SR-5-B (3)
of
,
. - -513
-~
Santa Monlca, California, February 20, 1981 --
TO:
Mayor and Clty Councll
MAR 1 0 1981
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Slte Selection and Fundlng for Main Street Parking Structure
Introduction
This report makes recommendations regarding the slte and funding for proposed
parking facilities to serve the Main Street Business area.
In July of 1980, the Clty Council received the Main Street Planning Groupls
"Main Street Master Planll After consldering a host of parking alternatives,
lncluding diagonal parking on Maln Street and shuttle buses connecting the
business district wlth City lots in other areas, the Main Street Planning
Group recommended lithe development of one parking structure wlthin or
adJoinlng the Maln Street Special Dlstrict on either, but not both of two
locations subject to the condltions summarlzed below: Selection of one of
these sites is to be based on a co~prehenslve feasibility analysis to be
conducted by the Clty considering parklng efficiency and need, clrculation
and access, environmental lmpacts, and financial feasibility, and in the case
of the northern location shall lnclude an evaluation of the suitability of
the slte to which the gardens would be relocated for that use. As a continu-
atlon of t~is planning process, a Joint citizens/City staff committee shall
be convened to participate in deslgn development, select nelghborhood orlented
tenants, etc."
1. Southern Location: Neilson Way parking lots
betw~en Hill and Klnney Streets.
a. Height approximately equal to height of
e;'isting adjoining Main Street structures.
58
,
.~ 1 q 19!'
ro:
Mayor and Cit~unCil
-2-
.
February 20~ 1981
~
~
b. Structural and landscape deslgn to place
high prioritles on efficient~ functional
use, attractive visual aesthetics flttlng
the Main Street context, and crime pre-
vention.
2. Northern Location: Community Gardens between
Holllster and Strand, Main and Nellson.
a. Relocate gardens to Lot 11, south of Hollister
on new-to-existing plot ratio of 2 to 1, this
land to be available for garden plots and/or
public park land to be determined. Relocation
to occur during juncture in growing seasons,
and to include provision of topsoil or sUltable
soil amendments.
The City Council adopted the recommendations of the report, and directed
staff to study the alternate sites and flnancing alternatives for the
structure.
A study by the Advanced Plannlng Department completed in February of 1981~
examined the two sites in detail. It became ObVl0US to the staff that the
southern site was more appropriate because of proxlmlty of the structure
to users, possibly less crime potentlal, and the need for a tram system for
the northern slte to make lt functional. In addition, a questionnaire was
sent to Main Street merchants and property owners by the Main Street Association.
ThlS questionnaire surveyed the preference for site location and methods of
funding. The southern site was endorsed by 71% of those surveyed.
A 4-level structure with approximately 600 total spaces would satisfy the
height restrictions of the Main Street Plan. It would provide a net gain of
433 spaces.
TO:
,f
and Clty Council
.
-,
Mayor
- 3 -
March 2, 1981
Funding
In accordance with the Main Street Plan and other previous plannlng, the
funding for the proposed parking structure will be by the adJacent merchants
and property owners. The funding will be developed as the project costs
became more firm, but will probably include front footage assessments on
the land on both sides of Maln Street as well as other adjacent commercial
property, increased business license fees for those businesses in the bene-
fitted area and a payment for the parking authority land at 175 Ocean Park
Boulevard, now planned for housing development.
If the Clty Councl1 desires to proceed wlth an assessment district, the
steps are as follows:
1. Adopt a Resolution of Intention to
establish a Parklng District and set
a date for a public hearing;
2. Hold a public hearing; and
3. Adopt an Ordinance establlshing a
Parking District.
Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council confirm the site as the City parking lots
bounded by Kinney Street, Neilson Avenue, and Hlll Street for the proposed
parking structure and dlrect the staff to initiate assessment district pro-
ceedings to finance the improvement.
Prepared by: Stan Scholl
-
e
5B
..
MAR 1 0 1981'
MAIN STREET PARKING STRUCTURE STUDY
..
SANTA MONICA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FEBRUARY 1981
PREPARED BY: KENYON WEBSTER
ASSISTANT PLANNER
r<t)
......
. /'
; -.... A"_"i,
:-,,', .'
~ . .....
4
sg
t.iAR 1 0 1981
1
~
e
e
..
r
INTRODUCTION
On June 6, 1980, the Main Street Planning Group (MSPG), a citizenst
committee composed of representatives of the Main Street Association (11SA)
and the Ocean Park Community Organization (OPCD), published the Main Street
Master Plan: A Comprehensive Program For Future land Use and Development.
This plan presents various proposals developed by the committee including
special zoning standards (most of which are incorporated in the recently en-
acted IICNJJ zoning ordinance), open space proposals. recommendations to the
City Architectural Review Board, Landmarks Commission and City Councll, and
parking and circulation proposals.
This report, requested by t~e MSPG, addresses the development of a
parking structure at one of two sites in the Main Street area.
The nain Street Master Plan states the following concerning the propos-
ed parking structure:
Per-mi t the deve lovl71ent c f one pQT'~-z.-na s truc-ture wi thin or aa-
01- ... ... v
Jotn~nQ the Main S~reet SueciaZ Commeri~aZ District on either,
but not beth, of two Zocatio~s subject to the ac~~itions S~-
marized oe:ow. Sele~ticn of o~e of these eites is ~o be based
en a ccr.orehe~sive ~e~sibiZit~. anaZusis to be conducted bu the
- .. ;:).... ....
Citu cc~side~:no uarkino e~~iciencu ~~ need. ~ir~uiation and
....- ...... ..., .... . VI . ..~ _...... ... ..~... 1"
access, er.v~~or~e~~a& ~~ac~s an~ f~r~~~aL feas~D~ltty, ana
i~ the case of the northern location sh~l: ir~l4de en evaZua-
tion of the suitabi~i~y of the site to which the garde~s ~ou~d
oil .. .. "'" +~ I ,.. . . . .. ......... ~ ..
De re~ocatea Jcr ~na~ use. ~S a ccn~nua~~on 0; th~s p~ann~ng
process, a joint citizens/Ci~y stayjF co~ttee sh~ZZ be cc~ven-
ed to p~~ticipate in design d~~eZcpment, select neighborhood
oriented ter~ts~ etc.
1. Southe~ Locatio~: NeiZson Way paPK~ng Lots be~wee~ Hili
ar~ X~nney Streets.
a::.
lJ."eight app!1oxil'1c.:"Ce i.-y eauc:Z to
ing Main Street stp~ctures.
height
~ " .
OJ eZ't,s7;~ng
a4.ioin-
~
b. StrrtA.arura Z and Za~dscape design to p Zar:e high prioPl., 1;-
ies on efficient~ functio~~Z use, attractive visuaZ
aesthetics fitting the Main Street co~text~ and cri~e
prevention.
.
2
e
e
r
2. Northe~ Location- Comw~ni~u Gardens be~ween HoLZister
c:rd Strar.d~ !-!ain and ~~tlei Zson:
a. Reloc~te gardens ~Q 7..ct 11 south of HoZZister on nev-
to-e~;8ting pLot ~=tio of 2 to l~ t~iB ~and to be a-
. 7 . 7 -r. ? -.L 'j . ., . . - '.
va~UZD~e .or g~~8n p&o~a ana or p~D~~C park ~ana ~c
be dete~ined. Relooation ~c occur d~~ng juncture
in gr~Jing seasonS3 ar~ to include provision of top-
soiZ amend'11el1ts.
b. Height to corrr;:7..y z,rZth b..Jo-story (Hstr:ct regulation
(2'1 feet).
c. Grour'.d f'Zcor Nain St:roeet franta.ge to depth of 50 feet
,. " -i-.t' ., Z. 15 f t -I- b' d .L
anc ne'L-gn." oJ ~proxl-l?'ar;e y ee ,-,0 e 1-mprove '-'0
~~use neighborhood-oriented commerZc2Z uses and/or com-
~unitu center facilities. Finish i~rove~ents of this
space'" sr~ZZ be undertaken by the Cir:y or the CitY in
cDniur~tion with others3 though the parking st~ucture
deveZoper 8~~IZ neve the option of i~roving this spaae
Jor ~he de8ibr~ted uses at its vw~ exper.se should othe~
entities be uY~iZrir~ to do so. Ihe grou~~ f100r area
1-n ques~~~ may be used for parking purposes unti~ it
is improved for intended uses.
