 agreement.
Table 2: Project Costs under a P3 Model
Cost Category 2-Level City Hall 3-Level City Hall City Lot Baden
Design and Construction $50,935,279 $66,651,101 $26,303,185
Operations and Maintenance $34,654,000 $45,910,000 $21,261,000
Financing $49,526,000 $68,076,000 $20,489,000
Transaction Costs $1,576,000 $1,576,000 $1,576,000
Assumes a 90/10 debt-to-equity ratio, 4.00% cost of debt, 1.2 debt service coverage ratio, and equity IRR of 9%.
By comparison, Table 3 shows the cost breakdown if each of the design concepts were to be delivered using
the traditional design-bid-build (DBB) method the City typically uses for projects of this type. While financing
and transactions costs are lower than the P3 option, the PSC is not able to achieve the same level of efficiency,
innovation, and risk transfer on the capital and operating costs components as a P3.
Table 3: Project Costs under a PSC Model
Cost Category 2-Level City Hall 3-Level City Hall City Lot Baden
Design and Construction $58,312,821 $76,386,017 $29,985,913
Operations and Maintenance $39,647,000 $52,502,000 $24,170,000
Financing $21,699,000 $29,777,000 $9,039,000
Transaction Costs $394,000 $394,000 $394,000
Assumes 100% debt financing, 2.75% interest rate, $350,000 of debt issuance costs, and a 0.4% of underwriter’s discount costs .
As shown in Table 4, below, these estimates include an upfront cash payment by the City at the time of financial
close and annual payments for the 30-year term of the P3 Agreement. Assuming that all available revenue from
the Parking District, including from the new garage, are directed to the P3 project at current parking rates,
funding would only be sufficient for the Baden option. An annual subsidy would be required for the 2-level
City Hall and for the 3-level City Hall option for all the project term.
Table 4: Net Project Cost (Current Parking Rates)
Cost Category 2-Level City Hall 3-Level City Hall City Lot Baden
Upfront Payment $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000
Annual Payments $126,617,000 $171,214,000 $61,002,000
Parking District Revenue ($98,520,000) ($107,757,000) ($106,365,000)
City Subsidy $38,097,000 $73,457,000 ($45,363,000)
Annual payments and Parking District revenues escalate during the term of the project.
If the City were to increase hourly parking rates from $1 to $2 and monthly rates from $40 to $80, the amount
of subsidy that would be required from the City would decrease significantly. The Baden option would be
revenue positive throughout most of the term of the project. The 2-level City Hall and the 3-level City Hall
options would require subsidies for all the term of the project.
Table 5: Net Project Cost (Proposed Parking Rates)
8 of 10
Cost Category 2-Level City Hall 3-Level City Hall City Lot Baden
Upfront Payment $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000
Annual Payments $126,617,000 $171,214,000 $61,002,000
Parking District Revenue ($132,974,000) ($137,393,000) ($136,936,000)
City Subsidy $3,643,000 $43,821,000 ($65,934,000)
Annual payments and Parking District revenues escalate during the term of the project.
Should the City wish to reduce the annual subsidy required, not increasing parking rates by this amount, or use
Parking District revenue for other purposes, it could also consider adjusting the scope of the project to reduce
costs and/or implementing other parking policy changes that will be discussed at a future session.
Public Sector Comparator and Indicative Value for Money Analysis
The objective of this Value for Money analysis is to analyze the likelihood that delivering the project through
a P3 would provide more “value” to the City compared to a DBB delivery approach, referred to as the Public
Sector Comparator (PSC). This Value for Money analysis relies on some of the model assumptions performed
under the P3 model and incorporates inputs specific to the PSC.
The Value for Money analysis evaluates the anticipated costs to the City through a P3 and PSC, for the three
scenarios. The anticipated costs to the City are measured through a discounted net present value of all the
availability payments of the P3 model and all annual payments of the PSC, as estimated by the model.
As shown in Table 6 and Table 7, below, the initial results indicate similar value to the City under the P3 and
PSC delivery options over the 30-year term of the project. The results also show higher annual costs to the City
under the PSC scenario during the first ten years of the project.
Table 6: Net Present Value Project Costs (Current Parking Rates)
2-Level City Hall 3-Level City Hall City Lot Baden
P3 - Total Payments $48,108,000 $65,053,000 $23,178,000
PSC - Total Payments $45,612,000 $61,859,000 $21,837,000
P3 – Net Total Payments (After
Revenues)
$12,498,000 $26,214,000 ($15,151,000)
PSC – Net Total Payments (After
Revenues)
$10,002,000 $23,020,000 ($16,492,000)
The P3 model assumes a 15% decrease in D&C and O&M costs due to innovation, risk transfer, and life -cycle efficiencies achieved
via comprehensive delivery by a single coordinated team under a performance -based contract. Net present value is shown in $2021.
Table 7: Net Present Value Project Costs (Proposed Parking Rates)
2-Level City Hall 3-Level City Hall City Lot Baden
P3 - Total Payments $48,108,000 $65,053,000 $23,178,000
PSC - Total Payments $45,612,000 $61,859,000 $21,837,000
P3 – Net Total Payments (After
Revenues)
($776,000) $14,675,000 ($26,985,000)
PSC – Net Total Payments
(After Revenues)
($3,273,000) $11,481,000 ($28,325,000)
The P3 model assumes a 15% decrease in D&C and O&M costs due to innovation, risk transfer, and life -cycle efficiencies achieved
via comprehensive delivery by a single coordinated team under a performance -based contract. Net present value is shown in $2021.
A more in-depth Value for Money analysis of recent projects—to the extent such data is available—might
reveal further risks and associated costs that the City retains in its normal practice. This would further strengthen
the case for pursuing a P3 model given the associated efficiencies, innovation, and life-cycle optimization.
9 of 10
CONCLUSION
Based on this analysis, a P3 is a viable delivery model for the City to deliver new parking facilities in the
Downtown area with comparable costs to traditional public delivery option.
The City Hall concepts may require a larger subsidy from the City, but integrate the project with value-added
features such as rooftop park and new office space, with adaptability for future City needs. The Baden Avenue
concept, while cheaper, are solely focused on solving downtown parking needs and have limited flexibility for
adaptive reuse should future needs change.
The City Hall and Baden Avenue sites may differ in the type of private partner that would pursue each and
market interest should be sought to confirm the project scope, delivery approach, and other technical and
financial assumptions as described further in the Market Sounding Strategy (Attachment 6). This will help
ensure maximum competition and value to the City, particularly for a P3 procurement that would follow the
process described in the Procurement Work Plan (Attachment 7).
Staff recommends that the City Council pursue a P3 delivery option for the 2-Level City Hall design concept.
This option would provide benefits to the City with an expanded park and playground, 146 net new parking
spaces, 15,305 square feet of additional office space to replace the annex, and a possible preschool center in the
new annex building.
Next Steps
1. Parking demand management study session – Spring/Summer ‘21
2. Incorporate feedback in technical/financial analysis and update delivery strategy – Spring/Summer ‘21
3. Market sounding and outreach – Summer ‘21
4. Initiate Phase 2 and Council Approval to advertise a procurement – Fall ‘21
5. Procurement (12-24 months) – Summer-Fall ‘23
6. Design and Construction (24 months) – Fall ‘25
Attachments in Legistar:
1. Design Concept Plans and Renderings
2. Site Validation and Design Concept Report
3. Delivery Options Analysis Report
4. Real Estate Opportunities Report
5. Project Risk Analysis Report
6. Market Sounding Strategy
7. Procurement Work Plan
8. Kimley Horn Parking Occupancy Study
10 of 10
City of South San
Francisco
Printed on
3/25/2021
powered by
Legistar™
1April 20, 2021
City of South San Francisco
P3 Parking Garage
Council Study Session
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343
Agenda: 4/20/2021 SP CC
Item #1
2
Agenda:
1.Project Background
2.Project Goals
3.Site Analysis and Design
Concepts
4.Delivery Strategies
5.P3 Financial Model
6.Recommendation/Next Steps
1. Project Background
•Multiple parking studies found an
additional 228 parking spaces are
needed in Downtown South San
Francisco for the midweek midday
peak period.
•5 surface lots being redeveloped,
resulting in a loss of 177 parking
spaces in the next 5 years.
•City Council directed staff to
evaluate the P3 potential of the City
Hall option and experts were retained
to perform this analysis.
Future Development Projects on
Existing Parking Lots
Existing City Parking Lots
4
2. Project Goals
—Increase Parking
—Financial Certainty
—Green Space
—Sustainability
—Architectural
—Annex/Joint
Development
5
•Evaluated 12 site options
•City Hall and 319 Baden Ave
considered most viable based on:
o Proximity to activity
o Cost to build and maintain
o Alignment with SHAPE SSF Plan
o Future-proofing
•Parking solutions/technologies
o Underground ramped
o Stackers
o Robotic
3. Site Analysis
Future Development Projects on
Existing Parking Lots
Existing City Parking Lots
6
•146 net new parking spaces
•Annex replacement, including
possible Pre-K Center for 60-90
children
•7,500 sq. ft. in net additional office
space
•Expanded park and playground
Design Concepts: 2-Level City Hall
7
•234 net new parking spaces
•Annex replacement, including
possible Pre-K Center for 120-150
children
•15,000 sq. ft. in net additional
office space
•Expanded park and playground
Design Concepts: 3-Level City Hall
8
City Hall New Annex Office and playground
from Grand Ave and Maple Ave
9
City Hall park and playground from Walnut Ave and Miller Ave
10
—Addresses a key need with downtown development
—Can serve pre-school and be a community resource for
passive/active recreation and events on nights and weekends
Opportunity for a Downtown Park
11
12
—3-4 year waiting list for the current preschools
—Serving 60-90 children
—Critical education, economic and quality of life goals
Early Childhood Education and Preschool
13
14
•180 net new parking
spaces
•Robotic Parking
•Access to Grand Ave
through alley
Design Concepts: City Lot Baden
15
Robotic Parking Technology
•Efficient space usage
•Automatic collection and
enforcement
•Limited staffing required
•Max throughput of 160
vehicles per hour
16
3. Summary of Design Concepts
2-Level City Hall 3-Level City Hall City Lot Baden
Total Parking Spaces 230 318 220
New Parking Spaces 146 234 180
Existing Spaces
Replaced
84 84 40
Office Space (sqft)23,436 33,672 N/A
Pros •New park and playground facilities
•New Annex Office
•Potential joint development
•Future-proofed and adaptable
•Proximity to City Hall and Library
•Architectural integration
•Greater P3 viability
•Proximity to parking demand
•Lower capital and O&M costs
•Easier parking enforcement
Cons •Higher capital and O&M costs •Limited future-proofing
•Only provides parking
•Impact on adjacent properties
•Less P3 viability
17
What is a Public Private Partnerships (P3)?
—Single private partner to design, build, finance, operate and
maintain (DBFOM) the facility
—Long-term and performance-based contracts for greater
accountability and oversight
—More responsibility or risk allocated to private partner
—Private partner can fund upfront project development,
design, and construction costs
—Spurs innovation and addresses entire project life-cycle, long-
term efficiencies
4. Delivery Strategies
18
Delivery Strategy Options
Pros Cons
Traditional / Public
Sector Comparator
(PSC)
Example: SSF
Community Civic
Center
1. Maximum control
2. Flexibility for future changes
3. Lower financing cost
1. Not performance based
2. Limited risk transfer/financial
certainty
3. Limited life-cycle
management/maintenance
4. Joint development less likely
Public-Private
Partnership (P3)
Example: Long Beach
Civic Center
1. Maximum risk transfer/financial
certainty
2. Performance-based
3. Maximum life-cycle
management/maintenance
4. Costs deferred until project
completion
1. Higher financing cost
2. Reduced control/flexibility
3. Additional transaction
cost/complicated structure/new
process
19
5. P3 Financial Model
Net Project Cost After Revenues –First Year (2026)
2-Level City Hall 3-Level City Hall City Lot Baden
P3 PSC P3 PSC P3 PSC
Upfront Payment $10 M $10 M $10 M $10 M $10 M $10 M
Annual Payment $2.9 M $3.5 M $4.0 M $4.8 M $1.4 M $1.6 M
Annual City Subsidy
(Current Rates)$2.1 M $2.6 M $3.0 M $3.8 M $0.5 M $0.7 M
Annual City Subsidy
(Increased Rates -$2/hr
and $80/month)
$1.6 M $2.2 M $2.7 M $3.5 M $0.1 M $0.3 M
Annual City Subsidy
(Max Rates -$2.25/hr
and $115/month)
$1.3 M $1.9 M $2.4 M $3.2 M ($0.1 M)$0.1 M
20
P3 Efficiencies
—$7.4 million savings on design and construction
—$5.0 million savings on operations and maintenance
—Guaranteed schedule and budget
—Automatic payment deductions if performance targets are not met (e.g., maintenance call
responded to in 4 hours or less, internal office temperature of 72°maintained)
—State of good repair; no deferred maintenance
Time
Facility
Condition P3
Traditional
New
Year 1 Year 50
Failing
21
P3 Net Revenue: 2-Level City Hall Option
$10M upfront, increased rates
Increased Rates
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053
Revenue Positive in Year 16
22
Annual City Payments vs Parking District Revenues:
2-Level City Hall Option
P3 Annual Payments PSC Annual Payments
Parking District Revenues (Base) Parking District Revenues (Increased) Parking District Revenues (Max)
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053
23
6. Staff Recommendation
City staff recommends pursuing a P3 delivery option for the 2-Level City Hall
design concept.
•Provide benefits to the City
•146 net new parking spaces
•Annex replacement, including possible Pre-K Center for 60 children
•15,305 sq. ft. in net additional office space
•Expanded park and playground
24
Next Steps
Initiate Phase 2 and Council approval to advertise procurement Summer 2021
Interview and Evaluate Potential Private Partners with support of Ad
Hoc Council Committee Summer/Fall 2022
Break Ground on New Facility Early 2023
New Facility Opening Early 2025
Thank You!
25
26
Appendices:
i.P3 Basics
ii.Parking Demand
iii.Annual City Payments and Parking
District Revenues
iv.Financial Model Details and
Assumptions
v.Disclaimers
27
P3 Basics
DBF
DBFOM
Availability
DBFOM
User Fees
O&M
Performance
DBB
DBOM
PRIVATE FINANCE
PUBLIC FINANCE
SEGMENTEDPROCUREMENTPACKAGE
Increased Public
Responsibility
INTEGRATEDPROCUREMENTPACKAGE
Increased Private
Responsibility
DB
CMAR
Acronym Meaning
CMAR Construction Management at Risk
DB Design-Build
DBB Design-Bid-Build
DBF Design-Build-Finance
DBOM Design-Build-Operate-Maintain
DBFOM Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain
O&M Operate-Maintain
28
Value is created in an alternative delivery method when
risk is transferred (provided it makes economic sense)
Inefficient
risk transfer
ALL-IN
COSTS
Too much
retained risk
Optimal riskallocation
RISK TRANSFER / INITIAL CONTRACT
COST
29
The O&M term of the project attracts developers
interested in a long-term, stable return on investment
15 –50 years
Operations & Maintenance Period After
Construction
End of
Term
Financial Close
Milestone
Payments
(as applicable)
Availability Payments or User Fees
(as applicable)
Substantial
Completion
O&M during construction
(as applicable)
Construction Period
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Weekday Modeled Occupancy Rates
Current Parking Rates / No New Facility
2025 2030 2035
•Assumes current rates
•$1.00-$1.25 hourly
•$40 -$50 Monthly
•Escalation every 3
years
•Occupancy rates are well
above 80% by 2030 for
most time periods
Parking Demand
30
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Weekday Modeled Occupancy Rates
$2.00 | $80 Parking Rates / 273 New Spots
2025 2030 2035
•Elasticity factors applied
to both on-street and off-
street
•Rates Escalation every 3
years
•Tested each options
separately based on
incremental supply
assumed
Occupancy rates are within
the target range for most
periods through 2035 but
opportunities for further rate
increase/capacity reductions
Weekday Modeled Occupancy Rates -Adjusted
31
32
Annual City Payments vs Parking District Revenues:
3-Level City Hall Option
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
P3 Annual Payments PSC Annual Payments Parking District Revenues (Base) Parking District Revenues (Increased)
33
Annual City Payments vs Parking District Revenues:
City Lot Baden
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
P3 Annual Payments PSC Annual Payments Parking District Revenues (Base) Parking District Revenues (Increased)
34
P3 Financial Model
Project Costs and Value-for-Money (VfM) Analysis (30 years)
2-Level City Hall 3-Level City Hall City Lot Baden
P3 PSC P3 PSC P3 PSC
Design and
Construction $50.9 M $58.3 M $66.6 M $76.4 M $26.3 M $30.0 M
Operations
and
Maintenance
$34.9 M $39.9 M $46.2 M $52.8 M $21.4 M $24.2 M
Financing $49.3 M $21.7 M $67.8 M $29.8 M $20.3 M $9.0 M
Transaction
Costs $1.6 M $0.4 M $1.6 M $0.4 M $1.6 M $0.4 M
Total $136.7 M $120.3 M $182.2 M $159.4 M $69.6 M $63.6 M
35
P3 Financial Model
Net Present Value Project Cost and Revenues –30-year Term, $10M upfront
2-Level City Hall 3-Level City Hall City Lot Baden
P3 PSC P3 PSC P3 PSC
Total Payments $48.1 M $45.7 M $65.1 M $61.9 M $23.2 M $21.9 M
Net Total Payments
(After Revenue at
Current Rates)
$12.5 M $10.1 M $26.2 M $23.1 M ($15.2 M)($16.4 M)
Net Total Payments
(After Revenue at
Increased Rates)
($0.8 M)($3.2 M)$14.7 M $11.5 M ($26.9 M)($28.3 M)
Annual City Subsidy
(After Revenue at
Max Rates)
($7.4 M)($9.9 M)$7.9 M $4.9 M ($33.2 M)($34.5 M)
36
P3 Model Assumptions
•DBFOM structure
•Capital cost, operating cost and revenues as shown
previously
•Financing inputs:
•Concession period: 2-year construction period
+ 28-year O&M period
•Hand-back to City at $0
•90/10 Debt-to-Equity Ratio
•Debt Service Reserve Account (DSRA) 6
months
•Debt Annual Rate 4%
•Equity Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 9%
•1.2 Minimum Debt Service Coverage Ratio
(DSCR)
•Construction time: 2 years
•Annual escalation rate 3%
•Various upfront transaction costs and fees
•Office lease revenue escalation rate 2.7%
•Upfront payment of $10m paid by City at financial
close
The P3 market may yield more
competitive rates
37
PSC Model Assumptions
•DBB structure
•Specific PSC inputs:
•100% Debt
•Debt Annual Rate 2.75%
•30-year financing with debt service starting
after the 2-year CAPI period
•$350,000 Cost of Issuance
•0.4% underwriter’s discount
•+15% increase over P3 option for D&C costs
•+15% increase over P3 option for O&M costs
•Inputs from previous model:
•Mortgage style debt repayment
•Construction time: 2 years
•Annual escalation rate 3%
•Office lease revenue escalation rate 2.7%
•Upfront payment of $10m paid by City
Municipal financing market
may yield more competitive
rates
38
Disclaimers
The model has been developed with P3 industry best practices for the early stages of a
project such as the City's current project alternatives (which would/does not include a
model audit)
Input assumptions for the financial, construction,operation and revenues are based on
data provided by the City, industry standards, research and proprietary knowledge.
