SR-417-008
f/?~ (JOC;
1 \-A
F EB 2 3 13&'_
...
C/ED:CPD:DKW:TL:se
COUNCIL MEETING: February 23, 1988
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City council
FROM: city staff
SUBJECT: Recommendations Regarding Main street parking Issues
INTRODUCTION
This report discusses Main street area parking issues, provides
analysis of alternative city actions, and makes recommendations
regarding these issues.
The obj ecti ve of this report is to
examine the scope of parking problems on Main street and in
adjacent residential areas, to review alternative approaches to
the parking issue, and to recommend specific action to the city
Council.
SUMMARY
Alternative approaches to the Main street parking issue analyzed
in this report include a parking structure, diagonal parking, and
a parking shuttle.
Consul tant studies are attached to this
report,
each analyzing different aspects of parking and
circulation in the Main street area.
The analysis indicates that there is a non-summer parking
shortfall on Main street south of Ocean Park Boulevard of
approximately 390 spaces, that there is considerable commercial
parking intrusion into the adjacent residential area, and that a
- 1 -
l\ -1:\
FEB 2} 19&&
J'
parking structure on Lot 9 between Kinney and Hill, in
combination with additional preferential parking restrictions to
protect adjacent residential areas, is an appropriate solution to
address both of these parking problems.
In discussing this issue with members of the cOl'nllluni ty , staff
found disagreements over the concept of a parking structure.
While most people concur that a parking problem exists, many
residents fear that a parking structure would raise new concerns
such as intensification of development. Aesthetic considerations
about a three-story above grade structure with roof-top parking
were also raised.
While staff became convinced by the parking analyses that a
parking structure is needed, an alternative structure
configuration was developed to address some of the concerns. By
placing affordable housing on the top level of the structure and
dropping the structure to maintain an overall height profile of
27 feet (35 feet with pitched roof) consistent with the height
restrictions found in the Ocean Park interim zoning ordinance,
several goals are met: (1) the structure becomes "capped, II
preventing future expansion in response to development
intensification pressures; (2) the aesthetics are improved with
the overall image becoming residential rather than cOl'nlllarcial,
which is more in keeping with the properties on the west side of
Neilson Way; (3) any noise that may have been generated by
rOOf-top parking will be abated; (4) 49 affordable housing units
would be created in an area that is otherwise becoming
prohibitively expensive for this purpose.
- 2 -
,.
Thus staff recommends a structure with housing as the best
balance between divergent interests. It accomplishes the goal of
adding much-needed parking to the area; it also is more palatable
to residents and ameliorates many of their legitimate concerns.
staff recommendations include Council direction to staff to
prepare specific plans for a mixed use structure, to prepare
appropriate environmental impact analysis, to investigate
alternative construction-period parking options, and to refine
financing plans for the development.
BACKGROUND
The recent history of the Main street parking issue started in
the late 1970's, when Main street began its transformation to a
specialty shopping area, changing its traditional character and
also bringing additional parking and traffic to the area. At the
same time, the Ocean Park neighborhood was changing; more single
persons were moving into the area, resulting in growing parking
problems in the residential areas of Ocean Park.
As one of the oldest neighborhoods of Santa Monica, neither the
commercial or residential sectors of Ocean Park have parking that
would meet today' s zoning requirements for new development; or
that is adequate to meet the needs of existing uses. The result
of these factors was a growing parking problem in the areas
adjacent to Main street, and a growing concern about the
character of new development on the street.
- 3 -
-"
One of the first times parking concerns appeared was in City
discussions regarding the potential use of the City Parking
Authority property at 175 Ocean Park Boulevard. In 1978, Main
street merchants advocated using this property for parking.
Ultimately, the City council decided to renovate the housing
units located on the site to provide an affordable housing
project.
In 1979, parking consultants to the Main street merchants
produced a study which indicated that parking spaces on Main
street had a high occupancy rate. The merchants commissioned
this study in recognition of community parking concerns.
In response to the concerns about Main street parking and
development issues, the City of Santa Monica imposed a
development moratorium on the area to allow a group of residents
and Main street merchants and property owners to develop the Main
street Master Plan, which was presented to the City Council in
1980. This plan resulted in the adoption of a new zoning
classification for Main street and the creation of preferential
parking along Second and Third streets.
Along with preferential parking, the residents and merchants also
agreed that a new parking structure was needed in the Main street
area at one of two sites: either the Neilson Way parking lots
between Kinney and Hill (known as Lot 9), or the communi ty
gardens site in the north part of Main Street. A subsequent city
study identified Lot 9 as the most appropriate site.
