North San Jose Redevelopment Project

Sustainable Urban Systems

North San JosĂŠ Redevelopment Project James Bradbury Raul Cabrera Rommy Joyce Leopold Wambersie Jason Wang

June 2016

CONTENTS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Executive Summary Introduction On the Ground in North San José Recent North San José History Policy and Guideline Proposals Tying It All Back to Goals for NSJ Project Team Bibliography Appendix

North San JosĂŠ Redevelopment Project

1. Executive Summary The city of San José has long desired to make North San José into something greater, due to its prime location within Silicon Valley and along the VTA light rail network.

Successive Area Development Policies have been implemented over the years, and the latest North San José Area Development Policy plan is being updated as we speak.

The current plan leaves much to be desired, and it has inadvertently led to the mismanagement of residential development and a stifling of mixed-use development along North First Street. North San José is still very inaccessible to pedestrians, and hostile to those taking public transit. Density along the main corridor remains low, and there is a distinct lack of amenities for the few local residents.

This report proposes a series of measures to be implemented in the revision of the NSJ

1 SUS Report June 2016

Area Development Policy. We advocate for a switch towards ‘Catalytic Zones’ and away from the current ‘Core Area’ framework. We propose a revamped and protected bike-lane network as a last-mile solution, which would exist alongside VTA’s new FLEX service.

Parking is an important aspect of this report, as it is North San José’s greatest underutilized asset. To make infill development – and therefore an increase in density – feasible, there must be a reduction in the gross surface area dedicated to parking. This report proposes a three phase plan to reduce this area: implementing shared parking policies, then parking structures, then integrated parking.

Finally, this report also looks at the possibility of using scenario planning software to generate a rudimentary fiscal analysis of hypothetical infill development scenarios.

2. Introduction This white paper presents a comprehensive account of what the North San José project team was able to accomplish during winter and spring quarters 2016 as part of Stanford’s project-based course on Sustainable Urban Systems. We explore opportunities and strategic options for the future of development in North San José (NSJ) and discuss the team’s potential contribution to the ongoing process of review and revision of the North San José Area Development Policy.

The memo also proposes several valuable new policies, including:

Mayor Liccardo’s recent memo to the City Council about NSJ, prepared with substantial input from the Planning Department, addresses many of the issues we have been working on, and highlights the city’s current planning goals:

With this memo as our new foundation, our project team has decided to focus on the where and the how of these new policies, as well as the process question of how to bring developers on board while solving the problems they are currently most concerned. We will attempt to go beyond some of the current proposals for the area.

● “Creating a “there-there” in North San José requires the creation of walkable, mixed-use communities that integrate employment, housing, retail, entertainment, and other uses.”

● Allow residential development ahead of the tranche schedule if it’s dense, mixed-use, and near transit or built by employers as on-site worker housing. ● “Identify a comprehensive strategy for build-out of retail, restaurants, and other basic amenities that make North San José a more compelling place to work and live.”

● “The [existing] Plan’s phasing [of residential and commercial development] appears to have perpetuated the segregation of uses.” ● “The area lacks the retail, restaurants, and other amenities that would make it more attractive for [new, tech] workforces.”

SUS Report June 2016

2

3. On the Ground in North San José The area we call NSJ—defined by the Area Development Policy and originally designated as the Rincon de los Esteros redevelopment project area—covers about 8 square miles.

As shown in the pictures on the facing page, that space is made up primarily of wide avenues, surface parking, and low-slung industrial and office buildings, with more of the building inventory on First Street consisting of spaces built or renovated for office use, and more of the inventory elsewhere consisting of warehouse and light manufacturing uses. The area is serviced by bike lanes and a VTA light rail line that runs with frequent stops down the middle of First Street, but both of these systems leave much to be desired. The region’s inhospitality to pedestrians is a major preoccupation for the city’s planning department, and improving this metric is a large part of this project.

Not driving a car in North San José is something visitors must go out of their way to do; car use is the only form of transportation that feels natural in the built context. But the project team visited North San José mostly on foot, observing the conditions from a pedestrian’s perspective.

The first thing that one notices is the parking lots: surface parking is omnipresent and parking lots often take up the most prominent and accessible parts of corner lots and road frontage. The streets themselves are uncomfortably wide, making jaywalking difficult, yet the practice is fairly common and encouraged by the “stranding” of light rail infrastructure in the middle of First Street. If they do not jaywalk, employees crossing the street for lunch or other reasons face inconveniently located crosswalks and long waits for walk signals. Bike paths are poorly

3 SUS Report June 2016

marked and are not protected.

In addition to on-the-ground visits, we also met with developers and commercial real estate agents, as well as several different stakeholders from the City’s departments of Planning and Economic Development. A handful of narratives emerged again and again from these meetings.

Developers are largely on board with the City’s plan for North San José in that they too believe the area is emerging as a major hub of development and densification.

Unfortunately, that means that many property owners have decided the best approach is to wait until the anticipated boom hits full swing; much like the City, developers don’t know whether industrial, commercial, or residential will be the most productive use of any given parcel given the built context several decades from now On the industrial front, the most important trend has been the conversion of warehouse and light manufacturing space for office use.

This is enabled by the unified Industrial Park zoning designation applied to much of NSJ, which allows both uses, and pushed forward by the much higher rents on office space (typically around $20/square foot/year, as compared to well below $10 for industrial and warehouse). City officials are unsure how to view this shift, which results in higher tax revenues but the displacement of some of the City’s best-paying remaining blue-collar jobs; one official from Economic Development said he believed these changes show that the unified IP zoning was a mistake. Another trend brought up by Economic Development is the divergence between land prices, which between land prices, which are almost as

Left: A lone bike in the bike racks of the Samsung Campus Center: Unprotected bike lane on Trimble Rd. Right: View of the Samsung Campus from Tasman Light Rail station

Left: View of ‘moat’ separating Samsung campus from W Tasman Dr. Center: View of Bonaventura Light Rail station on N 1st St. Right: Traffic crosses the intersection of Trimble Rd. and N 1st St.