~
c. St~~atupaZ ar~ Za~d8cape design to pZ~ae high ppior~t-
ies ~n e;~~cient~ fv~ctiorAr use3 at~racti~e visuaL
aesthetics ;~tti~~ the Uain Street conte~~~ and crime
preve~tion. (Main Street Master P:an~ 6/6/803 p. 13-14)
The purpose of th1S report is to present information and make recommenda-
tions concerning the two sltes. This report is not a development plan and lS
not an Environmental Impact Report. Issues discussed are limited to those de-
1ineated In the Main Street Plan. Recommendations made In this report may be
accepted, rejected, or modified by the City Council. Final Council action on
a given site will likely await the completion of additional detailed studies
and extensive community participation in the actual design process.
This report is divlded lnto nine sections: "Report Summary," "Recom-
mendation,u tlProject Descriptions,tl "Parking and Traffic Implications,1I
ULand Use Compatibility,tl "Analysis of Crime Potential,lI Noise,1I "Financ-
ing," and "Other Impacts of the Proposals.1I
,
~
-
3
.
REPORT SUMMARY
4
e
.
.
pROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
SU'.fM.4RY: GARIJEN SITE
+ The Zand azoea of the Gardens site is appl"o:::imateZy 33,6 330 squa:re feet.
+ The Gardens site is presently deveLoped with 60 community garden pLots
and 15 metered pa:t'king spaoes. There a:re 2 palm trees on site.
.
+ A structure wouLd contain S or 4 LeveLs of parking, and would be equaL
to or less than. 27 feet high.
+ Appl'o:::::imatety 11,000 square feet of the first level- wouZd be provided
for community-o~:ented uses.
+ A shuttZe system to service the structure would be necess~~.
+ The CcmllTiunity Gardens would be reiocated. to City PCU'king Lot 11. A
minirrr<.L>r!. of 120 new pLots wouLd be created and the e=-:'sting 165 parking
spaces removed.
+ Due to on- and off-site removal of 180 par~~ng spaces in connection
with this project, there would be a net gain of 40 spaces for a 3-2e08Z
Stp...LC:~tU1'e, c:n.d a; net gain of 123 spaaes for a 4-ZeveZ strz.:cP.4I'e
(asswning no setbacks aYe provided).
SUMNARY: NEILSON SITE
+ TP~ land area of the NeiLson site is approximately 77,6180 square feet.
+ The site is presentZy developed tJJith 167 metei'>ed Far'k.ing spaces and Zand-
scaping.
+ The st~~cture would contain 2 to 5 levels of p~king.
+ The heiaht of the st~~~ure wouLd depend on the nUMber and plaoemen~ of
Leve Ls. oJ
+ The st~~cture ~outd provide 384 spaces in 2 tevels,6 575 spaces
in 3 leveLs, 768 spaces in 4 !evels, an~ 960 spaces in 5 levels,
assum.ing, for sirrrplicity, a structure un.th no setbacks.
+ Due to on-site removals of 167 parking spaoes, there would be a net
gain of 217 par~ing spaces for a 2-leveL stru:ture, 409 spaces for a
S-level st~~ctureJ 501 spaces for a 4-leveZ svructure, QP4 793 spaces
for a 5-Z2v81 8t~~ature, assu~i~4 a st~~cture with no setbacks.
!
5
-
e
,
PARKIHG AND TRAFFIC IMPLICATIO~S
SUl1MARY
+ Construction of a ea...ndens parking structuzoe UJou1.d do re7Ativel.y
~ittle towards increasing the number of parking spaces in the
area.
+ Transfer of the parking space:.: in Pa:rking Lot 1,7, to the Gardens
site would pose an almost needless inconvenience to present users.
+ Traffic problems wouZd not be significantly worsened by autos
utiLizing a Gardens pa:t'king struoture and rna:':j decrease due to
Ze88 time spent searching for a parking space.
+ A shuttle system serping th8 Ga:rder..s site woul-a. increase traffic
prob Lema.
+ A 2- to 5- ZeveZ parking st'l"'~cture at the Neilson site LJou1..d meet
muah or aZZ inmediate and tong-term general pa:t'king needs in the
South Main Street area.
+ A parking st~~ctu~e at the Neilson site ~uld have ~r.imaZ adverse
impact on the adjacent street sustem and mau resuZt in Zass traffic
congestion due to Zess time spe~t seCL~hingV for a parking space:
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
SUMMARY
+ A parkir~ structure at the Gardens site would be compatibZe with
the nearby cOMMer~~aLJ ir~ustriaZ and parking uses. A str~ctu~e
would be sowewhat ~ess co~atibZe with the nearby ~esidential ~ses.
+ A parkin2 structure at the NeiZson site would be gene~arZd com-
patibZe with the nearby camnercia! usesJ ar4 uould seem j~irLy
co~?atibZe with nearby residential uses.
e
6
-
ANALYSIS. OF ~RIME POTENTIAL
SUMMARY
+ Crime voZwnes and types fUouZd be similar for both sites.. but
because of heavier pedestrian activity.. crime potentiaZ may be
Zes8 at the NeiZ-son site.
+ Most crimes at eit1un'" site lJOUld be auto-re'Lated.
+ Any parking structure shoul.d be designed to ma:r:imize visuaZ sur-
vei2lance and to prevent vandalism.
NOISE
SUMMARY
+ Placement of a p~kir~ structure at either site would increase
noise levels at the sites. W'nen inc2uding Lot 11 in the overaZ:Z
consideration of noise levels.. there fUould be little change in
noise Zevels in the Garden.s area due to a parking struct-.a>e.
+ The greater capacity of the Neilson site wouZd Zead to higher
noise leve Zs at that si te.
+ When ana1-yzed in the C!ontext of ezisting noise l.evels.. additionaZ
noise generated from a parking s~~ture at either site appeaPs
Zess significant. .
+ There is a greater number of dwelling units potentially affected
by parking stzouctu:re noise at the Neilson site than.at the Ga:t>den
site.
+ Noise retated to traffic congestion aaused by a:ri.vel's searctt-z.ng
for pcu'king spaaes wouZd be reduced due to increased avaiZability
of parking spaaes. Thi3 factor l.JO:1.ld be of special. benefit to
pesidential USBS nEar both sites.
+ Special design measures could be employed to reduce noise leveZs
at either sit;e.
tit
7
.
~
. FINANCING
SfJMl.b1.1?Y
. .
+ If a Main Street pa:rking structure were tc be finaYJ,Ced through an
assessment disrnct~ there lJXJuZd be no siginficant difference in
how the bond. ma:r>ket tJOu7..d receive any bonds issued to finance a
structure at either site.
+ If the structure were financed through user fees., a Neilson struc-
tuPe would be superior.
OTHER IMPACTS OF THE PROPPSALS
SUNM.ARY
+ The visual. impaat of a Gardens parking struct"'..Ll'e wouZd be greater
than a Neilson. structuz-e.
+ Otterall. vie'J ?-osses associated with a structure' at either site
UJouZd be minima!.
{
+ Lighting systems at either site may increase gZare prob7..ems affect-
ir~ neighboring uses.
+ City Parkir.g Lot 11 tJC)uZd be an. adequate site to estabZish rIm.}
Cummunity Gardens.
+ ChemicaL GYlaZysis of the soil at the Gardens site' should be W'lder-
taken prior to establishment of new Gardens.