- 4 -
In 1981, the City's General Services Department prepared a
parking study which found a general shortage of parking in the
Main street area. Also in 1981, the City's commercial/Industrial
Task Force, appointed by the City council, identified a Main
street parking structure as a high-priority item.
In 1983, a financial feasibility analysis was prepared for a
parking structure and assessment district. This analysis also
found a significant parking shortfall. The analysis was prepared
with the assumption that the parking structure would be financed
entirely through assessments on Main Street properties and
businesses, with no user fee charges. A number of Main Street
businesspersons were concerned about the level of assessments
which might be needed to finance a parking structure.
In 1985, a Main Street businessperson proposed a private parking
structure with 650 parking spaces on Lot 9 which would involve no
property assessments, with user fees financing the project. The
City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the
project, whiCh found that there was a significant parking
deficiency in the Main street area, and that a parking structure
would address this need without creating significant impacts on
adjacent areas. Because of a concern that the proposed parking
structure was too large for the site, and after a hearing by the
Planning Commission in 1986, the applicant withdrew the project
from further consideration.
Because the City continued
problems in the Main street
to have concerns about
area, in 1986 the city
parking
Council
- 5 -
budgeted $300,000,
originally designated for design of a
structure.
After receiving community comments, the City Council
directed staff to utilize a portion of these funds for further
study of the parking issue and to return with a recommendation
for Council consideration. Several recent studies were prepared
and are discussed below.
Summary of Recent Studies
In October 1987, Kaku Associates prepared II Parking Demand
Analysis for the Main Street Area" for the city (See Attachment
2). This report provided a comprehensive evaluation of parking
supply and demand in the Main street area.
report analyzed the following alternatives:
The october 1987
o No Action Alternative;
o A transit system which connects the Main street area
to off-site parking;
o A one-way street system with diagonal parking on
various streets within the study area;
o A parking structure;
o A transit system to serve a parking structure.
This study indicated:
o The inventory of the existing number of parking
spaces in the study area found 1175 on-street and
off-street, metered and unmetered parking spaces are
available in the study area. An additional 100
on-street parking spaces are currently being used by
non-residents in the adj acent residential areas on
Second street and Third Street.
o The analysis of the latent parking demand indicated
that the area has a non-summer parking deficiency of
about 388 spaces and a summer deficiency of 523
spaces.
- 6 -
o If the City of Santa Monica implements a mid-block
pedestrian signal on Main street and loading zones
on three adjacent streets, the removal of on-street
parking to accommodate these improvements would
raise the non-summer deficiency to 421 spaces. The
report recommended that any strategy for parking
management address the non-summer demand, since the
summer demand exists for only about three months of
the year.
The results of the analysis indicated that the primary need in
the area is additional parking supply.
Although actions to
reduce parking demand may have some effect, the lack of high
development density and the fact that the area has primarily
retail-commercial activities (versus office) does not provide the
opportunity for significant changes in travel behavior or
patterns. In October 1987, City staff and its parking consultant
conducted a community meeting in Ocean Park to present the study
results and update residents on the issue.
The meeting was
attended by approximately 100 persons, and at it a number of
concerns and questions about the issue and the consultant study
were expressed.
As a result of this community meeting, staff requested additional
analysis from its consultant (Attachment 3, dated November 1987) .
The issues analyzed include the following:
o Identification and evaluation of any additional
alternatives which may satisfy the parking demand
deficiency in the area.
o Discussion of the suggestions developed by the
ci ti zens and presented to the city at the October
meeting.
o Smaller parking structure with diagonal parking
provided in some areas.
o Maximum conversion of on-street spaces to diagonal
with minimal use of off-site parking.
- 7 -
The results of the supplemental analysis included a preliminary
finding that a smaller structure alternative with some diagonal
parking might be capable of providing adequate parking to meet
the existing deficiencies. This diagonal parking scheme was
expected to have some adverse impact on nearby residential
neighborhoods, with increases in traffic on Neilson Way and
potential increases on 2nd and 4th streets due to reduced
capacity on Main street.
According to the report, the maximum diagonal parking alternative
would not satisfy all the current parking needs and would result
in a deficiency of up to 150 spaces during the peak period of
usage on non-summer (off-peak) days. This alternative meets only
a portion of the need. Recent City experience has shown that
this is very difficult to accomplish and would be particularly
difficult in the Main street area due to the retail/entertainment
nature of the commercial activities, which do not lend themselves
to use of remote parking.