Construction on the intersection of Trimble Rd. and N 1st St.

Panorama of surface parking along N 1st St.

SUS Report June 2016

4

are almost as high as they are in the rest of Silicon Valley, and office rents, which are somewhat lower. This appears to be the result of demand for future office space from large and rapidly expanding technology companies like Apple outpacing immediate demand for office leases.

As for residential construction, developers are chomping at the bit to build conventional apartment buildings near existing housing in the northern part of NSJ. The mayor’s memo provides a means of aligning this demand with the City’s goals for the region, by allowing residential development ahead of the tranche schedule — which currently tightly limits housing construction in NSJ — if the development is mixed-use, dense, near a VTA stop, and pays for more than its share of transportation impact abatements. The City is hoping that this is not too much to ask,, and that development demand will be funneled into the new program, but developers are mostly keeping quiet, waiting—at least—to see if the memo’s proposals become a reality this summer.

The landscape for commercial/retail development is different. While retail in North San José generates more tax revenue per square foot than anywhere else in the city, the retail base in the region is fairly light, consisting mostly of small strip malls and a few big-box stores. Planners believe that developers are waiting for the best possible parcels — such as the orchard land that abuts First Street and is zoned for Neighborhood/Community Commercial, and for the residential development that would provide a retail customer base. Despite the City’s claims that the Planning Department would do everything in its power to bring retail to NSJ, there is no statutory mechanism to waive traffic impact fees for commercial

5 SUS Report June 2016

development the way the City the City has done for large industrial projects. And one of the biggest obstacles to new retail in NSJ isn’t even inside the City—it’s the fact that local residents with cars can shop just as easily at the large and popular existing malls in Milpitas and Santa Clara; not to mention the vast new proposed Related CityPlace complex with 1.1 million square feet of retail less than a mile from North San José.

Some stakeholders we spoke to, both in the City and the private sector, are also worried that traditional approaches to development will be disrupted by fundamental changes in transportation—like driverless and electric cars—sooner than planners implicitly assume. San José is well-positioned to benefit from this innovation, since media reports suggest that driverless car R&D facilities from both Apple and Chinese conglomerate LeCorp will open in North San José within a few years. But planners must also begin to take into account impacts of driverless and electric car adoption including need for charging infrastructure and dramatically reduced overall parking demand. Historically, North San José’s warehouse and office buildings have had time horizons as short as 15 years; since the newest generation of construction is intended to last much longer than that, the time horizons for planners thinking about these disruptive contingencies should be correspondingly longer.

4. Recent North San José History North San José’s land-use history is one of Agriculture, leading to light industry and commercial development. The current Area Development Policy provides an effective summary of the region’s recent commercial development history: “Due to regional traffic concerns identified in the mid—1980’s,the City adopted policies that restricted the development intensity within the North San Jose area through a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) cap. Since 1988, this cap has been implemented through the North San Jose Area Development Policy. As a result of this cap, industrial development in North San Jose has been fairly uniform and low intensity in nature. In the year 2000 the overall average FAR for North San Jose industrial development was 0.34. Consequently, North San José industrial park development is characterized architecturally by low to mid—rise office buildings, one or two—story light manufacturing and research & development facilities, surface parking lots and generous amounts of landscaping. Consistent with this type of development, the block pattern is large and irregular and access into North San Jose is provided mostly from a limited number of regional freeways or expressways.”

Boom and Bust History

Home to a notoriously volatile set of industries, San José has always struggled to address the infrastructure and service needs of boom years without major disruptions during bust years.

Local vs. State Government Local governments receive a relatively small portion of their revenue from sources they control and are limited in their ability to raise general purpose taxes. The State of California and statewide voters have instituted significant restrictions on the ability of localities to raise property and sales taxes (which are locally controlled in other parts of the country). This is exemplified by Proposition 13.

Prop. 13 and its Legacy

Implemented in 1978, its restrictions on property tax increases (no more than 2%/year) effectively converted a market value – based on an acquisition value–based system. The increase in required outlay for services now often fails to correspond with an increase in revenue. Prop 13 has effectively caused a hole in the city’s finances since residential development is no longer able to pay for itself.

Another way to understand North San José and the constraints it faces is through the lens of city finances.

SUS Report June 2016

6

Local Revenue Sources to Make up Shortfall

A lack of flexibility regarding property and sales taxes led to a search for substitute revenue sources at the local level, including a well-established legal basis for and the use of development impact fees. In the 80s and 90s the pressure to provide additional infrastructure and services caused the city’s government to turn to a complex set of revenue sources to balance the budgets, including development fees and exactions, user fees, local taxes such as the utility user’s tax, the property transfer tax, and the transient occupancy (hotel) tax. Before its closure in 2012, heavy use was also made of the redevelopment agency’s powers to redirect flows of local property taxes.

Fiscalization of Land Use

San José’s reliance on local user fees and its inability to collect significantly more property tax, coupled with its 0.8 jobs/employed residents ratio (a consequence of geography, mid-century planning decisions, and the successful anti-residential-growth policies of many other Bay Area municipalities) has meant one thing: San José has doubled down on the seriousness with which it looks at the fiscal impact of developments. An important consequence of this is that San José must find a way to make residential development pay for itself.