+ Present CU/f/mu.nity Garden ZeasehoZaers would be distressed by t;hB
dest~~tion of their plots at the Gardens site.
+ Two mCltw-e paZm trees might be destroyed through development at
the Gazoden. si te.
+ The number of potentiaZZy felicitous farmers wouZd be dOubZed
through the Gardens development pZan.
e
8
e
RECOMMENDATION
The information and analysis contained in this report demonstrate that:
A) The ove'ra7.:l benefits of a parking str'..4.cture at ty,.e NeiZson site are
grea.ter than a stru.crtuPe at tr..e Gro>dens site;
B) Most potential adverse imapcts are less significant at 'the NeiLson
8it~ than at the Gardens site;
C) Various other factors favor the NeiZson site.
For these reasons, it is concluded that the Neilson site is superior to
the Gardens site. Therefore, it is recommended that should a Main Street
Parking Structure be developed according to the criteria set forth in the
Main Street Master Plan, sald structure should be located at the Neilson
site.
e
9
e
f
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the two possible parking structure sites and the
nature of the projects.
DESCRIPTION OF GARDENS SITE
The Gardens site is located in the Ocean Park area of Santa Monica and
is bounded by Strand Streett Main Streett Hollister Avenue and Neilson Way.
The site is owned by the Santa Monica Parking Authority. (See map on page
10 ). The zoning of this site is CM-2. The site is within the Santa
Monica Coastal Zone.
The land area of the site is approximately 33t330 square feet. The site
is presently developed with 15 metered parking spaces and 60 Community Gar-
den plots: (See ma~ on page 12). There are two Canary Island Date Palm
trees on the site. The 60 garden plots are leased by the Santa Monica Rec-
reation and Parks Department to private individualst mostly Santa Monica
residentst who grow flowerst frultst and vegetables on their plotst which
average in size roughly 17 feet by 18 feet. A low wood and wire fence sur-
rounds most of the site.
DESCRIPTION OF GARDENS PARKING STRUCTURE PROJECT
1) The Community Gardens would be relocated to a new site: City Parking
Lot lIt which is located between 175 Ocean Park Boulevard and Hollister
Avenue. 165 existing parking spaces in Lot 11 would be demolished to
create space for a minimum of 120 new garden plots.
2) The existing 15 parking spaces at the Gardens would be demolished.
3) The Gardens parking structure would contaln 3 or 4 levels of parking,
the first to be between one-half and one full level below grade. (Note:
number of levels may be contingent upon several factors i~cluding soil
bearing capacitYt ground water levelst and excavation costs).
uJ
yo
-
~ ...... . '" <I'
.- "
_. <I'
....,. r-.--.~--: ;;-- _. I ~
_,=-=..:,~:.. ..: :. __ ~ ..: ;: ;: ,~~ .~ ':~=::::. ~ -::-'.. _. I ~ c! \
, __ _ ~ l Jr-;->' ~_ "" ~ .1....._ > \ t 1 -= II \ l
~~.."-"JI . . -=-_ _",_ ~.., ,,' .' · I
__ '""'~' ~ ~ :.~ l. ,......, '_ ~. . , I" '=,'
. ''''. z:; '- _ ~, """" ~ -= ,........: ' , .. ,- · ·
-". / ._ 1''' ~ - -".' ,'" 0==' ~ ' .. · · I
_, } .~y:--,...",1-'''' _______'.- --" w<= ;:---"~ ,"~- "'. · - 'I
~. /-.:&..\~:; ~~~::JCy:~'gy-':=,:,.-~.1' .",,,.0 It C:,,-,p' - .
". /7 '. """c.o tb ~.. .;-.< -' ccc:::;' .' ~." =-< =-' LP .... ....-;
d~~~. . ~ ,:i ... -=-' ~ l' U:,-,;~ ~.;~~;~(.._5G1~n\?t,,~ 0'; l' (-.-
':"-"'_ n ..' .! . \ ' "...~. ." e- ;,:,..\..'
~. --Ii ,~. ..- -:W"CO""'; ~'\: '" ;.r~~--- ~ ~ -ii- ':j~'Lr< - \_1\ ~
--->._, .<- _ ~ . ~~_ ,;i ~_..- ~. "'"' ,:- f~' .' \
--I" J C---' ,.- ,., "'"_ "Y;:; \ \--" ,~.....,Y' ~ ""4! :.--;-
---' C -4.[ "'l r===\ '~ ~' . \ .-' \,. f\~'\\i:i' , ,I:;.\~!; ie, 'it
---" ~ ,~ _,.' r-' _~\" 1 ,''''' WI . . I;. "
:=J L ~4:r. It::. 1;'~ :i1 .,' \ r- p ;=--:"'\1\' \". \ \i) r.;\; . ' 'I ~; 'G
_ .Jil- '" I - .-"'\~ ._" I' H.""'\' ,\ ~ ?
. I j ,~,. _ .I,..--.i' c::::l-" .r . ,-'' .,. ."" ,,,, ; Y' 'I c::
_.- ,,' ,,--n=-" "~K'.-'\~::;:=" ,..." . '.\ ,...
__ ,.l L_"""; c' .\~ \ :4 r- " \ "\--- ~~ ~".,~ \i > ~\ 11.'.1: - \, : \' '"
,~, '" ::.. ..,.0: =- ,.;;C:: ~ ,'~~;.\I CC +: ': ." '"ch 'I ,. .,It ,.;...,; "
i='i'='\ ~_-,c" . . "'~_' ...-:. ..:=~~,... 1\ .,~!4' '. /:\ b ~
~. \. .;~- . " . .-- -~~'-""-''-'~ -
r- \ . .:.' L- ....J' -- ~ ,__1.-; , \ '":'___,c- - . ~~. , , ~ ~
~' . ,; ,~=.:''- '-----' ".,.. ....>0." \r-,''-'~~' \:-' - 'j, '"
.\ ' ,___..L-. I';' ._,..-----""'"' , ., . ~,,'''',' .' I\' ,\~ J,~: ,\ \. " .::.
~ . ~ \ . , ..---< t, _ ' , ~. . .. \ l' -rI\ 1~t- 1 ~ \",. '>- \ . .' -\ " , \. .. .1
.. 'I \. \ I' ,_ ,n' ,_ a", " C." · Ii' ,. -, ,,,dlc....' -"" ..
0;<.------\ \ . ,~z ~ ;:;;.:x;'.-A -.=- ~c' .,..- 'I "co,; .."""c.., \' , ..1
, ' " i \. \ ~~ \. 1 · t ,,"--"-\'" " ,..
.........,. , .' .. ~. ' ~ ,.. ~\' .._.' > \ t.. . ,t , f"j!' - - ,~.. " ....
___; , ,.:' i'-" ---' , . ,. ,.._' . ,.' ,; : \,' -,- ','-~ ~l ~ " .': \.1l
~, " .' ~ = n";' '.n ",,-----"'" '''-:J'' ..' I' . .,", ".., . . " '"
.J"'....;,...; I \ t------' . _.._. ,..-:--' ':".~ c.....:a i'?""'-l -c ,~ ,U'..J, \ ., . f . \-' 0
'.. .. ._' _j\-..\r---',----i~\' ',..' !.,"'~;<=,,,.,r .0' .. c-
. '_'" . _" ,~:-o~ _~' .' ,i_''-'''' ~,~,-' \~,. .r · ~ 0
\" ~,.-. . " ,....1.--. ,..........::=w,.... , - \ "..," 0>, - '"
--"~'" >--; = .- -.. '-. -:. , -, \_. " ' , :.::.." ~ >--' .. ~., ... ..