To obtain a more specific analysis of the diagonal parking
alternative, a third report was prepared (Attachment 4, dated
February 1988). The purpose of this report was to examine and
evaluate diagonal parking on Main Street between Strand and
Marine streets in much more detail. Two alternatives were
considered: installation of 45-degree angle parking on both sides
of Main street, and installation of 50-degree angle parking on
one side of Main street with retention of the existing parallel
parking on the other side of the street. This study showed a
- 8 -
much lower gain in spaces than previous studies due to factoring
in existing curb cuts, bus stops, red zones and loading zones.
The results of the February study indicate that the two
alternatives would have the fOllowing impact on the parking
supply within the study area:
o
Alternative 1:
sides of Main
45-degree angle
spaces. Gain of
45-degree angle parking
Street. Installation
parking spaces and 3
31 parking spaces.
on both
of 131,
parallel
o Alternative 2: 50-degree angle parking on the west
side of Main street with parallel parking on the
east side of Main street. Installation of 99,
60-degree angle parking spaces plus the retention of
49 parallel spaces for a total of 148 spaces. Gain
of 45 parking spaces.
The study also included an analysis of the impact of the
conversion of on-street parking from parallel to diagonal on
traffic safety, congestion, and operations:
o If no traffic is diverted from Main street to other
routes, the level of service at several
intersections is expected to go from LOS B to LOS E.
This would occur at Main/ocean Park and Main/Hill.
The others would operate at LOS D or better.
o Assuming that some through traffic would be diverted
from Main street to Neilson way, the impact of the
two diagonal parking alternatives would be to reduce
the level of service from LOS B to LOS 0 at three
locations: Main/Ocean Park, Main/Hill and
Main/Ashland. The others would operate at LOS C or
better.
o
Although
increase
parking.
not quantifiable, mid-block
with the implementation
delays may
of diagonal
o Main street would become more of a local street and
less of a through route if diagonal parking and a
reduction of travel lanes from four to two was
implemented.
o Some of the through traffic would be diverted from
Main street to Neilson Way and Fourth street, at
- 9 -
least through the study area, if either alternative
were implemented.
In early 1988, an informal survey of Main street merchants was
conducted to ascertain whether businesspeople would be willing to
be assessed for development of additional parking.
These
discussions found that most Main street businesspersons contacted
considered parking to be a serious problem for their businesses
and that most were willing to be assessed for development of a
parking structure.
The Main street Neighbor's Association have conducted their own
parking evaluation and have recently published a report of their
conclusions, nparking study, Main street, Santa Monica". Copies
of this report were provided to the Council by the Association.
This study indicates a parking structure is not necessary and
states that previous parking studies have used incorrect
assumptions, and therefore, developed unwarranted conclusions
about parking conditions in the Main street area.
staff has reviewed the report and does not concur with the
conclusions of the Association's analysis. Staff has no way of
evaluating the validity of the data in the report, since it was
not prepared by a traffic engineering professional. staff found
the study did not evaluate the overall parking situation in the
Main street area. The Association bases their conclusion that a
parking structure is not necessary on a limited data base and a
limited analysis methodology.
The conclusions reached were
developed by conducting an occupancy study of a limited area (Lot
- 10 -
9) and then proj ecting these 1 imi ted findings to the entire
parking situation in Main street area. staff does not believe
this is a comprehensive and complete approach.
The study did not analyze the peak parking demand in the Main
street area. A key deficiency is the failure to examine the
on-street parking conditions, both on Main street and all of the
cross streets. Additionally, the report does not address parking
conditions such as illegal parking and intrusion of non-resident
parkers in the adjacent residential area. staff believes that
since the Association I s report does not examine or proj ect the
peak demand in the Main street area, it should not be used as a
contradictory comparison of previous parking studies.
Staff is confident in the accuracy and methodology of previous
parking studies of the Main street area, specifically the October
1987 "Parking Demand Analysis of the Main street Area" prepared
by Kaku Associates. These studies examined all aspects of the
existing and potential parking demand in the area. The studies
utilized nationally accepted methods and techniques for properly
examining parking demands.
The studies not only checked the occupancy of all public
off-street parking facilities, including Lot 9, but also checked
the parking conditions on Main street and all of the cross
streets. The overall Off-street parking occupancy used by the
Kaku study is similar to data collected by the Association's
study. For example, the Kaku study used an off-street occupancy
of about 79%, which occurred at 1:00 P.M. on a Thursday, and the
- 11 -
Association found a similar (79.7%) average occupancy occurring
at 1:00 P.M. on Thursdays. staff believes the 1987 Kaku report
accurately analyzes and projects the peak parking demand in the
Main street area.