This is the so-called “fiscalization of land use.”

The fiscalization of land use is part of the present reality for San José. This is an issue in itself since development is now beholden to the city’s bottom line, and not market demand or what’s best for the citizens of the area.

7 SUS Report June 2016

San José’s current strategy in regards to NSJ is one which they have been pursuing for the past decade: the tranche system. This system is a nstructure which determines that a certain number of residential units can be developed once certain job benchmarks are achieved: Phase 2, which we are nearing, states that permission to build 8000 new residential units will only be granted once 7 million square feet of commercial development have been built. This decision to co-locate residential and commercial development was first conceived as a traffic mitigation measure in the mid-2000s, back when semiconductor manufacturers lined 1st street. During this period there was only modest demand for housing in North San José. Post-recession, demand for residential development started eclipsing demand for commercial development, and we are now left with the current scenario; a superheated housing market forced to wait for a lethargic commercial development market to fill its quotas.

A consequence of this restraint is that residential development is unable to evolve naturally; centered on a core, gradually feeding on itself and inviting in retail development. Unable to take advantage of the dynamism of residential development, the level of density in the core area remains limited and is preventing the unlocking of a virtuous cycle of intensification which would see the evolution of the corridor into an ‘urban’ center.

5. Policy and Guideline Proposals Case studies and urban planning literature, combined with a deep understanding of North San José’s past and present, help us better formulate ideas for policies and guidelines. These, in turn, can better serve Mayor Liccardo’s goals for North San José. The following policy and guideline proposals have been broken down into three main categories: Regional proposals, neighborhood proposals, and proposals which look towards the future and NSJ’s long-term success.

Regional Proposals Catalytic Zones Case studies and urban planning literature, combined with a deep understanding of North San José’s past and present, help us better formulate ideas for policies and guidelines.

These, in turn, can better serve Mayor Liccardo’s goals for North San José. The following policy and guideline proposals have been broken down into three main categories: Regional proposals, neighborhood proposals, and proposals which look towards the future and NSJ’s long-term success.

Ultimately, the focus on one large core area was unsuccessful:

pedestrians are willing to walk is far less. ● While the ‘Core Area’ policy aspires to create a rich and dense commercial district along First Street, it has forced residential development into a set of parcels which are disconnected and far from commercial zones and transit links. Add to this the sheer size of the parcels, which mean that they can only be developed by major residential developers, and we end up with forms of residential development which are isolated, inward-facing, and unable to form cohesive neighborhoods and communities.

This has squandered the energy and dynamism of the residential market, which could be directed towards improving Core-Area density.

Supported by case studies such as Milwaukee’s 30th Street Industrial Corridor, we’ve decided to substitute the Core Area with Catalytic Zones, which are smaller in scale, and focused on key transit points. We have identified two zones within North San José’s First Street Corridor that should be prioritized for development.

Proposed Guidelines

● Restructure NSJ zoning patterns, away from the ‘Core Area’ and towards ‘Catalytic Zones’. This includes FAR, parking minimums.

● The target area was too large and dispersed for effective pedestrian use.

Even if the areas covered are still within ¼ mile of transit, considered ‘walkable,’ the inhospitality of the region for pedestrians means that the effective distance SUS Report June 2016

8

Diagram illustrating the breaking up of the Core Area into two Catalytic Zones (delineated in blue). Pink and Brown areas: planned for dense and very dense development, respectively.

9 SUS Report June 2016

CASE STUDY: 30th

Street Industrial Corridor – Milwaukee, WI

In 2010, Milwaukee experienced a major storm, which affected several areas including the 30th Street Industrial Corridor. To make this area more resilient to flooding and revitalize its economy, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority created a plan that integrates land use, transportation, stormwater, and economic development planning. Some of the main strategies include: Catalyst Areas: The Economic Development Master Plan focused on multiple catalyst projects along the corridor. In essence, this plan aims to revitalize very specific sites that could help spur economic growth in the entire city. In order to achieve this goal, the city focused on the redevelopment of vacant and underused lots into mixed-used, transit-oriented developments.

Integrated Transportation Systems: The master plan promotes street connectivity and multi-modal transportation. The Milwaukee County has implemented a comprehensive transportation plan that includes traffic calming strategies and convenient pedestrian/bicycling paths to the transit stations along the Corridor.

Sustainable Land Use Planning: The Greenway Corridor project plans to encourage sustainable land use planning and development practices to preserve natural and historic resources. One of this practices includes the development of compact new activity centers.

Aerial view of the 30th Street Corridor

Since housing in the corridor has been constructed to support employees working in the area, as employment has decreased in the area, so has housing demand. The selected economic sectors aim to increase employment opportunities and attract new residents to the area. One of the main redevelopment projects is Century City redevelopment project, which is a modern industrial park surrounded by a residential neighborhood that will employ up to 1,000 workers in the corridor area when it is fully developed.

CDM Smith. “30th Street Industrial Corridor Greenway Corridor Report.� March 2015.

SUS Report June 2016

10

Overview of North San José Catalytic Zones North Zone

Focused on the intersection of North 1st Street and Tasman Drive, as well as the Tasman VTA station, the North Zone is one of the main points of access to North San José.

This area, located outside of the Core Area, has already been experiencing a higher rate of development than most other areas of NSJ. This can be attributed to ease of access, the explosion in nearby residential development, and a few centrally located lots which have yet to be developed. The main anchor of the zone is the new Samsung campus.

