... Specific Pt \4-PrnducN\4-2 DocamnnNWtiap 2 AItprn vns\Lad Ute M iMjndus, ...... Table I provides an evaluation matri
City of Lafayette Staff Report For:
Lafayette City Council
By:
Don Tatzin, Mayor Cameron Burks, Vice Mayor Steven Falk, City Manager Niroop Srivatsa, Planning and Building Director
Date:
August 1, 2018
Subject:
Preserving the Park Theater Through Density Transfers, Private Involvement, and City Co-operation
Introduction Earlier this year, the Moraga Town Council agreed to a plan that preserves the Rheem Theater by transferring the property’s density rights to an adjacent property. The property owner, in exchange, transferred ownership of the Theater to the Moraga Community Foundation for $150,000. There may be a similar opportunity for the Park Theater in Lafayette. Since the Theater’s closure in 2001, many people have expressed interest in seeing the venue reopened. In fact, in 2003, the City Council convened a Park Theater Task Force 1 that diligently studied the economics of theater but ultimately could not recommend public funding to support the theater. The building has since been vacant. The purpose of this memo is to introduce the concept of density transfer as an option for reopening and reviving the Park Theater, and to ask the City Council whether it believes the proposal has sufficient merit to warrant further exploration. Background Longtime Oakland residential real-estate developer John Protopappas, with others, owns the 1.5-acre apartment complex at 3483 Golden Gate Way, otherwise known as the “Lincoln Property.” The building was constructed more than 50 years ago and Mr. Protopappas seeks to redevelop it as a modern residential development. Protopappas also recently acquired an option to purchase the Park Theater property (including the fourplex apartment located 1
2003 Final Park Theater Task Force Report is attached.
1 of 8
10B
behind the theater). Recognizing that there might be a way to both preserve the theater and benefit the developer, the Mayor and City Manager approached Protopappas and introduced the idea of a density transfer. Why would the City be interested? Under the Downtown Specific Plan, there is a goal to preserve the older historic buildings along Plaza Way and not encourage dense development at and around those locations. Furthermore, many residents have expressed interest seeing the Park Theater reopened as a community theater that delivers films, concerts, lectures, etc. A density transfer would allow the City and owner, working in partnership, to shift the inherent value of one parcel to another site while simultaneously enabling donation of the theater to the community. A density transfer would also help implement the shared-parking goals for the Plaza Park Overlay District. Finally, the density transfer does not increase the total number of potential units that can be developed between and among the involved parcels, but instead clusters them in one location. Why would the owner be interested? Under the City’s General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and zoning ordinance, the maximum density for a residential development on both the Lincoln Property and the Park Theater is 35 units per acre 2. The Lincoln site, comprised of 1.49 acres, therefore has a maximum development capacity of (1.49 acres * 35 units/acre =) 52 units3. Conventional wisdom among developers, however, is that a multi-family rental development with subterranean parking needs between 80 and 100 units to be feasible to build and operate. This is the primary reason that the Lincoln site has not heretofore redeveloped.
2 3
This can be exceeded if certain thresholds are met regarding provision of affordable housing. The building was originally constructed for 40 apartments on two floors.
2 of 8
Here’s how the density transfer might work. To start, the developer would purchase and deed the Park Theater properties to the City of Lafayette or an acceptable property-holding partner 4. In exchange for the deed, the City, recognizing that it will never sell or develop the Park Theater parcel or Lafayette Plaza, would transfer the density rights for those properties to the developer. The City would receive market rate compensation for transferring the development rights in the form of a property donation and funding for public improvements beyond those typically required of the development. Since these properties comprise a total of (0.25 + 0.47 =) 0.72 acres, the developer could build an additional (0.72 acres * 35 units/acre =) 25 units on the site. Those 25 units, when combined with the first 52 units, would give the developer a theoretical capacity of 77 units. Additionally, the project’s affordability requirement would allow the developer to capture a ~20% density bonus, thus bringing the theoretical unit total to 92 units. How big would a 92 unit development be? At 62 units per acre the project would, for Lafayette, certainly be considered big. It would require a 35 to 45 foot 5 façade on Golden Gate Way that would result in a significant change to the neighborhood while still complying with the City’s General and Specific Plans. There are other large buildings in town. The Town Center Apartments and the new KB Home condominiums, both at about 53 units per acre, are relatively big, tall, and dense. The Lafayette Park Hotel and the Lafayette Library and Learning Center are also big, and both are significantly taller than 35 feet. One positive note urban design note: the south side of the Lafayette Library facing Golden Gate Way, at 52 feet, is sufficiently tall that it would provide scale such that the new multifamily building would not look out of place. Likewise, visibility to the new building from Mt. Diablo Blvd would be largely blocked by the library.
4
Since the Theater could serve as a satellite facility to the Library and be used for related cultural performances and civic activities, two nonprofit organizations that obviously warrant consideration are the Lafayette Community Foundation and the Lafayette Library and Learning Center Foundation.
5
The Downtown Specific Plan establishes a height limit of 35 feet and 3 stories. A project of up to 45 feet and 3 stories may be approved by the City Council if it provides significant public benefits and amenities.
3 of 8
The KB Home development is about 53 units per acre.
What about the Downtown Specific Plan and the Plaza Way Overlay? The density transfer, as proposed above, could deliver several key long-term goals: •
More parking behind the theater. The program would relocate residents from the current fourplex into new housing units on Golden Gate Way. Doing so would, in turn, allow for the demolition of the fourplex and its conversion into nine new and convenient parking spaces. At project completion, in evenings there would be approximately 100 publicly accessible parking spaces behind the theater and along Golden Gate Way within 400 feet of the theater door, not including the parking at the Lafayette Library and Learning Center. Presuming that the stage was enlarged as part of a renovation, the theater would likely contain about 250 seats. In total, then, in the evenings there would be about one publicly available parking space for every 2.5 seats in the theater.
4 of 8
•
Library Park. While downtown is the most densely populated area in Lafayette, it has no recreation parks for those families who live there. Recognizing that shortfall, the City’s Downtown Specific Plan calls for the construction of Library Park at the corner of Golden Gate Way and First Street. Any deal including a density-transfer should therefore also include a provision wherein the developer converts the OakBridge Parking Lot into a recreation park while substituting those 22 lost public parking spaces into the garage underneath the new condominiums, a’la:
5 of 8
What Next? The City and the developer have only had just the earliest conversations about this idea, and no dealpoints have been discussed or agreed upon. From our visage, there are four threshold questions that need to be answered before substantive discussions with the developer can begin: •
Recognizing the change it would bring to the area, would this project concept be supported by local residents, businesses, property owners, the community, and the City Council?
•
If so, what is the appropriate organization to take ownership of and run and manage the Park Theater?
•
What are the capital costs required to bring the theater into operational condition and in compliance with modern seismic, ADA, food safety, digital projection, audio|visual,and theater/venue standards?
•
We have created a thumbnail operating budget (attached) for a community theater which suggests that a minimum-quality program will cost ~$580,000 annually. Currently there is no funding source to cover that cost, and we cannot support moving forward with this project unless and until a reliable long-term funding source is identified and committed. Where will the money come from?
Recommendation Discuss and provide direction.
6 of 8
Attachment A Thumbnail Budget for Operating a Community Theater
Park Theater Annual Operating Budget Personnel Theater Program Manager Full Time Caretaker Half Time Concession Worker Half Time Projectionist / AV Worker
Salary 91,236 62,844 31,422 31,422
$ $ $ $
$ $ $ $
$ $ $ $
Total 124,993 86,096 43,048 43,048
Subtotal Personnel
$
297,186
Subtotal Operations
$ $ $
52,000 130,000 182,000
Subtotal Capital
$ $
100,000 100,000
TOTAL $
579,186
37% Benefits Load 33,757 23,252 11,626 11,626
Operations Advertising Program / Film / Artist Fees
Capital Sinking Fund
$1,000 per week $500 per night
$100,000 per year
7 of 8
Attachment B Park Theater Task Force Final Report
8 of 8
chr,et G
City of Lafayette Task Force Report For:
City Council
By:
Park Theater Task Force
Date Written:
October 21, 2003
Meeting Date:
November 24, 2003
Subject:
Task Force Recommendations for the Park Theater
Introduction The Park Theater was placed on the market, but not sold, in 2001. The City recently learned from the owner of the Park Theater that competitive pressures make it increasingly likely that Renaissance Rialto will again seek to sell the Park Theater. Given this situation, a report was prepared summarizing how some other cities have responded to such a situation. The City Council, after reviewing this information, agreed that the matter required more study and appointed a citizen's task force with the following mission: Recognizing that the Park Theater operates in a competitive environment that has led to the demise of most other single screen theaters in California, the mission of the Park Theater Task Force is to identify and study options for preserving the Park Theater as a venue for the exhibition of motion pictures, and to make recommendations to the City Council. Some options developed shall require minimal or no public funds. Background The Park Theater is a single screen movie theater built in 1941 with a seating capacity of 350. The owner, Alan Michaan, purchased the theater in 1986 for $350,000. It is unknown at this time how the recent openings of multi-screen theaters in Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek may affect the Park Theater's business. However, this additional competition, along with a desire by Mr. Michaan devote more time to his other businesses, has him to consider selling the theater. Although the property is not formally listed on the market as of yet, the asking price in 2001 was $1.5 million. Experts in the theater businesses agree that the single-screen movie theater is a dying breed. In San Francisco alone, 35 single screen theaters have closed since 1980 and those that remain face uncertain futures. Efforts to restore and revive 1920's and 30's era single-screen theaters are under way all over the country. Many of these efforts have been. assisted and subsidized by local governments (see Exhibits IA & lB). The most successful projects of this type are 1 of 13
public I private partnerships. The goals that generally drive these projects are a combination of historic preservation, economic redevelopment and promotion of cultural arts in the community. It is often very difficult to operate such a venue with film alone as a revenue source and most successful theater projects often diversify by providing space for other uses, such as church functions, community meetings and art programs. In almost every case where a city has taken on a theater restoration project, significant public funds have been required for purchase, renovation and ongoing operational support. Analysis Regarding zoning, the parcel currently falls under the use definition of "commercial recreation". This category requires one parking space for each 4 permanent seats and one additional space for each 40 square feet of assembly and meeting areas which do not contain permanent seating. Therefore, if it were applying as a new use today, the theater would technically require at least 87 parking spaces.. However, since the theater was "grandfathered" without this parking requirement, continued use as a theater, even with a change in ownership, is not subject to a parking review. •
Any change in the land use from "commercial recreation" would trigger a parking review that would in all likelihood require that the owner provide a substantial number of new parking spaces that may not be accommodated by the current parcel .Tf the theater were to be converted to use other than recreation or assembly, the parking requirement would be at least one space for each 250 square feet of net floor space. At roughly 4000 square feet of usable area, the Park Theater space would require approximately 16 spaces. There are at least 10 parking spaces available in the unpaved lot at the back of the building. Depending on the creek setback requirements, there may be room for several more. Despite it's exterior appearance, the theater is in very good shape overall. The screen, seats, carpet, projection and sound systems are all in excellent condition and very little, if any, capital would need to be spent to continue running the theater as it is today. However, the front façade and marquee could use some "sprucing up" to increase curb appeal. Structurally, the building is sound and there is no indication that any major renovations need to be done. General maintenance work would not trigger new building code and ADA requirements. The ADA trigger for upgrading the building is improvements under $85,000. However, if the project were more expensive than that, the foyer, concession area, bathrooms and aisles would all have to be upgraded to meet ADA requirements. If the theater were designated as a historical landmark, certain ADA and building code requirements could be waived or modified to preserve the structure's historical integrity. However, the downside of such a designation is that the building cannot ever be substantially altered. Additionally, there are specific criteria that must be met in order to declare a structure as a historical landmark and it is unclear at this time whether or not the Park Theater would qualify.
2 of 13
As is, the theater is not readily suitable for use as a regular retail business. The floor is significantly sloped and the space is much deeper and higher than most retail establishments can efficiently accommodate. For a use other than a theater, major renovations would likely be required that would in turn trigger building code and ADA retrofits. In addition, there is asbestos in the ceiling and cleaning it up might add more than $100,000 to any construction cost - thus triggering the ADA requirement. •
The Park Theater currently enjoys a niche in the movie market and many Lafayette residents prefer it to the multiplexes, both because of the high quality movies and the more "adult" atmosphere. The theater appears to be profitable for the current owner, due in large part to the low overhead he enjoys, but the long-term economic effects of the new screens opening in Walnut Creek remain unknown at this time.
Options The Task Force identified the following options for the Park Theater: 1. City/Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Purchase 2. Organize and support a non-profit organization to take over the theater 3. Actively manage the reuse of the theater (e.g. negotiate maintaining the façade as part of the land use permit) 4. Provide incentives for the current owner to maintain the business 5. Provide incentives for a new owner to maintain the property as a film theater 6. Do nothing at this time The Task Force performed financial analyses on several scenarios relating to the above options using financial data generously provided to us by Mr. Michaan. However, because Mr. Michaan specifically asked us to keep the figures confidential, they are not reported here in detail. Furthermore, the Task Force reviewed similar projects, spoke to the Economic Development Director of El Cerrito about their current project, and interviewed a representative from VenueTech, a company that assists local municipalities in preserving historic theaters. Conclusions An analysis of the Park Theater's recent revenues suggests that the theater can be profitably operated as a single-screen movie theater at a certain purchase price. Because the City has committed most of its RDA funding stream to a new library, and because it appears that the Park Theater can be successfully transferred to a new owner while preserving the building as a cinema, the Task Force can not recommend that the City contribute significant funding to the purchase and/or support of the theater on an ongoing basis at this time. 3 of 13
However, the Task Force was unanimous in its support of the Park Theater as a film venue and recognized that the theater is an important icon in the community that contributes to the overall character of the City. Given the City Council's original mission, two options (#4 and #5 above) emerged as currently feasible (see Exhibit 2). Therefore, the Task Force can recommend the following positive steps for City Council consideration: 1. Provide a redevelopment matching grant to either the current owner, or a new owner, of the Park Theater of up to $25,000 for façade improvements, with the improvement plan subject to City approval. 2. Explore options that will provide additional parking for the theater. 3. Offer to provide assistance in finding a new owner/operator for the theater and ask that Mr. Michaan keep the City informed as to the status of the theater. (Note: In 1985, when faced with a similar issue, the City helped search for and interview candidates to take over the theater, which is how Mr. Michaan became the eventual owner.) Note that the first option was not unanimously approved by the Task Force -- 2 Out of the 7 members present voted not to provide any funding since they felt that giving city funds to a profitable, commercial business was not appropriate. However, using RDA funds for façade improvements is not unprecedented in Lafayette, as the Council has already made matching RDA funds available in two other instances (e.g. Town Center and the Wayside Inn). Those that supported giving a grant felt that improving the façade may mitigate some of the competition of the new multiplexes thus allowing the current owner to maintain a profitable business and perhaps increasing the attractiveness of the business to a new owner/operator. Recommendation 1. Provide a matching grant to either the current owner, or a new owner, of the Park Theater of up to $25,000 for façade improvements. 2. Explore options that will provide additional parking for the theater. 3. Offer to help find a new owner/operator for the theater.