All inputs will change for any actual project that results, so the final results will differ from
the model results and be refined as and if the project progresses.
WSP is not a registered Municipal Advisor and is not subject to the fiduciary duty a
Municipal Advisor has to a municipal entity client as established in Section 15B (c)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act (Revised).
City Council Study Session
regarding update on new
Downtown Parking Garage
April 20, 2021
Attachment 1: Design Concept Plans and Renderings
83-8
71-4
75-8
79-8
67-4
30
32
26
28
117 Spaces
113 Spaces
Park
79-8
92-0
100-0
54
54
7,812 GSF
7,812 GSF
7,812 GSF
7,812 GSF
7,812 GSF
230 Gross Parking Spaces
-84 Spaces on City Hall Site
146 Net Parking Spaces Added
Playground
67-4
Lower Level [67-4]
Mid Level [79-8 ]
City of South San Francisco
Parking Structure PPP
City Hall Strategy
Base+Office+Park
March 15, 2021
10 25 50 100NORTH
96-0 92-0
7,812 GSFPlayground
Park
Maple AvenueWalnut AvenueMiller Avenue
Library
City Hall
Top Level [92-0]
450'-0"120'-0"23,436 GSF Office Space
-8,131 GSF in Annex & Adjacent Bldg
15,305 Net GSF Office Space Added
Two-Way 12% Ramps, Typical
3
3
Miller Avenue shown dashed beyond
Outline of City Hall in foreground
79-8
55-0
32
27 [29*]
29
23 [25*]
105 Spaces
112 Spaces
101 Spaces
Park
79-8
92-0
100-0
54
48
11,224 GSF
11,224 GSF
11,224 GSF
318 Gross Parking Spaces
-84 Spaces on City Hall Site
234 Net Parking Spaces Added
33,672 GSF Office Space
-8,131 GSF in Annex & Adjacent Bldg
25,541 Net GSF Office Space Added
Playground
Park
Maple AvenueWalnut AvenueMiller Avenue
Library
City Hall
67-4
55-0
Basement Level [55-0]
Mid Level [67-4 & 79-8]
Top Level [92-0]
City of South San Francisco
Parking Structure PPP
City Hall Strategy
Base+Office+Park+Basement
March 15, 2021
10 25 50 100NORTH
450'-0"120'-0"* ADA spaces at elevation 79-8 only
Two-Way 12% Ramps, Typical
83-8
59
75-8
96-0 92-0
Playground
11,224 GSF
11,224 GSF
3
3
Outline of City Hall in foreground
Playground
Miller Avenue shown dashed beyond
City Council Study Session
regarding update on new
Downtown Parking Garage
April 20, 2021
Attachment 2: Site Validation and Design Concept Report
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
1
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SITE VALIDATION AND DESIGN CONCEPT REPORT
Prepared for the City of South San Francisco
Prepared by WSP USA
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
2
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial
Office Space
Background
The City of South San Francisco (the City) commissioned three studies to analyze parking
demand and concepts in the Downtown area of South San Francisco. These studies have been
used by WSP to analyze the potential of different sites to meet the City’s parking goals and
determine the most viable ones. The scope and results of the parking studies are summarized
below:
• The CDM Smith 2016 parking study reviewed the existing parking conditions and parking
forecast demands in the Downtown area and found that by 2026 an additional 228
parking spaces would be needed in Downtown South San Francisco.
• The Kimley-Horn 2018 study recommended constructing a second public parking garage
south of Grand Avenue and identified the City Hall parking lot as a potential site for a
future, partially underground parking structure.
• The Watry Design 2019 study provided conceptual designs, construction cost estimates,
and a parking pricing analysis for the City Hall parking lot site .
Program
Following City’s directions, WSP established the following program outline for the site analysis
and design concepts:
• Increase Downtown area parking capacity by providing approximately 228 additional
parking spaces as recommended by CDM Smith’s 2016 parking study.
• All of the improvements should do so in an environmentally sustainable and resilient
manner that furthers the City’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, meeting or
exceeding green building standards, and providing resilient green spaces that increase
water conservation and energy efficiency.
• The design of any new facility adjacent to City Hall must be consistent with or
complementary to the design of City Hall and not obstruct the views of City Hall, from
either within or from the surrounding streets.
If the City Hall “super block” site is used; City staff recommend the following program elements:
• Retain/provide the playground at the corner of Walnut and Miller Avenues. This
playground is utilized by All Souls Catholic Church which is across the street from the
existing playground.
• Provide 12,000 to 18,000 gross square feet of office space for City Hall use.
o The 8,000 gross square foot (GSF) City Hall Annex building is located on the
eastern edge of the City Hall site at 315 Maple Street. This building currently
houses the City’s Building Division, would benefit from modernization and
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
3
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial
Office Space
accessibility improvements, and will need to be replaced with like area if the
building is demolished to make way for additional parking.
o The City Hall basement currently houses the City’s Finance Division. This 4,000
GSF space is damp and not a conducive office environment. There is a desire by
City staff to relocate this space to new construction.
o Provide 50% additional space above that currently deployed in the City Hall
Annex and Basement to allow for growth.
• Any additional office capacity may be used for revenue generating commercial tenants
and/or community-serving activities.
• Downtown lacks public park space. The closest public parks are Hillside Recreation
Center north of downtown and Orange Memorial Park west of downtown. The City has
identified a need to develop flexible, active, and well -maintained park and open spaces
that align with the City’s Master Plan to serve a wide range of user groups. Preserving or
improving the existing playground space is a critical goal as w ell.
Site Analysis
The City operates twelve public parking lots throughout downtown (identified in Figure 1). One
of these lots is the Miller Avenue Parking Garage, the other eleven are surface parking lots. Of
these eleven, five have enough site area to support structured parking (highlighted with yellow
rectangles in Figure 1). Two of the remaining five sites were identified as the preferred candidates
for structured parking because their location at 319 and 337 Baden Avenue is convenient to the
downtown business district that they s erve. An additional site was evaluated at the west corner
of Highway 101 and Grand Avenue but its irregular shape makes it not suitable for structured
parking and its location is further away from downtown than any of the other evaluated parking
lots.
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
4
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial
Office Space
Figure 1: Evaluated City Parking Lots
Baden Avenue - The Baden Avenue sites are in the Downtown Residential Core (DRC) zoning
district. Development in this district is permitted to have a maximum height of 65 feet, do not
require ground floor retail, and do not place Floor Area Ratio limitations on structure d parking.
Of the two Baden Avenue sites, the preferred location is 319 Baden Avenue property. This site
has direct pedestrian access to Grand Avenue by virtue of the walkway that starts at Grand
between the businesses at 315 and 319 Grand Avenue and traverses south to Third Lane which
is a few steps northeast of 319 Baden Avenue parking lot. This location is also near the former
State Theater located at northwest corner of Baden and Linden Avenues .
City Hall Site - The other site that is under consideration is the City Hall “super block” which is
the northern half of the block bounded by Grand Avenue to the south, Walnut Avenue to the
west, Miller Avenue to the north and Maple Avenue to the east. This site currently contains an
80-vehicle surface parking lot with access from Miller Avenue; an 8,000 GSF single story City Hall
Annex with 4 parking spots for service vehicles that faces Maple Avenue, a single story storage
building west of the Annex, and a 3,600 square foot urban playground at the corner of Walnut
and Miller Avenue. The City Hall and Library are located on the southern half of the site as is the
City Hall lawn that slopes down from the crest of the hill midway through the block down to south
towards Grand Avenue.
The benefits of the City Hall site are it s size and access. The site available for development
stretches from Walnut Avenue on the west to Maple Avenue on the east and from the top of the
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
5
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial
Office Space
hill behind City Hall north to Miller Avenue. The site available for parking and other development
is approximately 500 feet in the east-west direct by 130 feet north-south. This site has access
from the east, north and west which provides a good degree of planning flexibility.
The historic City Hall Building is the centerpiece of downtown. We have been advised that any
development on the City Hall site must defer to the City Hall Building both in character and scale.
This criteria limits development height and requires the architecture character of the proposed
development to be low-impact architecturally and be in deference to City Hall.
Alternative Concepts
The City Hall site was analyzed under two scenarios and the Baden Avenue site under one
scenario, in which different layouts, number of parking spaces, and other variables were explored
(Attachments 6 and 7 of this report).
Baden Avenue - The Baden parking lot was evaluated under two concepts: an aboveground six -
level building on the existing lot and an aboveground four-level building including the two
adjacent properties to the State Room building (the City Lot Baden and Expanded Baden
scenarios). The six-level version fills the 65-foot zoning height in order to achieve the required
parking capacity. The four-level alternative provides the required parking with a more
neighborhood friendly height but requires the acquisition of the two adj acent properties to the
north (312 and 314 Baden Avenue).
Both versions use robotics to move vehicles that are parked on trays from the parking entry bays
to parking storage bays and back. This system maximizes parking density by changing parking
space access from ramped drives to mechanized trays that move through the garage in the x, y
and z direction. The robotic solution has maximum throughput of 160 vehicles per hour which
limits its capacity to serve surges in demand.
The robotic structures shall be staffed during operating hours to monitor the robotics and clear
malfunctions. Being a specialized structure designed specifically to maximize vehicle storage
capacity they have limited ability to be converted to an alternative use when personal
transportation evolves from the private vehicle to alternative means.
City Hall – This alternative was evaluated under two scenarios: a below grade parking structure
with either two or three levels that are integrated into sloping City Hall site (the 2-Level City Hall
and 3-Level City Hall scenarios). The 2-Level scenario includes a 23,436 gross square feet three-
story office space and 42,750 square feet roof top park. The 3 -Level scenario includes a 33,672
gross square feet of office space and 39,150 square feet rooftop park.
Both scenarios utilize a 30 ft. x 30 ft. structural bay with flat parking levels and ramped circulation
between levels on the west (Walnut Avenue) end of the structure. The 30 ft. x 30 ft. structural
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
6
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial
Office Space
bay reduces the depth of the structural system which results in an interior clear height that allows
for future conversion from parking to office or other use. This “future proofing” provides
flexibility in how the proposed structure is divided between parking and office (or other) in the
future as reliance in privately owned vehicles is reduced in favor of alternative means of
transportation. Under the 2-Level City Hall scenario the first two structural bays adjacent to
Maple Avenue on all 3-levels (park + 2 parking levels) is shelled and fit-out, with each level
providing 7,812 gross square feet of office space. Under the 3 -Level City Hall scenario, the first
three structural bays are shelled and fit -out, with each level providing 11,224 gross square feet
of office space.
The roof top park is anticipated to by synthetic turf in the field area and synthetic playground
surface in the playground. A well graded drainage system below the playground and fields will
be provided to improve field recovery times and system life.
Access to the proposed City Hall alternative is from Walnut Avenue which is accessible from
Grand Avenue to the south and Miller Avenue to the north. If desired, this garage entrance
location would allow Walnut Avenue to be closed between the mid-block parking garage
entrance and Miller Avenue. This would improve the connection between All Souls Catholic
Church and the proposed playground.
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
7
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial
Office Space
Comparison of Alternatives
The pros and cons of each site are described below as well as a breakdown of the parking and
office space provided by the design concepts in Table 1. Attachments 4, 5, 6, and 7 to this report
includes plans and renderings for the design concepts.
Pros – Baden
• Proximity to parking demand
• Lower capital and O&M costs
• Controlled access, improved security
Cons – Baden
• Parking only, no other amenities provided
• Limited futureproofing and adaptability for change in use
Pros – City Hall
• New park and playground facilities
• New Annex Office
• Potential joint development with commercial or community-serving tenants
• Future-proofed and adaptable
• Proximity to City Hall and Library
• Architectural integration
Cons – City Hall
• Higher capital and O&M costs
Table 1: Alternative Design Concepts
2-Level City
Hall
3-Level City
Hall
City Lot
Baden
Expanded
Baden
Total Parking Spaces 230 318 220 262
New Parking Spaces 146 234 180 222
Existing Spaces Replaced 84 84 40 40
Office Space (GSF) 23,436 33,672 N/A N/A
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
8
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial
Office Space
New Office Space (GSF) 15,305 25,541 N/A N/A
Existing Office Space
Replaced (GSF)
8,131 8,131 N/A N/A
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
9
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial
Office Space
Attachments:
1. City Hall budget summary
2. 319 Baden Avenue budget summary
3. City Hall concept rendering – View from Grand & Maple Avenues looking Northwest
4. City Hall concept rendering – View from Miller & Walnut Avenues looking Southwest
5. City Hall concept plans
6. 319 Baden Avenue concept plans
7. Robotic Parking Solution
8. Existing Parking Lots in Downtown South San Francisco
PROJECT:
City Hall Parking Structure
City of South San Francisco, California
PRELIMINARY TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Alternative A Alternative B
+Park + Basement
Parking - Existing 84 -84 -84 -84 -84
Parking - New 389 296 206 318
Net Parking Spaces1 84 305 212 122 234
Office - Existing 8,131 -8,131 -8,131 -8,131 -8,131
Office - New 23,436 23,436 33,672
Net Office Area (GSF)2 8,131 -8,131 15,305 15,305 25,541
ROM Cost3 -$ 33,650,174$ 7,878,422$ 2,811,615$ 13,710,621$
Cum ROM Cost -$ 33,650,174$ 41,528,595$ 44,340,210$ 58,050,831$
Notes:
1. Net Parking Spaces = Gross parking spaces provided less existing parking spaces removed
2. Net Office Area = Gross office area less existing office area removed
3. ROM Cost = Net cost for the added improvement
3/19/2021
These Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates (ROM Cost) are based on WSP’s professional experience and
judgment and shall be deemed to represent the company’s opinion. The company has no control over the cost of
labor, material, equipment and other relevant factors that could influence the ultimate construction costs. Thus, the
company does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or the actual facility cost will be the same as the company’s
estimate of probable construction cost or that construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable cost.
Existing Base Building + Office
Prelim Total Project Budget Page 1 of 1
PROJECT:
319 Baden Avenue
City of South San Francisco, California
PRELIMINARY TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 2/4/2021
Parking - Existing 40 -40 -40 -40
Parking - New 220 262 112
Net Parking Spaces1 40 180 222 72
ROM Cost2 -$ 22,824,669$ 25,782,821$ 1,793,411$
Cost / Space3 -$ 126,804$ 116,139$ 24,908$
Notes:
1. Net Parking Spaces = Gross parking spaces provided less existing parking spaces removed
2. ROM Cost = Net cost for the added improvement
3. Cost / Space = ROM Cost / Net Parking Spaces
4. The Project Budget for Strategy B does not include the cost of land acquistion.
These Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates (ROM Cost) are based on WSP’s professional experience and judgment
and shall be deemed to represent the company’s opinion. The company has no control over the cost of labor, material,
equipment and other relevant factors that could influence the ultimate construction costs. Thus, the company does not
guarantee that proposals, bids, or the actual facility cost will be the same as the company’s estimate of probable
construction cost or that construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable cost.