South Zone

The South Zone is centered on the intersection of North 1st Street and Trimble Road. Like Tasman Drive, Trimble Road is one of the three major cross-streets through NSJ (the third being the Montague Expressway). The site is framed by the Bonaventura and Component VTA stations to the north and south respectively. This intersection is also home to ‘The Marketplace’, a strip-mall located to the South-West of the intersection. The Marketplace is the only major commercial development in NSJ and is home to 11 restaurants which cater to the workers of the nearby office complexes. Despite its low-density, The Marketplace exemplifies the type of commercial development anticipated in the rest of the region. Behind The Marketplace is a hotel, ‘Homewood Suites by Hilton San José’.

Aerial view of North Zone

Aerial view of South Zone

11 SUS Report June 2016

A Real, Comprehensive Bicycle Network Bicycles are often paid lip service in San José planning documents; The North San José Deficiency plan proposes new bike lanes and trails through NSJ. If they are anything like existing bike lanes, however, they will not be able to make a dent in the transit patterns of residents who live within a 2 to 5-mile radius. Existing trails are simply too unprotected, and despite being usable by the <8% of the population who are labeled ‘Fearless’ and ‘Confident’ by Portland’s DOT, they will never be used by the 60% of the population which fall in the ‘Interested but Concerned’ category. Silicon Valley destinations such as the Google campus have recognized that workers who live within a 2 to 5-mile radius are the least likely to use group transit, whether public, such as

group transit, whether public, such as Caltrain, or private, such as coaches. Local commuters do not need to face traffic, and often do not have transit options which can compete with driving.

The merits of a more bicycle-centric neighborhood are already well understood.

North San José, however, has several unique characteristics which especially make it prime for bicycle transit: ● A dearth of local transit options. This has already been acknowledged by the creation of the FLEX car service. Other than light rail, which is limited in its coverage, there is no alternative for local commuters who want to leave their personal vehicles at home. ● Multiple large scale residential developments planned within 2-5 miles of First Street. One of the new proposals put forward in Mayor Liccardo’s recent memo is to allow residential development if it’s intended to house local employees. With a large growth in local commuters anticipated, bicycles present an effective traffic mitigation strategy. ● Demographics: North San José residents skew more wealthy and educated than the San José average. These groups are the most likely to commute to work by bicycle, if it is presented as a simple and safe option.

Bike lanes in NSJ. Existing lanes are in Blue, proposed lanes are in Red.

● Convenient geography and development patterns. North San José is flat and development is low density, with plenty of buffer space along the main avenues, in the form of parking and landscaping. NSJ is arguably the region of San José best suited for the development of protected bike lanes.

SUS Report June 2016

12

A comprehensive bicycle network would lay the groundwork for a denser, less car-centric North San José. It is an effective last mile solution for a region in desperate need of one and presents an opportunity for San José to become a leader in Silicon Valley biking.

Proposed Guidelines

● Identify key areas for the implementation of protected bike trails. ● Create coalition of interested corporate parties. ● Partner with an existing bicycle coalition, such as PeopleForBikes1 , to gain assistance with designing and implementing protected bike lanes.

Neighborhood-Level Proposals Infill and Density Over the past few decades, North San José’s biggest selling point was the amount of land available. This has helped attract tenants interested in cheap office space and the ‘campus’ form of corporate development.

Contemporary growth in the region has changed the context: due to its central location, NSJ’s potential is being reassessed.

In its North San José Area Development Plan, San José envisions North San José as an “Important employment center and as a desirable location for high-tech corporations within San José as well as the Bay Area.”

The City has concluded, however, that it is no longer sufficient to provide cheap land; there must instead be a focus on “Livability” and “Long-term Vitality.” The new vision for NSJ is thus a more urban one, with denser development and more pedestrian activity.

Current Approach to New Development in NSJ

‘Mixed use’ development has been treated as one of the solutions for NSJ. The North San José Urban Design Guidelines has placed an emphasis on the vertical nature of mixed use.

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/green-lane-project/pages/about-the-project

1

13 SUS Report June 2016

Diagram illustrating the current framework for North San José, from the North San José Neighborhoods Guidelines. Different colors stand for different land uses. The diagram does not accurately reflect the reality of NSJ: it does not reflect current development patterns and doesn’t take into account surface parking lots

While mixed-use development will be essential to the development of NSJ; the design guidelines have a somewhat unrealistic expectation of density.

Before achieving successful vertical mixed use, there needs to be an existing groundwork of density. This makes the requisite transit and pedestrian accessibility, necessary for effective mixed-use, more attainable. This is why we endorse the prioritizing of infill development. Infill development is briefly mentioned in the Urban Design Guidelines but needs to be placed far more prominently.

Promotion of infill development in NSJ can take two forms: 1. Encouraging development on existing underutilized sites.

2. Encouraging new developments to allow for the potential for future infill development. Whilst existing developments have a lifespan of approximately 15 years, that of new developments is closer to 50.

Revised diagram better aligned with the reality of North San José. Structures are separated from each other by surface parking. Solutions should look more like the site on the right, with a focus on infill development.

SUS Report June 2016

14

General Guidelines for the Promotion of Infill Development2: ● Carry out an inventory of infill opportunities. ● Identify and address barriers to infill developments: ○ Lack of developer interest Developers may be more experienced with suburban greenfield sites. ○ Cost of development ○ Regulatory barriers: Zoning, land development regulations, and fire and building codes. ○ Administrative delays ○ Issues of accessibility: Current blocks are too large and prevent access to their interiors or non-street facing sides. Current policies to implement additional through streets is a good step.

The pursuit of infill development, especially on currently underutilized sites, would become possible by reducing the land area dedicated to parking.

Example of infill development along N 1st St.