4 of 13
Exhibit I Case Studies: RDA Involvement in Theater Restoration and Preservation Prepared by City of El Cerrito Community Development Department I. San Jose, CA: San Jose Fox Theater Built in 1927, the San Jose Fox Theater is being restored to seat 1200 people. The Fox has been non operational since 1973. When construction is complete, the Fox Theater will operate as the venue for Opera San Jose, as a classic film screening theater, and for dance and other performances and in connection with the convention center as for plenary sessions. The City of San Jose has invested a total of $47 million in the Fox Theater: • $2 million to purchase the theater in 1985; $5 million to purchase an adjacent building, to be used for rehearsal rooms, dressing rooms, etc.; • $ 40 million for restoration and renovation (2/3 of the total cost). The Packard Humanities Institute paid the remaining $30 million of restoration costs. Currently, Opera San Jose maintains the Fox Theater at a cost of $10,000/year. City has gained: • Preservation and restoration of its only historic theater; • Community multi-use space; • Insured investment through ownership of the theater. II. Roseville, CA: Roseville Theater Built in 1926 as a vaudeville theater, the Roseville was non-operational since the 1980s. Total cost of renovations: $800,000-$900,000 City invested $320,000 for exterior renovations and ADA compliance. The $320,000 came from four sources within the City: The Magic Circle Theater, the main tenant, received $200,000 as a loan from a bank and also brought $100,000 in equity to the project. The theater company, which is a non-profit, continues to raise funds to complete the project. • $20,000 façade improvement grant; • $50,000 commercial rehabilitation loan, which the city will forgive; • $125,000 community development block grant; • $125,000 redevelopment agency 5-year no-interest loan. III. Roseville, CA: Tower Theater The Tower Theater was built in 1939 as a 1000-seat movie house. It was donated to the City of Roseville in 1989 after being non-operational since the early 1980s. Total costs of renovations are estimated at $6 million. Currently, the City of Roseville and the Roseville Arts Center (Tenant) have worked together to renovate the lobby, which is used as an art gallery, meeting & performance space. The 5 of 13
auditorium is not restored or used; the City and Tenant are in negotiations to undertake this project. The City of Rosevifle has invested close to $600,000 towards the restoration and opening of the front lobby space: • • • • •
$200,000 of redevelopment funds; $100,000 from the city general fund; $250,000 in annual operational subsidies (pays $25,000/year); $100,000 from the Citizen's Benefit Trust (city endowment fund); $40,000 loan from the electric department (city-owned utilities).
City gains: • Downtown renewal; • Limited and matched involvement; • Preserved historic theaters, Roseville Arts Center has a long-term lease with the City, ensuring use of the Tower Theater. The Roseville Arts Center has paid the balance of the cost to renovate and operate the lobby portion of the Tower Theater and monthly rent. They will be responsible for a portion of the renovation, and all operating costs for the theatre auditorium. IV. Stockton, CA: Stockton Fox Theater The Stockton Fox was built in 1929; it is 22,0000 square feet and seats 2000 people. It was non-operational between 1973 and 1996. Total cost to the City of Stockton $7.91 million: • $180,000 on the purchase; • $1.33 million in basic improvements; • $2.7 million in annual operating costs ($450,000/year for 6 years); • $4 million allotted for upcoming improvements; • Responsible for running and operating theater. City gains: • Catalyst for bringing people downtown; • Insured investment through ownership of the theater; • Preserves historic building. V. Glendale, CA: Alex Theater Alex Theater was built in 1925, seats 1460 people. The City of Glendale acquired the theater in 1989 for $835,000. A 21-member 501c3 non-profit organization was formed to run it. The theater reopened in 1994. The remaining funds come from theater revenue and fundraising. Total cost to City of Glendale $9.31 million: • $835,000 for city acquisition of theater; • $7 million in restoration; 6 of 13
$1.12 million in maintenance (as the landlord--$ 140,000 per year for 8 years); $3.16 million total to-date operations grants (open 8 years @ $395000/year-tota1 operating costs are $2 million per year). Gain to City of Glendale: • Historic value; • $4.7 million in multiplier effect - spin-off economic activity from presence of theater ($588,000 per year; using half of the per-head multiplier provided by the • California Arts Council); • $128,000 tax income (not tax increment- $16,000 per year over the 8 years); • Insured investment through ownership of the theater. VI. Santa Cruz, CA: Del Mar Theater The Del Mar Theater in downtown Santa Cruz was built in 1936. The four-screen theater is being restored and improved through a partnership between the Redevelopment Agency of Santa Cruz, Nickelodeon Theaters (Tenant), a third party developer (acts as the land lord) and the Friends of the Del Mar (a non-profit organization formed in support of the restoration and reopening of the theater). Total cost to the City of Santa Cruz is $2 million: • $1.3 million for acquisition; • $700,000 for ADA upgrades. Cost to Tenant: • $600,000 in improvements; • Monthly rent of $2400 to the 3rd party developer; • 7.5% of gross revenue paid to City Redevelopment Agency. Cost to developer: • $400,000 in renovations; • Upkeep and property management costs; • $1 per year to lease building from the City. Gains to City: • Restored historic theater; • 7.5% of gross annual income from the theater; • 24 days/year for community access to the theater (for lectures, films, etc.); • Insured investment through ownership of the theater. VII. Oakland, CA: Oakland Fox Theater The Fox opened in 1928; it seats 3500 people. It has been closed and non-operational since 1965. The City of Oakland's redevelopment agency purchased the Fox in 1995 and has, in conjunction with the Friends of the Fox, restored the exterior, including the marquee. Private fundraising efforts are necessary in order to reopen it. 7 of 13
Total cost to the City of Oakland is $5.85 million: • $3 million to purchase the Fox Theater in 1996; o $250,000 to buy out tenants so improvements could be made; • $900,000 for new roof; • $650,000 for exterior improvements (marquis, vertical sign, foyer); • $350,000 for Master Plan (by architectural firm); • $700,000 general maintenance (approximately $100,000 per year over 7 years). The Master Plan identifies $18 million (after income from re-leasing office and retail space) work to be done to reopen the theater; the City of Oakland is issuing an RFP to develop a potential partnership with a developer in order to complete the project. Gains to the City: • Income from 18,000 sq-ft retail, 30,000 sq-ft of office, with opportunity to expand offices; • Preserved historical theater in blighted downtown neighborhood; Insured investment through ownership of the theater. VIII. North Hollywood Arts District, CA: El Portal Theater The El Portal Theater was built in 1928. The City of Los Angeles developed a three-party agreement with the property owner and the tenant, a non-profit organization to reopen and rehabilitate the theater in 1995 after it had been non-operational for ten years. The City gave funds to the tenant for rehabilitation, who was responsible for all improvements. As the landowner was unwilling to take responsibility for any improvements made on the property (but benefit due to the increase in property value), the RDA created an option for purchase for the long-term lease, with equity options from the improvements to be applied to the purchase. The City of Los Angeles withheld funds until the property owner agreed to the purchase option. Additionally, the City of Los Angeles began the process to designate the building as historic during the negotiations. The City of Los Angeles spent a total of $3.25 million on this project: The theater reopened in 1999. The City contributed: • $3 million in a block grant to preserve historical features; • $250,000 in a loan from the Redevelopment Agency. • An additional $1 million SBA loan was granted. This debt has not been repaid in full, although payments have been made towards the debt. The Redevelopment loan was structured to be repaid as a function of the extra income, after operating costs and the FBA loan payments were met. However, the tenant has taken advantage of the opportunity provided by the RDA to make 20% of their seats available to low-income seniors and children in exchange for loan forgiveness. The City gained: 8 of 13
• • • •
Cultural access for low-income seniors and children; Rehabilitation of an historic theater; Insured investment through historic designation of the theater; Insured investment through tenant's option to own theater.
IX. Los Angeles, CA: Egyptian Theater Built in 1922, the Egyptian Theater seated 1760 people until 1992 when it closed due to extensive earthquake damage. The City of Los Angeles acquired the theater in 1994 using eminent domain when the property owner wanted to demolish the theater and build a multiplex. The ground for use of eminent domain was threat to an historic building. To rehabilitate the theater, the City designated $1.5 million in Redevelopment funds. Additional funding was acquired through various grants. The Egyptian Theater reopened in 1998 as the home of American Cinematheque, a nonprofit cultural and film organization that operates the cinema and a film museum at the Theater. American Cinematheque has the option to purchase the Theater from the City after 10 years. X. City of Newman, CA: West Side Theatre The West Side Theatre opened in 1940 and seated 450 people. After 40 years of showing films, the theater was converted to a roller skating rink in 1984; when the roller rink closed, the theatre was converted to a nightclub, which operated froml99l through 1995. When the property foreclosed in 1995, the City of Newman purchased it for $100,000 and a non-profit organization, the West Side Theatre Foundation, was formed. The City paid $150,000 in basic repairs, which included replacing the roof and installing basic heat and air ventilation systems. West Side Theatre volunteers completed the remainder of the restorations and refurbishment. The volunteer group did an estimated $2 million of work to restore the theater (not including labor, which is all free). All improvements were paid for through donations from local parties. There were two corporate grants that assisted with the marquee: $10,000 from Proctor and Gamble and $22,000 from PG&E. The City of Newman rents the West Side Theatre to the West Side Theatre Foundation for $ 1/year; in return, the all-volunteer non-profit organization operates and maintains the theatre. However, the City is responsible for major repairs. The theater is currently used for music and theater performances as well as for other community uses such as the high school prom and chamber events. Reconfigured from its original seating into cabaret-style seating, the West Side Theatre seats 200. The contract between the City and the West Side Theatre Foundation stipulates that the space shall be rented only to non-profit groups. The restoration project is a 10-year project, at the end of which the citizens' group hopes to hire an operator to run the venue.
9 of 13
The restoration of the West Side Theatre and the activities that have ensued has given the City of Newman a focal point for its subsequent redevelopment projects. The City of Newman spent a total of $200,000 on this project. The West Side Theater Foundation has put in approximately $2 million in work, not including labor, which has been volunteered. Gains to the City: • Rehabilitation of an historic theater; • Focus of Redevelopment effort; • Entertainment center in City; • Event venue; • Insured investment through ownership of theater.
10 of 13
Exhibit lB Case Studies: RIA Involvement in Theater Restoration and Preservation
Prepared by City of Lafayette Planning Intern
VARSITY THEATRE. DAVIS. CA Facility Information-
Information obtained from Bob Bowen, Promotions Manager, City of
Davis, CA
Facility ______________________________ Ownership Operation Current Use Year built Year renovated Tenant improvements by city to date
_________________________________________________
Varsity Theatre 616 Second Street Owned by the Keil Companies, San Francisco Operated by the City of Davis For rent to the community 1950 1991-92. Opened October 1992 Over $1 million _______________________________________________________
Seating Capaciy 427 Square footage Approximately 8,000 square feet Current Rental fees $52/hr. or $416/day (single reservation) ______________________________ 10% of gross (2 or more week Rroduction block) Usage
Average user days/year # performances-events/year # preparation-rehearsal days/year # actual activities/year Regularly used Underutilized Hours of operation User Groups
Davis Musical Theatre Co. _______________________________ _________________________________ _____________________________ _______________________________ Sacramento City College UCD Women's Resource Ctr. UCD Presents
___________________________________________________
298 166 126 292 Thursday through Sunday evenings Daytime, Monday through Friday Staffing schedule changes daily based on usage __________________________________
# of Adult Company performances/yr. # of Young Performer performances/yr. # of theatre usage weeks/yr. Youth Summer workshop Patrons attending shows/year Film class Writer's series Concerts
11 of 13
_____________
75 48 36 weeks 2 weeks 25,000 13 nights 4 nights 4-6 per year
Other uses (usually 1-2 days each)
Community theatre, music, and dance groups, non-profit groups, UCD organizations, conferences, speakers, book signings, art films and videos, city awards, downtown/community meetings, school performances, ________________________________ ethnic culture events, and fundraisers. Possible new bookings In discussion with UCD to offer a morning class, additional _____________________________ movie nights Estimated Operating Costs Lease per year Property tax Human Resources Gas Electricity Supplies/contractual Bldg. Maint./custodial Total Revenue Rentals General fund support
___________________________________________________
$115,125 $21,795 $54,089 $6,000 Not available $11,000 $25,000 $233,009
$30,000 (13% of total expenditures) $203,009
Analysis of the Varsity Theatre Even with a large potential audience and user base such as University of California, Davis, the Varsity Theatre is not successful. Rentals are the only source of income and cover only 13% of the operational cost. The City of Davis heavily subsidizes its operation and supplies the remaining $203,009 every year.