Existing
Strategy A:
6 Level, Existing Lot
Strategy B4:
4 Level, Expanded Lot
Strategy C:
Stackers, Existing Lot
Prelim Total Project Budget Page 1 of 1
83-8
71-4
75-8
79-8
67-4
30
32
26
28
117 Spaces
113 Spaces
Park
79-8
92-0
100-0
54
54
7,812 GSF
7,812 GSF
7,812 GSF
7,812 GSF
7,812 GSF
230 Gross Parking Spaces
-84 Spaces on City Hall Site
146 Net Parking Spaces Added
Playground
67-4
Lower Level [67-4]
Mid Level [79-8 ]
City of South San Francisco
Parking Structure PPP
City Hall Strategy
Base+Office+Park
March 15, 2021
10 25 50 100NORTH
96-0 92-0
7,812 GSFPlayground
Park
Maple AvenueWalnut AvenueMiller Avenue
Library
City Hall
Top Level [92-0]
450'-0"120'-0"23,436 GSF Office Space
-8,131 GSF in Annex & Adjacent Bldg
15,305 Net GSF Office Space Added
Two-Way 12% Ramps, Typical
3
3
Miller Avenue shown dashed beyond
Outline of City Hall in foreground
79-8
55-0
32
27 [29*]
29
23 [25*]
105 Spaces
112 Spaces
101 Spaces
Park
79-8
92-0
100-0
54
48
11,224 GSF
11,224 GSF
11,224 GSF
318 Gross Parking Spaces
-84 Spaces on City Hall Site
234 Net Parking Spaces Added
33,672 GSF Office Space
-8,131 GSF in Annex & Adjacent Bldg
25,541 Net GSF Office Space Added
Playground
Park
Maple AvenueWalnut AvenueMiller Avenue
Library
City Hall
67-4
55-0
Basement Level [55-0]
Mid Level [67-4 & 79-8]
Top Level [92-0]
City of South San Francisco
Parking Structure PPP
City Hall Strategy
Base+Office+Park+Basement
March 15, 2021
10 25 50 100NORTH
450'-0"120'-0"* ADA spaces at elevation 79-8 only
Two-Way 12% Ramps, Typical
83-8
59
75-8
96-0 92-0
Playground
11,224 GSF
11,224 GSF
3
3
Outline of City Hall in foreground
Playground
Miller Avenue shown dashed beyond
City Council Study Session
regarding update on new
Downtown Parking Garage
April 20, 2021
Attachment 3: Delivery Options Analysis Report
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
Prepared for the City of South San Francisco
by WSP USA
1
P3 DELIVERY OPTIONS ANALYSIS
FOR NEW PARKING FACILITIES IN DOWNTOWN SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO
ATTACHMENT 4
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
P3 Delivery Options Analysis 2
CONTENTS
1. Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Project Goals ............................................................................................................................................. 3
3. Delivery Options ........................................................................................................................................ 4
4. Screening Criteria and Delivery Option Analysis .......................................................................................... 6
5. Recommended Project Delivery Approach and Pending Analysis .............................................................. 13
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
P3 Delivery Options Analysis 3
1. OVERVIEW
This P3 Delivery Options Analysis report addresses three core objectives: 1) define of the City of South San
Francisco’s (“the City’s”) goals for the project; 2) identify viable public-private partnership (P3) and other
contracting arrangements to deliver the project; and 3) align the City’s goals and other important criteria to those
contracting arrangements for consideration in early stages of procurement, which will inform and shape the
project.
2. PROJECT GOALS
The WSP team held two separate workshops with the City in addition to data collection and other analysis to
determine and refine the City’s key goals in the development of the project. The six most important priorities of
the City of South San Francisco for the project in downtown are: 1) increase parking, 2) provide financial certainty
to the City, 3) create and improve green space, 4) deliver sustainability features, 5) conform to local design and not
obstruct the views of and from City Hall, and 6) facilitate joint development of City office and new commercial
space. Formalizing and detailing these project goals will inform the narrowing and selection of a range of P3
contracting structures best suited for the project and further inform decision-making on other critical issues to
ensure a successful project outcome.
The following project goals were established in approximate order of priority:
Goal 1. Increase Parking
The City wants to increase parking in the downtown with a modern facility, or facilities, that are future-proofed for
technological advancements and evolving land use patterns. The resulting increase in parking should be
approximately 228 spaces.
Goal 2. Financial Certainty
The project should minimize financial risk to the City, relying on parking revenue and land value for the delivery of
public assets to the maximum extent possible, while optimizing efficient operations and maintenance of public
facilities. To achieve this, the City will consider tax credits, alternative funding, and financing.
Goal 3. Green Space
The City has identified a need to develop flexible, active, and well -maintained park and open spaces that align with
the City’s Master Plan to serve a wide range of user groups. Preserving or improving the existing playground space
is a critical goal as well.
Goal 4. Sustainability
All of the improvements delivered under this project should do so in an environmentally sustainable and resilient
manner that furthers the City’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, meeting or exceeding green building
standards, and providing resilient green spaces that increase water conservation and energy efficiency.
Goal 5. Architectural
The design of any new facility adjacent to City Hall must be consistent with or complementary to the design of City
Hall and not obstruct the views of City Hall, from either within or from the surrounding streets. Additionally, the
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
P3 Delivery Options Analysis 4
design of the parking structure and surrounding green space should reflect archi tectural practices detailed in
Shape SSF 2040 General Plan.
Goal 6. Annex/Joint Development
The City Hall parking lot project alternatives replace and modernize the government office space currently housed
in the Annex and leverage underutilized land to deliver complementary commercial space and/or community-
serving amenities.
3. DELIVERY OPTIONS
WSP has analyzed three specific options to show the full range across the P3/risk transfer continuum, as discussed
at the kick-off meeting. There is a considerable flexibility within that range to choose hybrid options that might
include different approaches for each of the three main components of the project (parking, green space, and joint
development).
Delivery Option 1: DESIGN BID BUILD (DBB)
DBB consists of three sequential project phases (design, bid, build)
with two separate contracts that are procured by the public sector:
one for design and another followed for construction. DBB contracts
are typically evaluated on a cost-only basis and reimbursements are
based on a time and material basis.
Under this option, no maintenance, operations, or financing support
is provided by the private partner and most risk is carried by the
public sector in exchange for maximizing control (short of self-
performance). Under the DBB option, the City would retain asset
ownership, be responsible for provision of service levels, setting
parking rates, maintenance, and retain project risks and rewards
(including limited budget certainty). Under a DBB option, the City is
exposed to change orders and claims by contractors. This approach
may also result in a longer implementation schedule, as elements
would be procured separately, and potential design and scope
changes may result in additional delays. As a result of these risks
being taken by the City, the DBB option includes material financial uncertainty for the City.
Delivery Option 2: DESIGN BUILD + OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (DB+OM)
Under a DB+OM option, the public sector procures two separate contracts; one for the design and construction of
the facility and another contract for a different private partner that operates and maintains the facility under a
performance-based regime. DB contracts are typically awarded on a best-value basis and contractors bid on a fix
cost and schedule. Procurement of the O&M partner would require an early assessment of the assets and current
operations by both the public sector and interested operators to promote transparency and optimal r isk transfer
and performance on the project. Ultimately though, the O&M partner will not take on the risks created by the DB
contractor’s work.
The City of SSF completed the design
and planning of the project, then
engaged in a prequalification
process for general contractors,
issued a subsequent Request for
Proposals for prequalified firms, and
finally awarded the contract to the
lowest responsible bidder.
SSF Community Civic Campus
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
P3 Delivery Options Analysis 5
The public sector will still be responsible for financing all aspects of the project, including the risks of both DB and
O&M change orders and cost overruns. Moderate levels of risk transfer can be achieved, but the interface risk
between the public sector and two private partners limits the extent of life-cycle optimization. Under the DB+OM
option, the City would retain asset ownership and significant control, including parking rates and for setting
maintenance and service levels. As a result of these risks being taken by the City, the DBB option includes material
financial uncertainty for the City.
Delivery Option 3. DESIGN BUILD FINANCE OPERATE MAINTAIN (DBFOM)
In a DBFOM contract, a single private partner is responsible for delivering all aspects of the project, including all or
the majority of the financing. The contractor is also responsible for managing the project O&M and infrastructure
life-cycle costs. Under this structure, a single point of contact
integrates delivery and allows the developer to achieve higher
performance, innovation, cost and schedule efficiencies, and
risk optimization.
The public sector still retains ownership of all facilities and
control through performance-based enforcement mechanisms.
Under the DBFOM option, the City would be responsible for
setting the project policies, service levels, and parking ratesand
will typically be supported by outside advisors to ensure the
desired outcomes.
The inclusion of O&M along with the design and construction of
a project normally increases the likelihood that a private sector
investor would contribute equity because there is a long-term
opportunity to earn a return on investment. P3 developers and
their lenders will perform a detailed analysis of risk and risk
transfer to determine whether the internal rate of return on
the equity investment can be safeguarded or if the risk
exposure is too great. While private sector financing for a
project is “at risk” in the sense that poor performance can
reduce the amount of revenues or payments made to the
developer, the fundamental principle is that the private sector
will be repaid its investment and any financing will be repaid
with interest by either the City or the users. This equity
investment can help keep the P3 developer’s “feet to the fire” facilitating improved project management, taking
early steps to avoid performance issues and other actions that would be the City’s risk in the DBB and BD+OM
options. Private financing for a P3 is usually, but not in all cases, more expensive than typical tax-exempt bond
financing, but can be outweighed by risk transfer, life-cycle efficiencies, innovation, and improved performance to
drive overall value. As a result of fewer risks being taken by the City, the DBFOM option includes less financial
uncertainty for the City. For this delivery option, both availability payment and revenue risk approaches will be
considered.
Delivery Options Pros and Cons
Each delivery option has been analyzed in their pros and cons, as detailed in the following table:
Table 1: Pros and Cons of Delivery Options
Delivery Option Pros Cons
The City of Long Beach procured a new
$530-million civic center campus based on a
DBFOM P3 with a 40-year term of O&M and
lifecycle. The project included a new City
Hall, Main Library, and Port Headquarters.
The project was designed with a focus on
total long-term costs to the City, including
O&M and lifecycle costs and the associated
risks taken by the private developer.
Long Beach Civic Center
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
P3 Delivery Options Analysis 6
Design-Bid-Build (DBB) 1. Maximum control
2. Flexibility for future changes
3. Lower financing cost
1. Not performance based
2. Limited risk transfer/financial
certainty
3. Limited life-cycle
management/maintenance
4. Joint development less likely
Design-Build + Operations-
Maintenance (DB+OM) 1. Moderate risk transfer/financial
certainty
2. Moderate control/flexibility for
future changes
1. Multiple
procurements/contractors
2. Limited examples
Design-Build-Finance-Operate-
Maintain (DBFOM) 1. Maximum risk transfer/financial
certainty
2. Performance-based
3. Maximum life-cycle
management/maintenance
4. Costs deferred until project
completion
1. Higher financing cost
2. Reduced control/flexibility
3. Additional transaction
cost/complicated
structure/novelty
4. SCREENING CRITERIA AND DELIVERY OPTION ANALYSIS
As the City permits more high-density housing and a vibrant commercial district, pressure has been mounting to
increase the available downtown parking supply. Previous studies have found that the City lacks sufficient parking
(a) at lunch time for restaurants and shops, particularly along Grand Avenue, (b) when nearby major events occur,
and (c) for overnight use for residents. This is compounded by growing residential parking needs and an
undersupply of parking around City Hall, making City Hall and other government services difficult to access.
With a steady increase in residential development in the City’s downtown core, there is also a need to redesign the
plaza on Grand Avenue to incorporate a larger playground, recreational amenities, and programming activities to
serve families and let them grow in place. It can also be an economic catalyst and community anchor by hosting
events, markets, and other vents. Current master plans and streetscape ideas have been developed but need
further assessment and stakeholder input. This green space can also contribute to the overall health and well-
being of the City through sustainability and accessibility improvements.
Creating new City office space to replace the Annex Building and its functions will not only allow the City to serve
residents and business more effectively in a modern efficient facility, but can also improve government employee
morale and attract and retain the best talent by providi ng a safe and comforting work environment. To the extent
changes in public workforce and space needs evolve, the new space can be flexible, and any surplus space can be
used for other activities. This might include commercial office space as well as comm unity serving institutions such
as daycare centers, health facilities and youth clinics; all of which complement the government agencies and may
be revenue generating.
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
P3 Delivery Options Analysis 7
The City is seeking more predictable revenue and costs from its parking and other facili ties to better manage
financial risk and plan for future budget needs. Long-term revenue options for the project will be evaluated in the
early planning phases. These may include changes to parking policies and rates to ensure better transportation and
economic development outcomes and flexible commercial and City uses for the proposed facilities. A key area of
investigation will include cost considerations and logistics for EV charging, which provides a community amenity,
and solar panels, both aiding in the achievement of the City’s environmental goals.
The City is contemplating the potential to be an environmental champion as a net-zero energy user. Throughout
the project, a thorough analysis will be conducted regarding California’s energy efficiency and green building
design standards, the City’s climate goals, measures for nonresidential facilities, and overall resiliency and
sustainability initiatives to be implemented via the project. Sustainability features of the project may include, but
are not limited to, energy efficient facilities, sustainable construction materials, water use efficiency, reducing the
solid waste stream, among others. The project may also be leveraged to support sustainability initiatives of other
City departments and offices such as solar energy generation or centralized smart energy management.
WSP has identified fifteen screening criteria upon which the City can analyze the potential of the three alternative
delivery approaches (DBB, DB+OM, and DBFOM) to solve and achieve the City’s goals.
The proposed screening criteria will assist the City in deciding the type of alternative delivery structure they would
prefer to advance.
1. Increase parking in the downtown
When solely focused on the ability to increase parking in the downtown, all three delivery options should equally
achieve that goal if procured and executed at a high level. This does not take into consideration other factors such
as maximizing City control, risk transfer, adaptability, financial certainty and other factors discussed in more detail
below.
2. Flexible use for park and open spaces
Similarly, the ability to deliver park and open spaces should be similar for all three delivery options under
consideration. The DBB option has been used extensively for similar park projects in the City and elsewhere, with
high levels of control by the City ensuring flexibility but accordingly with high levels of City risk retention. DB+OM
has comparably lower levels of control to DBB and DBFOM has the lowest levels of control, but correspondingly
the lowest levels of City risk retention. There are few, but a growing number of, precedent projects in which
alternative delivery methods have been used to delivery park and green space facilities, particularly when
combined with other uses.
3. Joint development to maximize use of the Annex with commercial space and other
community-serving amenities
Once again, all three delivery options under consideration could achieve joint development of commercial and
government offices as well as community serving amenities, and has the general control and risk aspects described
above with some subtle differences. DBB provides maximum control and flexibility to build what’s currently
desired by the City, though private commercial space is unlikely to be delivered with this method and a City would
not typically want to retain such development risk. DB+OM similarly could achieve joint development, though
typically would not be used for commercial development. DBFOM strikes the best balance of control and
adaptability and is ideally suited for the type of joint development contemplated as demonstrated by other recent
P3 projects.
4. Achieve environmental sustainability and resiliency through all aspects of the project
All three options are capable of achieving environmental sustainability and resiliency if properly scoped, structured
and ultimately procured. A DB+OM may be able to achieve higher levels of performance in this regard because it
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
P3 Delivery Options Analysis 8
combines multiple components of delivery in a holistic manner. For that same reason, the DBFOM may achieve
the highest level of sustainability given the larger scope, life-cycle planning, and best-in-class contractors that are
typically interested in projects of that kind where sustainability and resiliency improvements may make stronger
financial sense.
5. Allocate and mitigate risks in a cost-effective manner
DBB provides limited risk transfer because the City ultimately bears most responsibility for cost, schedule and
other common design and construction issues. There is more risk transfer away from the City under a DB+OM
model because the two contracts are both performance-based. But, compared to DBFOM, neither DBB nor
DB+OM provides the holistic integration of all components of a project that can achieve higher delivery and
operating performance while at the same time having greater risk transfer away from the City in a cost-effective
manner.
6. Control over design, construction, and O&M and lifecycle decisions
The DBB approach provides the most control over all phases of the facilities’ life cycle, including key decisions
regarding design, construction, O&M, lifecycle and financing. But, it also requires that the City bears much of the
risk for those decisions. DB+OM provides less control over those phases of the work, and DBFOM progressively
less control. For these latter two options, the lack of control can be mostly overcome by proper scoping,
performance requirements and predevelopment planning of the project. As long as due diligence is performed
with detailed development of technical requirements and performance mechanisms, a DBFOM can ensure delivery
of the desired outcomes. Control can still be exercised over unanticipated issues, but may require some
compensation or relief events to the private partner.