2

http://www.dca.state.ga.us/intra_nonpub/toolkit/guides/infildevtprog.pdf

15 SUS Report June 2016

CASE STUDY: Solstice

– Missoula, MO

This mixed-used development project was built on a site that has previously contained a large parking lot and old bowling alley. This small-scale, infill development is one of the first commercial and affordable housing project to attain LEED certification in Montana as it was designed to meet its standards for energy efficient building design. It was also one of the first developments in Montana used tax credit financing in an innovative way.

key design features and strategies include the following: ● Combination of Low Income Housing Tax Credits with New Markets Tax Credits to finance the transaction. Both tax credits provided private investors to finance the development and it was combined with public and private grants as well as permanent mortgage debt. ● Construction of high-quality buildings with a community-oriented design. ● Utilization of underutilized land to provide affordable housing

Catalogue photo of the Solstice development

Homeword Inc. “Annual Report 2012 – Sustainable Communities for All.”

SUS Report June 2016

16

Parking Reform

Shared Parking, 5-10 years

Surface parking is North San José’s dominant land use, by area. This presents an unprecedented opportunity for infill development. Freeing up this parking area for development will be one of San Jose’s greatest challenges.

Shared parking is the first phase of our proposed parking reform, and presents an opportunity to start fighting the self-contained nature of NSJ lots. Tech companies – prevalent in North San José – have historically been unreceptive to sharing parking spaces because the industry is heavily concerned with the safekeeping of intellectual property.

Our proposal for North San José is a 3-phase approach: 1. Shared Parking: create incentives and regulations which encourage the sharing of parking between adjacent developments.

2. Parking Structures 3. Integrated Parking

Shared Parking as a response to mixed use

Parking can be shared amongst different adjacent land uses to take advantage of alternating peak periods. With this strategy, the total amount of parking can be reduced 40-60% compared with standard off-street parking requirements for each destination3.

However, North San José is dominated by office and industrial developments, likely having similar peak use periods, which limits the areas in which shared parking can be implemented. New developments should take advantage of shared parking where applicable.

Shared Parking as a reaction to decreasing parking minimums

Visualising the abundance of surface parking, in red, around the South catalytic zone.

3

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm89.htm

17 SUS Report June 2016

The decreasing of parking minimums is directly tied to the intensification of land use.

With new transit options for locally-based commuters (FLEX shuttles and bike lanes), as well as expected improvements in the VTA light rail, a reduction of parking minimums is feasible. A reduction in parking minimums, applied to existing developments, frees up land for infill development. Shared parking, and thus the consolidation of these trimmed-down lots, is a simple way to create larger parcels of infill space.

Possible Shared Parking Case Study: Valley Research Center and Lincoln Technology Center These two parcels are located on the southern side of the South Zone. The Valley Research Center (LEFT) is home to Toshiba, Ubiquity Networks and Align Technologies, whilst the Lincoln Technology Center (RIGHT) is home to eBay and Amdocs. Their parking lots are separated by a small row of trees, which delineates the boundary between the parcels.

After implementing the proposed 25% reduction in parking minimums for existing developments, the 308 parking spaces contained in the red zone, at the heart of theLincoln Center and bordering 1st Street, could be absorbed by a new shared parking lot (orange), containing 915 spaces (see Figure on the right). This would open up the red area for infill development. The parking requirements required for the infill development could be satisfied with the payment of in-lieu fees or allocation of on-street parking to the development

Shared parking proposal between the Valley Research Center and Lincoln Technology Center, located southwest of the intersection of Trimble Road and N 1st Street. In yellow: the area proposed for shared surface parking. In red: the area proposed for infill development, which would displace existing surface parking.

General Guidelines for the Implementation of Shared Parking From the TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute: Shared Parking is usually implemented by municipal government policy to allow and encourage it, with sharing arrangements actually made between individual facility developers and managers. It may require changes to zoning codes, and development of appropriate standards and practices that local transportation planners can use to evaluate, manage and enforce shared parking arrangements. It can be

encouraged by establishing parking sharing brokerage services to match potential sharing partners, which can be provided by a Transportation Management Association or local government agency. Shared parking can also be implemented by providing public parking as a substitute for private parking.

SUS Report June 2016

18

Proposed Guidelines: ● Decrease existing parking minimums4 by at least 25%, from 1 per 250-300 sq. ft. to 1 per 190-225 sq. ft., with further reductions near transit.

Visual inspections of existing parking lots in industrial and commercial areas in NSJ during expected peak hours (weekday afternoons) reveal that many parking lots are heavily underutilized. Thus, NSJ can tolerate reductions in parking minimums.

Furthermore, planned improvements in Bay Area transit, such as the BART line extension, and San José’s goal of dramatically increasing transit use (as outlined in the Envision 2040 Plan) underscore the feasibility of implementing further parking reductions in areas located reasonable walking distance (1000 ft)5 from the light-rail line, which encompasses most areas along N 1st Street. ● Standardize procedures for implementing shared parking.

Make it easy for developers and businesses to implement shared parking. While San José has outlined parking minimums for numerous single-use land types, the city lacks an equivalent for shared parking. The creation of these guidelines for mixed-use developments could empower developers and existing businesses to re-think parking arrangements by making use of guidelines, rather than having to negotiate with city officials on a case-by-case basis and conduct research to justify their own parking proposals. These guidelines would also help

4 5

developers by detailing acceptable walking distances for different land-use types, and outlining requirements for shared parking agreements and the enforcement of those agreements. ● Maximize utilization of on-street parking.

This will be the fastest, cheapest, and most space-efficient way to increase the amount of public parking, which can be shared among businesses. The city also has the option of allowing developers to count nearby on-street parking toward the minimum parking requirement, which will create further opportunities for infill development. ● Allow fees in-lieu of satisfying minimum parking requirements.