12 of 13
TOWNE THEATRE. FILLMORE. CA Facility Information-Information of Fillmore, CA
obtained from Tom Ristau, Parks and Recreation Dept, City ___________________________________________
Facility Ownership Operation Current Use Year built Year renovated Tenant improvements by city to date
Fillmore Towne Theatre Fillmore Redevelopment Agency, purchased for $75,000 City of Fillmore First run movie theatre 1910's 1995 New seats, re-do walls, curtains, flooring, carpeting, renovated bathrooms, new fly away screen, new projection system, new ticketing system, upgrade to concession area $950,000-i million ______________________________ Seating Capacity 384 Square footage Unknown Current Rental fees Based on event. Very few rentals. First run movies at ______________________________ bargain prices. Usage
Average user days/year # performances-events/year # preparation-rehearsal days/year # actual activities/year Regularly used Underutilized Hours of operation
_________________________________________________
21,380 people/year, 58 per day from 7/1/02-6/30/03 400 movie shows/year N/A 5-10 outside of movies Yes, daily as movie theatre No Daily 7pm showing plus matinees on Sat and Sun
User Groups
School district, Citizen's Patrol, Local youth organizations Other uses (usually 1-2 days each) Birthday parties (minimum # required in order to rent), ________________________________ concerts, town hail meetings, meeting hail Possible new bookings Comedy nights Estimated Operating Costs
Lease per year Property tax Human Resources Utilities Bldg. Maint/custodial Other Total
_______________________________________________
N/A N/A 47,894 14,091 677 83,873 $146,535
13 of 13
cdimt Memorandum To:
Steve Falk, Ann Merideth, City of Lafayette
Date: From:
June 3, 2008 Jim Stickley
Ref. No.
5 146-02
Project:
Lafayette Downtown Strategy 14 Land Use Background
Pages: Re:
cc
Ron Golem, BAE; Ellen Poling, Fehr & Peers
Introduction This memo summarizes the process and data that underlie the land use recommendations reflected in the Preliminary Preferred Concept for Downtown Lafayette. It is important to note that the Preferred Concept is a preliminary recommendation based on the process to date, and still needs to go through several rounds of community review and input before a final recommendation is drafted. This review process will include additional meetings with the Advisory Committee, a Community Workshop, and presentations to the City Council and other boards at two joint meetings. The Preferred Concept will be refined or modified as necessary to respond to community input received during this review process. It is also important to note what the purpose of the concept alternative process is intended to be. The successive alternatives concepts including the latest "Preferred Concept" have allowed us to test different potential changes to the downtown including development infill, public space improvements and circulation and parking improvements. From a landuse standpoint, the type and extent of development infill shown in the alternatives is intended to test different possible scenarios that might play out over the time horizon of the study - up to 2030.
Ultimately, the Downtown Strategy will not dictate the amount or location of in fill development that will happen - or that is allowed - in the Downtown. Limits on the amount of development are already established by the General Plan and the specific locations of in fill development will be dictated by individual property owner initiatives and the market.
N:\5000\5146 Downtown Lafayette SpeCific Pran\4-Pinducts\4-2 ttscuments\F'tms 2 A!ternetivesttend We Memthf.enthjsy rii,m-Q5-35-O8.ds
Wallace Roberts & Todd, Inc 1328 Mission Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94103
415.875.4722 www.wrtdesign.coni fax 415436.9837
James K. Sticktey, ASLA CA Litense LA4251
7'
Memorandum Lafayette Downtown Strategy Land Use Background
Page 2 June 3. 2008
The purpose of the Downtown Strategy therefore is twofold: 1) to guide the development that is likely over the next 20 years (within the parameters of the General Plan) so that it happens in the way that the community determines is best to promote downtown function, livability and desired character and 2) to identify priorities for public improvements such as public space, circulation and parking improvements that will also result in a better functioning, more livable downtown. This memo focuses on the first of those two purposes. Development that occurs in the downtown should, ideally, fall within the limits established by the approved Lafayette General Plan, and most of the recommendations that come out of this study regarding landuse are likely to do so, and will thus be about the shape, configuration and character of development rather than amount of development. It is possible, however, that through the Strategic Planning process we will conclude that the community's goals have changed since the General Plan was adopted, and that recommendations may emanate from this study that require a modification of the General Plan or Zoning Code. This could be viewed as a refinement of current regulations. These aspects may include density restrictions, parking requirements, landuse mix regulations, or other growth control features. It is also possible that recommendations from this study may ultimately seek to modify the allowable amount of certain types of development downtown (eg: housing), if current General Plan restrictions are deemed by the community to be limiting in light of other goals. This kind of recommendation would be presented as a modification to the General Plan and would need to go through all of the required regulatory steps for a General Plan amendment. All of these things will need to be vetted within the community process in the remaining rounds of review as described above before final recommendations are made. Although it is not the intent of this memo to describe, in detail, the landuse recommendations of the Preferred Concept - but rather their basis --, it is perhaps useful to briefly outline its key aspects. In general, the concept seeks to demonstrate the potential advantages of a mixeduse model for the downtown infill in which retail combined with office or retail combined with housing are encouraged within an individual project rather than being singular uses as is more the norm currently. In this way, downtown activity - particularly walkable activity - is encouraged, creating a more vibrant downtown and reducing car trip
N:\5c00\Si 46 Dowr1Owi bfyQtt Speufrc PI,n\4.Prnducts\4.2 Dourrent\Pb, 2 AItp:ntivs\Ld Use MemMjfldse memoUS-3O-O8.dc
Memorandum Lafayette Downtown Strategy Land Use Background
Page 3 June 3, 2008
generation. Although mixed use is currently allowed in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, historically it has not typically been developed. The Downtown Strategy can be more specific and pro-active about demonstrating and encouraging the kinds of mixed-use that may be beneficial to the downtown. The concept also seeks to introduce infill in a way that keeps within building height and building bulk limits set by the current Zoning Code. By doing so, the small town character, so valued by the community, is preserved while still allowing new kinds.of mixed-use infill. On the other hand, the concept does propose increasing both density and height allowances in the parcels backing up against the freeway near BART so that housing can be concentrated as much as possible near BART - a concept that is encouraged by the General Plan and which, compared to all other alternatives that fall within the adopted General Plants growth envelope, results in the lowest number of new trips generated. In this way, the housing that is allowed by the General Plan would both minimize traffic impact and improve downtown vitality - rather than the other way around. The concept alternatives have also tested the capacity for amounts of commercial and residential development. While the community may choose to keep current General Plan limits in place, it is valuable to know the capacity of development as it might play out over a 20-year time horizon and within our current understanding of market conditions. The capacities tested in the various concepts have varied from 25,000 to 340,000 Sf of commercial (retail & office) space (280,000 sf is allowed by the General Plan in the downtown area) and 425 to 1,200 residential units (roughly 500 are allowed by the General Plan in the downtown area). The current preferred concept shows 175,000 sf of commercial and 1,200 units of residential for the downtown area (within the RDA boundary). Further rationale for these numbers is discussed in the paragraphs that follow. Please also note that adjusting amounts of commercial square footage and residential units is not simply a matter of changing the numbers. The value of these concept studies has been the detailed testing of infill projects parcel by parcel and in relation to one another so that the numbers shown reflect other community goals for the downtown as well as development realities in today's market. The Preferred Concept proposes a few potential key changes to the General Plan. The first is a lifting of the 35 du/ac cap on density so that higher density can be achieved in certain focus areas but within the height limits of the current zoning ordinance. Our assumption, based on community feedback, is that building height is the most critical concern as opposed to density - because of its effect on downtown scale and view
NJ:\5000\51 46 Downtown Lofayette Speoic PIan\4-Pwriucls\4-2 Docunicnt\Phote 2 AternntiveMand U5e Menio\tandtwn memo-Ot-30-QS4oc
C
Memorandum
Page4
Lafayette Downtown Strategy Land Use 8ackground
June 3, 2008
corridors. The second proposed change to the General Plan is the potential raising of the number of allowable residential units in the downtown area as summarized in the table below. The reasons for this potential change are explained further in this memo. Comparison of General Plan to Preferred Concept #Residential Units CitywicLe
General Plan 1026 Preferred Concept NA
#Residential Units Downtown
Sq. Ft. of Commercial Downtown
500 1200
280,000 175,000
Additionally, the preferred concept proposes to extend the eastern limit of the RB zone from 1St Street to 2nd Street thus providing more flexibility as to how upper floor residential uses can be configured in a mixed use building. This change would maintain height limits as they currently exist in the block between 15t St and 2nd St but adjust setback regulations to allow 3rd floor residential along Mt Diablo Boulevard as it does in the RB zone. This is a proposal that needs more detailed discussion in the review process.
Influencing Factors The various factors affecting land use strategy recommendations are outlined below. They include regulatory context (including General Plan allowances and ABAG1 targets); market analysis (done as a part of this study), community input (including surveys, workshops, and advisory committee meetings done as a part of this study); traffic impact (analyzed as part of this study); and carbon modeling (also done as a part of this study). The conclusions drawn from these various factors are complexly inter-related and sometimes contradictory but can generally be summarized as follows:
Regulatory Context: General Plan and the Downtown The 2002 General Plan sets policy guidelines for future growth and development in the City of Lafayette. The plan, which assumes a 20-year time-frame (2002-2022), establishes policies for the City at "build-out," Association of Bay Area Governments -- 2007 RHNA Allocation
N \500D\5i 46 DOwntown Lathynite Specific Pt \4-PrnducN\4-2 DocamnnNWtiap 2 AItprn vns\Lad Ute M iMjndus, merno-5fl-30-O8doc
Memorandum Lafayette Downtown Strategy Land Use Background
Page 5 June 3, 2008
when all land within the City Limits and Sphere of Influence could be developed to the maximum allowable extent. It is structured into goals, policies, and programs to guide this development. Most of the remaining vacant land in Lafayette is designated as a Rural Residential Use; the Downtown is where most development will occur. The General Plan allows extensive new commercial and residential development (as mixed-use development) in the Downtown area. Lafayette's vision for the Downtown, as described in the General Plan, combines the community's desire to establish a civic and commercial focus, while ensuring that the scale and appearance of new development will be harmonious with Lafayette's small town character. The Plan calls for the creation of a safe, attractive environment that complements the residential character of the town, the scenic beauty of its setting, and expands the tax base by providing additional goods and services for citizens. The General Plan goals pertaining to Downtown Land Use and Housing are listed below: General Plan - Land Use Element - Goals pertaining to Downtown Goal LU-7 Encourage Downtown development which is attractive and enhances Lafayette's community identity and small town character. •
Goal LU-8 Enhance commercial vitality and encourage a variety of businesses Downtown.
•
Goal LU-9 Maintain the Downtown as a convenient and safe commercial area, which enhances the tax base and serves the shopping and business needs of the local region.
•
Goal LU-lO Downtown Core: Encourage a concentration of pedestrian friendly retail uses and improve the appearance and identity of the Downtown Core.
•
Goal LU-i I East End Commercial: Improve the function, identity and appearance of the East End Commercial Area.
•
Goal LU-12 West End Commercial: Strengthen the West End Commercial area as an office commercial district with related support services.
N:\5000\5 145 Downtown Lofayntle Specflc Plrit4-Prcdtct\4-2 Doumentn\Phase 2 lterna5ves\Lartd Ut, M,mo\Landute memo-05-30-U8.dnc
Memorandum Lafayette Downtown Strategy Land Use Background
Page6 June 3, 2008
General Plan - Housing Element- Goals (Citywide) Goal H-i Conserve and improve the existing housing supply to provide adequate, safe, and decent housing for all residents, with emphasis on maintaining the semirural character of the City. Goal H-2 Facilitate and encourage the development of diverse housing types and additional affordable housing units to accommodate a diversity of Lafayette citizens in terms of age and socio-economic background and to meet regional housing needs as quantified in this Chapter. •
Goal H-3 Expand affordable housing opportunities for persons with special housing needs such as the elderly, developmentally disabled, households with very low to moderate incomes, and first time home buyers.
•
Goal H-4 Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or national origin.
•
Goal H-5 Adopt and implement a Housing Chapter that is in compliance with State Law.
Existing Specific Plans in the Downtown The BART Block is recognized in the General Plan as a focal point of the downtown retail commercial area. The BART Block Specific Plan (1986) states that the area should be developed in a manner that strengthens this recognition of retail shopping orientation bolstered by office and residential uses. The ground floor of developments should be preserved for pedestrian oriented retail sales or restaurant uses, and where appropriate, for residential uses. Recommendations for the residential use in the plan area include: "The City should study and establish overlay zones or other requirements which would favor residential use. Existing residential uses should be retained".
N:\5000\S 46 Downtown Lafayette Specific Flan\4-Podact\4-2 Do
nts\hate 2 AlternativeAtawl Use MemotLanduse menso-O5-30-O8.sioc
C
Memorandum
Page7
Lafayette Downtown Strategy Land Use Background
June 3, 200S
The Shield Block! La Fiesta Center, according to Specific Plan for the area (1988), should be strongly oriented to pedestrian retail and restaurant use. General Plan Development Potential Build-out under the approved Lafayette General Plan (2002) allows for the construction of 380,000 square feet of additional commercial space (280,000 in the downtown) and 1,026 new residential units - city-wide. The residential build-out figures were based on a parcel-by-parcel analysis of the number of dwelling units that could be constructed, taking into account the site constraints specific to each parcel, the residential densities typically approved for similar projects, and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, which are more stringent than those contained in the General Plan. TAflI.
CKEflM PL%N IUJILT) OUT Esti'g ConrnrciI Spnce 1.
ddlis CnniucbI Stioco s.f.