7. Opportunity for technological innovations and future-proofing of facilities
A DB+OM or DBFOM model provides the City with incentives and opportunities to include technological
innovations to future-proof the facilities because it relies on long-term value-maximizing criteria to award and
implement the project. A long-term agreement can be structured to incentivize private operators to incorporate
innovations to the project, with the DBFOM approach likely to generate the most innovations, though the City may
pay a premium for transferring that technology risk.
8. Opportunity for life-cycle cost optimization
A DBFOM option provides the City with the most incentives and opportunities to maximize life-cycle costs because
it can transfer some or all of the operations and maintenance risk to private operators under performance
requirements. A DBFOM structure is best suited to incentivize private operators to continuously engage in cost
optimization activities to maximize the project’s profitability. The DB+OM option may help the City in guarantying
minimum service levels and prevent maintenance backlogs, but it may limit the operator’s ability or willingness to
adapt to new technologies and processes to optimize costs. Performance incentives and savings-sharing
mechanisms may incentivize private partners to optimize costs under the DB+OM option. The DBB offers the least
opportunities for the City to engage in long-term cost optimization strategies. Embedding the project’s operations
into the City’s existing own processes and operations will not provide incentives or contract obligations to meet
higher operations and maintenance levels to optimize long-term costs unless it is in the form of a DB+OM or
DBFOM.
9. Ensure coordination with key stakeholders and minimize interface risks
Both DBB and DB+OM options have two contracts, thus placing the bulk of interface risk, i.e., ensuring alignment
of different components of the facilities and entities responsible for providing them, on the City. This includes
engagement of key stakeholders in the design, operations and maintenance process, though the DB+OM option
may transfer more of that risk to the private partners if properly structured in the contracts. In either case, the
City bears the financing interface risk. The DBFOM option provide the most amount of stakeholder coordination
and transfer of interface risk given that it is a single contract managed by a developer with an equity interest in the
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
P3 Delivery Options Analysis 9
outcome and responsible for the financing. Given the size and long-term nature, that private partner is further
incentivized to engage and maintain it’s relationship with key stakeholders. Additional selection criteria in the
procurement and performance metrics in the P3 agreement may be included to heighten that alignment of
interests.
10. Ability to adapt to long-term economic trends
A DBB option gives the City substantial ability to adapt the facilities to long-term economic trends, such as changes
in driving and parking patterns and the desired mix of residential, commercial and retail land uses. Unfortunately,
this flexibility is almost wholly at the City’s own risk given that any changes in those trends will borne by the City,
including that it will have to pay for any changes to the facilities to align with those trends. A DB+OM probably
provides the least amount of adaptability given that it involves the City entering into a medium- to long-term O&M
contract. If the City wants to change the function of the facility, it may require early termination of that O&M
contract at some expense or waiting for it to end. The DBFOM option, if properly structured, has the potential to
provide high levels of adaptability with reduced market and financial risk to the City. For example, any such P3
agreement for a term of more than 15 years that is likely for a project of this kind—particularly as a revenue risk
P3—would incentivize the private partner to anticipate long-term economic trends and budget for the potential
conversion of parking into other uses as parking demand declines. At a minimum, provisions could include gain-
and/or loss-sharing between the City and its private partner should demand for parking and other project
components shift considerably during the term of the agreement.
11. Accelerate procurement and delivery schedule
Given that both DBB and DB+OM options require the procurement of two separate contracts, they typically
provide a slower delivery schedule than the DBFOM option. The DBFOM, though a single contract, does usually
require a comparably longer procurement period of 18 to 24 months, given the interactive procurement process
and significant cost and effort required of bidders to develop proposals.
12. Reduce owner’s cash flow requirements during construction
The DBFOM option has the greatest ability to reduce the City’s cash flow requirements during construction. Under
a typical P3 agreement, whether under the availability payment or revenue risk structure, the contractor works at
its own financial risk and does not receive payment from the owner until substantial completion is reached on the
construction phase. Should the City choose to, it may “buy down” financing cost by making milestone payments
when certain tasks are completed by the private partner, including at substantial completion reducing construction
risk to the City. The DBB and DB+OM options provide limited ability to reduce the City’s cash flow requirements
during construction since the private partners do no typically work at financial risk during those times and will
likely be paid on a monthly basis with certain performance payments when key milestones are reached.
13. Improve O&M budget visibility/stability
The DBB delivery option provides little to no visibility and stability for the O&M budget given that operations and
maintenance are not part of the scope of the contracts. The limited benefit in this regard is that the facilities will
be newly built and have little O&M costs initially. The DB+OM option provides more budget stability given that the
O&M component is a separate performance-based contract with enforcement mechanisms. But, it is unlikely to
meet the same level of performance as a DBFOM given that the latter option incorporates full life-cycle planning
into the design of the facilities to ensure the most efficient and stable operations, maintenance and lifecycle costs
over the term of the contract. Further the DBFOM performance mechanisms penalize the operator and potentially
the equity investor, if the facilities are not properly operated and maintained.
14. Transfer revenue risk to stabilize City parking budget
While somewhat dependent on the exact structure, the DBFOM model has the greatest potential to transfer the
City’s revenue risk and be a stabilizing factor on the City’s budget for parking. An availability payment (AP)
DBFOM, in which regular payments over the contract term are made by the City to the private partner to cover the
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
P3 Delivery Options Analysis 10
full costs of the project regardless of parking and other revenue, still has some limited revenue risk transfer in that
performance mechanisms will incentivize an on-time delivery and well-maintained facilities that attract users. A
revenue risk (RR) DBFOM, as its name suggests, maximizes risk transfer to the private partner. The DBB option has
no revenue risk transfer since separate contractors are only responsible for designing and building the facilities.
The DB+OM option has some risk transfer, not unlike an AP DBFOM, in that it incentivizes strong performance
under each contract to deliver and maintain the facilities, but doesn’t have the unified approach with a single point
of responsibility, the equity owner.
15. Provide financial certainty to the City
The DBFOM option provides the City with the greatest potential to have financial certainty throughout the term of
the project. Under the DBFOM option, the private partner works at its own financial risk throughout the phases of
the project, integrating project risks into a single contract, and is responsible for managing the interface between
construction and operations. While the DB+OM option may offer similar financial certainty to the City by procuring
fixed-price DB and O&M contracts, it offers a lower potential for the City to enforce performance-based payments
to the O&M contractor, compared to the DBFOM option, and requires the City to negotiate the O&M contract
during or after the DB contract is implemented, thus providing the City less certainty for the O&M budget . The
DBB option provides financial certainty to the City only during construction because the design contract would
determine the project’s funding requirements but provide no financial certainty for the O&M budget.
Table 1 below provides the framework for this analysis for a quick scan of the advantages and disadvantages for
each option according to the City’s goals according to the narrative discussion and analysis above.
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
P3 Delivery Options Analysis 11
Table 2: Screening Criteria for Alternative Delivery Approaches
Table 2, below, provides an overview of the preceding Screening Criteria and Delivery Options Analysis. The more
full, or black, the circle is, the better the procurement method addresses the screening criteria.
Screening Criteria DBB DB+OM DBFOM
1. Increase parking in the downtown ◕ ◕ ◕
2. Flexible use for park and open spaces ◕ ◑ ◑
3. Joint Development to maximize use of the Annex
with commercial space and other community-
serving amenities ◔ ◑ ●
4. Achieve environmental sustainability and
resiliency through all aspects of the project ◑ ◕ ●
5. Allocate and mitigate risks in a cost-effective
manner ◔ ◑ ●
6. Control over design, construction, and O&M
decisions ● ◑ ◔
7. Opportunity for technological innovations and
future-proofing of facilities ◑ ◕ ●
8. Opportunity for life-cycle cost optimization ○ ◑ ●
9. Ensure coordination with key stakeholders and
minimize interface risks ○ ◑ ●
10. Ability to adapt to long-term economic trends ◑ ◔ ◕
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
P3 Delivery Options Analysis 12
11. Accelerate procurement and delivery schedule ◑ ◔ ◕
12. Reduce owner’s cash flow requirements during
construction ○ ◔ ●
13. Improve O&M budget visibility/ stability ○ ◕ ●
14. Transfer revenue risk to stabilize City budget ○ ◔ ●
15. Provide financial certainty to the City ◔ ◑ ◕
Based on the analyzed screening criteria, a recommendation will be discussed at the end of this report.
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
P3 Delivery Options Analysis 13
5. RECOMMENDED PROJECT DELIVERY APPROACH AND PENDING ANALYSIS
Based on the initial application of the fifteen screening criteria to analyze the three delivery approaches, a DBFOM
contract may be the most beneficial to the City in achieving its project goals. While all of the three approaches
have similar potential to adequately solve the City’s priority goal of adding parking, the DBFOM structure
complements this goal with a subset of additional benefits to help achieve the City’s goals. This is particularly true
if the City decides to deliver all potential components (parking, green space, and joint development) as a single,
holistic project in order to achieve project efficiencies.
Nevertheless, a DBFOM structure will present its own set of potential challenges to the City, drawing resources
from a relatively small organization to execute a complex contract structure in a sector particularly impacted by
the Covid-19 pandemic. Success will be predicated on clearly articulating the City’s goals and technical
requirements, identifying and overcoming key project risks, conducting a streamlined and predictable
procurement, and iterative stakeholder engagement.
This recommended approach will also be tested throughout the planned market outreach activities to gather
feedback and interest from potential bidders. Refinements in the approach will be informed by the feedback
received.
This analysis is supported by further technical and financial work that WSP has performed and summarized in
separate reports, including:
• High-Level Risk Register Analysis
• Site Validation and Design Concept Report
• Real Estate Opportunities Report
• Market Outreach Plan
• Procurement Work Plan
City Council Study Session
regarding update on new
Downtown Parking Garage
April 20, 2021
Attachment 4: Real Estate Opportunities Report
Draft 2/19/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
1
REAL ESTATE OPPORTUNITIES REPORT
Prepared for the City of South San Francisco
Prepared by WSP USA
ATTACHMENT 5
Draft 2/19/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
2
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial
Office Space
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
As part of the Site and Design Validation task, WSP explored the potential for incorporating non-parking land uses
into the overall project. The Real Estate Opportunities Report summarizes the key findings from this analysis,
including the revenue-generating potential from commercial development that could be an additional funding
source for the project. This analysis considers near- and long-term commercial real estate industry trends, local
market conditions for new commercial uses, as well as the City’s goals and priorities identified in discussions and
existing documentation. This preliminary effort is considered a starting point to inform initial decision-making and
for further confirmation / validation in future market outreach / sounding tasks.
Key Assumptions
Annex replacement – with respect to the scale and configuration of potential non-parking uses, the primary initial
requirement is that the project will replace and modernize the City government office space currently housed in
the Annex (approximately 8,100 SF).
Non-parking land uses considered - based on discussions with City staff on the site’s attributes and experiences at
other City-owned sites, non-parking land uses under consideration include:
1. commercial office space, particularly those that complement / benefit from proximity to City services;
2. community-serving amenities, such as childcare or health services.
Revenue potential by non-parking use – from the perspective of overall project-level financial feasibility, beyond
the space used to replace the Annex, it is assumed that commercial office space would generate revenue through
tenant leases while community-serving uses would be subsidized and considered a public benefit delivered by the
project. Assumptions for the financial analysis include achievable market rents in the Class A range for private
office tenants and in the Class B/C range for subsidized, community serving uses.
Report Overview
Based on these assumptions, the Real Estate Opportunities Report is focused on the market and financial feasibility
and risks of including leasable commercial office space as part of the overall project. The following sections
include:
1. Long-term office development trends – from a macro-level perspective, the propensity for office-using
employees to telecommute has been steadily increasing over time, and the global pandemic has served to
accelerate this trend. While current / near-term market conditions suggest that a tenant-occupied
commercial office element could add significant risk to the project, longer -term industry forecasts
indicate a return to more normal conditions over time.
2. Local office market overview – This section includes a closer look at South San Francisco economic
trends, commercial office market supply and demand conditions, and site-specific strengths, weaknesses,
and opportunities for new commercial office development as part of the project.
3. Key findings and conclusions – Ultimately, the primary goal of the Real Estate Opportunities Report is to
inform and feed into successive tasks, including the P3 Financial Feasibility Model task, as well as to
inform future market outreach / sounding discussions. For the financial feasibility analysis, achievable
rent, operating costs, and net operating income (NOI) of commercial space is provided on a per-square-
foot basis to allow for adjustments in development mix scenarios and resulting financial implications.
These initial assumptions should then be confirmed / validated through market outreach and any
resulting solicitation process in later tasks.
Draft 2/19/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
3
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial
Office Space
LONG-TERM OFFICE INDUSTRY TRENDS
The global pandemic has disrupted travel patterns of residents and workers of the City. Driving, commuting,
parking, and work habits have been and remain dramatically altered, and long-term behavior shifts are yet to be
determined. While the overall economy and office market are assumed to have rebounded from the COVID-19
economic crisis over the period of analysis, there may still be lasting impacts to the way we use office space in the
future. These shifts have the potential to cause significant structural changes to overall office market supply and
demand conditions nationally and regionally. A review of the latest industry reports covering the future of office
market demand revealed the following key themes:
1. An acceleration of the existing trend towards increased teleworking - reduced demand for office space
2. Increased worker distance requirements - increased demand for office space
3. The possibility for much greater demand for suburban flex office that meets in the middle between the
extremes of work from home (WFH) and work in a central business district (CBD) / urban core – increased
demand for smaller-scale, flexible office space in more convenient locations
4. Households moving to more affordable “bedroom communities” like SSF – increased demand for property
generally
Acceleration of WFH
After the retail and hospitality sectors, the office sector is considered to be the most severely impacted land use in
the short term, as the majority of office-using employees have converted to telecommuting. While this shift is a
temporary result of efforts to minimize the spread of COVID-19, many employees are discovering that they can
conduct the day-to-day requirements of their jobs just as effectively from home. As a result, some office-using
employers are rethinking the physical real estate footprint needed going forward. On the other hand, many office-
using industry sectors require activities that are more productive in an office environment, which can often
facilitate better coordination, collaboration, knowledge transfer, and career guidance / interaction between junior
level and senior level staff. Beyond industry sector, employee preference is also a very case-by-case basis
depending on several factors that come down to the individual, such as dependents / childcare demands, existing
home office space or lack thereof, and other work-life balance considerations. Even data from various surveys
tends to differ significantly on the subject of employee preference, as shown below.
Figure 1: Days per Week Employees Would Like to Work from Home
Source: Gensler survey of 2,300 employees, PWC survey of 1,200 employees1
1www.gensler.com/research-insight/workplace-surveys/us-work-from-home-survey/2020;
www.pwc.com/us/remotework
44%
8%
12%
29%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Gensler Survey (of 2,300 employees)
PWC Survey (of 1,200 employees)
None 1-2 3-4 5
Draft 2/19/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
4
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial
Office Space
The survey results show dramatic differences in office worker preferences, with one survey finding that 44% of
employees want to work in an office 5 days per week versus just 8% in the other survey, and 12% full-time working
from home versus 29%. Although the landscape of employer and employee preferences continues to change
rapidly, most industry experts agree that the propensity to work from home will increase permanently as a result
of the pandemic, which could pose a risk to long-term office demand fundamentals. However, what the chart also
shows is that between 72 to 88% of workers surveyed want the ability to conduct their work in an office for some
amount of their work week.
Increased Worker Distance Requirements
Those employees and office tenants who do return to the office in larger-scale office settings are likely to require
more space per employee than in the past to increase physical distance between employees. Like the long-term
trend towards increasing telecommuting, over the past few decades, office tenants have been focused on
increasing space efficiency by getting more employees into smaller spaces, resulting in a decline in the typical
square footage per employee required. This ongoing increase in workplace density has had a net effect of reducing
overall office space demand as the physical space need to house one employee declines (e.g. from 250 SF per
employee to 150 SF). Physically, this trend has meant a shift from employees with a dedicated, enclosed office
space to a greater proportion of dedicated cubicles, to agile / “hoteling” workspaces with minimal personally
dedicated space.
Now that the term “social distancing” has been added to our everyday vocabulary, most office development
practitioners and office workers expect to return to workplaces that will foster greater physical distance amongst
employees and carefully consider the amount of shared space versus dedicated space. Unlike the work-from-home
trend which the pandemic has served as an accelerant for, implementing social distance measures into the office
environment would be a reversal of the ongoing industry trend towards maximum space efficiency. While every
tenant and employee situation and preference is different, at a macro level, this expectation of greater employee
distance is expected to mostly offset the reduced office demand resulting from increased propensity to work from
home. A recent office market demand analysis conducted by CBRE Econometric Advisors forecasts a net overall
decline in office market demand of approximately 2% by 2030 as a result of both trends.2
Greater Need for Hybrid / Flexible Office Space
In addition to the above trends, there is also a strong
possibility for much greater demand for suburban, flexible
office options that “meet in the middle” between the
extremes of WFH and work in a conventional CBD / office
destination. This will result in increased demand for smaller-
scale, flexible office space in less conventional locations, or
“urbanized suburban” settings. This is a concept that may align
well with potential office use at the subject site, given its
smaller scale and less office-oriented surrounding built
environment.