ALTERNATIVES
Three alternative approaches to the parking issue are evaluated
below. The alternatives include a parking structure, diagonal
parking and a parking shuttle.
parking Structure
The first alternative is the construction of a parking structure
on Lot 9. Currently Lot 9 is utilized as a 157 space metered
surface parking lot. It is bounded by Neilson Way on the west,
Hill Street on the north { a 22-foot wide alley to the east, and
Kinney street to the south. Portions of the site are zoned CM-2,
R4A, and R3A. The site is within the California Coastal Zone,
and SUbject to permit requirements of the California Coastal
Commission. The Ashland Walkway, which provides pedestrian and
bicycle access to the beach area, passes through the site.
Nearby uses include retail establishments, restaurants, offices
and residential uses. Across Neilson Way from the site are the
Sea Colony condominiums and the two high-rise towers of the Santa
Monica Shores apartments.
Meter rates in Lot 9 are currently
estimated that average annual meter
approximately $153,000 per year.
$0.50 per hour. It
revenue from Lot 9
is
is
- 12 -
Under the parking structure scenario, a three-level, 27 foot
height parking structure accommodating approximately 476 spaces
would be developed. A 3600 sq. ft. retail space would be
included on the ground floor of the structure on Kinney street.
The parking structure would generally follow the site grade. No
portion of the structure would be below grade. The structure is
proposed to be constructed in two halves, thus causing less
displacement of users and less revenue losses that if constructed
all at once.
A 476-space structure would address much of the non-summer season
parking demand and would also permi t additional daytime
preferential parking restrictions in the residential area east of
Main street. Construction time would be approximately 9 months,
during which time meter revenue losses would be approximately
$65,000. The construction cost of the project would be
approximately $4,100,000, which would be financed by revenue
bonds. The number of spaces would be designed to substantially
eliminate existing commercial parking intrusion into the
residential area and to address existing parking shortfalls,
rather than providing excess capacity.
The structure would incorporate parking meters, would provide
extensive landscaping, and would be designed so as to minimize
negative aesthetic impacts. Approximately 60% of project capital
and operating costs would be recovered through revenues from 319
new parking meters using proposed rates of $0.75 per hour. The
remaining 40% would be financed through an assessment district
charging commercial property owners from $0.03 to $0.30 per
- 13 -
square foot per month for the first year, with actual charges
depending upon benefits received (based on parking provided at
the business, type of business, and distance from the structure).
Assessments would approximately 5-10% of rental rates for the
commercial properties.
A parking structure at this location would provide convenient
parking for nearly all of the employees and patrons of the Main
street businesses in the southern part of Main street. During
peak demand times, most of the other available parking spaces in
the study area would also be occupied, and the structure would
provide much of the existing excess demand for parking. During
non-peak times, the structure would be used by employees and
patrons of the Main street businesses located closest to the
structure, that is, those on Main street between pier Avenue and
Ocean Park Boulevard, and those on pier Avenue, Kinney street,
Ashland Avenue, Hill street, and Ocean Park Boulevard. The
structure may also be used by people going to events of the three
nearby churches.
Some non-residential parking, particularly by retail and
restaurant employees, would still occur in the residential area
unless there were additional preferential parking restrictions.
These employees would be the least likely to pay for parking if
unmetered, on-street parking was available a few blocks away from
their places of employment. It is estimated that without added
restrictions, 50 per cent of the employee parking in the
residential area would continue even with the construction of a
parking structure. This implies that about 50 non-resident
- 14 -
vehicles would continue to park in the residential area before
6:00 p.m. Daytime parking restrictions in the residential area
would address this problem.
After 6:00 p.m., it is estimated that at least 80 percent of the
restricted parking in the residential area would be relocated to
the parking structure or to other parking made available due to
the presence of the parking structure. The reduction in both
daytime and evening non-residential parking in the adjacent
residential areas due to the construction of a parking structure
would also reduce non-residential traffic circulating through the
residential area looking for parking by an estimated 50 to 80
percent.
The advantages of a parking structure include the ability to
provide spaces to address existing non-peak demand for parking in
the area. Other advantages are the proximity of the structure to
businesses in the study area and the concentration of parking and
traffic away from adjacent residential areas.