Allow developers and businesses to make creative, cost-effective decisions by allowing them to pay fees-in-lieu of constructing enough parking to satisfy minimum parking requirements. Businesses may find that offering transit passes or rideshare incentives will save them money compared to building more parking; furthermore, this will help North San José achieve its goal of increased transit use. In-lieu fees should be used for constructing centrally-located municipal garages or improving mass transit.

https://www2.municode.com/library/ca/san_jose/codes/code_of_ordinances http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning/tod_docs/walking_distance_abstracts.pdf

19 SUS Report June 2016

● Provide Shared Parking matching and brokerage services.

Matching & brokerage services could be provided by an independent organization, allowing businesses a centralized mechanism to find partner businesses for shared parking.

For instance, the organization could match a business with excess parking to a business with a parking deficit, maximizing the utility of the total parking area6. ● Provide public off-street parking. ● Encouraging more Clustered development. ● Implement a regulatory guideline to promote shared parking: New developments will be able to build a parking lot or garage only if they could prove that the facility will be shared. Offer incentives for employees at shared parking locations such as tax benefits, parking pricing, parking cash out, travel allowances, transit and rideshare benefits, company travel reimbursement7, and car share parking.

Provide incentives, tax breaks or impact fee reductions, for sharing parking to businesses and developments.

Parking Structures, 10-25 Years Parking structures are the next step in the process, and they have been incorporated into new developments in North San José, such as the Samsung campus. Compared to surface parking, parking structures reduce the distance between buildings, creating a more walkable, urban environment.

Proposed Guidelines ● For parking structures proposed along main streets, encourage developers to reserve the ground floor for office or retail development.

While parking lots and structures should be positioned in the interior of parcels to maximize the amount of street frontage reserved for buildings, existing developments on certain parcels may make it impossible for parking structures to be located anywhere except along the street frontage. In those cases, developers should reserve the ground-floor for office or retail, in order to maximize the walkability and the aesthetic appeal along the street. ● Encourage developers to create public parking structures.

For a cash-strapped city such as San José, the large capital expense of a parking structure may be difficult to take on. Instead, cities may choose to lease public land to a developer, under the condition that the developers build a public parking structure on the plot of land, to increase the supply of public parking. The City of Miami, Florida, has recently undertaken an agreement of that nature.8

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm28.htm Commuter Financial incentives <http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm8.htm> 8 http://www.miamitodaynews.com/2015/11/18/authority-lease-to-add-parking-after-challenge/ 6 7

SUS Report June 2016 20

● Create a parking tax per land area.

Charge a parking tax based on the amount of the land area dedicated to parking. This proposal would effectively subsidize parking structure costs, helping to close the sizeable gap in cost between parking structures ($15,000-$25,000 / space) and parking lots ($5,000-$10,000 /space)9, thereby providing an incentive for developers to build parking structures instead of surface lots. To avoid conflicts of interest in which the city tries to maximize tax revenue by maintaining high minimum parking requirements, this policy should be implemented following reductions (or abolishment) of minimum parking requirements.10

Integrated Parking, 25+ Years North San José is becoming home to not one, but two of the world’s leading autonomous vehicle researchers. The possibility of autonomous vehicles revolutionizing transit in NSJ must, therefore, be considered as a serious possibility.

According to some studies, one single driverless car can potentially replace up to 9 to 13 conventional vehicles11, freeing up parking space. It is predicted that driverless cars will improve the reliability of the transportation network; thus, many people would choose not to own a car, decreasing

even further the need for parking space12. As driverless cars can potentially decrease parking space need from 60% to 80%13, new parking garages should be able to adapt to autonomous vehicles – designed to accommodate future uses – or be demolished and repurposed to recreational areas or other land uses.

Proposed Guidelines ● Create policies that allow for an easy transition from parking use to non-parking use.

If autonomous vehicles lead to a reduction in parking demand as expected, then portions of existing and planned parking structures can be repurposed for other uses, such as retail, residential, or office space. Developers of today should be confident that repurposing of these structures will be relatively easy in the future: that the permitting process and land-use conversion process will be fast and simple. Ideally, the current approval process for parking structures would incorporate guidelines for future conversion of parking structures to other uses, including retrofits of the structure. ● Establish a set of requirement for parking garages that plan to adapt to autonomous vehicles.

http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0504.pdf http://rcp.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Case_Study_Model_Ord.pdf 11 Daniel Fagnant. “Operations of a Shared Autonomous Vehicle Fleet for the Austin, Texas market.” The University of Austin, Texas. 2015. c 10 12 Archdaily.com “How Driverless Cars Could, Should- and Shouldn’t - Reshape Our Cities.”

13 Disegnboom.com “AUDI Urban Future Initiative Brings Automated Parking Garage for Self-driving Cars to Boston-Area.”

9

10

21 SUS Report June 2016

CASE STUDY: The

Fruitvale Transit Village - Oakland, CA

When BART announced its plans to convert an old surface parking lot into a multi-story parking garage in 1991, local community members were concerned that this facility would increase pollution and traffic in the neighborhood, as well as create a greater separation between the neighborhood and the transit station. Recognizing these concerns, BART worked with the City Council and the community to create a plan for the Fruitvale Transit Village. The village was designed to meet the needs of local residents, providing affordable housing units, job opportunities, retail, and community services, and has had success in boosting local economic vibrancy. Up to 32% of

residents (four times that of Oakland as a whole) use BART to commute.

The key design features and policies implemented include the following: ● Development of a master plan that encourages mixed-use, transit-oriented development near public transportation. ● Adoption of a zoning policy that bans the construction of any additional parking space near the urban village. ● Reduction of vehicle lane widths to use the created space as part of the development and sidewalks.