2,400.000
50000
SDLJRCS C
Co1IIrt%I Ruild out (tutI i.l) .00,000
ItionaI ExiIing Ilousiug Uii(ls IIoiirsg LiiiR ),842
020
11itiz.I iluildoul (Tulul uuiLs) L0.G
tMuiynIvu,opENTL)Ju 1ILN1 Si2. 1'fOIS(11OHS 9& AttAC, US C[tttUS 2500
Of the 1,026 units, 475 would be single-family residences and 551 would be multi-family units. Of the 551 multi-family units, 52 DUs are located in the APO zone outside of the Downtown, which leaves 499 DUs planned for the downtown. The city is currently in the process of updating its Housing Element, which is required to reflect the current regional housing allocations (see below). In March 2007, the City Council directed staff to prepare a General Plan amendment to allow for increased residential densities and reduced parking standards for senior housing developments. Staff has had initial discussions with the Council subcommittee but has not yet completed the study. Regional Housing Allocations In the spring of 2007, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determined the number of housing units Bay Area
N:\.50O0S 146 Downtown Lafayette Spedftc PIan\4Prodtcts\4-2 Documen1'Phase 2 Alternstives\tartd Use Memo\Lartduse memo-05-30-O8.doc
Memorandum
Page 8 June 3, 2008
Lafayette Downtown Strategy Land Use Background
Communities will have to plan for in the period 2007-2014. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined that Lafayette's allocation for this period is 361 housing units (113 very-low income, 77 low-income, 80 moderate income and 91 above-moderate income units).2 Roughly 270 of these units are suited for the downtown.3 Given that the Downtown Strategy and Specific Plan extends beyond 2014 to 2030, it will need to reasonably anticipate future ABAG allocations in addition to the current one. These can then be reflected in future Housing Element updates. The below table extrapolates the current allocation rate annually to project potential future regional housing allocation over the duration of the Downtown Strategy and Specific Plan (until 2030). Please note that the dwelling units in the below table apply to the entire extent of the Lafayette, not just the downtown. The projections are similar to the number of dwelling units planned for in the General Plan (1,083 and 1,026, respectively), of which roughly 810 are suitable for development in the Downtown.4
Table: Lafayette RHNA Allocation 2007- 2014 & Projection to 2030 Projected
opeJ
RHNAAR0O. 91M)
Very LOW Income ( a 26(45)-
+t 26 (98(297(662)-.22(30}-
EE
p-5. 0
' 1 .0
'v
L
Mt.DiabBlvd.F
'-310 (186) CaCaCa N-Ca
a a
c-
393 (785)-. 43(80)-
-2(25) --- 625 (647) -59(35)
CL
. Ca CO Ca
19
I
L'
'- 103 (107) -- 460(367)
-
c- 61(162)
-a
L
1t1v.
205 (296) I 293 (631)-.-
b- 32 (26) IF -.1---612 (590)
L
r- o'
ZER
61D --- I CaCaO 0-011)1 1
L
C 8 0
.--365 (325) -513(493)
L
IO
5-i e...=
4(l1)-
0
I2
N0 N.
a
U
I Mt.DiabIoDF
824 (862)352(575)--.-
aOl CO NJ
C'J -
o a CLI
'-288(137) .4-481 (413) .-23(19)
N-Ca 0) Ca
_______
102 (176)400 (732) -.255(283)-\
.- 85 (60)
Mt.DbIoBl
17(29) 334 (708)-.48(87) -
,
10 (29) -
Mt. Diablo Blvd. I
1
L
-J
112816 l i.::.t:.
I L
CaC0II Ca
)
.-860 (495) -14(14) MtDjablöO)
16(26)-I 329(605)-.-
-36 (52) 9 .--710(489) ,-9(16)
) _
_______
32(54)-i 0)
i
Ca
LI, COCa
N Ca
LOLL)
IC
-37(43)
L
13oraqaBlvd.
01
II
°Hwy.24R
.DbIoBIvd 166(176)-272(344)-.97(199>-
6i1Ca Ca Ca Ca COCa
01Db
0 0
01(01)1
475 (273) ..1-0(0}
rh
df'.
--- 812(524) -31 (21)
-V.
I Mt. Diablo 81
-
53(77)_..412 11)1
6
=
or-
-.1-744(414) -97 (124)
15
373 (638) -
ie.;;o
46(48)-.
1
r
Ca-00 -'0 OD 1 0 N-CJCa -
1i UI 0)
U) C')
CO
'
: Ca
506 (707)
!
-259(136)
I
-
58(41(-
00) ICC 0) )-.
Ca
Ca
KEY: XX (YY)
0(0)-_ 0(0)-p-0(0)-
aE.13.
r
rp F E H ft & P E E RS
TRANSr'OIITAIIBN CONSULtANTS
November 2007 WCO7-2440
LL TS6Ii631{ -29(32)
-
90(127)-.
-
13-
II L__.LooSt.
In:
6(l7).-IJ
AM (PM)
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Lafayette Downtown Strategy
EXISTING CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FIGURE 2
+
___
t. Diablo BIvd.l
+
F 10
__
_____________
)rD
lMt. Dab1o
-
-I
tel
-0-
-0-
I
=:+
=0-+
0I
-
E
+
4-
4L 1Mti61v1
At. Diablo
+
-J
a 1Mt. Diablo
-J -0-0-
. ML Diablo
=0-+
hr
ov.
-0-l -,0-
Y
I
l
lI
++
L°
1FRmp
Diablo Blvd -0-0-
tt(
tt KEY: =
-f
+
i-p F [HR & P EL NSPOR1AIION CON,UL1AUTS
IRA
November 2007 WCO7-2440
Signalized
I ntersectiori
Lafayette Downtown Strategy
EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC CONTROLS AND LANE GEOMETRIES FIGURE 3
E1 Vohca
O
0
I 0.05
.I2S
IMes 05
Da 5ourre Counts and ubcervaflonr condusted by Iehr& Peers, week of September 10,2007.
Date: September 2007
Lafayette Downtown Strategy
Figure 4A Morning Peak Hour Congestion -
-
Bay Area Ewnonrirs
I 0.125
I 020
Il 50
D1 SIr5.
b7Fhr & Peers, week of Septemtrer 10, 2027. Dale. Septeorber 2007
Lafayette Downtown Strategy
Fiaure 4B Mid-Afternoon Peak Hour Conoestion -
Wallow RCbeIIS & Todd, LLC 0yecnirr Tehr&Peero
I 0
I 0120
I 020
I 00
Lafayette Downtown Strategy
Ficiure 4C Late Afternoon Peak Hour Con ciestion -
Data Source. CoLtntsand ubseivatlons conducted by Fehr & Peers.aneekof Seplember 10,2007, Date: Septertrber 2007
Wa0ace0nbelts &1otld,LLC Bay Area Sconomks Fehr&
-
I A
• OI
0
/
•-•.'-
/ I I
- .
I
.
-.---- -.-- ...-. -
0.125
- --
I
6-7
• '-
10-
.
Data S2sre: Frhr & PyerS. torveys Condo2ted Soplereber 2072 Soptember 2077
Lafayette Downtown Strate: Factors Ar
Ficiure 5A Sidewalk Widths: Inset "Ar' -
Waltace Roberts & Todd, LLC Bay Area Ec000Wco
fp
Fehr & Peers
0
4I 1
-
5-7 0-g
/ 0
4- 5
-
0-12
025
DaLO Sorncc: Fehr & Peers. orrarys condocted September 2007 September 2007
L.i:;e Down
trategy: Factors AnaIyss
Fiqure 5B Sidewalk Widths: Inset "B" -
WEtee kebertt £ Thdd, LLC Roy Area EtAeornicn Pehe & Peers
C'
-C
k
/
W
I
7 --
'---\
/
Bike Facilities
'e.
C.c- Bxsirng Clans I Bko Path O'O- Planned Clans I 8i e Path C'
0
£.4t*. Earaimg Class II S ke Lane £n't,
Proposed Clans II Biho Lane Eainhrrp Class ii S he Reute
r
-
'
-I
'-r, Proposed Class III Bi
•
-
C'
ilk
0
Th_ SeSS
0.25
0
RoLile
B ire Boulevard I
___________________
Li01,
A-6-
Sharrows
0-n
September 2807
Lafa:
Jowntown Strategy: Factors Ana'ysis
Figure 6 Bicycle Facilities -
-
/
LEt3END Route 206L
Tr( \
I oi:-r! Soio Route 106
Rail Feclilliuc RART R:I Al DouI BARTSIuLioo
Full SeM:e
-..
-
J
Trefoil FeaIIIIIuo Route 200A . FuISruicu .
.. .
. SeloclSeruie
_______
I 0
I 0.20
0120
ItAirrr 115
Septomber 2007
L
..........
downtown Strategy: Factors Anayss
Figure 7 Transit Facilities -
WelleceRuberir
:::::::°°'
owntown Strategy: Factors Anayss
Figure 8A Parking Lot Spaces: Inset "A" -
Fehr & Peers
0.125
Lafayette Downtown Str
Figure 8B
-
0050 Pearce: P0rkinp Pepply data bared en coarril by Fvhr 0 PeerS Iron aerial survey and some pjround counts; September 2007. Septambar 2007
0.25
actors Anayss
Parking Lot Spaces: Inset 'B"
Wallace lpobeeb 0 Todd, 1.1.0 Bay Ama EconoMicS Fthr&Peor,
--
-
-
-
J
1ItP
I-
___________________________________________ fl lac U
Cl
Dat] Soirc Liasea cn caJn:s cenduied on !,nDtmbcr 2,3p-n ccptn:b, 2CC7
Lafayette Downtown Strategy: Factors A
Figure 9 Parking Lot Occupancy •
-
Wallace Enberlo& Todd. --
EayAroa Economics
P I
j
I
______
-
F -
____
Aol. AI
F)
--
1/
I F
-
F
-
F
I
( i'
.
iI-
t
Total loto,soctlonsAccldnts
/
U
T'1z / F
I
_:L r1_.____ 0 r125
020
1-2
-/
3-4
Roadway Accidont PodasbaAslo
AhiA
____ AuleiAaFo
-
Dola 50F.rFe: Stotowide Fetrrated Trallic Rcccrdo Syltem. 2002 to 2000 Septeastber 2007
Lafayette Dowrrr Strategy: Factors
Ficiure 1OA Accident Locations: Inset "A" -
F) Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC -- -
Bay Area Ecooomics Fehr & Peers
-
o1
___________________
Dt Sornce. SthIewLd InteWted Trfc Records Systonr. 2002 to 2026 SeplOmber 2027
Lafayette Downtown Strategy: Factors Anayss
Figure lOB Accident Locations: Inset "B" -
:::::°°
cbnient JO
fp FEUR & PEEIs AArn
MEMORANDUM Date:
February 5, 2008
To:
Jim Stickley and Susan Poliwka, WRT
From:
Ellen Poling, Fehr & Peers
Subject:
Circulation and Parking F?ecommendations for Consideration in the Lafayette Downtown Strategy
WCO7-2440 This memorandum provides input to the Lafayette Downtown Strategy (LDS) team as it formulates preliminary land use/transportation concepts. The input is based on the desires and concerns expressed by the community, advisory committee, and city staff, along with traffic and circulation analysis conducted by Fehr & Peers. This memorandum focuses on three key components of the Strategy: 1. Circulation network and roadway design changes 2. Proposed parking management strategy 3.
Public parking structure site evaluation
These issues are the subject of this memo because they fundamentally affect the structure of the ultimate plan. Other transportation elements, including pedestrian and bicycle links, and transit service, will be addressed as the plan moves forward. I.
CIRCULATION NETWORK AND ROADWAY DESIGN CHANGES
The LDS draft circulation goal is A downtown that is safe and convenient to get to and get around in. Consistent with this goal, three basic changes to the roadway system have been suggested: 1. Design changes on the east and west ends to promote slower speeds and a pedestrianfriendly, less traffic-dominated environment. The east end is defined as east of First Street; the west end is defined as west of Mountain View Drive/Dolores Drive. 2.
Redesign of the connection between Moraga Road and theSR 24 eastbound ramps to route freeway trips more directly through the core downtown, relieving traffic congestion and improving the pedestrian environment along Mount Diablo Boulevard.
3. Adding east-west connections to the north and south of Mount Diablo Boulevard to serve local trips, relieving congestion and improving the pedestrian environment along Mount Diablo Boulevard.
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 930-7100 Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com
Jim Stickley and Susan Pcliwka February 5, 2008 Page 2 of 4
f l1
East and West End Roadway Design Changes Two approaches were considered for the east and west ends: (1) reducing the cross-section to two through-traffic lanes with a center two-way left-turn lane, using the reclaimed width for wider sidewalks, angled parking, and landscaping; and (2) providing a cross-section similar to that in the core area, with narrowed lanes (10 to 11-foot as opposed to the current 12-foot widths), a landscaped median with turn lanes where needed, consistent sidewalk widths, parallel parking with bike lanes, and sections of angled parking where feasible. A preliminary traffic analysis of the two-lane concept indicates that the current traffic signals (at Mount Diablo/Risa RoadNillage Center, Mount Diablo/Second Street, Mount Diablo/Brown Avenue, and Mount Diablo/Carol Lane.) would operate acceptably with the reduced through lanes, even when factoring in an estimated 20 percent growth in traffic over time. However, several factors argue against this approach: •
There would be an increased potential for vehicle conflicts along the length of these roadway sections, due to the numerous driveways and the reduced number of "gaps" in the through-traffic stream due to the reduction in through lanes
•
Access for trips throughout the city to the east-end and west-end freeway interchanges (Pleasant Hill Road and Acalanes Road, respectively) would be reduced by reducing the capacity of these gateways, in turn increasing the pressure on the Central Lafayette interchange which already experiences congestion during the peak hours.
•
The daily traffic volumes for the entire length of Mount Diablo Boulevard indicate that traffic volumes on the east and west ends, while lower than in the core area, are similar to the levels seen in the western part of the core (see Figure A). Given that the entire core section of Mount Diablo Boulevard experiences periods of congestion now, with four through-traffic lanes, it does not appear reasonable to expect the east and west ends to function well with two lanes, especially as traffic volumes grow overtime.
For these reasons, Fehr & Peers recommends option 2, where the pedestrian-friendly core area design is extended to the east and west ends. Key to the success of this approach are (1) driveway consolidation, as parcels develop over time; and (2) provision of one or two new traffic signals between Brown Avenue and Carol Lane, and one between Dolores Drive and Risa Road, to provide sufficient opportunity for U-turns. Figure B illustrates the proposed east and west end changes. Moraga Road Extension This proposal, shown in Figure B, extends Moraga Road north to a new east-west connecting roadway between the SR 24 eastbound off-ramp and on-ramp. Both the extension and the eastwest connector would need to have 4-lane cross sections, and a signal would control the new T' connection. The two ramp intersections, on Oak Hill and First Street, would also be signalized. With this configuration, freeway traffic could access downtown and various points beyond via the new connection; while not all trips would use the new connection, many would, and the resulting traffic relief at the corners of Mount Diablo/Oak Hill, Mount Diablo/Moraga and Mount Diablo/First Street would greatly improve traffic congestion and pedestrian safety, creating a more walkable east-west boulevard. The roadway through the Safeway/McCaulou's parcels and associated circulation elements within those sites would need to be designed to ensure a calmed traffic environment, so as to provide a pedestrian-friendly environment near and on the new roadways.