(_ .0>' ,rc- '-!i"---' \ ,5\:=...:..:0-l~""" F' \ I U "" <<",
\] ...........: r ,---' I ..", ~ _ -- _ . I' \'''' . .., \ '" 0
r"-'''' ' ,.~~C ''-''''' II ,I .~~- .=' ~
.._, ~'.' 'I ,:---\~. ;-',- · \ I ~. r. ~\ r-:\ \ ,
" ' ." _..... " . r::to\"'''' ~ ...1" ",,' ,"
F< "~c' " ' ......,.....,' ...""" c '.' -~. ,'---" u" . '...i'--'" " ..
~~~i.---.':'t. n -i ~ .-:- ~'~....!l . : \ . ....... ~ -~;: -' ~
,.., .~ . . _ ,_..' ..".,,-..., · 't'" -
~ I, f\ .:..J ......, ~r~ ~" ;C.."': ~ J' ., ~ I fe"" '"
IJ~ ",..' ...,...--r- -- · ~,-, k .=-,~'C-o,.J ~C-.~
,~~ ::;::4 ~... ,\ . ".. - ~=--~~" f'c'" '"
_; ~3 ' ~ S \ ~ . .. ..';--' -..., . \' , ;L-.- .' '''r'' ,. ".
" ~ . .~.d-- 8"l C7" _ _'. ~\'- If .' I ,f' ;Ll ~
,,,,,,,.'b : ,. " . "'.~ .H"""~' "'~. '. '-- ~~ ~ - .. ~
~'~\r;-C'~' .", . ..... ....-..." "1.-'-' .. r-. --.="'-' -..----; ~ ...-.n- "
.~:1"--'~-' . . ~t _'l.-~ .""~_''"} ..,-\..t:-' ~ _,_ .- . ,------\ \ r--. \ -- { ';11' . ...-""'\... "-
'_"=\ t:.::::-:;-' , . ~\":~-1.J -r \l'i:-"~- \';i:. ~~..~.::..: >";::.-~ t- >:: \ ,\ - - {:J;' '''~I .z
~ \~~;; ffi' . \ ~~J'f~;-II'(..:r..l~ \~;lJt:\j J? ~~::. ~~~ \ : ,~ \ ' ~- '-:,1 f.'~' '~~! ~~ ~
~~\'~\l~:= ~0. -='-1,\ -::~~ l ~.-:; \c~M: ~~~ r - E~~ .~~ ~:'-\ ", \ ~ ~ ". 1 f / ~, t ~'\--' \i ~
. \(8 I ' . . ~- e. '8 C--' ." _",." "" '-'~ . " . , ,; ,\ I. .......
, ,..'" ~ sJ2o'" " .. "",.""". ,....-,. . . · \ ..' " id,' ~
~.~ \i~~<<J'P~~ ~'e\ ,...WeC
.._,,", ~~~~.....:\_ ?~\,_' .,' J\';lJ
~ ~ _ ~ ,-.;.:.r~ ~ \1;. ~, '. y.,.-~~',+,,,,
. -w--''''''' '1 ~~r, f"-jI; - -..'- ~" ~1 ~ ~', ", ~:~~'l~ '
~=--~: _. _ ~ ~ ~."._~ ~~m~ ;~..--'.~ - {;.. ~ 'r --l. ~""'q- ~-:-<' .\ \~ .~- ~:::;.- --~ '
\....~t.....- 'l ~.. t.~, _......-,.~ \~~. ~ I....,.,. \i~ . ,~...----- - '
t W ." "', ~_~'Pl -~f" ",.. --,;,.", . <.' · ~ \ ~...~ ." ." "
_.._~. \ " . .~, . ." _ .. =,' I ' ,~".rl'" _..~
,=. ~'i" ..'" . ',=' ,..' . y .,. ,.1 fJ \ \ .~ .....' IWI-.--....~ =.="
...~ Z\ l~\~ \ \ \ ~~~ t;::=t-j - ~<~' _ ~ i ~ \ ~ ,~~ \ ~ ~--::::::--:\-- ~.~F~~~----- . -
.~ _ ~\I-." \ . QI:~'" " ..' <"'''1' - ~ . -....-;, , ,-II ..
. _~" " ..:... . .. _~. . o~~..-"'" -- .' \ .. ~I '
_~_ __ \', _\ ~ r--:~-::;..-::~I~~~~ gg @3\ ffj~r tB r~:- \\--~ ~-:'\\ -: \ \ \ \"~\
. . _ <?" l"f'\ "'" . ~~'->_.. ~ '!;::: ~- - -::\ ~ 0~~'!:--" L \ " '\ t ~: .
-;.~ ~_~ _~... ~ la,,-C:1 ~ ~.......,~:co U3 ''''' \" :, ., \i-'''' \:J' \~' 'p:'-
,~-i ::.v:1 ~ . ~p ;..-::~ ,--t t --'< '\ - ., 'r~ ~ r-;---" \\ I .
08 _ _' .. <or'" ~':: '.' . ,J,.J ,,:. ~~ ~ - -",-" -' '. 'I ,1
,~, to . -"" =- -. =~~:=--! ,-- - .-::~~"- ::'-' ' .~-~
-:"'t: ' __' - - ~~ .."~, '" ."~"~ ,~..\ ~A~-'-'
- ,_.. . .. . ., ~ ' ,,- ~.~. ~.
'._3 ~, "It _... · ~.-c-:o\\" .\"t~"" ' -"'. "' .,"
~~3:,~~""'c~ .~\ : '( ~ ~~~~~;~~~..~r;~t1ff\C~f\'.\ \rr~
> ~ ~.~. r<3 _ --" ="" .. "..,., p- "'.-- "?, ~~~"1 \ tJ" .
ti ~ e"-- <"EJ ~ " 2'0'\ i-S".:8 ,~s:; \ \ i. dd' ~ "W02,if{;1 ..f ~\ \ t1: ..,
~~~~~,.~\ \\ \t~t~'Wro~~~l11:\ .\~.~
~ rrJ ~ ~!i \\~~-'"g ~ ~,f3 ff} CD Ql tU W~ .\ \~ i\\~ .~c!\\;\1\ \,',
_ .. ~"" <="" t'<1 ~ ~ "'.:l C0 ~'" \~ F2 p~ \3' ~ ~ "i.\1;> ~'-' ;'\i\.'
_~ ~ ~d ~~ L~~ fJ3 t::~ 6~ o~ 5~~"sh ~;.. r--~\ \\ "'~\\\ \i
__---..-"--1\-+--- ~~..- \r-- '.t . " \ ',>-\ \1
, .--.. - \~. ~ ~ ~~, + ',~:' , " . ~
l(}
e
~~
01-""
ift-
..J(/)
e
-
-
l
. \
,
,
~
\
II
r .
/:
, I
~:
I /
I :
i/
I /
J I
I .
J~ fZ
.. I/)
... 0
IEj ~
:; it ~ w
.!: ~ ~
It ~j
1: ~ ; ~
~! >: ~ ~
ii! ;
;Ei
,01
I:
<C
,.
IS:
I.)
I
% \
'i'
~\
'\ ~ ,
;i "I \ \
- \ 4
~a: \ \ I,
"" 1 '"
CC \. \."
< ... \
, l ,
-r~~ \ ,"
l-
t/)
ZUJ
OI- l/)
\J\ - Z
-IfJ1 W
0
t:C.
~
C1
!
..
l-
W
W
If
!-
a
~~~ 'F)FoIItiO..,., ...~......,,~
....
ii
88
~
..
.::;
~
~-
C
2
~1~~~r-~ i 1 ·
,
I J
. .
:;
z
z
o
N
f-
uJ
uJ v
'V --
.' ~ i.J
1_....-l.4'
if)~I~
_\:;10
L~I~
- 1-1
<:t~luJ
~ ~ ItJ
,~;215
~lz
c... 0
~lcJ
z
o
......
f-
..:r:
UJ
~I
;;i
I
z.
o
::::::
c(
I-
Z
0:::::
""
1
OJ!<~
.--11 ~
~x I ~
;--...:~~
~l -i
II \1
1 I I ...5l
\..:-I ~
N *
~lk
t;IW
-,!<..)