“Partnerships, Enhancements, and Public Involvement.” Oakland, CA. “Transit-Oriented for All: The Case for Mixed-Income Transit-Oriented Communities in the Bay Area.”

CASE STUDY: Rosslyn-Ballston

Corridor - Arlington, VA

The revitalization of a three-mile corridor running from Rosslyn to Ballston, Arlington County, is one of the earliest and most successful examples of transit-oriented development. The corridor exemplifies smart growth planning, with an emphasis on high-density concentration developments near major stations and transit corridors. The presence of multi-modal transportation options and the adoption of new parking regulations have also helped Arlington County reduce traffic from 1996 to 2012 on major traffic arterials. Approximately 39.3% of local residents commute to work by public transit, twice the percentage of commuters living outside the corridor. Key design features and policies implemented include the following:

● Adoption of a General Land Use Plan encouraging denser development within a walking distance of transit stations. ● Promoting a mixture of uses along commercial corridors, focused on bringing together working and living spaces. ● Encouraging the protection and preservation of existing communities near the transit stations, including the creation of parking zones around all stations and commercial areas. ● Creation and management of pedestrian and bicycle networks along the corridor. ● Implementing stricter parking regulations and strategies: Reducing parking minimums, setting parking maximums, charging markiet rate for additional parking spaces, and encouraging the shared use of off-street parking.

Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates. “Traffic Reduction Strategies Study Draft Report.” San Francisco, CA. 2006

SUS Report June 2016 22

6. Tying it all back to goals for NSJ Since a fiscal analysis can help us understand the long-term consequences of proposed policies and land use patterns, we performed this kind of analysis in North San José. We hoped to gain better insights on what can work in North San José by using an scenario planning tool called Envision Tomorrow. This tool can help us analyze potential alternatives and determine whether the proposed policies can contribute to attain North San José’s economic, environmental, and social goals.

For this project, we propose to perform a fiscal analysis in specific parts of North San José. We have identified two possible sites that we think will help revitalize the whole city.

The figure below shows the potential redevelopment sites, which are the areas located within the red circles. One project site is located in the industrial corridor, and the other one is located near a residential development. Both project sites have been selected due to their proximity to the VTA

Figure: Phase I – Shared Parking infill development.

Existing structures in white, proposed structures in blue.

23 SUS Report June 2016

light rail network and other main public transit networks. Moreover, both project sites already have retail businesses, but they have not yet achieved their land use and socio-economic sustainability potential.

For both project site, the case scenarios will test different infill development phases, which are shared parking, parking structures, and integrated parking. Also, a combination of retail, commercial, office and residential uses within a single development was created to test proposed measures. For the South project site, we have created five versions of an infill development in Phase I. After analyzing the results, it is clear that the mixed-use development in scenario 4 generates a higher revenue value than an expenditure value when compared to the other combination of land uses. This finding highlights the importance of having the right mix of land uses to improve the city’s financial sustainability.

Figure: Phase II – Shared Parking infill development and parking garages. Parking Garages in red.

30-year Revenues and Expenditures

$50M $25M

Residential

Residential/Retail/Office Revenues

In our analysis, we have made assumptions to simplify our analysis; it is difficult to add the various sources of funding that the city and the county. All our estimates are pretty rough, but the results are in line with our expectations and in line with what the city has expressed in the past. The main idea for this analysis is that because there is a high demand for residential development, if we could figure out a type of residential

Office

Office/Retail

Retail/Residential

Expenditures

development where revenues are already pretty close to expenditures, then we can bring that up to parity if we make the residential developers pay more than their share of the Traffic Impact Fee. According to our analysis, scenario 2 (Residential/Retail/ Office) has that potential, but the impact fees will have to increase substantially â&#x20AC;&#x201C; as contemplated in the Mayorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s memo â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in order to achieve that goal.

SUS Report June 2016 24

7. Project Team Our team is comprised of students with a wide range of skills and experience who focus on providing objective and insightful planning analyses to support sustainable urban growth. The experience of each team member is described below.

James Bradbury (jbradbur@stanford.edu) is a senior pursuing a BA in Linguistics, with fairly wide-ranging interests outside that field ranging from software engineering and data science to political thought and urban policy.

Within GUDP, he focuses on data analysis, visualization, and housing policy. He plans on a career in journalism or the technology industry.

Rommy Joyce (rjoyce@stanford.edu) is pursuing a M.S. in Sustainable Design and Construction, Energy Track, at Stanford and holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of New Mexico. At Stanford, she helped to develop Keewi, a management system that helps to reduce electricity consumption. She plans a career in urban and city planning.

Leopold Wambersie de Brouwer (leopoldw@stanford.edu) is a Senior pursuing a BA in Environmental Systems Engineering, Urban Track. His interests lie in Civil Engineering, Architecture, and all things Urbanism. A Belgian citizen who's lived most of his life in Rio de Janeiro Brazil, Leopold's international upbringing affects his outlook on cities and their potential.

Raul Cabrera (salsero@stanford.edu) is a junior pursuing a B.S. in Environmental Engineering. He is interested in addressing large-scale issues related to environmental protection and urban sustainability. He has previously worked on energy conservation and recycling initiatives through Stanford and non-profit organizations. This summer, he will be working with the California Department of Water Resources.

Jason Ke Wang (jasonwk@stanford.edu) is a second year student in Graduate School of Business. He recieved his bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree from Tsinghua University. He used to develop real estate in cities on the east coat of China near Shanghai.