Jim Stickley and Susan Poliwka February 5, 2008 Page 3 of 4
fp Fiii P.
I ii i& 1,1
This change would require the reconstruction of the Safeway and McCaulou's buildings, and would require working with Caltrans and EBMUD, which owns a pipeline easement along the south side of SR 24. The topography is also a challenge, particularly the hill behind the Safeway building. Planning, funding and implementing this change would be challenging, and is clearly a long-term project. The benefits, however, would be significant in terms of congestion relief along Mount Diablo Boulevard and Moraga Road, and walkability and safety at the key corners noted above. The change might allow the removal of the right-turn green arrow for the northbound Moraga Road at Mount Diablo, as well as installation of pedestrian friendly elements like corner curb bulbs. East-West Connecting Roadways Figure B also shows new connector roadways (1) south of Mount Diablo Boulevard between Hough and Dewing, and (2) north of Mount Diablo Boulevard between Oak Hill and Happy Valley Road. The northern roadway would make use of and expand upon several driveways and short connecting streets behind buildings, and would be designed as a low-volume, low-speed connector to serve primarily internal downtown trips. This new connector would help reduce congestion on Mount Diablo Boulevard, particularly as development occurs in the immediate vicinity. II.
PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The preliminary parking strategies outlined in the LDS Draft Goals document include (1) provide more parking near key downtown destinations; (2) consider centrally located parking facilities; and (3) consider satellite parking sites at the edge of downtown. There is a clear public perception that parking is difficult in the downtown, based on the LDS Community Survey results and the recent 2007 Employer/Employee and Employer Parking and Transportation Survey. However, surveys of parking occupancy performed by Fehr & Peers indicated an overall core area occupancy rate of just 60% at one of the reported peak times (mid to late afternoon on a Friday). In addition, the Employer/Employee Survey results indicate that the current condition has not driven employers to aggressively search for solutions, nor employees out of their cars to a great extent. The data and input received to date indicate that Lafayette needs a clear, well-defined parking management strategy that treats public and private parking as an asset, and seeks a balance between supply and demand. The benefits of a Parking Management Strategy include more control over traffic congestion, a better pedestrian environment, optimal use of valuable land resources, and facilitation of economic growth. The following elements could form the basis of such a strategy. Promote a "Park Once" strategy 2.
Provide a wayfinding system including distinctive parking signs directing drivers to public and large private lots.
3.
Consider allowing lower zoning code requirements for parking for new development projects, and collect in-lieu fees to help fund centrally located public parking structure(s)
4.
Monitor parking occupancy levels periodically in order to accurately time the provision of new public parking
Jim Stickley and Susan Poliwka February 5, 2008 Page 4 of4
5.
Flu R &. iLiu
Charge the market price for public parking, with on-street parking priced higher than off-street parking, and centrally located parking priced higher than more distant parking.
Use parking revenues to fund travel demand management measures, including employer/employee education on transit and ridesharing options, transit vouchers, etc. The parking management strategy will be more fully defined as the LDS progresses. III.
PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE SITE EVALUATION
While the overall occupancy levels observed in the core area do not indicate an undersupply of parking, there are chronic shortages at several of the larger, more visible lots, including Happy Valley Center (IJiablo Foods/Longs/Trader Joes) and Safeway. Much of Lafayette's core area parking supply is distributed among small lots tucked behind buildings, and mid-sized lots located underneath office buildings, neither of which are easily located by drivers. One or more centrally located, highly visible parking structures could serve visitors to the downtown, with the added supply supplementing parking at new development sites that may be provided at reduced rates, as described in the proposed parking management strategy above. This approach promotes the Park Once" goal, and would help manage traffic congestion and improve the pedestrian environment in the core area. To identify sites for potential public parking structures, Fehr & Peers first mapped the key large, visible lots in the downtown, shown on Figure C in red (for older lots) and green (for newer lots, including the yet-to-be-complete Lafayette Library lot). We then mapped potential sites, in purple, that would best supplement the existing supply. In addition to the new sites, the older sites shown in red are theoretically potential structure sites, with a structure being a potential part of site redevelopment. Figure D shows the vehicle access locations for each site, including locations where right-turn only access would be needed due to traffic conditions on the adjacent roadway. Table I provides an evaluation matrix of the site, ranking them in terms of centrality, how well they balance the rest of the "large lot" supply, accessibility to visitors from the various areas of Lafayette, and effect on traffic congestion. The last issue is complex because it takes into account the effect of trips from all points in Lafayette, as well as the specific access [imitations at each site. Overall, the ranking indicates that the following lots offer the most benefit to the downtown in terms of accessibility, convenience, and traffic congestion relief: Lot 10- Northwest corner of Mount Diabto Boulevard/Oak Hill Road (score: 36) Lot 2 - Safeway lot (score: 34) Lot 9 - West of Lafayette Circle East (score: 34) 4.
Lot 3 - McCaulou's/Albertson's lot (score: 32) Lot 12- Mount Diablo/Golden Gate/First Street block (score: 31)
We look forward to discussing these concepts further with the team, City staff and advisory committee.
' -'
11 QOO
//
I ,,500
,1'
1
bOU
l2p00
\\
I Source: Septelrl6er 2007 Peak hour tramccoun I a
________ nirs
IaCLOIcd up
by 10 Il F.buay 2008
DJ
reewy (SR 241
E1J AiiariakJMajor(oIIeiors LJ
Collaaiara
Wallooc Robnsu&TodO, LLC
Fiqure A Study Area Estimated Daily Traffic Volumes -
Bay Area Economics
fjD
Fehr&Pee,n
-
'Fo3tcnd. Oncnewsigrn.! rbk.
Newrdwnyconxectioooio
Mousit DhlbIo Buu1evor.
1
/i it
Provocj
I
or 111asocwith Im25IiarlhikFlsne,
Provide ito 2 nw signals bIsrn IJoown Aseaulr
/
O
1 0125
Mn,
520
01
Febloely 2000 L3 Freowy)SR 24) E1J ArlsrJo,/MoorCoJIec1ols Collecloll
L)OWI/WVV/I
)Lit
Ct/
Fig u re B Ci rc u I at ion Concepts -
W1I0eber1e&Te&ULC
i?
___
f
/
--1i Li1
i
/Ii
1/
/
___
_____
_____
J reeway5R 2.*) EJ Art iIt/MJr CrrIIort CoI!Ctorr
Large, Yiibe Iot uiUbIe1or muIti-purpoctiip OPrIo1tenfuI EIIIIIII Newerct
I
d FObUOry 2008
Potential newporgait Cole walkable area
Dovvnowr Stteqv
Figure C Downtown Parking Lots -
Waln8oberir&TeddLLC Bay Area ECOrrcrmlCS
crbhrnt ii FEEl & PEERS
TRANSPORTAUO
USJLTANS
MEMORANDUM Date:
April 14, 2008
To:
Jim Stickley and Susan Poliwka, WRT
From:
Ellen Poling, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Draft Circulation and Parking Policies for the Lafayette Downtown Strategy WCO7-2440 ________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION This memorandum proposes circulation and parking policies for the Lafayette Downtown Strategy. Taken as a whole, the policies should articulate the City's overarching vision for the Downtown's transportation system. Individually, the policies should provide specific direction for the iniprovernent and maintenance of the various modal systems - bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and automobile. The policies acknowledge and respond to a number of opposing truths relating to the functioning of transportation systems in Lafayette's downtown, as in others nationwide:
Vehicle Circulation Peak period traffic is congested in the Downtown core and along Moraga Road There is insufficient width to add travel lanes
Pedestrian Circulation •
The East, West and Core Downtown area have the basic elements of a highly walkable system: desirable destinations, relatively flat terrain, and fair sidewalk coverage.
•
The walkability is hindered by adjacent high-volume/high-speed traffic, long blocks on the east and west ends providing few protected crossings, and limited enhancements such as extra-wide sidewalks, wide intersection corners, street furniture, etc.
Bicycle Circulation •
The Downtown's geographic location and terrain make it a desirable route for regionaL and local Lafayette bicycle travel.
•
Adding bicycle lanes on Mount Diablo Boulevard, Moraga Road and other key connecting roadways would require some combination of reduced travel lane widths, sidewalk widths, landscape buffers or setbacks.
Bus Transit •
Better bus transit route coverage and frequency could connect Lafayette residents to the downtown and the BART station and reduce the need to drive to/from the Downtown.
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 930-7100 Fax (925) 933-7090 wwwfehrandpeers.com
Jim Stickley and Susan Poliwka February 5, 2008 Page 2 of 5
F 1 R & 1? E RS CONLTTS
The City's terrain-driven roadway system makes efficient bus routing difficult, and the economics of transit service providers demands allocating funding to high-use routes. Parking •
Downtown employees and visitors desire convenient, available parking close to their destination
•
Continuing the current pattern of small and mid-sized site-specific parking lots scattered throughout the downtown will increase traffic congestion, reduce walkability, and do nothing to reduce the perception that there is not enough parking downtown.
It is clear from these statements that the Downtown Strategy needs to provide a balanced solution to the varied circulation needs of downtown travelers. The policies presented below are intended to achieve that balance. PROPOSED POLICIES AND ACTIONS Transportation Demand Management
Policy TOM-i Manage the downtown transportation systems to maximize personal mobility, recognizing that maximizing opportunities to walk, bicycle, take the bus or BART. and "park once" when driving is the best way to minimize negative effects of traffic congestion and preserve Lafayette's pleasant small-town environment. Actions: TDM-1.1 Implement Policies V-2, P-i, P-2, B-I, B-2, T-1, T-2 and T-3, and their associated actions, which are designed to minimize the need to drive downtown. 1DM-i .2 Continue and expand the City's participation in the alternative mode incentive programs offered by the CCTA, including transit pass discounts, carpool matching, and guaranteed ride home program. Require new commercial projects to make information available to business owners and employees. TDM-1 .3 Work with car-share providers such as Zipcar to locate facilities in the Downtown, prioritizing the core area between Happy Valley and Second Street. Vehicle Circulation
Policy V-i widening.
Manage traffic congestion through capacity management as opposed to roadway
Actions: V-ti
Monitor and adjust signal timings and coordination plans
V-i .2
Change lane striping at intersections if needed to serve changing traffic patterns
Policy V-2 Reduce lane widths to make room for standard bike lanes and/or wider sidewalks, which enhance the pedestrian and bicycle systems and reduce the demand for vehicle travel (both trips to downtown and multi-purpose trips within downtown)
Jim Stickley and Susan Poliwka February 5, 2008 Page 3 of 5
Ft
&. P E E Rs
Policy V-3 Consider providing new roadway connections between Hough and Dewing, Oak Hill and Happy Valley, and Mount Diablo and Bickerstaff to better serve local neighborhood circulation and access and help relieve some of the travel demand on Mount Diablo. Policy V-4 Re-design the East and West end sections of Mount Diablo Boulevard to provide narrower lanes, a median with intersection breaks where needed, on-street parking, bike lanes, and wide sidewalks. Policy V-5 Develop a transportation impact fee through an appropriate nexus study, that calculates the cost of Downtown Strategy vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements and allocates the cost proportionally to existing users (cost to be borne by current City funds), new commercial development on a per square foot basis, and new residential development on a per dwelling unit basis. Pedestrian Circulation
Policy P-I feasible.
Provide continuous sidewalks that exceed the minimum standard wherever
Actions: P-l.l Provide 6-foot minimum width sidewalks on all downtown streets, and 8-foot or wider sidewalks wherever feasible. P-I .2 Identify sidewalk gaps and obstacles, prioritize in terms of safety risk and level of use, and prepare a plan to eliminate them. P-I .3 projects.
Require sidewalk improvements and gap closures as part of all new development
Policy P-2 Provide convenient and safe opportunities to cross Mount Diablo Boulevard and Moraga Road. Actions: P-2.I Provide enhanced crossing design at intersections through high-visibility striping, corner bulb-outs where feasible, pedestrian countdown signals (where not already provided), accessible push-buttons and audible signals. Bicycle Circulation
Policy B-I Provide standard 5-foot minimum, 6-foot desirable, bicycle lanes on Moraga Road between St. Mary's Road and Mount Diablo Boulevard, and on Mount Diablo Boulevard between Pleasant Hill Road and Risa Road. Policy 6-2
Provide bicycle racks throughout the Downtown at high-visibility locations.
Actions: B-2.1 Transit
Require provision of bicycle racks for all new commercial development projects.
Jim Stickley arid Susan Po[iwka February 5, 2008 Page 4oT5
FH-1 ft & PEERS
Policy T-1 Allocate a portion of the transportation impact fee to be used for enhanced transit service in the Downtown, through contributions to AC Transit to fund more frequent service and/or extended routes, and/or through separately funded and operated para transit service. Policy T-2 use.
Relocate and/or add bus stops in the Downtown to maximize convenience and
Policy T-3 visitors
Promote Use of BART by downtown residents, employees, and out-of-town
Actions: Provide better signage identifying the connecting walkway between the BART T-3.1 station and Mount Diablo Boulevard T-3.2 Encourage business owners to highlight proximity to the Lafayette BART station in advertising materials. Parking
Policy PK-1 Manage the on-street and off-street parking supply as one asset with the goal of providing the right amount of parking in the right places. Actions: Develop parking districts within the Downtown in which off-street private parking PK-1 .1 lots are shared and open to all customers, with limited employee parking. PK-1 .2 Periodically monitor on-street and off-street parking occupancy and add meters and/or increase meter rates if on-street parking is regularly over 85 percent occupied. The market price of off-street parking should be assessed and charged if appropriate, and adjusted as part of the periodic monitoring. PK-1 .3 Develop and implement a signing plan to direct downtown visitors to municipally owned lots. PK-1 .4 Continue current outreach efforts to the downtown business community to inform them of off-site parking options for employees. Policy PK-2 Adopt lower parking ratio requirements for residential and commercial development projects within Y2-mile of the BART station, to acknowledge the lower automobile use associated with activities located close to rail transit. Within % mile of BART station, require lower rates than the Y2 mile requirements. Actions: PK-2.1 For development within 1,4-mile of the BART station: for retail commercial projects, require 3.5 spaces per thousand square feet; for office commercial projects, require 3.0 spaces per thousand square feet; for residential projects, require 1 .2 spaces per dwelling unit.