1"1!~
10-'- UJ
u-----e
l-L~---- ------~-- --
<'..ON u-:Z E.. \" E. ~ \ \) G.. 'vV r...."<
- .
..-l
lfl
N
l..r)
r-\'I
ut
.
7:r
u:
,
I.{'l
!...[)
. ....9
l!)
r-..
!.f)
CO
t[)
a-
Ll'"}
0
~
-:--i ...--1
::t n)
.
~ N
;:t-, ~
I
I
~
~ ('<'l
't C'I"\
,
!
::t-, :;:j-
* ('t)
,
,
!
I lC"I "^
I . ~(?----'~ t'{)
c1{~
-. ....9 ......9
-::r \\l
r- I-
~ <"<\
{
CO 0.::>
:r ~
I
f---- 0-
I 0-
j :;t" KI
I 0 . 0
~
!.n ~--
!
I (~
I
i
..-I ~ ...-{
~ -.
. ~ ~. c:i
, I
,
I
!
~ ~ ('t)
Q- ~ ::j-
~ ...-;
!
.
l......... l..() If'\
~ .....,
~ .....!l . ..s
<-1
,
tf q i'
"'i
! I
!
tP - (Pi a)
'I
~ ~,
I
1 ---.
~ cr- - cr
--1
,
,
r 0 ~ 0
~, -c-;
~
~
./'
,L
C
V
LJ_
./
1-01 9t'-~ i>l<3'1d
(II ~". \....-r........ 1 . r-
" ,\,,.. I f "-
- -r_ ________I _ __ J
ljc
e
e
4) The structure would be equal to or less than 27 feet high, the
height limit in the CM-2 zoning district.
5) The primary construction material would be reinforced concrete.
6) Auto entrances and exits to the structure would be placed on
Hollister Avenue and Strand Street. Suitable pedestrian access-
ways would be provided.
<
7) The structure design would provide ground level Main Street front-
age space to a depth of 50 feet (approximately 11,000 square feet
of space) and a height 15 feet for community oriented uses.
8) A shuttle system running from the structure to the South Main
Street area (south of Ocean Park Boulevard to the south City
limits) would be necessary to ensure utilization of the structure.
9) Speclal designs to discourage crime and reduce noise and glare
would be employed .
10) Extensive landscaplng would be provided in setback area~.
11) The table below presents parking capacity information assuming
various setbacks. The setbacks shown are presented for discus-
sion purposes--many other configurations are possible. For the
purposes of this preliminary analysis~ it is assumed that the
lIcommunityll space would be placed on the second level. A gross
square foot requirement of 400 feet per parking space is also as-
sumed.
A) Setbacks: None.
Leve' .:J. Spaces 2 1 eve' s 3 levels 4 1 eve 1 s
rr
1 83
2 54 137
3 83 220
4 83 303
all Side' 14 e
B) Setbacks: 5 I
Level # Spaces 2 levels 3 levels 4 levels
1 74
2 45 119
3 74 193
4 74 267
C) Setbacks: 5 I Strand~ 3 I He i 1 s on ~ O' Hollister~ 10. t1a in, all levels.
Level J: Spaces 2 levels 3 1 eve 1 s 4 levels
11'
1 74
2 45 119
3 74 193
4 74 267
D) Setbacks: None, 1st 1 eve 1, 5 I an sides 2nd level, 101 all sides and
3rd and 4th levels.
Leve 1 " Spaces 2 levels 3 levels 4 levels
7f
1 83
2 45 128
3 65 193
4 65 258
Considering the loss of 15 spaces on-site, and 165 parking spaces off-
site, there would be a net loss of 43 parking spaces for a 2-1evel structure,
a net gain of 40 spaces for a 3-level structure, and a net 9?in of 123 spaces
for a 4-1evel structure (Assuming, for simp11city, a structure with no setbacks).
DESCRIPTION OF NEILSON SITE
The Neilson site is also located in the Ocean Park area of Santa Monica and
is bounded by Kinney Street, Neilson Way, Hill Street and the rear property lines
of the parcels between Hill and Klnney streets on the west side of Main Street.
(See map on page 10 ). The site is owned by the Santa Monica Parking Authority.
Portions of this site are zoned CM-2, R4A, and R3A. {See map on page 11). The
site is within the Santa Monica Coastal Zone.
The land area of the site is approximately 77,180 square feet. (ThlS 1n-
,
eludes the alley and that portion of Ashland Avenue passing through the site).
The site is presently developed with 167 metered parking spaces and landscaping.
There is an alley approximately 22 feet wide abuttingt and running parallel to
the rear property line of the privately owned parcels between Hill and Kinney
streets on the west side of Main Street. This alley is owned by the City.
The Ashland walkway, which provides pedestrian and bicycle access to the beach
area, passes through the site. A low wire fence surrounds most of the site.
.
15
e
.
DESCRIPTION OF NEILSON PARKING STRUCTURE PROJECT
1) The existing 167 parking spaces, the ~lley, and most of the landscaping at
the site would be removed.
2) The structure would contain 2 to 5 levels of parking. The first level
would be one-half or one full level below grade. (Note: the number of
levels may be contingent upon several. factors including 5011 bearing capac-
ity, ground water levels, and excavation costs).
3) The height of the structure would depend on ~he number and placement of
of levels. (The height limit affect1ng the adjacent Main Street properties
and a small portion of the site;s 27 feet; a height of 40 feet is permitted
in the R3A portion of the site, and a he1ght of 65 feet is permitted 1n the
R4A portion of the site).
4) The primary construction material would be relnforced concrete.
5) Auto entrances and exists to the structure would probably be placed on Kinney
Street, Ashland Avenue, and Hill Street. Suitable pedestrian accessways, in
eluding maintenance of an appropriate portion of the Ashland Walkway, would
also be prov1ded.
5) Speclal des1gns to discourage crime and reduce noise and glare would be employ-
ed.
7) Extenslve landscaping would be provided in setback areas.
8) The table below presents parking capacity information assuming various setbacks.
The setbacks shown are presented for discussion purposes--many other configura-
tions are possible. For the purposes of this preliminary analysis, a gross
square foot requirement of 400 feet per parking space is also assumed. (Note:
lb
-
-'
e
at this s1te it appears feasible to construtt a 5-level structure approx-
. 1mately 27 feet 1n height--assumingone level is placed below grade. With-
out going more than a full level below grade at the Gardens site~ a 5-1evel
structure is not feasible, since the "corMIuniti' space would occupy an area
a minimum of 15 feet in height).
A} Setbacks: None.
Level # Spaces 2 levels
1 192
2 192 384
3 192
4 192
5 192
3 levels
4 levels
5 levels
576
768
960
B} Setbacks: 5 feet all sldes~ all levels.
Level # Spaces 2 levels 3 levels 4 levels 5 levels
1 169
2 169 338
3 169 507
4 169 676
5 169 845
C) Setbacks: 201 at Kinney and ~lll all levels, 71 at Neilson all 1 eve 1 s
5' abutting Main Street properties. all levels.
Level
1
2
3
4
5
# Spaces
158
158
158
158
158
2 1 eve 1 s
3 levels
4 levels
5 level s
316
474
632
790
D) Setbacks: None~ all sides 1st level; 5:1 at Kinney, Hill. and abutting
Main Street propertles, 2nd level, none at Neilson. 2nd level;
10' at Klnney and Hill, 3rd level; 51 at Neilson and abutting
Main Street properties, 3rd level; 151 at Kinney and Hiil,
4th level; 101 at Neilson Ath level; 51 abutting Main Street
prooert1es. 4th and 5th levels.