The disadvantages of concentrating parking and traffic in one
location are the impacts on the operations of the adjacent
intersections and roadways. However, all of the streets and
intersections in the study area are currently operating at good
levels, even in peak periods, and it is anticipated that the
additional traffic generated at the adjacent intersections by a
parking structure would not have significant adverse effects on
intersection operations. It is estimated that a parking
structure of approximately 476 spaces would generate less than
- 15 -
500 vehicles per hour during the peak hour. Previous traffic
analysis indicates that the impact on the operation of key
signalized intersections along Neilson Way and Main street would
be minimal. The delays are expected to increase by less than 5
percent at each of the intersections.
The parking structure alternative has the advantages of being
relatively simple to develop, of providing a number of parking
spaces in a single location (minimizing cars circling to find
spaces), of having minimal operating costs once constructed, and
of not resulting in significant changes to the capacity or
operating efficiency of intersections and roadways.
During construction, the existing parking inventory at the site
would be displaced. Alternatives for addressing this impact
include reducing Main street to two lanes to provide interim
diagonal parking on Main street, which, as discussed elsewhere in
this report, would result in some space gains, or possible use of
beach parking lots or expanded use of the ChroniCle
Restaurant/Museum parking lot.
Diagonal Parking
This alternative involves two options for the installation of
diagonal parking spaces in the Main street area between Strand
street and Marine street. Both plans would require narrowing
Main Street from four lanes to two lanes. The two variations of
diagonal parking considered are: installation of 45-degree angle
parking on both sides of Main street I and installation of
- 16 -
60-degree angle parking on one side of Main street with retention
of the existing parallel parking on the other side of the street.
45-Degree Angle Parking
Under the 45-degree angle plan, two through traffic lanes, one in
each direction, are provided. In addition, left turn lanes are
provided at each intersection along Main street in an effort to
ensure that left-turning vehicles do not create unnecessary
congestion and delays at intersections.
The installation of 45-degree angle parking on both sides of Main
street allows for approximately 131 45-degree angle parking
spaces and the retention of three parallel parking spaces on Main
street in the area. This increases the number of parking spaces
by 31. This number assumes that existing bus zones, red and
yellow curbs, and existing driveways remain in place. The
31-parking space gain under this alternative is relatively
slight, especially in comparison to the likely increase in
congestion which would result from reducing the street to two
lanes.
with removal of bus zones and red and yellow curbs, a greater
gain in spaces could be achieved. However, removal of bus zones
would create further traffic congestion by forcing buses to
remain in traffic lanes when making stops, and removal of red and
yellow zones would create similar traffic and safety concerns.
Moving bus routes to Neilson Way would require most bus users to
walk farther to ride the bus, would place users on more narrow
sidewalks on Neilson WaYJ and would require buses to block a lane
- 17 -
of traffic to make stops, as well as adding more traffic to this
already heavily-used street.
60-Degree Angle Parking
This alternative provides 60-degree angle parking on one side of
Main street between Strand Street and Marine street and the
retention of the existing parallel parking on the other side of
Main street, as well as two through traffic lanes, one in each
direction. Left-turn lanes at the intersections are also
included in this plan.
Installation of 60-degree angle parking would result in an
increase of 45 parking spaces if installed on the west side of
Main street and parallel parking is retained on the east side of
the street. 60-degree angle parking installed on the east side
of the street with parallel parking retained on the west side of
the street would create an additional 26 parking spaces in the
project area. Under either scenario, the gain is spaces is
relatively small, and possible bus service impacts would also
result from either diagonal parking scheme.
Parking Shuttle
This scenario would involve a transit or shuttle bus service
between a remote parking area to designated locations along Main
street.
The primary motivators for parking in specific locations by
visitors, customers, and employees are cost and convenience. As
long as convenient on-street spaces in residential areas are
- 18 -
available and free, they, rather than other spaces will be used
if a fee is charged for parking. In addition, if the remote
parking area is distant from Main street, and if shuttle service
does not provide short headways, ridership would be low.
Further, small sizes and the nature of Main street businesses do
not lend themselves to either an employee shuttle program, or a
shuttle program serving customers. Typically, shuttle programs
are more successful when there are large employers (over 1000
employees), or in areas with very high proportions of tourist
customers with travel patterns lending themselves to utilization
of a shuttle system. Neither of these conditions exist on Main
street.
Based on actual city experience, a shuttle system would not be
expected to be an effective alternative. In May of 1985,
American Trolley Lines, a private transit service corporation,
began provision of shuttle-bus service in the city I s coastal
area, with a route extending from Wilshire on the north to Marine
on the south, and including service on Main street. This service
charged a $0.25 fare, and was discontinued by the private
operator due to a lack of ridership and high costs.