Jim Stickley and Susan Poliwka February 5, 2008 Page 5 of5
Fiw& & PEERS
TOAUG (OU T
PK-2.2 For projects within 14 mile oT the BART station: for retail commercial projects, require 3.0 spaces per thousand square feet; for office commercial projects, require 2.5 spaces per thousand square feet; for residential projects, require 1 .2 spaces per dwelling unit. Policy PK-3 Continue to assess the Parking Development Payment for developments that provide fewer spaces than required by the standard code (i.e. outside the Y2-mile radius of the BART station). Expand the allowable uses of the PDP to include both (1) the acquisition, construction, operation and maintenance of municipally owned or leased public parking facilities, and (2) enhanced transit services, facilities, or incentives. Actions: PK-3.1 Allow the PDP to be used in lieu of physical parking spaces, below the reduced parking requirements in Policy PK-2, for up to 25 percent of the total requirement. PK-3.2 Allow the PDP to be used to provide public parking as part of joint public/private development projects where providing sufficient on-site private parking may not be feasible. Such a project would be required to participate in a parking district as described in Policy PK1.1.
cchrn± 12FEHR& PEERS
TRASPTAT]O CDISUL1ANT5
MEMORANDUM Date:
June 3, 2008
To:
Jim Stickley, WRI
From:
ELlen PoLing, Fehr & Peers
Subject:
Transportation Evaluation of Lafayette Downtown Strategy Alternatives WCO7-2440
____________________________
This memorandum summarizes the transportation evaluation of the Lafayette Downtown Strategy (LDS) land use alternatives, in accordance with Scope of Work Task 2.1.3. The memo includes the following sections: I. II. Ill. IV. I.
Summary of Work to Date Alternatives Evaluation Methodology Description of Alternatives Alternatives Evaluation
SUMMARY OF WORK TO DATE
Fehr & Peers has prepared three primary work products to date: •
Summary of Existing Transportation Conditions in the Lafayette Downtown Strategy Study Area (11/1207) - Summarizes current roadway network, peak hour traffic volumes and levels of service, pedestrian and bicycle volumes, sidewalk conditions, bicycle lanes and routes, transit routes, on-street and off-street parking supplies, and results of spot parking occupancy surveys
•
Circulation and Parking Recommendations for Consideration in the Lafayette Downtown Strategy (2/5108) - Provides preliminary thoughts on basic circulation and parking supply management concepts to be included in the Downtown Strategy alternatives, based on results of the public survey, input received at the first community workshop, Advisory Committee input, and the existing conditions evaluation.
•
Draft Circulation and Parking Policies for the Lafayette Downtown Strategy (4114/08) -Propselicthagnweldusatrnivoche multi-da transportation system envisioned in the General Plan, and to maximize mobility and minimize growth in traffic congestion.
These reports have been provided to and reviewed by the Advisory Committee. IL
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The primary variants in the alternatives that affect circulation are (1) the amount of residential, office and retail growth, and (2) the distribution of the growth within the LDS area. Certain other elements, such as potential secondary roadway connections and proposed improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle systems, are common to all alternatives, and would in general benefit circulation for autos, pedestrians and bicyclists. Other elements would have a significant effect on circulation, such as an extension of Moraga Road connecting to a new east-west connector 100 Pringe Avenue, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 930-7100 Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com
Jim Stickley June 3, 2008 Page 2 of 13
fp FEHR& PEERS tAPORTAflOI cUI.AKT
between the SR 24 Eastbound ramps, and a stand-alone, multi-use parking structure; these elements could also be a part of any LDS alternative, and will be discussed separately. Fehr & Peers uses four basic quantitative measures to evaluate the transportation impacts of the land use alternatives: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Total vehicle trip generation (AM and PM peak commute hours) Trips generated by zone within the LDS area Trips added to key intersections Peak hour traffic level of service and travel time comparisons
The first two calculations were performed iteratively for the alternatives as they were developed in late 2007/early 2008. Measures 3 and 4 were performed for the "Preferred" Alternative, as these more detailed analyses cannot be carried through for multiple alternatives due to scope limitations. However, the first two calculations are typically used for the early stages of specific plan alternative development, and can be used along with the more detailed analysis in steps 3 and 4 to qualitatively assess the relative impacts of all the alternatives considered. The discussion in Section IV provides both the quantitative and qualitative assessments. HI. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The land use alternatives were developed iteratively by the consultant team over the past several months, incorporating many considerations including the General Plan's development limits; current site development levels relative to zoning; roadway network connections; urban design goals; and sustainable land use/transportation planning principles of density concentration, diversity of uses, and proximity to transit. Separate memos on the land use and economics analyses provide more detail on the development of these alternatives. The alternatives evaluated in this memo are summarized in Table 1; the approximate new development allowed by the General Plan is also shown, for comparison. TABLE I Land Use Alternatives
Alternative
IA 2A IC
Residential (units)
Office
Land Uses Commercial (square feet) Retail Autollndustnal
544
88,701
24,496
(96,801)
413 920
229,701 93,565
51,496
(96,801)
2C "Preferred'
1,081
100,744
1,231
18,098
214,999 166,744 155,571
(96,801) (96,801) (96,801)
General Plan
5001
280, 0002
____________
Total 16,396 184,396 211,763 170,687 76,868 280,000
_____________ 1. Represents the downtown portion of the citywide total of 1,029 residential units envisioned in the General Plan Based on General Plan projection of 280,000 square feet South of SR 24 and 100,000 square feet north of SR 24. rip generation analysis assumes 75,000 offIce and 205,000 retail; the General Plan does not specify the breakdown. Source: WRT, May 2008
Jim Stickley June 3, 2008 Page 3 of 13
FEI-1ft& TRSPOITATO
PEEftS
COKULLA(TS
1V. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
A. Total Trip Generation The vehicle trip generation for each alternative was calculated using trip generation rates contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7 Edition, with conservative reductions where appropriate for proximity to the BART station and the mixed-use characteristic of the new development. The detailed calculations are contained in Attachment 1. The townhomes/apartments generate gross new vehicle trips at 0.67 trips per unit in the AM peak hour and 0.78 trips per unit in the PM peak hour. Office uses generate trips at 1.55 trips per thousand square feet in the AM peak hour and 1.49 trips per thousand square feet in the PM peak hour. The trip rates for new retail uses vary based on the size of the net new floor area at each development site; on average, however, the proposed new retail uses generate trips at about one trip per thousand square feet in the AM peak hour and three to four trips per thousand square feet in the PM peak hour. For residential, office and retail uses, a ten percent reduction in the gross vehicle trip generation rate was taken to reflect the mixed use character of the new development. For residentiaL and office uses within one-half mile of the BART station, an additional ten percent reduction in the standard vehicle trip generation rate was taken. These reductions are supported by substantial research into the actual vehicle trip rates of higher density, mixed use areas near transit stations, relative to more standard suburban development patterns, It should be noted that these reductions are higher than those allowed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Technical Procedures, which outlines traffic analysis methodologies to be used when assessing project impacts on the CCTA's Routes of Regional Significance; however, for the purposes of this study, Fehr & Peers recommends using the higher reductions. Table 2 summarizes the resulting trip generation for each alternative. Figures 1 and 2 show the relative trip generation in bar chart form. In the AM peak hour, Alternatives IC and 2C generate the highest increase in trips, with the Preferred Alternative and the General Plan alternative generating slightly lower trips and Alternatives IA and 2A generating substantially lower trips. In the PM peak hour, the General Plan Alternative generates the highest increase in trips, followed by Alternatives IC and 2C, the Preferred Alternative, and Alternatives IA and 2A. TABLE 2 Estimated Peak Hour Trip Generation
Alternative
_________
AM Peak Hour Trips
Residential
PM Peak Hour Trips
_________
______
Office
Retail
Total
Residential
Office
Retail
Total
1A
307
123
0
430
357
118
0
475
2A IC 2C
231 515 592
315 119 131
0 180 155
Preferred General
498
27
70
546 814 878 595
269 600 696 707
303 115 126 26
0 436 371 157
572 1,151 1,193 890
335
116
305
656
390
112
718
1,220
Source: Fehr & Peers, May 2008
Figure 1
--
AM Peak Hour Trip Generation
Office 0 Residential
Figure 2
--
PM Peak Hour Trip Generation
O Retail O Office 0 Residential
Jim Stickley June 3, 2008 Page 6 of 13
FEHR& PEERS DLAWTS
1RAiSOAATN
B. Trips Generated by Zone Figure 3 shows the distribution of the Preferred Alternative trips by "zone" within the downtown; similar distributions were prepared iteratively as the alternatives were developed. All of the alternatives have had most of the growth concentrated within the central part of the study area, along the Mount Diablo Boulevard corridor between Happy Valley Road and Brown Avenue. C. Trips Added to Downtown Core intersections Figures 4 and 5 show the trip distribution for residential and commercial trips, derived from the Contra Costa Countywide Travel Demand Model. Using these trip distribution assumptions and the trip generation by zone, a trip assignment was performed for the Preferred Alternative. This allows us to see how many trips would be added to each intersection in the study area, with the fuJI build-out of the Downtown Strategy. As noted above, this step was not performed for multiple alternatives, but the results from the Preferred Alternative are proportional to its trip generation, so other alternatives with higher or lower trip generation would have similarly higher or lower trips added to the intersections. Figure 6 shows the Preferred Alternative traffic at the core area intersections, along with existing traffic and traffic from other planned and planned and approved projects in Lafayette and Moraga. As Figure 8 indicates, the growth from the Preferred Alternative is a fraction of the growth due to other planned and approved projects. Roughly a third of the planned/approved traffic is generated by approved projects in Lafayette, including the Lafayette Library, Town Center Phase Ill, and the Mercantile. It is important to note that the Moraga projections are included for context only, and are not final, as Moraga has not completed its planning for several large projects, including the Town Center project and the Boll inger Canyon residential project. D. Intersection Traffic Operations Intersection levels of service and travel times within the downtown were calculated for Existing Conditions, Existing Plus Approved Lafayette Projects (excluding Moraga growth), and Existing Plus Approved Lafayette Projects Plus the Preferred Alternative. The Moraga growth was excluded from the intersection analyses because it is not yet approved and may be substantially different at the conclusion of Moraga's planning processes; in addition, the analysis as presented here allows the City and Advisory Committee to focus on Lafayette's land use decisions. The Synchro/Simtraffic traffic operations software was used for this analysis. The analysis results presented here are preliminary, and will be refined when the City and Advisory Committee select a preferred alternative. Table 3 gives the LOS definitions for the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) traffic operations analysis methodology for signalized intersections. With this methodology, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle, measured in seconds. For a signalized intersection, control delay is the portion of the total delay attributed to traffic signal operation. This includes delay associated with deceleration, stopping, moving up in the queue, and acceleration.
Jim Stickley June 3, 2008 Page 7 of 13
FEHR& PEERS
TRAtPORTATOH C5ULTA1
TABLE 3 Intersection Level of Service Definitions HCM Methodology
Level of Service
Description of Traffic Conditions
____________
A
____________
D E ____________
F
Insignificant Delays: No approach phase is fully utilized and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Minimal Delays: An occasional approach phase is fully utilized. Drivers begin to feel restricted. Acceptable Delays: Major approach phase may become fully utilized. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. Tolerable Delays: Drivers may wait through more than one red indication. Queues may develop but dissipate rapidly, without excessive delays. Significant Delays: Volumes approaching capacity. Vehicles may wait through several signal cycles and long vehicle queues form upstream. Excessive Delays: Represents conditions at capacity, with extremely long delays. Queues may block upstream intersections.
Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) 1020 >20-35
______________
>5580 ______________
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, and Transportation Research Board. 2000.
Table 4 presents the intersection LOS results. Currently, three intersections operate at LOS E or F in one or both peak hours: Mount Diablo Boulevard/Moraga Road, Moraga Road/Moraga Boulevard, and Moraga Road/Brook Street. The addition of approved Lafayette project traffic is projected to cause three additional intersections to fall to LOS E or F - Mount Diablo BoulevardlLafayette Circle East/Oak Hill Road, Mount Diablo Boulevard/First Street, and Moraga Road/School Street. The addition of traffic from the Preferred Alternative causes three additional intersections to fall to LOS E or F - Mount Diablo Boulevard/Happy Valley Road, Mount Diablo Boulevard/Second Street, and Moraga Road/St. Mary's Road. These results do not include the effects of improvements that could be implemented to improve operations, most importantly optimizing the signal timing and adjusting the lane geometry at intersections to better serve future traffic patterns. In addition, increased congestion may change travel patterns over time, both for traffic generated within the downtown and travel through downtown; it is likely that some travel will shift to outside the peak commute hours, and to alternative modes (bicycling, walking and bus/BART). However, the growth in peak hour congestion would not be fully mitigated through striping/signal timing optimization and travel behavior changes alone; new capacity in the form of new roadway connections or widened intersections would likely be needed to fully accommodate the traffic growth. The traffic benefits of such changes would need to be weighed against drawbacks such as a potentially less pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly Street system.
163
236
133
PM
t -
_________
AM1
-
I
NET NEW TRIPS At Full Build-Out []
(20+ Years) 595
AM
890
PM
m
TaffieAoaIyt ZQne5 TAZs grouped for urnmaiy purposes
I
YYY
PM
AM /PM Toa( VefrJe
OataSovrct WRY ^Ccnira CosmCounLy
1
Lafayette Downtown Strategy
gure 3: Preferred Alternative Ant2. 2OO.