. 17
Level # Spaces 2 1 eve 1 s
1 192
2 179 371
3 166
4 153
5 153
e
3 levels
4 levels
5 1 eve 1 s
537
690
843
9) Considering the loss of 167 parking spaces on-sitet there would be a
net gain of 217 parking spaces for a 2-1evel structuret a net gain of 409
spaces,for a 3-1evel structuret a net gain of 601 spaces for a 4-1evel
structuret and a net gain of 793 spaces for a 5-level structure. (Assumingt
for simplic1tYt a structure with no setbacks.)
STJMl1APY: GARDEN SI':'E
1- T'n.e land area of the Gardens site is C::PPl'o::::imately 33~ 330 square feet.
+ The Garaer~ site is presentLy developed with 60 community gar~en plots
and 15 me~ered pcrkir~ spaces. There are 2 paZm trees on site.
+ A st~~~ture ~ouZ.d co~tain 3 or 4 Levers of parking~ and would be eaual
to or less than 27 feet high.
+
Ap?po=i~ateLy 11~OOO square feet of the
for co~~nity-o~:ented uses.
~. .
jt-rst
level would be
." .
prcut.aec
+ A shuttle system to se~Jice the struature ~ouid be necess~d'
-I- The CO{[:1Ju"1ity Caz>aeY'.s would be relocated to City Pcz.........king Lot 11. A
~ni~~~ of 120 new plots ~ou!d be ereated and the e_~sti~~ 165 parking
spaces rerr,oved.
+ Due to C~- erA c~f-si~e renovaZ oT 180 V~""K~~a 8vaces in connection
W"'~th this pY'aject~ there lJouZd be. a >ter;' rIain ;: 40 spaces for a J-ieveZ
st1"':A.cture~ c::n.d a net gain of 123 spaces for a 4-ZeveZ stT"...c"ture
(asswning no setbaeks are provided).
SU;~A.l~X: lYEILSCl-l SITE
+ The lar~ area of the NeiZson site is approx~~ateiy 77~180 square feet.
+ Ihe site i~ presentZy deveZoped with 161 metered paPking svaces and Zand-
scaping.
+ The st~~cture wourd ccr.tain 2 to 5 Zevels of parkiY'~.
+
The height of the st~~eture ~ould depeYod on the number and placewent
leve Ls.
~
O[
~
.
18
e
+ The struotupe U7dZd provide 384 spaces in 2 Ievels~ 576 spaces
in Z levels, 768 spaces in 4 Levels, ar~ 960 spaces in 5 leveLs,
assw~i~4, for si~licity, a structure ~ith no setbacks.
+ Due to on-site removals of 167 parking spaces) there would be a net
gain of 217 par~i~g spaces for a 2-ZeveZ st~ture, 409 spaces for Q
3-Zevel s~ructure, 601 s?ac€s fer a 4-leveZ structure, aP~ ?93.spaces
for a: 5-ZeveZ structure, asswning a structure with no setbacks.
.
. 19 e
PARKIHG AND TRAFFIC IMPLICATIO~S
INTRODUCTION
This section examines the impact of the possible parking structures on
parking problems and on traffic flow.
GARDENS SITE: PARKING
Since the constructlon of a parking structure at the Gardens site
(as described in the IIProject Descriptions" section) would result in a net gain
of between 40 and 123 parking spaces~ development of said structure would
obviously do relatively little towards increasing the number of parking spaces
in the area. Further, relocation of the Community Gardens to the parking lot
between 175 Ocean Park Boulevard and Hollister Avenue (Lot 11) would remove
165 parking spaces from an "...area which ppesentLy r~s a Large parking demand
fNainsaiZ~ The GaUey, ar>.d the auto body shops)." (RD 10/24/80) While
,
the spaces would be relocated only several hundred feet away from the1r present
locat1on, this would pose a seemingly needless lnconvenience to present
parking users.
--
GARDENS SITE: TRAFFIC
Due to the net gain of between 40 and 123 parking spaces in the qeneral
area of the Gardens site, traffic problems would not significantly increase
from autos utilizing the Gardens parking structure~ indeed,constructlon of a
structure may lessen traffic through a reduction in congestion caused by
drivers searching for a parking space. ~This might be of special ben:flt to
nearby residential areas~ generally more sensitive to traffic.
The addition of shuttle buses to serve the structure would add to traffic
problems~ since to be effective) they would run at frequent intervals (TlNot
more than 15 ~inute8rl (RD 10/24/80) and make many stops to pick up and let off
passengers. It is noted that unless integrated into a much larger transit
system. it 1S unrealistic to expect that use of private autOMobiles (and thus
trafflc congestion) would be reduced in a meaningful amount due to a Maln
Street shuttle system.
NEILSON SITE: PARKING
A 1979 City study ("Commercial Parking in ~esidential Areasll) estimated
that based on various parking standards, there was a need for 1~097 parking spaces
in the South Main Street area. The study also found a total of 739 available
commercial parklng spaces in the South Main Street area. Thus~ there was a
.
20
e
theoretical I'shortfallll of 358 commercial oarking spaces.
A 2-level parking structure at the Neilson site (as described in the
IIProJect Descriptionsll sectlon) would provide an additional 217 spaces, meeting
60% of the estlmated need, whlle a 3-1evel structure would provide an additional
409 spaces, meeting 114% of the theoretical need, a 4-level structure
would provide an additional 601 spaces, meeting 167% of the estimated need,
and a 5-level structure would meet 221% of the theoretical need, with a gain
of 793 spaces.
The theoretical nature of the lIshortfall11 is emphasized. A January 1980
City study {IIParki ng Study for the ~a i n Street, 2nd and 3rd Street Areas
Between Ocean Park Boulevard and the South City LiMitsll) found that on-street
parking was "()1Jer-uti'lized a"l; alrrIcsi; aU ti11'es" ('Parking Study" 1/15/80,
page 4), that Municipal off-street parl:ing spaces were J'Undel,.""tilizec exaept
on 1;}eekend even.ings" ("Parking Studyll 1/15/80~ page 4) and that private
off-street spaces were '1'IUnderutilized at most times" ("Parking Studyll
1/15/80, page 4).
Four factors modify conclusions one might draw from these utilization
statements.
1) The aforementionded study was conducted during winter months.
Summer utilIzation averages are generally higher.
2) Preferential residential parking districts may be created in the
neighborhoods on 2nd and 3rd streets. Commercial-related parkin?
resources would accordingly diminlsh.
3) There is a general trend towards lntensificatlon of land uses in
the Main Street area which can be expected to generate greater
parking demand.
4) If the objective is to design to the "peakll or highest demand,
then there is clearly a parking shortage.
In any event. the addition of between 217 and 793 parklng spaces would meet
much or all of the immediate and probably long-term general parking need in
the South Main Street area. Since the new eM zoning ordinance imposes
effective limits on the number of bars. restaurants, and auto-related uses,
the magnitude of parking problems stemming from these uses can be expected
to remain at approximately thelr present levels. New buildings must provide
parklng according to current zoning standards. Together, these factors indicate
.
21
e
that a large increase in parking demand is unlikely in the long term and
that construction of a 2- to 5-level parking structure would meet much or
all of the long term parking demand.
NEILSON SITE: TRAFFIC
The addition of between 217 and 793 park1ng spaces due to the construc-
tion of a NeilsoQ parking structure would probably increase traffic flow.
However, according to Ray Davls, the City Parking and Traffic Engineer,
"The i;raffic inGress and €gT'ess.. .may be designed t.o have minima~ irrrDQct
on the adjacent street system. n (RD 10/30/80) This would be accomplished
primarily by discouraging "...direct acoess to the structures :ro~ NeiZson
W~t." (RD 10/30/80)
As at the Gardens site, traffic~problems caused by drivers searching
for a Darking space may signiflcantly lessen due to increased parking
spaces available because of the structure. This positive impact may be
of special benefit to nearby residential areas.
..
SL.7v!!~~Y
+ Construc~io~ Qf ~ Gardens Far~ing st~ct~e ~ouZd d? peZa~iveZy
Zitt~e t~~ards ir~peasir.g the nurhep of pcrkir~ spaces in ~he
area.