As the pandemic persists, flexible, shared space is increasingly
being considered as a viable option for larger corporate office
users. With employees at home and severe economic
contraction, conventional long-term leases of large-scale
office spaces are less appealing for companies trying to be as
responsive as possible in the face of ongoing uncertainty. A
2 www.cbre-ea.com/docs/default-source/ea-viewpoint-reports/cbre-ea-viewpoint_remoteworking.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Draft 2/19/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
5
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial
Office Space
CBRE survey of office tenants taken in both June and September of 2020 reflects this evolving outlook on flexible
office space.
Figure 2: Responses over Time on the Anticipated Role of Flexible Office Space
Source: 2020 Global Occupier Sentiment Survey, CBRE Research3
Companies are increasingly exploring the idea of satellite offices offering workspaces within closer proximity to
where workers live. This option provides a hybrid solution for those employees who may not be able to or want to
work from home 100% of the time and need an office environment, but may not necessarily need or want to make
a long commute to a large, corporate regional location either.
3https://www.cbre.com/-/media/files/the-way-forward/the-end-of-the-beginning-north-america-flexible-office-
market-in-2020/north-america-flex-office-2020-1.pdf?la=en
73%
23%
86%
36%
Some Kind of Role Significant Role
June September
Draft 2/19/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
6
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial
Office Space
LOCAL OFFICE MARKET CONDITIONS
With 7.1 million square feet of space, the South San Francisco office submarket is relatively small compared to
surrounding office concentrations of San Francisco to the north and Silicon Valley to the south. The vast majority of
this inventory has been driven by strong concentrations in specific industries, including biotech, pharmaceuticals,
and information technology. Unique to South San Francisco, these core industries are less likely to move to remote
working compared to other technology firms in the Bay Area. Most of this inventory is geographically situated east
of Highway 101 in large-scale office campuses such as the Gateway Business Park and the Oyster Point
redevelopment.
Office rents in submarket average between $54 and $444 per square foot across all classes, which represents an
18% or 33% discount to the overall San Francisco market average of $66 per square foot. Historical annual rent
growth in the area is 2.7%; this level of growth is expected to continue, despite the immediate impacts of the
pandemic.
Figure 3: Market Rent by Office Class, South San Francisco Submarket
Source: CoStar report licensed to South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
Flexible Office Trends
Flexible office space is a growing niche that has the potential to experience increasing demand as office tenants
look for more agile solutions for workers. The San Francisco Peninsula market5 currently houses just over 500,000
square feet of flexible office space. Although this represents just 1.3% of the total office market, it has grown
rapidly from just 100,000 square feet in 2014. Over the same period, the total inventory across the U.S. and
Canada has increased from just over 20 million square feet in 2014 to approximately 90 million square feet in
2020.
Table 1: Summary of San Francisco Peninsula Flexible Office Market Inventory
Total Flexible Office Space 526,500 SF
# of Operators 13
# of Locations 24
Average Size of Location 21,900 SF
4 Kidder Mathews, Market Trends – Peninsula Office, 4th Quarter 2020.
5 The Peninsula market as defined by CBRE includes the following submarkets located in San Mateo County: North
County: Daly City / Brisbane, South San Francisco, San Bruno / Millbrae, and Burlingame; Central County: San
Mateo, Foster City, Belmont / San Carlos, Redwood City / Redwood Shores; South County: Menlo Park, Palo Alto /
East Palo Alto.
$55.82 $53.07
$39.45
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
4 & 5 Star 3 Star 1 & 2 Star
Draft 2/19/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
7
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial
Office Space
Single Office / Suite Rates $520 - $810 /
month
Source: CBRE
Over half of this inventory is concentrated in the San Mateo submarket, and of the 13 operators, WeWork is the
largest in the market, controlling about 40% of the flexible of fice inventory (207,000 SF) in 4 different locations.
The vast majority of these locations are in San Francisco and San Mateo, with very few options in South San
Francisco, as seen in Figure 5.
Figure 4: Flexible Office Space Operators by Size (and total locations in parentheses), San Francisco Peninsula, Q2 2020
Source: CBRE
As this category continues to increase its market share of office inventory, and as tenants seek more flexibility and
agility to support the rapidly evolving needs of the office-using workforce, it may be a viable format for office use
in the project relative to traditional lease structures.
207,200
87,400 87,200
48,900
20,000
75,800
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
WeWork (4)Spaces (3) Regus (6)NestGSV (1)Hero City (1)Remaining (9)Square Feet
Draft 2/19/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
8
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial
Office Space
Figure 5: Coworking Locations in the Bay Area
Additional Commercial and Community-Serving Uses
Beyond flexible office space, services related to government needs may be an appropriate use for the space given
the proximity to City Hall. These services may include notary services, printing, mail delivery, accounting,
architecture, engineering, and legal services. These commercial uses would generate revenue for the city and
could be part of a financing plan for a public-private delivery model.
Another potential use for South San Francisco is to utilize the space to deliver community services. This might
involve childcare facilities including pre-school and daycare, a job training center, health clinic, or other
community-based non-profits. These uses would not generate the same direct monetary benefit to the city as
purely commercial uses, but would provide value to City staff and the larger community as well as some revenue
to cover facility costs.
Draft 2/19/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
9
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial
Office Space
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Although pandemic-driven macroeconomic trends are not positive for the future of office demand and new
construction, current industry analysis suggests only a minimal change in long-term demand for office space. Both
employers and employees in many industry sectors still see the value of in-person collaboration and knowledge
sharing and want to have an option to do their work in an office environment i f possible.
Given the somewhat limited scale of office space under consideration at the site, it may be a less attractive
opportunity to conventional office developers who sometimes need a certain minimum threshold of size in order
for a robust level of service and common space amenities / offerings to be financially feasible. However, this type
of economy of scale does not appear to be a necessity for flexible office operators. In the South San Francisco
market, the average flexible office operation is just 22,000 square feet.
Market data suggests an achievable annual rent per square foot between $44 and $55 for new construction office
space that is expected to show an annual growth rate of 2.7%. This annual rent could be in the form of both
traditional lease structures as well as for a flexible office operation. Flexible formats can take on a broad range of
agreement types between landlord and operator, from traditional lease structures to various partnership models,
such as revenue sharing, and would be assumed to be on the lower end of the range at $44. For subsidized /
community-serving uses, annual rent per square foot is assumed to be closer to $40, consistent with 1- and 2-star
office inventory in the local market.
Preliminary estimate of operating costs assumes operating costs amount to approximately 30% of top-line
revenue. This would result in a net operating income (NOI) of $35 per square foot for space leasing at $50 and $28
per square foot for space achieving a lease rate on the lower end of the range at $40. Operating costs can be
further validated through both market sounding as well as through data purchased from third-party providers such
as the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA).
Based on this initial evaluation, either flexible office space or community-serving use spaces would be a good fit at
the site, although this would need to be confirmed through additional market sounding. There may be other office
tenants, such as law firms, architecture & engineering firms, or accountants, that complement / benefit from being
in close proximity to City offices and services they rely upon.
This analysis will be updated as other technical, financial, and market outreach activities progress. It is also worth
noting that concept designs being considered for both the City Hall and alternative sites could allow for flexibility
and conversion to / from commercial office space as market trends change.
City Council Study Session
regarding update on new
Downtown Parking Garage
April 20, 2021
Attachment 5: Project Risk Analysis Report
Draft 3/5/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
1
PROJECT RISK ANALYSIS
ATTACHMENT 6
Draft 3/5/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
2
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial
Office Space
1. OVERVIEW
WSP has assessed the major risks associated with the project based on analysis and decisions made to date. This
risk register is intended to be a “living” tool that is updated at key milestones of the project, including
predevelopment (now), market outreach, procurement, contract negotiation and execution. This will enable the
City to identify, analyze, mitigate and/or transfer each risk to maximize public value.
While over thirty risks have been identified during this phase of the planning process of the project, it is
anticipated that most risks will be addressed through the procurement and project delivery phases. Any resulting
contract will clearly identify roles and responsibilities to allocate each risk to the party best suited to managing it.
The risk analysis suggests that, at this stage of the project planning process, there are no serious threats to
achieving City goals and implementing the project.
2. HIGH-LEVEL RISKS
Risks have been analyzed using the following categories:
a. General
b. Environmental
c. Procurement
d. Design & Construction
e. Funding and Financing
f. Operations and Maintenance
Each identified risk has been described and rated based on its probability of occurring, potential cost impact, and
schedule impact, as detailed in Figure 1:
Figure 1: Risk rating guidelines
Probability Cost Schedule
Low Less than 20% Low Less than $1M Low Less than 1 month
Medium 20%-75% Medium $1M to $20M Medium 1 month to 6 months
High Greater than 75% High Greater than $20M High Greater than 6 months
For each risk, a mitigation strategy has been developed, where potential actions to be taken by the City, its
representatives, or private partners are outlined. Lastly, a preliminary allocation of risks is outlined between the
City (public) and the private partner, specifying those cases where risks are shared.
Draft 3/5/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
3
High-Level Risk Register
Risk ID Risk Category Risk Title Risk Description Probability Cost Impact Schedule Impact Mitigation Strategy Risk Allocation
(Public/Private/Shared)
1 General Inconsistent or conflicting public communications City and private partner may publicly share
different messages about project development,
negatively affecting public perception.
Low Low Low Clearly state communications responsibilities in procurement and
contract documents; establish a working group specifically designed
for construction coordination.
Shared
2 Environmental Hazardous materials Potential to encounter hazardous materials and
contaminated soils.
High Medium Medium A phase 1 ESA may be required. Also, a monitor to observe and test
for hazardous materials may also be required.
Public
3 Environmental GHG Emissions/SB 743 Drawing traffic to the locations will generate
vehicle trips, meaning VMT, which has to be
evaluated per SB743. This topic was not covered
in the 2017 SEIR as SB743 passed in 2019.
High Medium Low Plan to address the increase in VMT and GHG emissions and decide
how to offset the increase. BAAQMD will expect to see mitigations.
Mitigation can be renewable energy on the project site to offset
emissions.
Public
4 Environmental Cultural Resources-Archeology Potential to encounter archeological, paleological
and buried cultural resources during construction
High Medium Low Have a registered archeologist on call to address any
discovered/unearthed resources. See SEIR for more detail.
Public
5 Environmental Transportation/circulation Increasing vehicles in the area can cause
intersection impacts
High Medium Low The City will need to address any intersection delay increases from
traffic to and from the project, either through signalization or lane
geometry.
Public
6 Environmental Transportation/circulation Construction could cause disruptions to traffic
patterns
High Low Low A traffic mitigation plan should be required of contractor. Also, a
commute plan for travel of workers to and from the site would also
be appropriate to reduce more vehicles in downtown area.
Private
7 Environmental Hydrology Potential to release contaminants/soils, etc. to
already impaired water bodies (Colma Creek)
Low Low Low Contractor develops a SWPP and has monitor on site to ensure
compliance.
Private
8 Procurement Limited competition The number of proposers may be below the City's
required threshold/goal, requiring to re-
solicitation, cancellation, or poor value.
Medium Medium High Early and regular engagement with potentially interested firms,
maintain awareness of similar projects in industry pipeline and
general economic conditions, and adapting as needed to ensure
market interest.
Public
9 Procurement Injunctive relief event Injunctions or restraining orders from local
stakeholders who oppose the project due to
environmental/privatization reasons may affect
the procurement or construction schedule.
Low Medium High Early stakeholder engagement to gauge concerns. Public
10 Procurement City Council support City Council may not approve advertisement of
project or final contract.
Low Medium High Brief Council and other stakeholders on proposed concepts, solicit
feedback, and present regular updates to address potential concerns.
Enhance green space, improve environmental benefits (EV charging,
renewable energy, green building standards, and smart grid/utilities),
accessibility, and other public uses (youth center, daycare, health
clinic, maker space, etc.).
Public
11 Procurement Applicable low-bid procurement award criteria A P3 agreement may require an exemption from
the Purchasing Procedure to allow selection based
on best-value instead of low-bid.
Low Medium Medium Confirm applicability of Development Agreement procurement rules
or feasibility of obtaining exemptions low-bid requirement in
Purchasing Procedures.
Public
12 Procurement Project readiness Project scope may not be sufficiently defined and
other key decisions to ensure predictable,
streamlined, and competitive procurement to
maximize project goals.
Low Medium Medium Conduct predevelopment analysis, RFI/industry day, refine scope, and
identify key issues and decision makers for each.
Public
13 Funding and
Financing
Parking rates lower than required or expected Project revenues are based on assumptions of
parking rate increases over time. Rate increases
may not materialize in time due to unwillingness
or inability of City's Parking Place Commission to
increase rates as per increase schedule.
Medium Medium Low Agreement includes parking rate increase schedule under City's
Parking Place Commission authority and payments to private partner
in case rates are not increased as agreed.
Public
14 Funding and
Financing
Fluctuating financing costs Financing costs may be higher than expected at
the point of financial close.
Low Medium Low P3 value-for-money analysis and refinement, track market
fluctuations, optimize debt-to-equity ratio, explore tax credit
programs and other ways to reduce funding/financing needs, and de-
risk project through streamlined procurement.
Public
Draft 3/5/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
4
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial Office Space
15 Funding and
Financing
Additional City payments and/or subsidies are
needed
Higher than expected or unanticipated costs may
affect the City's ability or willingness to provide
additional payments for the project.
Low Low Low Conduct technical due diligence and financial analysis using
conservative assumptions and adjust scope as needed to fit within
City's project budget; P3 structure can ensure fixed payments and
caps on potential increases/change orders.
Public
16 Construction Labor shortages Labor shortages, especially in skilled trades, may
increase construction costs.
Medium Medium Low Adequate procurement and construction schedule to allow firms to
secure needed labor.
Private
17 Construction Unknown geotechnical conditions Unknown geotechnical conditions may increase
construction costs, particularly for underground
parking structure.
Low Medium Medium Conduct geotechnical analysis prior to procurement; allow for
contingency cost during construction.
Shared
18 Construction Strikes and/or labor disputes affecting construction Unanticipated strikes or labor disputes may delay
the construction schedule as well as stakeholder
pushback to the extent government/contractor
staff for parking operations and enforcement,
among others, are displaced.
Low Medium Medium Prequalification process and prevailing wage contract requirement;
engage relevant staff/unions to identify new responsibilities or
require they be retained by private partner.
Private
19 Construction Health and Safety compliance during construction
work
Lack of understanding and/or knowledge of
applicable regulations may lead to construction
company failing to comply with health and safety
requirements, causing delays and higher costs.
Low Medium Medium Ensure qualified firms bid on the project; including strict safety
requirements in procurement/contracts.
Private
20 Construction Environmental compliance during construction Lack of understanding and/or knowledge of
applicable regulations may lead to construction
company failing to comply with environmental
requirements, causing delays and higher costs.
Low Medium Medium Ensure qualified firms bid on the project; including strict safety
requirements in procurement/contracts.
Private
21 Construction Delays in permits and approvals Delays in acquiring permits/authorizations may
result in additional costs and schedule delays.
Low Low Medium Develop a permit checklist and schedule to be agreed upon between
City and private partner.
Private
22 Construction Unanticipated damage to surrounding buildings
and other structures
Unanticipated/inadvertent damage to buildings
and utilities caused by vibration and/or settlement
during construction. Mainly focused downtown.
Low Low Low Implement industry accepted best practices in performance
specifications for contractor; select private partner experienced in
similar projects.
Private
23 Construction Shared use street coordination Inadequate coordination with the City during
construction may result in public dissatisfaction
with construction process due to increased traffic
or unexpected construction start.
Low Low Low Selection of experienced private partner with knowledge of these
issues; clear solicitation/contract requirements; establish a working
group specifically designed for construction coordination.
Shared
24 Procurement,
Construction,
Operations
and
Maintenance
AV and other new mobility deployment sooner
than anticipated
Long-term trends may accelerate and trigger
additional investments by City/concessionaire
sooner than expected.
Medium Medium Low Industry engagement on issue; account for optionality in
procurement/contract.
Shared
25 Procurement,
Construction,
Operations
and
Maintenance
Availability and levels of service for office space City will need to identify long-term office space
needs for scope of project, particularly if
remaining space is used for commercial
activity/revenue; City or private partner will need
to find swing space during construction, which
could pose additional costs if there are delays;
office space O&M requirements may not be clear
or achievable.
Low Low Low Program and space planning; identifying swing space sites;
accounting for key issues in contract; O&M requirements are shared
with potential bidders for feedback.
Shared
26 Procurement,
Construction,
Operations
and
Maintenance
Unexpected maintenance costs for office space Higher than anticipated or unexpected
maintenance costs may increase project costs of
office space.