From June 1986 to September 1987 the City contracted for
operation of a Main street area shuttle. The route was a loop
which traveled north along Main street to Ocean Park Boulevard to
Barnard Way through the south beach parking lot back to Barnard
Way to Main Street. The City contracted out the shuttle service
from June 1986 to January 1987 and did not charge a fare. Fares
were reinstated when the Transportation Department took over the
- 19 -
operations in February 1987. This system, which operated every
day and charged a fare of 50 cents, attracted minimal patronage.
Cost factors involved with a shuttle alternative are substantial.
Operation of one shuttle vehicle seven days a week for 11 hours a
day (for example from 9 AM to 8 PM) would be an estimated
$150,000 per year, excluding the purchase cost of a shuttle
vehicle, which would also cost approximately $150,000.
Additional vehicles to provide more frequent service, or extended
shuttle operational hours would result in even higher costs.
ANALYSIS
staff's analysis of the parking problems on Main street indicates
that there is a commercial parking shortfall, and that
significant commercial parking intrusion occurs in adjacent
residential areas. The analysis also indicates that neither
diagonal parking nor a parking shuttle would be viable solutions
to the parking problem. A parking structure appears to be the
most viable means of meeting the shortfall.
However, some Ocean Park residents have raised a number of
concerns with a parking structure, including the possibility that
a structure might be constructed, and then expanded in the
future, spurring further intensification of commercial activity.
Concern has also been expressed about the aesthetic impacts of
above-grade parking, as well as the character of a single-use,
roof-deck parking structure.
- 20 -
At the same time, recent council approval of an affordable senior
housing development on a City parking lot highlighted the
potential of using Lot 9 for expanding city housing resources.
Housing development would also effectively limit future expansion
of parking as well as softening the aesthetic and noise impacts
of a single-use development.
Under this scenario, housing would be constructed on top of a
three-level parking structure on Lot 9. Similar to the recent
senior housing proj ect approved by the Council on the public
parking lot on Third street north of wilshire Boulevard, this
alternative would be a mixed-use project, incorporating three
levels of public and resident parking, one level of which would
be below grade, and a single level of housing for a building
height of 27 feet, with the roof peak extending to 35 feet. A
small portion of the site is zoned CM-2 with a 27-foot height
limit; a change to this limit would be necessary to accommodate
the project.
The zoning of the site would permit a total of 70 units to be
developed. However, it is recommended that a total of 49 units
of housing and 84 resident parking spaces be constructed, serving
a mix of low and moderate-income households. The proposed unit
mix would include 29 one-bedroom units and 20 two-bedroom units.
Parking would be provided in the lower level of the structure at
a ratio of two spaces per unit for the two-bedroom units, and one
and one-half spaces per unit for the one-bedroom units.
- 21 -
This alternative would permit the construction of a parking
structure containing 460 spaces. (The l6-space difference from
the single-use structure is due to the inclusion of design
features relating to the housing component.) 84 of these spaces
would be dedicated to the housing units, resulting in a total of
376 public parking spaces, or a net gain of 219 spaces over
existing Lot 9 spaces to service Main street commercial needs.
The housing component would have the effect of capping the
parking structure, prohibiting any future additions to the
parking structure.
A preliminary feasibility analysis conducted by city staff
indicates that the proposed housing development would be
financially feasible. Based on other recently-completed
developments and the proposed configuration of this project, it
is estimated that the cost to develop the residential component
(including its parking requirements) would total approximately
$5,739,756, not including a land cost allocation, or the costs
associated with accommodating the housing over the parking
structure. The cost of developing the housing should also
include the costs of depressing the parking structure required to
meet the height limitations of the Ocean Park interim zoning
ordinance. with these costs added, the total cost of developing
the housing is estimated to be $6,347,931.
A mix of private debt financing and syndication of the housing
development to take advantage of the state and federal "Low
Income Housing Tax Credit.. programs would provide a significant
portion of the financing, leaving a gap of $2,625,000, or $53,571
- 22 -
per unit. The per unit subsidy cost assumes rent levels and
occupancy in accordance with the terms of the Colorado Place
Limi ted development agreement, which are lower than the City's
other housing programs, resulting in the need for a higher per
unit subsidy.