+ TranSY8r of the parkino SDaces in Parkina Lot ZZ to the Gardens
oot.... 4 ~ ......
site would rose ca a~nost ~eedZes8 ~necn~en~enee to present users.
+ Tvuffie DrobZems wcuZd not be sicniPicantZu ~orsened by autos
utiZ-izing a C-ardens parking stro...<.;t"~e and ~ay de-:::r>ease due to
Zess tirrze spet-;'t sear>~hir.g fOJ:> a parkir.g spa.ce.
+ A shuttZe system se~~ing the Gardens site ~~uZd in~rease t~ffic
problems.
+ A 2- to S-ZeiJeZ pCU'K...ng stp'~tuPe a.t the ~:eilscn site 'WOuld meet
mueh er an irrmediate and lcna-teI'J7' general parkinq needs in the
South Main Street area. ~
+ A parking stp'...<ct",.a'e at the NeiZson site would ;.,.ave mir:.imaZ adyerse
~~act on the adjaeent street system and may resuZt in less t~aJj~io
conqestion due to less tiwe spent searohing for a ~King space.
It
e e
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to briefly describe land useS surround-
ing the two sites to help determine if a parking structure would be more
appropriate a4 one of the sites.
LAND USES NEAR GARDENS SITE
There is a mix of commercial and residential uses surrounding the
Gardens site. Within approximately 150 feet of the site, there are 47
housing units, including 6 single family structures and 6 multi-family
structures. The shape, bulk, height and age of these structures varies.
At 132 Strand Street, for example, are 20 apartments in a recently con-
structed two-story building in goad condition. Sharing the rear property
line with this building is a three unit apartment structure built around
the turn of the century and tn marginal condition. Most of the residential
uses near the site are one story, more than 25 years old, of wood or stucco
construction and in fair condition.
Also near the site are a number of commercial, industrial, and parking
uses such as Tom's 80dy Shop at 2400 Main Street~ the Exotic Pet Menagerie
at 2339 Main Street~ Santa Monica Sheet Metal at 232l~ Main Street, Scissors
Hair Cutting at 2303 Main Street. and a hydraulic jack service shop at
2230 Main Street.
COMPATIBILITY WITH USES NEAR GARDENS SrTE
A parking structure at the Gardens site would be compatible with the
nearby commercial, industrial, and parking uses. A structure would be some-
what less compatible with the nearby residential uses, since it would gener-
ate additional auto traffic, noise, and foot traffic. As noted in the
Parking and Traffic section, however, a structure which resulted in a net
increase in parklng spaces would probably reduce traffic congestion resulting
from drivers searching for a parking space.
Two benefits to all nearby ~ses would be an increase in aval1able
parking spaces due to the structure, and the inclusion within the
structure of the 11,000 square feet of space for communlty-oriented u~es.
e
LAND USES NEAR NEILSON SITE
Withi~ 150 feet of the Neilson site, there are approximately 223
multiple faml1y housing units. With the exception of 4 units above
a commercial use on Main Street, all of the residential uses are west
of Neilson Way in four structures: two building in the recently
constructed Sea Colony condominium complex. and the two 17-story towers
of the Santa Monica Shores apartments. Due to placement. design.
and traffic flow patterns, these buildings are distinctly separated from
the Neilson site.
23
e
.
Abutting the Neilson site on the east are numerous commercial uses
including bars. restaurants. and antique stores fronting on Main Street.
Presently an alley runs from Hill Street to Kinney Street at the rear
of these buildings.
COMPATIBILITY WITH USES NEAR NEILSON SITE
A parking structure at the Neilson site would be generally compatible
with the abutting commercial uses, since it would provide better customer
access through increased parking spaces. Construction of a structure to or
near the rear property line of these uses would eliminate access to these
uses through the present alley. All deliveries, trash pickups, and other
activities presently occurring by means of the alley would have to be
shifted to Main Street. The structure would also reduce the access of light
and air to the ablltting uses.
Due to the distinct separatlon of the residential uses west of Neilson
Way from the proposed site. a structure would seem fairly compatible with
these uses. although it would generate additional noise and auto and foot
traffic. Residential uses on 2nd and 3rd Streets would benefit from
an increase in commercial parking resources, since customers and
employees of Main Street businesses would have significantly increased
parking resources a/ailable to them adjacent to Main Street.
SUMMA1?Y
+ A parking st1"'....etu.....e at the. Gardens site wouZd be compatible mth
the neaPcy OOTmleMaZ~ industpial cmd pa.r>king uses. .4 stpuo'ture
would be somewh~t Zess compatible with the nearby residential uses.
+ A parking structure at the Neilson site wouZd be generally eom-
patibZe TJJith the near'by c:onmer>oia~ u.ses~ and wou.Zd see,'" faiZ'Zy
compa~ible ~ith nearby residential uses.
,.q. .
.
e
ANALYSIS OF CRIME POTENTIAL
INTRODUCTION
~ I
Santa Monica Chief of Police James Keane was contacted regarding crime
potential at the proposed parking structure sites.
CRIME POTENTIAL
According the Chief KeaneJ "Due to the proximity of poth sites to the
beach a1'ea and resuZtant transient and non-resident popul.ation" the pro-
clivity fo~ a~e wouZd be essentiaZZy the same for both Zoaations.n
(JFK 11/25/80). The same major factors generating potential criminal
activity are present at both sites.
Both sites are within a few hundred yards of the beach, which attracts
millions of people every year. According to the 1980 draft Santa Monica
Local Coastal Program Recreation Component, the number of Santa Monica
beach visitors in 1979 ranged from a low of 53J900 persons in January to
a high of 3J474JOOO persons in JulYJ with a total of 15,986,800 beach
visitors for the entire year. (1980 draft S.M. Local Coastal Program
Recreation Component p. 3-15.)
Beach Parking Lot Number 2600 is the beach parking lot closest to both
proposed parking structure sites and has a capacity of 2J708 cars. Accord-
ing to the 1980 draft Santa Monica Local Program Coastal Access Component,
in July 1979, 18J623 cars parked in lot 2600J and in June 1979, 27,513 cars
parked in lot 2600. (1980 draft S.M. Local Coastal Access Component
p. 2-32~) These figures demonstrate the large transient population which~
on summer days, can be found at the beach near both proposed sites.
Substantial numbers of people come to the beaches located a few hun-
dred yards from the proposed parking structure sitesJ and many of these
persons park in the residential areas near the proposed sites or arrive
by bus or other means of transportation in the general area of both pro-
posed sites.
e
25
e
Both sites are also located between Main Street and Neilson Way,
surrounded by similar land uses and streets with analogous traffic flows.
In a broad sense, the factors just mentioned can be expected to
remain constant regardless of the construction of a parking structure at
either of the two sites. Gross volume and types of crimes would probably
be similar for both sltes.
Chief Keane also indicated that "~ne heavier votume of pedestrian
traffie on Main Street south of Ocean Pa:t'K Boulevard UJou7.d probab7.y tend
to discou-voage a crimina7. aativity at the Neil.so'YI Way site.1I (JFK 11/25/80).
He noted that the Gardens site, "...by virtue of the absence of aaJacent
structures would ppobabZy afford bettez> visibility from the street~ but
tr.e voz,wne of pedestrian and vehicut..aI> activity would be 'tess." (JFK
11/26/80) .
It is noted (A) the large density of persons at the Neilson site,
together with the greater number of bars and restaurants in the south
Main Street area could result in a larger volume of crimes, and {B) future
commercial development (including the possible parking structure) in the
north Main Street area is likely to increase pedestrian and vehicular.
activity around the Gardens site.
TYPES OF CRIME LIKELY TO OCCUR
At the present time, most crimes committed in City parking structures
are vehicle-related, such as auto theft, theft of auto accessories, and
theft from auto (JFK-ll/25/80).