Low Low Low O&M requirements are shared with potential bidders for feedback. Shared
27 Procurement,
Construction,
Operations
and
Maintenance
Unclear O&M requirements Disputes and claims may arise as a result of
unclear O&M requirements for the parking and
office spaces.
Low Low Low O&M requirements are shared with potential bidders for feedback. Shared
Draft 3/5/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
5
Technical Assistance Consulting Services for Forming a P3 to Construct a New Parking Structure and Commercial Office Space
28 Procurement,
Construction,
Operations
and
Maintenance
Handback requirements cause unexpected costs by
end of contract
Unclear or stringent handback requirements may
require concessionaire to incur in additional costs
before contract closure.
Low Low Low Hand-back requirements are shared with potential bidders for
feedback.
Shared
29 Construction,
Operations
and
Maintenance
Damages by natural disasters The project may be exposed to earthquakes,
wildfires, or other natural disasters.
Low High High Relevant insurance requirements are included as part of procurement
documents.
Shared
30 Operations
and
Maintenance
Future-ready design is not leveraged during project
life
Long-term trends may not materialize and the
additional costs incurred to future-proof the
facilities may not be used.
Medium Low Low Conduct initial technical and financial analysis; engage industry on
this topic before issuing procurement.
Shared
31 Operations
and
Maintenance
Change in parking demand assumptions Parking revenues are based on assumptions which
may change over the life of any contract,
particularly due to impacts from COVID,
technology and evolving land use patterns, and/or
be found inaccurate during the design and O&M
phases of the project.
Low Medium Low Conservative revenue projections; industry engagement; availability
payments if revenue is insufficient, flexible parking rated/policies and
other demand management, and include EV charging stations and
allow adaptive re-use where appropriate.
Shared
32 Operations
and
Maintenance
Lack of enforcement/collection of parking fees Project revenues may be lower than anticipated
due to a lack of enforcement and/or collection of
parking fees.
Low Low Low Develop contract requirements and specifications that transfer fee
collection management to private partner.
Private
33 Operations
and
Maintenance
Inadequate interface between construction and
operations contracts
Lack of coordination during transition between
end of construction and beginning of operations
may result in schedule delays or inadequate
conditions for start of operations.
Low Low Low Develop clear definition of roles and responsibilities of private
partners. Allow private partner to provide input during design and
construction phases.
Private
City Council Study Session
regarding update on new
Downtown Parking Garage
April 20, 2021
Attachment 6: Market Sounding Strategy
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
MARKET SOUNDING STRATEGY
FOR NEW PARKING FACILITIES IN DOWNTOWN SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO
ATTACHMENT 7
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
Market Sounding Strategy 2
Goals of the Strategy
This Strategy will be used to publicly share information to gauge early interest and feedback in the proposed City
Hall development. This will increase understanding of the project and yield greater competition and thus value to
the City. This should be an ongoing, iterative process in which greater levels of detail are exchanged as the project
is developed. Participation by City officials at critical points will be important to build mutual understanding and
bidder confidence. This initial strategy is focused on activities to promote awareness of the project prior to a formal
Request for Interest (RFI) and Industry Day. This way, the City can ensure key industry players are informed about
any potential procurement for the project. A separate Stakeholder Engagement Strategy is being developed to
ensure proper education and dialogue for those individuals and entities with non-bidding interests, but the two will
be implemented in a coordinated fashion to manage both efforts effectively after key policy decisions are made by
the City and it is ready to launch both processes.
Key Topics
This strategy aims to inform and engage industry stakeholders about the following areas:
• Project Scope and Site Selection (whether it should be one or multiple projects)
• Risk Identification and Allocation across all disciplines
• Procurement Approach (RFQ/RFP for firm, fixed-price bids or RFQ for project development agreement)
• Financial Structure (availability payment vs. revenue risk, milestone payments, extent of private financing)
• Delivery Approach (DBB, DB, DB+OM, or DBFOM)
• Project Readiness for City and Bidders
• Future-Proofing Needs and Strategies for all three components of the scope
• Sustainability Features of Proposed Facilities
• Public Interest Requirements (prevailing wage, local hiring, etc.)
• Other Key Topics identified by the City and Industry
Market Sounding Activities and Schedule
These topics can be addressed with the following activities. WSP will work with the City to determine which of the
following are a priority for the project.
1. Information Sharing (Spring 2021 as part of Phase 1)
2. P3 Case Study Analysis (Provided Below)
3. RFI and Industry Day (After Technical and Financial Analysis in Phase I is Complete)
The timing of these activities is meant to align with the other technical and financial analysis being completed and
policy decisions made by the City. This strategy will be updated at the end of Phase I work whe n the City has
evaluated the project’s design concepts and alternative locations, delivery approaches, and financial model.
Deliverables
WSP will provide the City a summary report of the activities, detailing insights and anticipated next steps.
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
Market Sounding Strategy 3
Market Sounding Activity Details
1. Information Sharing
WSP will share with the following industry organizations and news sources that the City has performed project
screening/predevelopment work to determine that the project is technically and financially viable as a P3.
- Inframation
- Association for the Improvement of America
Infrastructure (AIAI)
- P3 Bulletin
- The American Road & Transportation Builders
Association (ARTBA)
The organizations have been selected because of their national reach to relevant industry players and to maintain a
firm-neutral approach at this stage of the project, though it may also makes sense to include local sources to the
extent the City is ready to begin fielding inquiries from other local stakeholders.
A project summary including a project description, background, anticipated activities, and schedule will be
provided. This can be formatted as a press release, project profile, and/or page to be published on the City’s
website.
WSP also recommends creating a project-specific email through which stakeholders and potential procurement
participants can send their questions or feedback. WSP can manage that process and report out key feedback with
minimal participation by City staff required at this stage.
From this process, we will build a list of interested parties with whom we will share updated information following
Phase I of the P3 planning stage and invitations to participate in any future procurement activities.
2. Parking P3 Case Study Analysis
WSP has identified recent comparable projects which provide useful lessons for the City’s project.
Key Lessons
• Parking Operations: There is a strong community of parking operators, which tend to be regional. If parking
operations are ultimately part of the project and the SF market is concentrated in just one or a small number
of these firms, they can be seen as “kingmakers”. The City may want to limit exclusivity so that it doesn’t
become the primary basis for evaluation in any procurement.
• Predevelopment Agreements: Procurement schedules range from 1 to 3 years, from the release of a
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to financial close. This range depends on the complexity of the agreement
and the scope and size of the project. A predevelopment agreement (PDA) may offer the City a compressed
procurement schedule and allow for a more collaborative approach to planning and design. However, it
may reduce competitive tension and result in a loss of value to the City with an overall schedule for project
completion that is the same or longer than a firm-fixed price procurement. Therefore, PDAs probably only
makes sense if the City is uncertain about project scope or other key risks like design, environmental and
other permitting, or stakeholder engagement.
• Revenue Risk: For revenue-generating components like parking or real estate development, P3 agreements
can shift revenue risk to the private partner. This can stabilize the City’s budget and potentially result in
upfront payments, though the private partner typically receives a premium rate of return for taking on such
risk. The revenue risk structure will require careful analysis of anticipated revenues for the terms of any
agreement to avoid windfalls to the private partner. Parking policies and rates will have to be well defined
with clear terms for how and when they will be changed, which may limit the City’s flexibility or result in
the payment of damages to the private partner for a policy change not contemplated by the agreement.
• Term Length: Agreement terms range from 20 to 40 years—typically all or most of the useful life of the
facility—during which specific levels of service are contracted by project owners. This further increases the
importance of clear terms on parking rates, revenue sharing, and future-proofing obligations.
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
Market Sounding Strategy 4
• Competition: The City should aim for at least three to four strong teams participating in the procurement
process. Further market interest in the project can be generated by the size and scope of the project, but it
will be critical to ensure strong competition, particularly if the P3 option is selected.
Details on the five projects analyzed for these case studies are attached as an appendix. Additional case studies
may be incorporated into the analysis to confirm and refine applicable key lessons.
3. Request for Information/Interest and Industry Day
• Once the City has reviewed and approved the screening analysis in Phase I, the City may choose to issue
an RFI and host an industry Day to present key findings and have more detailed conversations about the
project with potential bidders.
• The RFI should include details about the anticipated project scope, procurement method and schedule,
delivery and financial structure, and key questions or issues about which the City is seeking feedback from
potential bidders.
• While written responses may be required, WSP generally finds that participation in 1on1 meetings at an
Industry Day are more productive and less onerous. Time and information have to be managed carefully
to ensure transparency, consistency, and fairness.
• An Industry Day will typically include a general overview presentation, which may benefit from
participation by the City Manager and/or elected officials, followed by 1on1 meetings between key City
staff, their advisors, and potential bidders, which are usually confidential. A site tour may be included,
but the event can be virtual to allow for greater participation and minimize travel/costs, particularly if
public health restrictions require it. Open/networking sessions may also provide opportunities for
teaming, particularly between national P3 developers and small/local businesses.
• Prior to issuing an RFQ/RFP, the City may choose to report out key findings from the RFI/Industry to the
extent it addresses key industry questions and encourages participation in further procurement activities.
• Participation in an RFI/Industry Day is sometimes, though not usually required for participation in any
subsequent procurement.
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
Market Sounding Strategy 5
P3 Case Study Analysis
Case Study 1
Annapolis Parking Facility and Dock Redevelopment
Case Study 2
Eastern Michigan University Parking
Case Study 3
City of Biddeford, Maine Parking Garage and RiverWalk
Project P3
Case Study 4
City of Long Beach Civic Center
Case Study 5
City of Napa New Public Safety and City
Administration Building
Delivery Method DBFOM (pre-development agreement) DBFOM DBFOM (pre-development agreement) DBFOM DBFOM
Size - $30 million (Parking Garage)
- $50 million (City Dock)
- 30-year agreement
- $55 million upfront payment
- $4 million in facility improvements
- 35-year agreement
- Between $22.3 million and $24.6 million
- 26-year lease agreement
- $530 million
- 40-year lease agreement for O&M
- $110 million
- 30-year agreement
Scope - Hillman Garage demolition and replacement
(700 above-ground parking spaces)
- City Dock Redevelopment, includes resilience
elements, stormwater improvements, and a
new elevated park area
- 9,700 parking spaces
- Two garages
- 36 parking lots
- 179 metered spaces
- 640 parking spaces
- One garage
- RiverWalk
- City Facilities (includes 453 underground parking
spaces)
- Port Facilities
- Private mixed-use development
- City Administration
- Public Safety Building
- Mixed-use development in previous City Hall
location
Bidders RFP Returned/Shortlisted
- Annapolis Mobility and Resilience Partners
(winning consortium)
o Amber Infrastructure Group, UK
o Hunt Compani es
o Whiting-Turner: design-builder
o WSP: engineer
o BCT Architects
o Walker Consultants: parking
specialists
o Premium Parking: operators
o Ballard Spahr: legal advisor
- Preston Hollow Capital
RFQ Returned
- Annapolis Mobility and Resilience Partners
- Preston Hollow Capital
- Realen Properties: real estate developer
- Spa Creek Parking Partners/LAZ Parking
The Flynn Company/Bignel Watkins Hasser
RFP Returned/Shortlisted
- Preston Hollow Capital/LAZ Parking
RFP Returned/Shortlisted
- Amber/Hunt
o Amber Infrastructure Group, UK
o Hunt Compani es
o Treadwell Franklin Infrastructure
Capital: equity
o PC Construction: construction
o Premium Parking: operators
o Sewall Infrastructure: engineering and
permitting
o Desman Associates: parking
o Kutak Rock: legal
o Bernstein Shur: legal
o Greenberg Traurig: lender’s counsel
o Grant Thornton: tax and accounting
RFP Returned/Shortlisted
- Plenary Properties Long Beach LLC (winning
consortium)
o Plenary Americas
o Edgemoor Infrastructure & Real Estate:
co-developer
o Johnson Controls: operator
o Clark Construction: general contractor
o Skidmore Owings & Merrill: design
- Long Beach CiviCore Alliance (LBCCA)
o Macquarie: equity/financing
o Lend Lease: equity/construction
o Mar Ventures Inc: equity/property
management
o Continental Development Corporation:
equity/ property management
o Bank of America: financing
o ABM: facilities management
o Hurst/Harrigan Associates:
development advisor
o Milbank: legal
o Holland Partner Group:
Residential/retail developer
o Fentress: design
- Related California
o Related (Equity Provider)
o Griffin (Contractor)
o Roy Jorgenson Associates (O&M)
RFP Returned/Shortlisted
- Plenary Group Napa, LLC (winning
consortium)
o Plenary Americas
o Sundt Construction: contractor
o Wells Fargo: financial Advisor
o BBSE: structural engineer
o CH&D: Architect
o INTECH Risk Management:
Insurance
- Strada & Scannell
o Charles Pankow Builders:
contractor
o Terrasset Management Group:
contractor
o HOK: architect
o Scannell Properties: developer
o Strada Investment Group:
developer
o SiteLab Urban Studio: urban
design
Shortlisted
- Sonnenblick Development
o Jones & Jones: Contractor
o Nossaman: Legal Advisor
o IDS Group: Structural and MEP
o Langdon Wilson International:
Architect
o Riechers Spence & Associates:
Civil Engineer
o Secure Consulting and Design:
Security
o Sonnenblick Development:
Developer
o Stifel Nicolaus:
Finance/Underwriter
o Valley Crest Landscape
Companies: Landscape
Procurement
Dates
- From RFQ release to financial close: 26 months
- RFQ release: August 9, 2019
- RFP release: December 13, 2019
- Preferred proponent selected: December 17,
2020
- Financial close: October 2021
- From RFQ release to financial close: 11
months
- RFQ release: May 2017
- Preferred proponent selected: December 20,
2017
- Financial close: April 26, 2018
- From PDA to financial close: 16 months
- Predevelopment Agreement: April 02, 2019
- Development Agreement Proposal submitted:
June 30, 2019
- Joint-Development Agreement approved by City
Council: September 2019
- Financial close: August 11, 2020
- From RFQ release to financial close: 36 months
- RFQ release: April 26, 2013
- RFP release: February 28, 2014
- Preferred proponent selected: December 16, 2014
- Financial close: April 20, 2016
- From RFQ release to preferred proponent
selection: 19 months
- RFQ release: October 30, 2015
- RFP release: November 7, 2016
- Preferred proponent selected: May 30, 2017
- Financial close: pending
Other Notes - The City Dock improvements are partially
funded by parking profits
- The Developer will bear the cost of work
performed during the PDA phase, but may be
reimbursed at financial close of the P3
Agreement or potentially by the City if the
project does not proceed
- Parking rate increases were capped at 5%
per year
- Existing operations staff were given the
Opportunity to interview, but were not
guaranteed to keep their jobs
- Utilized Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to avoid
impacts on City bonding capacity
- Developer receives first 110% of projected
revenue. Split is 90/10% after that with bulk
going to City
- City expects to receive $16.4 million in property
tax revenue in the first 10 years of operation and
a benefit of $39.8 million over 25 years
- Financed using taxable private placement because
it was cheaper than tax-exempt lease revenue
bonds
- LEED Gold standards with rooftop solar panels and
rainwater capture systems
- Expected to create $1.3 billion in economic
impact, including 8,000 new jobs
- Project has been delayed due to concerns
about proposed scope and cost, particularly
as it relates to joint development of public
land and cost of related swing space for
government offices
City Council Study Session
regarding update on new
Downtown Parking Garage
April 20, 2021
Attachment 7: Procurement Work Plan
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
PROCUREMENT WORK PLAN
FOR NEW PARKING FACILITIES IN DOWNTOWN SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO
ATTACHMENT 8
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
2
Procurement Work Plan
I. SUMMARY
The purpose of this document is to review the City of South San Francisco’s (City) Purchasing and Bid Procedures as
implemented on recent projects to assess applicable standards and processes to ensure alignment with a typical
P3 procurement. In addition, we recommend a procurement process and management structure to ensure
maximum value for the City. This will be subject to feedback from the City as well as initial market outreach.
II. TYPICAL P3 PROCUREMENT APPROACH
Based on analysis completed to date, a two-step procurement process with firm, fixed-price bids for a P3 DBFOM
agreement is the approach best able to achieve the City’s goals.1 We have described that process below and noted
where clarifications or changes to the existing City procedures may be necessary.
1. Request for Information (RFI)/Industry Day – As described further in the Market Outreach Plan, this oral
and/or written process allows the City to present an overview of the project, gauge interest from
potential bidders, and refine scope and other key questions before launching the formal procurement
process. It is wholly voluntary and does not commit the City to proceed with a procurement. Information
shared by bidders is typically held confidential and it is also an opportunity for firms to meet and form
teams.
o Timing: Summer ’21; 1-2 days of meetings or written responses due 30-45 days after issuance;
City may choose to issue a report/meeting materials 10-21 days after Industry Day.
o Potential Issues: N/A
2. Council Approval to Advertise – While not unusual for a P3 procurement, it makes early stakeholder
engagement a critical part of the process to boost understanding and support, which will increase
competition and value for the City.2
o Timing: Summer/Fall ’21
o Potential Issues: N/A
3. Request for Qualifications (RFQ) – Fully-formed teams typically composed of equity investors, designers,
contractors, and operators will be asked to submit Statements of Qualification (SOQs) that include their
technical experience and financial capacity to deliver the project. Some details on each team’s approach
to the project may also be taken into consideration as part of this primarily qualitative evaluation. While
open to all bidders with a relatively low cost of entry, it helps narrow competition to the 3 to 4 most
highly qualified teams, yielding greater investment into higher quality proposals at the next phase of the
procurement.
o Timing: Fall ’21; SOQs due 30-60 days after issuance, 30-60 day review time to announce shortlist
o Potential Issues: Confirm there is no restriction on limiting the number of shortlisted proposers.