The economic feasibility of the project is dependent upon the
availability of federal and state Low Income Housing Tax Credits
and the use of the Southmark corporation's in-lieu fee payment of
$2,652,909 for their Phase II housing requirement. The tax
credit programs are due to "sunset" on December 31, 1989; however
it is likely that both the federal and state programs will be
extended. The proposed housing development has been structured
to utilize the Southmark in-lieu payment. There is no other
source of city housing funds which could be used to subsidize
this project other than Southmark's housing in-lieu fee payment
for their Colorado Place Phase II project.
As with the Third street senior housing project, staff believes
that the parking and housing uses are compatible. The impacts of
the parking structure and the adj acent roadways on the housing
component can be mitigated through thoughtful design. The site
is suitable for housing, as services including convenience
stores, recreation, major bus lines, and entertainment uses are
nearby. Land for housing development is a scarce commodity in
Santa Monica. Land costs are soaring, and in many areas prohibit
the development of affordable housing. This site presents a
unique opportunity to develop much-needed affordable housing.
- 23 -
Additional Analysis
Several key areas would need additional analysis during the
design phase of this project. These include environmental
documentation, more specific financing analysis, and development
of a construction-period parking plan. Staff also believes that
additional restrictions on commercial parking in the residential
area east of Main street which would be implemented after
completion of the structure should be explored with the residents
of that area.
Other areas which will be investigated during the planning period
to provide additional parking resources include working with the
owners of some of the larger recently-constructed buildings in
the area to examine the potential of using their parking spaces
during hours when their businesses are closed. The expanded use
of the public parking lots north of Hill Street, including the
lot used by the Chronicle restaurant and the Heritage museum will
also be explored.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Under the staff recommendation, a mixed-used parking structure
having a total cost of approximately $10,44B,000 would be
developed. The housing component, including its share of parking
spaces, would have a $6,348,000 cost; the public parking
structure portion would cost $4,100,000. Approximately 60% of
the cost of developing the public parking spaces would be paid by
user charges, and 40% would be financed through a parking
assessment district. The assessments would be structured so they
- 24 -
cover the shortfall from user fees. Thus, the assessments could
provide more than 60% of debt financing, or could be reduced if
user fees grow over time.
The housing component of the structure would be financed by a mix
of private debt financing, syndication of the housing development
to take advantage of state and federal tax credit programs, and
the $2,652,909 in-lieu fee payment from the Southmark
Corporation. Funds for the parking structure design are
available from account number 77-770-010-000-017, which currently
has a balance of $310,005.
RECOMMENDATION
staff respectfully recommends that the city Council direct the
staff to:
1. Prepare plans for a three-level, 460-space metered parking
structure wi th one level below grade, one at-grade, and one
above-grade, with a retail space of approximately 3600 square
feet at the Kinney end of the structure, and with 49 low- and
moderate-income housing units on the top level, with building
height not to exceed 27 feet, and roof peak height not to exceed
35 feet. The design should incorporate extensive landscaping,
security features, lighting which does not adversely impact
adjacent residential areas, and should maintain the existing
pedestrian and bicycle access provided by the Ashland Walkway.
The overall project design should reflect the unique
architectural character and pedestrian ambiance of the Main
street area. Funds for design of the parking structure component
- 25 -
and related costs shall be provided from account number
77-770-010-000-017, and for the housing component from the
$2,652/909 Southmark in-lieu fee payment.
2. Prepare a specific financing plan for the project for Council
approval.
3. Conduct appropriate environmental analysis.
4. Identify appropriate construction-period parking plans for
approval by the Council in conjunction with approval of the
environmental documentation and final action on the project
itself and investigate the availability of private parking
resources and enhanced utilization of the Chronicle/Museum
parking lot.
5. Work with residents within the existing preferential parking
area adj acent to Main street south of Ocean Park Boulevard to
evaluate the need to revise operational features of the
preferential zone after construction of the parking structure.
Prepared by: Peggy Curran, C/ED Director
stan Scholl, General services Director
D. Kenyon Webster, Senior Planner
Ron Fuchiwaki, Parking and Traffic Engineer
Candy Rupp, Housing Division Manager
Ted Lopez, Assistant Planner
Attachments: 1. Map of Main street Area
2. Parking structure Graphics
3. Parking Demand Analysis For Main street Area
4. Supplemental Analysis to Main street Area
5. Traffic Analysis for Main street Diagonal
Parking
jw/mainrep5
02/19/88
- 26 -
"0 ..> I
.!: E
tD . .
.. v.i j I
c; .. G) en
"0 CD c
u .6; '0 " .~....~~~~:~4i .................j
c ~ k -
:J ..