25 SUS Report June 2016

8. Bibliography The Great Communities Collaborative. “Transit-Oriented for All: The Case for Mixed-Income Transit-Oriented Communities in the Bay Area.” June 2007.

The Unity Council, Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and City of Oakland. “Partnerships, Enhancements, and Public Involvement.” Oakland, CA. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/case_studies/fruitvale.pdf> Merchant, Canaan. “As Arlington Booms, Traffic Drops.” June 30, 2014. <http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/23318/as-arlington-booms-traffic-drops> Hiroaki Suzuki, Robert Cervero, and Kanako Luchi. “Transforming Cities with Transit – Transit and Land-use Integration for Sustainable Urban Development.” The World Bank. Washington, DC. 2013 Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates. “Traffic Reduction Strategies Study Draft Report.” San Francisco, CA. 2006 Homeword Inc. “Solstice/Confluence, Missoula, Montana.” <https://www.design-balance.com/solsticeconfluence.html> Homeword Inc. “Annual Report 2012 – Sustainable Communities for All.” Sutherland, Jillian and Alison Berry. “Restore – Commercial and Mixed-Use Development Trends in the Rocky Mountain West.” Sonoran Institute.

Commuter Financial incentives <http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm8.htm>

SUS Report June 2016

26

9. Appendix Existing Design Guidelines for North San José, related to siting/space requirements of parking garages ● Locate parking structures at the side and/or rear of buildings, away from the street edge; or, provide a high-quality, multi-layered architectural façade that integrates the parking structure into its adjacent street frontage. ● Except for underground garages, parking structures should not be located along North First Street. ● Where provided, retail space that faces onto a primary street should meet the 45-foot minimum depth requirement and 15-foot floor-to-floor minimum height requirement specified in Guidelines for Buildings: Building

Design and Materials. Deeper and taller dimensions, such as 60-foot depths or 18-foot floor-to-floor heights, are encouraged. ● Encourage shared parking facilities that take advantage of time differences in peak parking needs - for example, daytime office parking shared with evening entertainment parking. ● Use the Zoning Code’s reduced parking requirements for within 2,000 feet of a light rail station. feet from the residential area, are limited to a maximum height of 30 feet or three (3) stories, and contain buffer landscaping.

NSJ Urban Design Guidelines, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/432 City of Sunnyvale Parking Structure Design Guidelines, http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Portals/0/Sunnyvale/CDD/Planning/Planning%20Library/ParkingStructureDesignGuideline sWeb.pdf

27

SUS Report June 2016

● Title 20 of the City’s Municipal Code provides all of the zoning ordinances governing land use within San José. The section on parking covers the entire 176 square land miles of the city, with the exception of the downtown core, requiring off-street parking to be provided at all land uses. ● Every building type has its own minimum requirements. Isn’t this absurd. I wish this was the case for other forms of transport. ● Parking spaces cannot be shared unless the uses are extremely non-overlapping. ● On street parking can never be part of the required supply ● These parking minimums are based on trip generation rates within ITE’s Trip Generation manual. The purpose of this type of zoning is to create self-contained land uses that have adequate parking to meet the needs of the trips they are deemed to generate during the peak demand period in order to mitigate the effects of a given land use on adjacent uses and vehicle circulation. Cities use the ITE manual because of its comprehensiveness and not necessarily because its generation rates are correct or because off-street parking has been determined to be the best solution

Additional exceptions are given to uses that occur in or near a “main street” setting. Uses that qualify can receive a fixed percent reduction in the required amount of parking spaces. The following five “main street” exceptions are listed in the zoning ordinance: ● Uses that utilize alternative transportation, located within 2,000 feet of a rail station or a neighborhood business district as designated by the city’s General Plan, may receive up to a 10% reduction. ● Ground-floor retail in a neighborhood business district needs only to provide one space to a ten percent reduction per 400 square feet, as opposed to one parking space per 200 square feet outside of neighborhood business districts. ● Non-residential uses in neighborhood business districts that do not impose curb cuts onto the main street and do not employ parking reductions for ground-floor uses (as mentioned in the bullet point above) can receive a thirty percent reduction in required spaces. ● Single-family homes that are built with a detached garage behind the home may receive a reduction to a single covered space. ● Multi-family homes in or near neighborhood business districts that provide unbundled parking, car-share programs, and eliminated curb cuts to the main street can have parking reduced to 0.8 spaces per unit.

SUS Report June 2016 28

General Plan Goals Affected by Current Parking Requirements As mentioned previously in this report, many of the major goals of Envision San José 2040 will be negatively impacted should San José’s current parking policies remain intact.

Important goals that will be affected are to: ● Accommodate 120,000 new housing units in focused growth areas154 ● Create 470,000 new jobs155 ● Develop high-rise structures in focused growth areas156 ● Revitalize under-utilized properties to promote alternative transportation, accommodate housing, create dense settings, and enable job growth ● Maintain San Jose’ s urban growth boundary15 ● Minimize resource consumption and reduce the city’s role in global climate change 158 Using San José’s current parking zoning, housing and jobs projections combined will create at least an additional 710,000 parking spaces by 2040, nearly doubling the current supply. This assumes that developers will

29 SUS Report June 2016

have provided no more than the minimum amount of parking required. It also assumes that no exceptions will have been made, no new neighborhood business districts will have been established, and no new parking assessment districts will have been created.

It also does not take into account the downtown core.

Using a standard parking space of eight feet by 22 feet, this will produce an additional 4.48 square miles of parking spaces. Given that parking spaces make up only 39 percent of the total area dedicated to parking – as discussed in the appendix – this creates an additional 11.62 square miles of land dedicated to parking in San José by 2040 under current zoning conditions.