4. The Request for Proposals (RFP) process typically begins by issuing a draft Instruction to Proposers, P3
Agreement and technical provisions to the shortlisted bidders for comment and feedback. The City will
then hold several rounds (2-5) of one-on-one meetings in which key commercial and technical terms for
the P3 Agreement are discussed and refined based on the shortlisted teams’ feedback. To achieve a
successful RFP stage, the City may also have to commit and invest sufficient resources in more advanced
parking studies, CEQA environmental processes, and design/engineering studies. This increased time and
cost for the procurement should result in greater competitive tension, advantageous pricing and risk
1 We assume that a pre-development agreement (PDA) is not necessary or in the City’s interest given that the scope can be
relatively well-defined before the procurement begins and there are not other significant uncertainties or risks that would
prevent bidders from developing firm-fixed price proposals.
2 At this time, the City may wish to hire legal and financial advisors to provide further support during the P3 procurement
process, which may also require Council approval.
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
3
Procurement Work Plan
allocation to the City as a result. The evaluation will typically be based on a qualitative rating of bidders’
technical approach to meeting the City’s goals as well as quantitative analysis and scoring of their financial
bid (after technical is complete). Weighting between technical and financial can vary considerably based
on the City’s priorities.
o Timing: Winter ‘21-Fall’22; 1on1 process can be 6-9 months, followed 60-90 days response
period from Final RFP to Proposals Due date; 30-60 day review time to announce Selected
Proposer.
o Potential Issues:
▪ Confirm that a “Best Value” evaluation, in which a trade-off analysis between technical
and financial scores is conducted, conforms to City requirements. It appears that a
“public project” requires the “lowest responsible bidder” to be chosen.
▪ To enhance competition and the quality of proposals, it may be beneficial though not
required to provide a stipend for the costs incurred by shortlisted bidders who are not
selected. This is not typically required for projects of this size.
5. Council Approval of P3 Agreement: Particularly once considerable time and resources have been
expended by both the City and bidders, engagement of Council and other stakeholders to address
questions throughout the process is critical.
o Timing: Fall ‘22
o Potential Issues: N/A
Table 1: Potential Procurement Timeline
Task 2021 2022
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
RFI/Industry Day
Council Approval
to Advertise
RFQ
RFP
Council Approval
of P3 Agreement
III. SSF PROCUREMENT PROCESSES
The City has two distinct frameworks that may be used in the project’s procurement: 1) the City’s formal bid
procedure for public projects, and 2) the City’s procedure for development agreements. These frameworks have
been analyzed to identify relevant policies and guidelines potentially applicable to P3 agreements.
1. Public Projects: The City’s formal bid procedure (Chapter 4.04.073 of SSF Municipal Code), as used on the
Civic Campus project, allows a prequalification step for the City to prequalify contractors before the
solicitation of the project but requires the award of the contract to be made based on the lowest
responsible bid. While this framework provides the City with the opportunity to select reliable and
experienced firms to implement the project, it requires the City to design the procurement based
on the lowest costs to the City, which may take different forms (e.g. availability payments, present-value
costs to the City, lump-sum payments, among others). The formal bid procedure has been traditionally
used by the City to implement design and construction contracts, separately, and not for integrated
design-build contracts nor long-term P3 agreements.
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
4
Procurement Work Plan
2. Development Agreements: The City’s procedure for development agreements (Chapter 19.60 of SSF
Municipal Code), as used on the recent PUC Site and other real estate development projects, allows the
City to select a developer based on a set of more comprehensive criteria rather than solely on
cost. This procedure applies to property owners or other persons with a legal or equitable interest
in the real property to be developed. For that reason, it is probably more conducive to a P3 delivery
option.
Option #2 provides greater flexibility and conforms better to the typical P3 approach described above. It should be
confirmed that this project meets the definition of a “development agreement” since it may involve a long-term
lease for the facility if the private partner operates and maintains it, particularly if commercial tenants are
included.
IV. PUBLIC INTEREST/CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS
While public interest contracting requirements are typical of many P3 procurements, they should be identified and
highlighted for potential bidders as early as possible in the process to avoid impacts on competition and challenges
with compliance. Clarity on the process and support for those contractors who have not worked in the City may be
helpful.
Relevant requirements that may be required for the procurement of the project include:
• Prevailing wage
• Non-discrimination
• [Others not listed]
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
5
Procurement Work Plan
V. TEAM ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
For a successful project, a clear line of authority and precise communication protocols will need to be
implemented by project participants and will be further detailed in the final version of this report.
The City will act as the lead agency for the project, represented by the City Council, the City Manager,
and appointed staff members. Depending on the procurement method chosen, additional support will be
provided by the advisor team.
Figure 1: Team Organization
This team organization will largely hold throughout the life of the project, with some updates as part of the formal
solicitation process.
City Council
City Manager
Econ. & Comm.
Dev.
Project
Coordinator(s)
Technical
Comms and
Stakeholder
Engagement
Financial
City Attorney
- Janet Salisbury (City Lead)
- Auden Kahler (Cost and Revenue Analysis)
- Michael Palmieri (P3 Model)
- [Municipal advisor – if necessary]
- [Econ. & Comm. Dev. Staff]
- [DPW Staff]
- [Capital Projects Staff]
- [Park and Rec. Staff]
- Tom Brooks-Pilling (Site Validation)
- Tim Thornton (Real Estate)
- Jay Primus (Parking)
- Sky Woodruff
- Judah Gluckman
- Mark Polston
- [Legal advisor – if
necessary]
Draft 3/9/21
Confidential/Pre-Decisional
6
Procurement Work Plan
Roles and Responsibilities
Role Tasks
Project Coordinator(s)
- Heather Ruiz/Nell Selander
- Judah Gluckman/Camilo Monge
✓ Manage Development, Issuance and
Administration of Procurement Documents
✓ Lead Negotiation of Final Agreement
✓ Coordinate Staff and Advisors, including
Evaluation Committee
Advisors (External Consultants for Technical, Financial,
and Legal Issues)
✓ Draft Procurement Documents and
Supporting Analysis
✓ Support Evaluation Committee
✓ Support Negotiation of Final Agreement
Evaluation Committee (City Staff with Consultant
Support)
✓ Perform Pass/Fail, Technical, and Financial
Proposal Evaluation
✓ Recommend a Preferred Proposal
City Council ✓ Approve Advertisement of Procurement
✓ Approve Final Agreement
City Manager ✓ Appoint and manage staff/consultants
✓ Coordinate with Council and facilitate key
policy decisions
✓ Execute Agreement
City Council Study Session
regarding update on new
Downtown Parking Garage
April 20, 2021
Attachment 8: Kimley Horn Parking Occupancy Study
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
MEMORANDUM
To:Justin Lovell
Public Works Administrator
From:Mike Mowery, P.E. and Elizabeth Chau, P.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Date: March 30, 2018
Subject: Parking Occupancy Data Collection
The City of South San Francisco conducted a Downtown Parking Study in 2016, which determined a
need for an additional 228 parking spaces during the peak times at 12:00 PM and 6:00 PM by the year
2026.
Kimley-Horn conducted a parking occupancy study to validate the results of the 2016 parking study.
This memorandum summaries the methodology and results of the study.
PARKING OCCUPANCY
Kimley-Horn conducted a parking occupancy survey for both on-street and off-street parking in the
downtown area. As shown in Figure 1,the study area consisted of:
·On-Street Parking
o Baden Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Airport Boulevard
o Grand Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Airport Boulevard
o Linden Avenue between Miller Avenue and Baden Avenue
o Maple Avenue between Miller Avenue and Baden Avenue
·Off-Street Parking
o Lot 1
o Lot 2
o Lot 4
o Lot 5
o Lot 12
o Lot 14
o Miller Avenue Parking Garage
The number of occupied spaces were counted once every hour between 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM. One
weekday was surveyed in November 2017 and one weekend was surveyed in January 2018.
At a parking occupancy of 85 percent, a parking facility has reached “practical capacity” or a balance
point between parking supply and demand. If parking occupancy is greater 85 percent, it may be difficult
for drivers to find available parking and will have to circle or “cruise” to find a space. The hourly parking
occupancy was reviewed for each parking facility to identify which located reached or exceeded
practical occupancy.
ATTACHMENT 9
Page 3
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
PARKING INVENTORY
A total of 743 parking spaces were surveyed in the study area during data collection. The breakdown
of spaces by type is summarized in Table 1. The breakdown of spaces by section is summarized in
Table 2.
On-street parking consists of 278 spaces. Most spaces are metered with 2-hour time limit. In addition
to the 278 spaces, there are approximately 60 unmarked parking spaces in the residential area along
Baden Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Maple Avenue. Most available parking spaces are located
on Grand Avenue.
Off-Street parking consists of 465 spaces. Over half of the off-street parking, 248 spaces, are located
within the Miller Avenue Parking Garage. The remaining six lots consist of 217 spaces, where most
spaces are metered hourly.
Table 1: Parking Inventory By Parking Type
Space Type
Number of
Spaces Space Type
Number of
Spaces
On Street*278 Off-Street 465
Loading 4 ADA 5
ADA 5 Metered Hourly 93
2-Hour 240 Permit 67
24-Minute 29 Daily Flat Fee 45
Garage 248
Other 7
Overall Total 743
*Total excludes number of vehicles that could park along Baden Avenue between
Spruce Avenue and Maple Avenue
Table 2: Parking Inventory By Parking Location
Location
Number of
Spaces Location
Number of
Spaces
On Street*278 Off-Street 465
Baden Ave (Block 100-300)30 Lot 1 32
Baden Ave (Block 400)2 Lot 2 71
Grand Ave (Block 100-200)37 Lot 4 20
Grand Ave (Block 300)50 Lot 5 40
Grand Ave (Block 400)74 Lot 12 37
Maple Ave (Block 200-300)42 Lot 14 17
Linden Ave (Block 200-300)43 Miller Parking Garage 248
Overall Total 743
*Total excludes number of vehicles that could park along Baden Avenue between Spruce Avenue
and Maple Avenue
Page 4
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
WEEKDAY
Weekday parking occupancy data was collected in November 2017.Table 3 summaries the parking
occupancy for the study area, with time periods over 85% occupancy shaded. Overall, the parking
occupancy was below practical capacity, except during the midday peak between 12 PM and 1 PM.
During the evening peak, between 6 PM and 8 PM, the parking occupancy was between 73 and 74
percent.
Table 3: Weekday Parking Occupancy
On-Street Off-Street Miller Garage Overall
Total Spaces 278 217 248 743
Time Interval
8 AM – 9 AM 40%49%43%43%
9 AM – 10 AM 41%53%56%50%
10 AM – 11 AM 60%63%73%65%
11 AM – 12 PM 74%67%75%73%
12 PM – 1 PM 94%86%88%90%
1 PM – 2 PM 79%87%83%83%
2 PM – 3 PM 73%72%68%71%
3 PM – 4 PM 66%53%60%60%
4 PM – 5 PM 71%60%58%64%
5 PM – 6 PM 76%68%61%69%
6 PM – 7 PM 88%76%52%73%
7 PM – 8 PM 89%82%50%74%
8 PM – 9 PM 71%72%54%66%
On-Street Parking
Table 4 summarizes the on-street parking occupancy throughout the day on Grand Avenue, Baden
Avenue, Maple Avenue, and Linden Avenue, with time periods over 85% occupancy shaded. It should
be noted that Table 4 only includes vehicles parked in marked spaces and excludes the vehicles parked
in the unmarked section on Baden Avenue. Overall, on-street parking experienced two peaks: 1)
between 12 PM and 1 PM; 2) between 6 PM and 8 PM.
Page 5
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Table 4: On-Street Parking Weekday Parking Occupancy
Location Grand Ave Baden Ave Maple Ave Linden Ave Overall
Total Spaces 161 32 42 43 278
Time Interval
8 AM – 9 AM 55%9%17%28%40%
9 AM – 10 AM 53%13%26%30%41%
10 AM – 11 AM 68%34%48%58%60%
11 AM – 12 PM 81%34%74%81%74%
12 PM – 1 PM 98%84%95%86%94%
1 PM – 2 PM 82%56%81%84%79%
2 PM – 3 PM 83%41%62%74%73%
3 PM – 4 PM 70%59%64%60%66%
4 PM – 5 PM 73%72%71%60%71%
5 PM – 6 PM 78%63%83%70%76%
6 PM – 7 PM 94%63%95%77%88%
7 PM – 8 PM 91%78%86%95%89%
8 PM – 9 PM 70%9%67%84%71%
Table 5 summarizes the parking occupancy for on-street parking on Grand Avenue, with time periods
over 85% occupancy shaded. Block 100-200 encompasses Grand Avenue between Airport
Boulevard and Linden Avenue; Block 300 encompasses Grand Avenue between Linden Avenue and
Maple Avenue; and Block 400 encompasses Grand Avenue between Maple Avenue and Spruce
Avenue encompasses. Retail and restaurant uses are located on both sides of Grand Avenue
between Airport Boulevard and Linden Avenue and on the south side between Maple Avenue and
Spruce Avenue. The South San Francisco City Hall and library are located north of Grand Avenue
between Maple Avenue and Walnut Avenue.
Table 5: Grand Avenue Weekday Parking Occupancy
Location Grand Avenue
Block 100-200 Block 300 Block 400 Overall
Total Spaces 37 50 74 161
Time Interval
8 AM – 9 AM 51%68%47%55%
9 AM – 10 AM 62%62%43%53%
10 AM – 11 AM 68%78%62%68%
11 AM – 12 PM 76%92%76%81%
12 PM – 1 PM 100%100%95%98%
1 PM – 2 PM 95%92%69%82%
2 PM – 3 PM 78%94%77%83%
3 PM – 4 PM 62%82%65%70%
4 PM – 5 PM 62%86%70%73%
5 PM – 6 PM 62%94%76%78%
6 PM – 7 PM 95%98%91%94%
7 PM – 8 PM 89%100%85%91%
8 PM – 9 PM 76%92%53%70%
Page 6
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Overall, on-street parking on Grand experienced two peaks: 1) between 11 PM and 3 PM, where the
parking occupancy was between 81 and 98 percent; 2) between 6 PM and 8 PM, where the parking
occupancy was between 94 and 91 percent. During most of the day, the parking occupancy in Block
100-200 and Block 400 were between 43 and 76 percent and between 85 to 100 during the peak
times. The parking along Block 300 was mostly utilized with over 82 percent occupied after 11 AM.
Table 6 summarizes the parking occupancy for on-street parking on Baden Avenue, with time periods
over 85% occupancy shaded. Block 100-300 encompasses Baden Avenue between Airport
Boulevard and Maple Avenue with a mixture of retail and residential land uses on both side of the
street. Block 400 encompasses Baden Avenue between Maple Avenue and Spruce Avenue, with
residential dwellings on both side of the street. It should be noted that most of the on-street parking
within Block 400 is unmarked, except for two spaces near the southwest corner of Baden Avenue and
Maple Avenue.
Table 6: Baden Avenue Weekday Parking Occupancy
Location
Baden Avenue
Marked Unmarked
Block 100-300 Block 400 Overall Block 400
Total Spaces 30 2 32
Time Interval
8 AM – 9 AM 7%50%9%50
9 AM – 10 AM 10%50%13%52
10 AM – 11 AM 30%100%34%52
11 AM – 12 PM 30%100%34%58
12 PM – 1 PM 83%100%84%58
1 PM – 2 PM 53%100%56%54
2 PM – 3 PM 40%50%41%56
3 PM – 4 PM 57%100%59%60
4 PM – 5 PM 70%100%72%58
5 PM – 6 PM 60%100%63%61
6 PM – 7 PM 60%100%63%62
7 PM – 8 PM 77%100%78%59
8 PM – 9 PM 60%100%63%60
Overall, on-street parking on Baden Avenue was underutilized with an overall maximum parking
occupancy of 84 percent. Block 100-300 experienced its highest occupancy between 12 PM and 1PM
at 83 percent. At least one of the marked parking spaces in Block 400 were occupied throughout the
day. For the unmarked segment of Baden Avenue, there were at least 50 parked vehicles throughout
the day with one peak between 11 AM and 1 PM with 58 parked vehicles and a second peak after 3
PM with 58 to 61 parked vehicles.