.. . .
.
lS .UIJIW .'
.'
.'
.'
.'
'MV J.'d .'
.
..
., , I
., .
-.1
.
.'
." - - 'as ..t~1._~_~ '
.'
0"
., .
., 0
.,
., .
., .
:i .
, ~ 1 ! .
..: .
-1 .. .
.:! .
.
. .
.
. .
..,.'rJ PU11l.lSy . . >-
.
0 .
0
, -:f . ~
.
. . .- -. 0
.
. ."
0 ..
0 .
0
0 c
. ..
.
lS lI'H ..... . .
. ID
- .
.
01[ .
0
l&I ..
a: .
0
0( .
>- . 0
0
Q
0 :J 'P^IS lIJ1d UI.:l()
~
z ~
l&I :
Q .
WI .
-J .
.
.
.
0 .: .
..
-MV ~lIlUOH .'
.'
w 0, ,
}:(~ 0, I
.,
.
. .
.
.' .
.' ..
.' .
I. .' .
., 0
I. 0, 0
.0
Z ~ IS pUIJ1S I" ...... ..
:1 .....4........... ................ 0
.0.
'P"18 031d
~-
~- ---
101'" A--
.........
-
~1IoJv
--
.''''s --
ce
WI"""'i
a:
ce.j.J
s::
>- ~
o..c:
::) ~
f-.j.J
CJ)~
.
PARKING STRUCTURE ~^ilTHOUT HOUSING
I
i
! -It. NIELSON Wt=)y
27'
W
r
IT]
<(
l1]
r
(J)
E:: .........,
l:J:Il
f-i (J1Cl1
-:l r-
::r: lIr
:JJ1--.1
0 Qcn
c: "1l
-:l Q
(JJ
:r: OJ
tJ
0 to
c: -(
(J) ~LLEY b
~ JI
2: C1
::t
rJ I-t
-IJ
[ij [lJ
I C1
~ -I
t:::::l
@.8 '-
~
:CIW l3
\le n~ ~
\lID
:u::l: t::::J
c... ~ c::::J Ij==l
<-i ~q
M-i b IS
OM
C'll t:I I--,t fT]mc::a c:::r
... 2:
-I l:I:I Z:n E3
-< -<
rn CJ:I CJ :0 E3 Eij
z ~ Zlcn
~
I-l [TIts)
Z
111 lJ ["T)
ra gj :::D @f)
:u b
lD :JJ H;:S~
I /\: Zn8
I---j CJ["T)
2: o(JJq
Cj
........ HD~
:r: <[T]
0 ~-u~
c:: H:DS
CJ) 0:0
I--t Z~8 - - - - € Mt:lIN STREET
Z ~c::::J
C 1.0 t:I CJ
~ ::l: ;: ~~
l'II .,
l'II Z.
-I . ~~
o
H
-l
-<
I'I:J
Z
n
-
z
I1l
I1l
::ll
.,.,
:J:
III
o
:lIi:
Pl Z
C [11
c
c Ul
"1J :I:
~
~
-I
:tJtll
""lIe
""11m
::D::J:
0....
<~
Ill....
0[11
o
OJ
-<
o
e:
n
z
o
~
b
I--.j
2:
CJ:l
-3
-0
:D
:0
/\:
I-;
:z:
l;J
""-
:r:
a
c:
CJJ
f-.;
:z:
CJ
w
r
[T]
<:::
[i]
r
c.o
E:
f-l
-:]
:c
:c
o
c:
r.n
'-1
2:
l:J
I\)
"'-J
:r:
-1
otS?J
[I]c::::J
zq
["T] [I] ~
2::0
ODE)
Z r c::=l
["T]~ DD
['T)::o r.:v.:l
::0 < 0'Jj
I--II---i ~
20c:J
o rn c::I
o(J)q
f-I t:J ~
<rn
f-I -0 !O=:J
(J)D~
~::o8
z --q~~
3:c::::J
~l5?)
-4~
PARKING STROCWRE lVITH HOUSING
,
i
- - i' -Cf. NIELSON W~Y
l,. J2' \,. 29' \,.
1 1 27' ~
t'1
J:
4
e::
[lJ
r-
I'
7'2
I
~
r-
1-1
t'1
J:
4
e::
[1J
r-
r-
.QLLEY
tl
fl1
II
/\
01
~
i::::::J
~
~
l3
8
i::::::J
P
8
r::::z
E3
Sl
- - -- - if. Ma IN STREET