-
Vehicle Trip Generation by Zone
-
Bay Ala tb
F&Ir&PrlI
Ti
O r0
XX% (YY%)
I 0125
Mk,
OjO
50oic C
00
= AM (PM) Trip Distribution Percentage, based on CCTA Countywide Travel Demand Model
®
CoIInIywId Toavol Omaod M0& Jurla 2008
Splits 14% to -680 North, 6% to -680 South, and 20-21% to Walnut Creek
4 )Lafayette Downtown Strategy: Factors Anayss -
Figure 4: Vehicle Trip Distribution
-
Residential
-
BayArea Ec000!rIks
J\ -I ri
22%
l
L jI
--
-
/
r
- -
ii To
-
4% 4%/ ______________________________
O
Demand Model
('e
Ofpc
-
____________
ofce CCTACount.dd Trv1 Dnund Modj
l1
= AMPM)TrpoistrLbutionPercentge I(
2
Spi its 14% to I68Q North, 6% to I6SO South, and to a nut Creek
Lafayette Downtown Strategy: Factors Ana yss
Figure 5: VehicleTrip Distribution
-
(3
Commercial
-
Bay
Figure 6
--
Projected Traffic Growth at Downtown Intersections
IILDS Preferred Alternative lOther planned/approved growth* 0 Existing (Sept. 2007)
* Approved projects hi Lafayette Include the Lafayette Lthiary, Mercantile. t.alayette Park Terrace. and Town Center Phase & Other planned Lafayette growth Includes Inifil residential throughout the City (about 530 units) Approvedtplanned proejcta m Moraga Include Patce Colerados, Town Canter, Bolihigar Canyon ResIdentIal, ar4 other projects
Source: Fehr & Peers. May2008
Jim Stickley June 3, 2008 Page 12 of 13
FEHR& PEERS
TAa5OsT1OK CQSL1N15
TABLE 4 Intersection LOS Results
__________________________
______
Intersection
Traffic Control
Peak Hour
Signal
-
t Mount Diablo Boulevard! Risa Roadillage Center MouniDiabloBoulevard/Dolores rive-Mountain View Drive _____________________________
3. Mount Diablo Boulevard / Happy Vafey Road _______________________________ I.
Mount Diablo Boulevard
I Dewing
venue _____________________________
5. Mount Dieblo Boulevard / Lafayette ircle (\Nest) I. Mount Diablo Boulevard I Lafayette ircle (East)-Oak Hill Road Mount Diablo Boulevard I Moraga React _________________________
Mount Diablo Boulevard / First Street _______________________
I. Mount Diablo Boulevard I Second Street ________________________
venue-A]manor Lane
11 . Mount Diabto Boulevard! Carol Lane _____________________________
12. MountDiabloBoulevardlLafayette ark Inn _________________________
13, MounlDiabloBoulevardlPleasantHill Road ___________________________
14 . Moraga Road! Moraga Boulevard
__________________________
Lafayette
Delay (sec)2
Proejcts
______
LOS2
LOS2
(
Alternative ________
DeIa (sec)
______
LOS2
A
8
_______
________
________
__________
________
9
A
9
A
9
A
AM
14
B
15
B
15
B
PM
16
B
18
9
23
C
AM
26
C
26
PM
39
C
39
C D
29 2.80
C
_______
Si g nal
AM -
12
B
12
B
12
B
_______
_______
_______
_________
_______
______
PM
17
B
16
B
28
C
AM
6
A
6
A
6
A
9
A
11
5
21
C
24
C
24
C
26
C
30
C
86
E
67
E
E
68
E
2.80
F B
Signal _______
Si g nal
Si g nal Si g nal
AM
AM
_________
A
8
A
F
AM
________
PM
56
E
58
E
68
AM
51
D
64
E
>80
F
_____
PM
31
C
34
C
48
D
C A
49
D
>80
_________
________
________
___________
_________
6
A
6
A
Si g nal _____
Si g nal
AM
Si g nal
-
_________ ___________
_____
PM
6
Signal
-
______
PM
Signal ______
Si g nal _____
AM AM
F
10
B
10
B
10
B
__________
________
_______
_______
__________
________
B
16
B
16
B
A
9
A
9
A
16
_______
PM
12
B
12
B
12
B
AM
5
A
5
A
5
A
PM
3
A
3
A
3
A
AM
11
B
12
B
13
_________
B
Si g nal
-
_______
_______
_______
_________
_______
______
PM
14
B
14
B
14
B
AM
65
E
79
E
>80
F
D
34
C
63
E
65
B
56
E
88
53
D
38
D
67
E
0
60
E
78
B
49
D
48
0
72
E
21
C
27
C
>80
Si g nal Signal
_______________________________ _______
1 5b . Moraga Road I School Street
(Sept. 2007) ________
Existing + Approved + Preferred
S
_______________________ _____
isa . Moraga Road / Brook Street2
Existing ^ Approved
__________
10. MowitDiabloBoulevard/Brown _____________________________
Existing
PM _.!_
PM
Si g nal
_a_
______
PM
_______
F 28 C 34 C 59 E PM __________________________ ______ 1. Intersections operating at an unacceptable levels (LOS Eor LOS F) are sfown in bold. 't. SimTraftlc simulation used to evaluate LOS for intersections 5-9 and 14- 16 in the AM Peak hour, and 2 9 and 14-16 in the PM peak hour. '3. MoragalBrook and Moraga/School operate with a single signal controIler LOS is reported separately for each intersection. source: Fehr& Peers, May2008. 16 . Moraga Road / St . Mary's Road
Signal
AM
Jim Stickley June 3, 2008 Page 13 of 13
fp FEHR& PEERS
TASO*TTIQP CaHU1TA,lrs
The traffic simulations of the core area indicate that peak hour travel times through the area would increase by about twenty percent with the addition of approved Lafayette project traffic (i.e. the new Library, Mercantile, Town Center Phase 3, etc.), and by another twenty percent with the addition of the Preferred Alternative traffic. These increases correspond to changes ranging from less than a minute to about two minutes, depending on the route traversed. As with the LOS analysis, these projections do not take into account capacity or signal timing improvements that could be made, nor changes in travel behavior such as shifts in when or by what mode people choose to travel. While the LOS and travel time analysis was only performed for the Preferred Alternative, the following can be inferred for Alternatives, IA, 2A, 1C, 2C, and the General Plan Alternative: •
Intersection service levels and travel times would be moderately better in Alternative 1A or 2A, but most intersections operating at LOS ElF in the Preferred Alternative wouLd operate similarly in Alternative IA or 2A.
•
Intersection service levels and travel times would be substantially worse with Alternative IC, 2C or the General Plan alternative, particularly in the PM peak hour.
We look forward to discussing these results with you, City staff and the Advisory Committee.
((Jc-) Option 1A Approx 14.6 TOM
LIOOWSIOIIO11910SY
Prop.d 044.6
1 1314104
4114
0IIO4.01N
090140011.1
700.7 I
DIM
1010.9705
"-'
109.900
tIJ010 -
-
-
-
-
-
52,000 52,053
'00 I
13jo10
-
.._L°°°
52.000
33J.29 153,507 05.0)0
_5 II
-, 9 -
1
0
-
33.00
__
40
.'', 10,200) -
'
45,0
_043 67 012
j0 _520 _Di3
j,0
_j,902 .....,_006 _J,j,_07'0 13590
'.4,000 4077
143
404
__,000 91,007 iT&OO 590900
804,000
203002
358400
1(0.0001 _________ 19(002021
-1
5
000'0.009 t..,X.00 .75(02. 1610W 04(002 2130W
'9 4 1 73 8
'(4-.. 1,7529 147000000 000227 SOW
504030
13104,0.2
.
1701
'09
920000
,_JJ00 13,515 *
15,5,30 .
-
7141
110.0',
_____ 1150Q 141,2r30
"10 _3
-
9.040
-
,041
_
60 _j,2
'04
_' -
444'2
•.j,
420777
.....ia'. ...j,so
.j
p .......L±1 _..J2i?
-
.
1 . 4 €
-.
o __j,5
,__i 24245 04209
10.62
_j.9 j
J0
_j,l
..-
.
04.02
54
. '9 02937,
363
143731
121.269
392,794
52 73136
....joo
1.o$, 2.0.0 10014 7959
-2
4091
4281 00 -6309 _jj_O,4 34
__0 -
•.'' .2024
" TT
54 50
j933 .T"oo -
-ioo 464, 2 X0
340.29
404
-3147 -
J 04540
44181
' "Tr'
.44.9
3600 .
15 '9
144
13.71
......
_J4 _jj,Q4
00,
0"0.
04474
544
1075
0753 14
.454 13364
-5030 .1044 123015 .0541
43669
0t00 4.
- -
12 0' 0.. ..L. I'
T,.o.
(0. .....
31
- - 44 .44. 0 P
790 I
0441.
P44
0994
43 a
-10 7'
03 01 -4 -4 7 4
04 TI .10 40 4 I"
116 0 .19
-4 -4 -15 0
P44
424
II .9
4 2'
93 39 71 0
ISo 35 10' u
-
-9 -8 -1
9 9
0 9
0 5
97
123
4 -15 05
-2 -1 .10
-
-i
.
0
37
46
'
PM
102 5 iii 02
9
49 Ii
92
401*11
AM
PM
55 1 .92
-70
-1
-24
-9
9
1
Il 4 142 I ft
I' 2 1
I
00
37
-
______________ '.5. 19
4
I
432
_______
47
N94 I flp litnOrlO flitSSS lflp r000D001 7*4010036001 "42104481,.faflh,M.I,. 7900.1
Eoi.0119 0200Ilola40. r.109, n,la.d.,tn, In4a.lrI.2 .nd 60440-OlIOoled 11,49544.. 0.. btn.kdowo, 011.41 b.14w. 5*4.1104 R4084 004.9
MOld
-
-
-
S -
,
9.390
-
72.795
4M444.Dn.lopl'102t S5T,4Z
.4.4,
94 .2
-
.__4 16.297
-
_..A'I
..
_j4 0€ --
!
A 4 O
___ 1.697 ________ ____________ -_____________
0 -
1.4.4,4.
.!2' j.
____________ ___ ______ ____________ 15397
.____
21.03
o
.9
P
6,530
9 .
__ -
!
-
JIIL1J
1s!
______ __________ 19243
. 29
95 20
13 59 14.29
_
__________ 1
o 11
904 4.'
6.536 42230
2 16
391114o
1.21 1.71 1,04 1.27 151)
1.13
3611149
..
27 36551 30 -361559 35 391111" 29.
40
391539 3111109 399117' 3011100 3011101 .
361115
7
14
aOlko'
o
365111'
ir6,
1,14 .0.02 1,25 1.5€ 1,50
0.59
______________
14.100001097
R.,IdtnOO
454
Role
LEI
N9POOJEOTSO_WCO7IWCO7-24455051035101 00001310 L,F,901).W409I9I.iTtlp 3451,950D0Th9 Go'900036n351e0050001o12055-79..09 *IlSOs,oa7sSi5-09,nd 0#S875I51 440 5-5204
PM
I ROt. 027 . '
_________________
6916. AM ROle
0.900 PM ROle
, .. 799 :0'2909.11090400025040
MI OSlo
PM Eq.nt0.n
"' 425'' OlodbAM Oo.Io
1040AM 04392300
(2.ic) Option 20 Approx Lsf.yo7.
43577I057
H61T61706235IIu4 4.1,1kw
Pr640tid
_ t A P C
6,37 0.1-2 7.53 343
I
u.
1' 754
7.72 - F 01
3.9? 0.07
-4!
0,47
- - 15 - 14 0
74.40 . 3.44 5.37 _______ 2.21 700 4.30 1.1.1
_4 3 -* 4 7.' 2
0445.57
145774 154047 _jj,C$
_!.P
_J1440 ---. __C*C 7,252 27780 . ,,704C
62441SF 17 020 1.70
117774
_jj,C
1.33 127570
33 2614)0
. _j000 _$3 ,,,7
J,7510
.
•'
412*4 20
40710
AM
Jti2,AM
40,AM
00 4
,,
4.''4V
so.
'2
¶77-1 ...
'
._jfl
'
3 ' .3 I
__A 7 51
_s 31 Pu _,Os4
12309 jj,.4
_7-73 14040 344
'7T
__3,p 1546
1
004
.............S5
044125
4,0447,.'
£047
'f '
-JO
4•5
_j,i.1
' _...._JI __
_ 421
7,7fr
7,72 330
A 1,571 Il5
_js 4•44 14371
..
't'C.O 'II;. . :4n-.
j7
04
R.Ild.0711
__j,
'
343133 73774
5 !
_2
-
4
741-C' "4" 4?
_J00 2Q0 7,30 _,7572 3*40 _7j.20 _7,ç.73
45)2 --
"'
t'41
106030 _.4
71.4
* __j' SIlO? 1402.
_j7,7' 540' 201,1
-
:47
3. '., 4.'.! ''';P
14 4 .1 ,,,1 _1 3 25 7'
"
3
14047 07.61 04 013 57104 351 000 377 503 724902 141 7 7.47 HO4TrI. InnIloni.knI,Is 45,775, 171412504.5 1..0AM45,42544 o3IuS* 1607,! "Coi.0'nr.I.I 140044.024044. fl4174d3541, 64.14.7,124.1,4 56Is-,lhnl,d 745,45,44. 70.744un 01114 0.11.1.
j7j9
-
6 --.
24
2.710
r1u
3
14373
121,274
702 754
j774 1,33
05105
32704
___ ''. 277.
95. ISSO .96 .7070 4265 .71774 3 74*4 70754 i31u 3241 2467
'041
'I74•4
-334.
0.:.
Th
:.'' .4.114
442
.j;
.417 371 .1621 112,
3 4!',,, .:. 24:,'
-
- _ ±7'
14C1
477.27 13
22176
7
5
'441.: --
4
447 33
AM
A
r
flTTT, '!
241 5?,
3
__
442
4 5 0 44 -
-
II L 15 - 45 0
PM
.
1 II
4415
-IS 0
-33 C
.'
1-0
49
57
-9 .10 4 7
.11 .97 5
77
14
20 70 0
31 04 0
IA
7117111
0077.