Table 7 summarizes the parking occupancy for on-street parking on Maple Avenue and Linden
Avenue, with time periods over 85% occupancy shaded. On Maple Avenue, Block 200-300
encompasses the segment between Baden Avenue and Miller Avenue, with retail and restaurant
Page 7
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
uses on the east side and west side between Baden and Grand Avenue. The City Hall and City
Building Department is located on the west of Maple Avenue between Grand Avenue and Miller
Avenue. On-street parking at Maple experienced two peaks; 1) between 12 PM and 2 PM, where the
parking occupancy was between 81 and 95 percent; 2) between 5 PM and 8 PM, where the parking
occupancy was between 83 and 95 percent.
Table 7: Maple Avenue and Linden Avenue Weekday Parking Occupancy
Location Maple Avenue
Block 200-300
Linden Avenue
Block 200-300
Total Spaces 42 43
Time Interval
8 AM – 9 AM 17%28%
9 AM – 10 AM 26%30%
10 AM – 11 AM 48%58%
11 AM – 12 PM 74%81%
12 PM – 1 PM 95%86%
1 PM – 2 PM 81%84%
2 PM – 3 PM 62%74%
3 PM – 4 PM 64%60%
4 PM – 5 PM 71%60%
5 PM – 6 PM 83%70%
6 PM – 7 PM 95%77%
7 PM – 8 PM 86%95%
8 PM – 9 PM 67%84%
On Linden Avenue, Block 200-300 encompasses the segment between Baden Avenue and Miller
Avenue with adjacent retail and restaurant uses. On-street parking at Linden Avenue experienced two
peaks; 1) between 11 AM and 2 PM, where the parking occupancy was between 81 and 86 percent;
2) between 6 PM and 9 PM, where the parking occupancy was between 77 and 95 percent.
Off-street Parking
Table 8 summarizes the parking occupancy for off-street parking, with time periods over 85%
occupancy shaded. Overall, off-street parking experienced two peaks; 1) between 12 PM and 2 PM,
where the parking occupancy was between 86 and 87 percent; 2) between 6 PM and 8 PM, where
the parking occupancy was between 76 and 82 percent.
Lots 1 and 2 experienced one peak between 12 PM and 2 PM where the parking occupancy was
between 79 and 100 percent. Lots 4 experienced two peaks, once between 12 PM and 2 PM where
the parking occupancy was between 90 and 95 percent and a second peak between 6 PM and 8 PM
where the parking occupancy was between 80 and 100 percent. Lot 12 experienced one peak
occupancy between 4 PM and 7 PM where the parking occupancy was between 84 and 89 percent.
Lots 5 and 14 were the most utilized parking lots where most of parking spaces was occupied
throughout the day.
Page 8
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Table 8: Weekday Off-Street Parking Occupancy
Location Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 12 Lot 14 Overall
Total Spaces 32 71 20 40 37 17 217
Time Interval
8 AM – 9 AM 28%70%15%40%49%59%49%
9 AM – 10 AM 28%73%15%48%49%88%53%
10 AM – 11 AM 31%79%20%65%73%76%63%
11 AM – 12 PM 56%77%35%70%62%88%67%
12 PM – 1 PM 100%79%95%98%70%82%86%
1 PM – 2 PM 88%82%90%100%78%88%87%
2 PM – 3 PM 66%72%45%93%68%76%72%
3 PM – 4 PM 22%44%30%70%73%94%53%
4 PM – 5 PM 22%51%35%83%84%94%60%
5 PM – 6 PM 53%52%40%93%84%100%68%
6 PM – 7 PM 72%62%80%80%89%100%76%
7 PM – 8 PM 81%66%100%100%81%94%82%
8 PM – 9 PM 47%68%65%88%76%100%72%
Table 9 summarizes the parking occupancy for the Miller Avenue Garage, with time periods over 85%
occupancy shaded. Overall, the Miller Avenue Garage experienced one peak between 12 PM and 1
PM where the percent occupancy was 88 percent. Floor 1 and 2 had a maximum occupancy of 100%
occupied at least one hour during the day. Floor 3 and 4 had a maximum occupancy of 93 and 50
percent, respectively.
Table 9: Miller Avenue Garage Weekday Parking Occupancy
Floor 1 2 3 4 Overall
Total Spaces 64 68 68 48 248
8 AM – 9 AM 30%50%59%27%43%
9 AM – 10 AM 64%60%60%35%56%
10 AM – 11 AM 97%81%66%42%73%
11 AM – 12 PM 92%88%71%40%75%
12 PM – 1 PM 100%100%93%50%88%
1 PM – 2 PM 94%88%87%56%83%
2 PM – 3 PM 77%68%79%40%68%
3 PM – 4 PM 53%71%75%33%60%
4 PM – 5 PM 50%74%71%31%58%
5 PM – 6 PM 55%84%68%29%61%
6 PM – 7 PM 64%59%60%17%52%
7 PM – 8 PM 63%57%54%17%50%
8 PM – 9 PM 53%81%56%15%54%
WEEKEND
Weekend parking occupancy data was collected in January 2018.Table 10 summaries the parking
occupancy for study area, with time periods over 85% occupancy shaded. Overall, the parking
Page 9
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
occupancy was below practical capacity, except during the midday peak between 1 PM and 2 PM and
the evening peak between 7 PM and 8 PM.
Table 10: Weekend Parking Occupancy
On-Street Off-Street Miller Garage Overall
Total Spaces 278 217 248 743
Time Interval
8 AM – 9 AM 42%53%38%44%
9 AM – 10 AM 63%53%45%54%
10 AM – 11 AM 78%65%49%65%
11 AM – 12 PM 91%76%58%76%
12 PM – 1 PM 92%76%73%81%
1 PM – 2 PM 95%81%84%87%
2 PM – 3 PM 90%79%71%80%
3 PM – 4 PM 80%74%50%69%
4 PM – 5 PM 90%74%43%69%
5 PM – 6 PM 91%82%46%73%
6 PM – 7 PM 100%95%51%82%
7 PM – 8 PM 99%96%58%85%
8 PM – 9 PM 94%89%52%79%
On-Street Parking
Table 11 summaries the on-street parking occupancy throughout the day on Grand Avenue, Baden
Avenue, Maple Avenue, and Linden Avenue, with time periods over 85% occupancy shaded. It should
be noted that Table 11 only includes vehicles parked in marked spaces and excludes the vehicles
parked in the unmarked section on Baden Avenue. Overall, on-street parking experienced two peaks:
1) between 11 AM and 3 PM; 2) between 4 PM and 9 PM.
Table 11: On-Street Parking Weekend Parking Occupancy
Location Grand Ave Baden Ave Maple Ave Linden Ave Overall
Total Spaces 161 32 42 43 278
Time Interval
8 AM – 9 AM 55%19%29%23%42%
9 AM – 10 AM 71%41%69%42%63%
10 AM – 11 AM 81%63%98%58%78%
11 AM – 12 PM 92%84%98%86%91%
12 PM – 1 PM 93%91%98%81%92%
1 PM – 2 PM 98%97%93%84%95%
2 PM – 3 PM 89%100%93%84%90%
3 PM – 4 PM 77%97%90%70%80%
4 PM – 5 PM 86%97%98%91%90%
5 PM – 6 PM 90%100%83%93%91%
6 PM – 7 PM 100%100%98%100%100%
7 PM – 8 PM 99%100%100%95%99%
8 PM – 9 PM 91%100%93%98%94%
Page 10
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Table 12 summaries the on-street parking occupancy throughout the day on Grand Avenue, with time
periods over 85% occupancy shaded. On-street parking on Grand Avenue experienced two peaks: 1)
between 11 AM and 3 PM, where the parking occupancy was between 89 and 98 percent; 2) between
4 PM and 9 PM, where the parking occupancy was between 86 and 100 percent. Block 300 was above
practical capacity with over 85% occupancy for all 13 hours that were observed.
Table 12: Grand Avenue Weekend Parking Occupancy
Location Grand Avenue
Block 100-200 Block 300 Block 400 Overall
Total Spaces 37 50 74 161
Time Interval
8 AM – 9 AM 35%88%43%55%
9 AM – 10 AM 57%98%59%71%
10 AM – 11 AM 76%100%72%81%
11 AM – 12 PM 89%100%88%92%
12 PM – 1 PM 89%100%91%93%
1 PM – 2 PM 92%100%99%98%
2 PM – 3 PM 84%100%85%89%
3 PM – 4 PM 86%88%65%77%
4 PM – 5 PM 76%98%82%86%
5 PM – 6 PM 92%98%84%90%
6 PM – 7 PM 100%100%100%100%
7 PM – 8 PM 95%100%100%99%
8 PM – 9 PM 76%98%95%91%
Table 13 summarizes the parking occupancy for on-street parking on Baden Avenue, with time
periods over 85% occupancy shaded. Overall, on-street parking at Baden Avenue was above
practical capacity after 12 PM. For the unmarked segment of Baden avenue, there were at least 60
parked vehicles. This parking count remained consistent throughout the study duration.
Page 11
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Table 13: Baden Avenue Weekend Parking Occupancy
Location
Baden Avenue
Marked Unmarked
Block 100-300 Block 400 Overall Block 400
Total Spaces 30 2 32
Time Interval
8 AM – 9 AM 13%100%19%63
9 AM – 10 AM 37%100%41%63
10 AM – 11 AM 60%100%63%62
11 AM – 12 PM 83%100%84%60
12 PM – 1 PM 93%50%91%62
1 PM – 2 PM 97%100%97%62
2 PM – 3 PM 100%100%100%63
3 PM – 4 PM 97%100%97%65
4 PM – 5 PM 97%100%97%64
5 PM – 6 PM 100%100%100%64
6 PM – 7 PM 100%100%100%64
7 PM – 8 PM 100%100%100%64
8 PM – 9 PM 100%100%100%65
Table 14 summarizes the parking occupancy for on-street parking on Maple Avenue and Linden Ave,
with time periods over 85% occupancy shaded. On-street parking on Maple Avenue was at least 83
percent occupied after 10 AM. On-street parking on Linden Avenue was at least 70 percent occupied
after 11 AM.
Table 14: Maple Avenue and Linden Avenue Weekend Parking Occupancy
Section Maple Avenue
Block 200-300
Linden Avenue
Block 200-300
Total Spaces 42 43
Time Interval
8 AM – 9 AM 29%23%
9 AM – 10 AM 69%42%
10 AM – 11 AM 98%58%
11 AM – 12 PM 98%86%
12 PM – 1 PM 98%81%
1 PM – 2 PM 93%84%
2 PM – 3 PM 93%84%
3 PM – 4 PM 90%70%
4 PM – 5 PM 98%91%
5 PM – 6 PM 83%93%
6 PM – 7 PM 98%100%
7 PM – 8 PM 100%95%
8 PM – 9 PM 93%98%
Page 12
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Off-Street Parking
Table 15 summarizes the parking occupancy for off-street parking, with time periods over 85%
occupancy shaded. Overall, off-street parking experienced a peak after 6 PM, where the parking
occupancy was between 89 and 96 percent.
Table 15: Off-Street Parking Weekend Parking Occupancy
Location Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 12 Lot 14 Overall
Total Spaces 32 71 20 40 37 17 217
Time Interval
8 AM – 9 AM 16%56%35%63%78%59%53%
9 AM – 10 AM 16%55%60%68%62%47%53%
10 AM – 11 AM 63%55%55%80%89%41%65%
11 AM – 12 PM 91%61%70%93%92%47%76%
12 PM – 1 PM 94%54%75%98%97%47%76%
1 PM – 2 PM 88%62%90%100%97%53%81%
2 PM – 3 PM 88%62%85%100%100%35%79%
3 PM – 4 PM 50%68%65%100%100%41%74%
4 PM – 5 PM 34%77%40%100%100%53%74%
5 PM – 6 PM 78%77%70%100%100%47%82%
6 PM – 7 PM 100%92%95%100%100%76%95%
7 PM – 8 PM 100%94%90%100%100%88%96%
8 PM – 9 PM 56%92%100%93%100%100%89%
Lots 1 and 4 experienced two peaks, once between 11 AM and 3 PM where the parking occupancy
was between 75 and 94 percent and a second peak between 6 APM and 8 PM where the parking
occupancy was between 95 and 100 percent. Lots 2 and 14 experienced one peak between 6 PM
and 9 PM where the parking occupancy was between 76 and 100 percent. Los 5 and 12 were the
most utilized of all the parking lots where most of the parking spaces was occupied throughout the
day.
Table 16 summarizes the parking occupancy for Miller Avenue Garage, with time periods over 85%
occupancy shared. The Miller Avenue Garage experienced one peak between 1 PM and 2 PM, where
the percent occupancy was 84 percent. Floor 1 and 2 had a maximum occupancy of 100 and 96
percent, respectively. Floor 3 and 4 had a maximum occupancy of 85 and 44 percent, respectively.
Page 13
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Table 16: Miller Garage Weekend Parking Occupancy
Floor 1 2 3 4 Overall
Total Spaces 64 68 68 48 248
8 AM – 9 AM 28%43%59%17%38%
9 AM – 10 AM 42%50%59%21%45%
10 AM – 11 AM 53%57%59%19%49%
11 AM – 12 PM 81%62%57%25%58%
12 PM – 1 PM 94%91%65%31%73%
1 PM – 2 PM 100%96%85%44%84%
2 PM – 3 PM 97%75%71%29%71%
3 PM – 4 PM 64%53%56%21%50%
4 PM – 5 PM 50%38%56%21%43%
5 PM – 6 PM 63%40%56%21%46%
6 PM – 7 PM 78%46%53%19%51%
7 PM – 8 PM 88%65%51%21%58%
8 PM – 9 PM 81%51%51%17%52%
COMPARISON WITH 2016 DATA
In comparing the recent data collected to the data presented in the 2016 Downtown Parking Study, a
net increase in overall parking demand can be seen for both on-street parking and off-street parking in
the downtown area. While the data collected by Kimley-Horn showed generally higher occupancy rates
at each lot, the peak occupancy periods throughout the day were similar, and fluctuations in parking
occupancy followed the same general trendline as the data provided in the 2016 Parking Study.
Figures 2-7, shown on the following pages, provide a comparison of overall parking occupancies on a
weekday and weekend basis for the on-street and off-street parking areas. Additionally, the parking
occupancy within the Miller Avenue Parking Garage is provided separately.
Future Demand
The 2016 Downtown Parking Study determined future demand based on anticipated land uses in the
10-year horizon and determined that and 228 parking space is necessary to meet future demand.
Kimley-Horn reviewed the future parking demand results and found that additional parking supply is
still necessary to accommodate future demand.
Page 14
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Figure 2: Weekday Overall Occupancy - On-Street Parking
Figure 3: Weekend Overall Occupancy - On-Street Parking
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%8AM–9AM9AM–10AM10AM–11AM11AM–12PM12PM–1PM1PM–2PM2PM–3PM3PM–4PM4PM–5PM5PM–6PM6PM–7PM7PM–8PM8PM–9PM2016 City Study 2018 KHA Study
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%8AM–9AM9AM–10AM10AM–11AM11AM–12PM12PM–1PM1PM–2PM2PM–3PM3PM–4PM4PM–5PM5PM–6PM6PM–7PM7PM–8PM8PM–9PM2016 City Study 2018 KHA Study
Page 15
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Figure 4: Weekday Overall Occupancy - Off-Street Parking
Figure 5: Weekend Overall Occupancy - Off-Street Parking
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%8AM–9AM10AM–11AM12PM–1PM2PM–3PM4PM–5PM6PM–7PM8PM–9PM2016 City Study 2018 KHA Study
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%8AM–9AM10AM–11AM12PM–1PM2PM–3PM4PM–5PM6PM–7PM8PM–9PM2016 City Study 2018 KHA Study
Page 16
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Figure 6: Weekday Overall Occupancy - Miller Garage
Figure 7: Weekend Overall Occupancy - Miller Garage
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%8AM–9AM10AM–11AM12PM–1PM2PM–3PM4PM–5PM6PM–7PM8PM–9PM2016 City Study 2018 KHA Study
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%8AM–9AM10AM–11AM12PM–1PM2PM–3PM4PM–5PM6PM–7PM8PM–9PM2016 City Study 2018 KHA Study
Page 17
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
CONCLUSION
Kimley-Horn conducted a parking occupancy study to validate the results of the occupancy data
documented in the Downtown Parking Study, prepared by the City of South San Francisco in 2016.
The number of occupied spaces for both on-street and off-street parking the downtown area were
counted once every hour between 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM. One weekday was surveyed in November
2017 and one weekend day was surveyed in January 2018. The data collected during this effort was
used to compare with the results in the 2016 study.
The data collected by Kimley-Horn showed a general increase in parking occupancy percentages from
the values presented in the 2016 study. However, the parking occupancy followed the same general
trend that was provided in the prior study and occupancy increases can be attributed to daily fluctuation
or additional retail/office/residential occupancy or density within the downtown area. Parking occupancy
for both on-street and off-street parking were found to be or exceeding the practical capacity of 85
percent. Kimley-Horn reviewed future demand forecast and found that additional supply is still needed
to accommodate future demand in the downtown area.