17
0 0 0
2 2 5
217
5
PM
133 13 15 -12 -7 .3 .5 -1 .3 .15 -1 Ii 10 25 2 .14 -I .45 4 31 2 0 . 60 4 ___________ 04 02
1
AM
TutU PM
0
AM
PM
120 15 60 '0 .12 .24 9 16 47 14 177 31 14 10 3 10
I
1-4
5412
23 1 .1 .21 I 11 1 13 27 04 14
53104444n.llir RoM 51 A S
,777r
__ _6_
..i.!7'
5544 57
42801 Sr
4,7215141 47
__j,44 !' -
?1 4 - .+.
-J-
¶1 _L_ 15
+.!!a2 ._t,Z!' 4 Ifl
_ ,
j4 -
44
12.!SL
. 75.927 40.609 11.47.
o
-
. 11.243
17.524 510,
.467.9 5473
277! __i
71 7. U -15
o
63.70 22.711
-
-
47u
_6_ -
-
37 44 4
.745
P
.405.4.. 045414141402.1 Pv1i54 7.64 7.n*y 7)Ikol 70 3756? 3 01 Ilk,' - 70 Ilk,' £4 Ilk,, 77 7.5 17454, 34 177s' 24 31,4,, -. 3)44!' 21 41 11441 1441' 12 Ilk1' 215,1 37440'
64.ISF,4l1 P.,SAg 7450, 1,73 1,00 102 0_fr 2.41 .9-43 1-20 337 1.20 08 -.. 1.00 1,74,
S?
_____ 01'04 I I IT000 L..._$o"
I10322.1ECl'St'700257C0'-2440 310213710100.'uIo'..n IS!P4l.W,.Iy,,,lTdp 0e7.,2L7.lT7p 50,744544 71wc7,151447,\0027-0S0g oR420rc0040fr-10514 04 04610945V7.l200
33.111524.1.47 R..Id.,i04I °" I AM P04 1"I A I 44.41 0St...L54i013071.J. 7410 I L $m.rutlloOo4*4n,
AM PM nn Loqoar' 527 711d1vsr0lr8M656
11:4783.7 0732606
w-
112.1.2 -AIt.,n.Uv. IC TOp 3.6200214. C. billion
(oc)
I
Oplh3n Ic - Q.Z6.Q8 (2 I.
P0064
0,4761400 o.
•A - 24
-
-
-
____ -
2. -
-P -
- C.
-
-
-
9.
2. 1)7
_L_. 1
-
81,1.03 _033 12099 _________
117,70 229,2.7.2
90
09,1100 70,152 10I'00 -110.230 71.2.00
'
-
H
340.59
.;
1' -
5.2
224,1,20
-
03714
P. 94 11'
10,70 7 0
_________
2. 2,1.1
.
11977
15.3
1102
,_9,_022 -
J,0,00. 831)3
___'
32.D4
91.244 2321200 122,1)30
' ____? .._. __.._!..0032 1_77'-:' 144103
34209
-
-
0,1423 704,94
52943
9,810 7424
jo0 _J4 ..0O
L•
6161.
44•17
'
5
172 0)7.' , .!!'
1, 14 .___) -
0
o.2 - 0
._
.. 1 24.246 50.4,0 1604 73434 -
-.
.__2,! l.2$0
-
. .
-1
1,591 9120
-
1,2.1 j,,394
592' j33
-
512'3
...2.!'
_1
1 21,.7'
1.) .22
i77'
34
6
.13123 -
-
12900 -9918 191142
-13299 •ii
13
203
14372
120.435
0101
9912
34091
93702,
1204, 372.30 3271) a
1').. ')i "4?
3902.
-0131
0 57000
. 21871
'i75
4.:
.32939 ..- 4342615 33419 -110'
L-'1
.
14 4
952
:: -
: : ::
.
_..2!L 0000 ___i22 as ...o7.'o ...- :
+
'4
OH
TM
9993
1
.747 1..
21.1"]
0.1410 21499
..) 2
61.1466101
-
0 _6 _00
.74)2
RIM 05
-
I"
__at40 ?L1.20
34
17.2.01
11 ,', 77
114. 3407.2 __09 3' -57902 -132o32 .197,1420 __i2'j,"0
96.
,,
207323 32.14>5 0.2244 9C.0 . ......I^P30
.._!._2.70 ._!.092 10000 110130 _+.'0 _i!..2'°7
9,2.310
119990
2.6312.1
1064
02
114)3.:
902.
2 .
.340 7047
..44)) _2i747'
14000 0
. 0503
. '4)4741.
03553
113902
92149 11
- -
214)4.7 .
1.8,8
PU
AM
0.1422 PM
27
32
0
32. 90 12
1147 12 14
-12 19 .1?
11 0
-15 .3 11
15. 3
rIp .0 .n.r.u.n'
0109. AU
10111 P24
9 '4
AM
8
1 ____________ i 2 -,2 0 72 2 30 -10 53 0 ______________
-5 1
8 7
14
84
14
3
34
4
43 IS' 54 11
-10 43 -11 0
-15
42 -19
10 ."
5
I
3 0
'1 4
5.
11
12
1717
.
71 17
.
0 1 0
-' 0 ..
19
0 216
.
0 .3 4 6
II
02
1 1
o 134 112 11
.8 1 I
4.70
PM 45 si
.
0') 3
'2
ISO 22
.03 7
-30 15.
-1 5.
102 53 197 .43
'65 13 17 6
.1051 .
I 90 2
34
.
11 .
014
2
________________
11
A...,o8' 6101.69.6429.45.100011 '001190.9611.0430.. o.I.l2,
d0.( IflOO.?1I1I 804 .41t8.100Il0l.4 10144500. 589 bl03kdMn 810.454244.
0.10330 R51.11
TAO
04244
47.10? __
-
449.0.4287610611719.11
61404
__
4040
_^.') _____________ ? _
l _E
-
-
_1
-
19.291
..
. .-
-
U
_
. _______ ____________ 0.215.
44.4'
_j9
_L'° 10,22.
___.LI>
________ _____
p1
0
!o
__,,,_l1 6,531
...
_,0!,Z!' _.i'
_____ .
18,003
0.6,1421,1.4
1,112
_j^' 3 _
-
I 001.41 I I : 6114049.1.1
Av.2..
I
I
I
I
iol
311562
I
I
>>50
I I
-
-
k,d,68.l
C
0 I I L____ L F. I co_____I_ 94 .1
K 9. H N o P
31141.? 33166?
I
-..
osl sot 2)196? 191 . sot 331470? 1 3312.42 .212.11 32148?
5I 3)159 26 34)6.1
1,771 J
1.30 1.39
1.2? 103 1,13
1.11 2.00 124 1.00
1.43 311081 3310.1 6
210161
1.61
9 840.96441097
_______________
kosId.nhl.I
4.111008 2100040
ii
?4.143O3OCTS)WC021W707-243O 544oy 10rDow 4SLUO9O1I01nOI1625IT,lpG.owr0100lTOpGenelaloo Sp44dOl10olsl200S.04.04 88110030034471)". CAM 21.445-17-0?
.;.
279
FM
644
1064 220
.
09110. AM ROle .
P88 0.10 7l0 : --
___________________
24649.'
974
FM
1.16 -.
LOUIOO6 020-
Snl,Io0I,l10041l000
11:47 All 42312030
iKe&
0.51. ]-Ai1•r24110* 20 TnlpOII.*lEIl0, 04090.600
Jç)
(L Opilolo 20- 03.2.08 (2)
I I
L.l1041.004,1017101741337
I
1 15000144
, A
I 37)
1 1 047) 313) 2 3 to) e T 307) ID 1 0111 2 toJ I 641) ,,,, 0 14 2241 8 2 237L,,,,,,,,,,,,j 712 1 430 7 151 1
C 7. E F 0
5,701
50 I .7 4
5371
U N
o • 107.1
'0o1.11v
58.11
.
140 II 102 211 104 74 17 II 06 131 220 0 44 0 0 0
15 - 1.341
.
ioooo l
142,003 11,003 197.602 211,000 100.603 74,000 79.060 11.000 l5I. 101,020 220.020 0 44,020 0 0 0
44,060 0) 4 (CC 0) 16010 0) 17,000 0,L,33.000 0
o)
QL......S000 0 20.020 0 7 0
4023 07,020 43003 37,002 5l.AM 0
45000
182.009
540CC 45070
51.AM 2.600
004,043
544,533
43,020
R;0 - -
1.347209
00
20 5 15
'0 4
1920T"
I
23
702.200) . I IOO.,1,,,,,,,,,, I 37,305 'V 910,750 I ' 0 " 405031 , _,j 101,0720 '' 59O0 ' 1 9 773.074
L....
31,7101
13)3091
19050)
I.,OSI)
0
0! 0 5,1421
I 0 4 I
14I
295
0
I I
41
CI
17,031! O
24 4 1 0 0 0 0 0
2 II
0 24,1221 I 2.0141
35 0 2 07 05 03 0
09,01'
01
7000I
2.4191 P L739 L
13,433) 1.*3Cj,,,,,,,,,,, 1,5411 0 1,1211 0 I 0 6 '.'oiL 0
143,731
120,214
49777!
I ci
0J 9,2191
ci
°I
15211 91,5131 Iu,247f
4,4131 14,320!
ci
131.393)
e L,,,,,, 0 347.333
9106 1.0951 1.0,37) 0) 0)
'T 0 0 3 5,127 0 51,202 18.470 0 2,044
b.O'A 7.52
-
0 0
'
5
oc.
','?'
46,472 1,501 0 0
1121 14) 1921
.14002 1
¶40) 31)
74001
a)
-soio )
707300) 11000) 27744 1
-723331 11054) CI I 4000) 06L,,,,,,,,,,r24041, ¶0 0) 109 2400 -77341 07 -l0229L,,20163 2.5 -1591) .19015 22067 'OOIIL 41 0 2 0 4 70507 0 46533 51002 0 0*090 7404
ll
'2
0 0
70,546 19,334 50,015 23,7070 0 193,419 0 0
50,130
971.544
77'
.
21'
-30
1,111
100.741
AM
'472 !
"°' I
00,509
.__. .7''
'
1: . 4 ' 'V . -. 1 42.4
A 44 C 0 K F 4* 44 I .0 K 9 U II 0 50 10120
30.6
PM 02
4.7.11
PAl -23
103
72 10 20
90
93
-12 4
.0 4 11
24 5 12
-17 .15 '5
0 09
10 02
52 134 0
01 7544 0
27
37
0 0 0
0 II 0
_1_
'[
11
.22 -2 72 * 06 42 10 '1
064
.22 1 ci .12 1 -9 L,
-1 I 75 ! -° I ci ci -21) -oJ t91
AM
9
37 75 140
10
24
Cl
19 6
1414 0
0 3 02 -14 00 II 79 07 1 ,,,,,
PM
'I 04 26
1091
I 0
9 00
III 1001
.40 .6 0
52 115 ii 27
114 110! 3ij
112 DI ,
47) 241 sod
54) 23 -II -10! 11111
010
0 04 50 00 21
P01
I
00
1131
lOS 67
ill) 71
.,,,,,,,,
A7l02il0l44o370474AT1Z
04 4 046.0.1 2AM ,j,4
-
_i2.0J. '
-
:
_2_ .J020 P __S2' i2.!CL .2062
13,71 5
5161'
.720. RI 04fl1110
40.20
-
-
-
- -
04*04.741
54,3001 12001
I
001114.106410 Mill l$Oiod..,.1.IP.mlo.d.oi.., Ir,d,nllI.I .rdolIb.c.I.rl.d 1.44 u.n. Znb20fldown oh.,t 5.10w.
04101914 III1l
-
n7oI l I 10.420) _... L 11322 ) 1 30,000 1 1 °I I a.ooo! L
0;n.7I
51;4.l
I
N006w..1.lIo41 0411
-
-
14.12' -
_!±.i
-
-
-
...,._.,,
22!2
.L!O32
_j!!
70S
_)1,1,.3
C.17fl64*7 P4,1423 5.04 3)16.1 311km 31161) 3)74-) 311611
R40)d.,10 P.702205.00 1' 1'lO 14 00 01
011901 30757) 3111471 32104) 31100! 3,19.1
1) 110 1 02 10
10 I934 1,525
fl41
301941 21101) 2/br'
2.5* -
I [124.l0i0 410 PM [ 94.19424 914)0 0012 090 L,IT000d. 4461. 1
171701026239)_0400l191007.2442 0)ri'040 '0104051000 Ut&721149l2t.I7010)Tnp C.7.,0900iT1)704rlMaIIonSplp,0450,7rfl40%3-04-44 0)00400424*07-914,1 2134,75,1445
10.130004403 (094.. "i 491.5 PM 404 PM I 100)5 710 520 S'ralA'00.Io0.0470 R.10u1441,lItdu. 20,0 50)0
1947 27.4 0)3)2335
1k4.....L
T1..Pr.i.35Ms35 Sdp
DRAFT Prifnrrd
(cc)
Concept - Q4.15.OB 35I
-
I
I --i
i
r
I
:dt
ii
]
:
Qfl:.
P.flhi
: C.,-.9
I
H
Ir
C.:
roM
IAIj 7tb I3Jhl 120,1021 135,3511 N.I TOP Q.wAT., 1U 01 123C0373 3220170371
2
421.2201
2,'"
5.221
P,.kni35dflbI MS..frk 473
ITO C0&
Xn$.t.I AM -- 235
PM
N!PI*O2ECTS\_15COJiWC3I.a44M S*23135bD 0011tw1 Lut.2t5VM*1h\TI
PM
RL
-
710
MDI.
11.227
OlD. M4
Ok.
I ?-1
R.t.H 232
_
120 302 3173 223033.
mi
27
35
70
157
37
124
530
bIT
PM
-
OoI
15% k..StlI.l 35' 35% I 73% 01% Look. I 52% I 17% J_ flc L_,23I._!__I___os____I__35%__1__2.ic .1
Oo.r.kT2p G.n.oW 53.,3th.155234'1.OS.21.O0 F,flrrDI cpId. c73ths, ...
1710234 1233025