Vandalism, usually to the parking structure itself, is the only other
major crime type that occurs with much frequency. (JFK 11/25/80). Other
types of crimes do occasionally occur.
Noting that existing City parking structures have unrestricted access,
and assuming that the proposed Main Street structure also has unrestricted
access, it is reasonable to expect crime patterns similar to those in
other City parking structures in any structure constructed in the Mai~
Street area.
.
26
e
e
RECOMMENDATIONS OF POLICE CHIEF
Chief Keane expressed a preference for the Neilson site since pedes-
trian activity, which tends to discourage criminal activity, is heavier at
that location. Chief Keane also recommended that any parking structure
".. .shouZd be designed to l7'1Cl.:J:imize visibiZity, both inside and outside the
building. If possible, 'both the bui~ding interior and the stainue1.l.s
shouZd be visibZe from outside the buiZding. Vandalism-resistant Lighting
should be instaUed th:roughout the struatUI'e, inSW'ing 'I'1'1aZimum i21:umi.nation
in hou:r>s of drrrkness." (JFK 11/25/80)
SUMMARY
+ Crime voZumes and types uJou.1.d be simi'lar for both sites, but
because of Jreavie:ro pedestrian aotivity, c1'"':.me potential may be
t.e88 at the Neil.son site.
+ Most crimes at either site uJouZa. be auto-retated.
+ Any parking s~ture shoura be designed to ma:r:imize visua7- 8U1'-
veilZance and to prevent var~Zi8m.
~
27
---
.
-
NOISE
INTRODUCTION
Noise can be a threat to physical and psychological well-being. This
section compares potential noise problems at the two proposed parking
structure sites.
NOISE CONTEXT
When analyzed in the context of existing noise levels at the two sites,
additional noise generated from a parking structure at either site appears
to be of limited consequence. The areas immediately surrounding both sites
are already heavily noise-impacted.
A qualitative investigation of existing noise problems reveals that
vehicles, including cars, trucks, motorcycles and buses are the principal
sources of noise pollution at and around both sites. There is heavy north-
and south-bound traffic on Neilson Way and on Main Street. Recent traffic
counts for the exact locations of the two sites. ~ are not available, but
August 1979 figures for north- and south-bound traffic on Neilson Way at
Ocean Park Boulevard and Main Street at Ocean Park Boulevard are available
and give a good indication of the magnitude of traffic flow.
An August 8, 1979, 24-hour count of traffic flow on Neilson W~ at
Ocean Park Boulevard found 13,850 cars north-bound and 10,241 cars south-
bound.
The 24-hour average traffic count for Main Street at Ocean Park
Boulevard for August 8-13,1979, was 11,209 cars north-bound, and 7,722
cars south-bound.
A significant amount of east-west traffic also occurs. June 1975
surveys showed 1,168 vehic1es traveling east-bound on Hollister Avenue at
Neilson Way in a 24-hour period, and 890 cars east-bound on Hollister
Avenue at Main Street in a 24-hour period. It;s believed that traffic
e
29
e
Four factors would mitigate noise problems.
1) The parking structure itself, due to its necessarily being a
partly enclosed building~ would "contain" some noise.
2) The entire parking structure may act as an effective noise
barrier between Main Street and Neilson Way.
3) 165 parking spaces in the City Parking Lot 11 would be removed
ahd replaced by a non-vehicle use (garden plots). All noise relating
to the present parking use would be eliminated, to the benefit of
neighboring uses.
4) Noise related to congestion
a parking space would be reduced
cially benefited by this factor.
caused by drivers searching for
residential uses would be espe-
POSSIBLE NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES
A number of design measures could be employed to reduce noise problems:
1) Entry-ways and eXlts could be placed to minimize noise impacts
on neighboring sensltive uses.
2) Special design and materials cou1d be used (which would not
compromise security) which would help absorb, rather than reflect
noises from within and outside the structure, and which would red~ce
noise generation.
SENSITIVITY TO NOISE
For the purposes of this analysis. residential uses are considered to
be noise-sensitive uses. The nurr.ber of dwelling units with 150 feet of
the two sites are discussed below.
GARDENS SITE
Within approximately 150 feet of the Gardens site are 47 housing units,
includlng 6 single-family structures, and 6 multi-family structures. Two
factors mitigate potential noise impacts at this site:
1) The general area is already noise-impacted due to traffic on
Neilson Way and Main Street.
e
30
e
2) Due to walls and other intervening structures and orientation,
approximately 19 of the 47 units would probably not be slgnificant1y
affected by noise generated at the proposed site.
NEILSON SITE
Within approximately 150 feet of the Neilson site are 223 multi-family
housing units: 7 condominiums at the $ea Colony project, 4 apartments
located on the second floor of a Main Street commercial bUllding, and
approximately 212 apartments in the two high-rise towers of Santa Monica
Shores. While this appears to be a large number of residences potentially
affected by noise from a parking structure, there are several mitigating
factors:
1) The general area is already heavily noise-impacted due to traf-
fic on Neilson Way and on ~ain Street.
2) Due to height, setbacks, intervening walls and other structures
and orientation~ more than two-thirds of the 223 units would probably
not be lmpacted by noise generated at the proposed site.
SW,fJ..fJ.J?Y
+ Prace~ent of a var~ir~ st~~cture at either site wouZd increase
noise ZeveZ~ at the sites. vTnen ir~Zudir~ Lot 11 in the over2ZZ
co~sidera~ion of noise Zevels3 t~ere wouZd be little change in
noise Zevels i~ the Garder~ area due to a parking st~~cture.
+ The (Jrea.te!' eapaaity of t'h..e NeiZson site wouZd Zead to higher
r~i3e ZeveZs at that site.
+ wnen ar~Zyzcd in the co~te=t of e=isti~~ noise levels3 aCditional
noise gener~ted fr~m a parking structure at either site appears
less significant.
+ There is a sreater ~ur.ber of ~elZing units po~er.tialZ.y affected
by par<ir.g 8t~~c~ure r~ise at the Neilson site t~~ at the C~den
site.
+ Noise related to t~ffic congestion e~~sed by drivers searcn~ng
.{:':~. "',,",J ~~ . -:! ....b......
Jor varK~r~ spaces wou~~ De re~ucec aue to ~ncrease~ aVa~La ~L~~
of p'G.rking"' spaces. This factor WCJuZd be of spetY'A.Z benei'it to ..,
re8iden~iaL uses near Doth sites.
+ Special design measures couLd be employed to reduae r~i8e levels
at either site.
31
e
.
FINANCING
INTRODUCTI ON
A Main Street parking structure might be financed through municipal
bonds issued by the Santa Monica Parking Authority. These bonds would be
repaid through revenues from a special assessment district, from user fees,
or from a combination of the above.
COMPARATIVE FINANCING
According to a City staff person knowledgeable in the financing of
parking structures, if a parking structure were financed through an assess-
ment district, there would be essentially no difference in how municipal
bonds issued to finance a parking structure at either site would be received
by the bond market.
If the bonds were to be repaid through user fees (collected by parking
meters, for example), then the location of the structure is important.
Pdequate revenue must be generated at the site itself.
Three factors favor the Neilson site:
1) City parking studies C'Commercial Parking in Residential Areasl1
Santa Monica Pian~ing Department 1979, pages 4-15, and nparking Study
for the Main Street 2nd and 3rd Street Areas Between Ocean Park Boule-
vard a~d the South City lim1ts" City of Santa Monica, 1980) have shown
that parking problems, and thus, demand for parking spaces, are pre-
sently in evidence to a greater cegree in the area south of Ocean Park
Boulevard than in the North Main Street area. According to the City
Parking and Traffic Engineer, ,r.. .e-".;en with the prospect of Main Street
devel.opnent north of Ocean Pa:t'k BouZevW"d3 the greatest density of
development and demand for parking is south of Ocean Park BouZeva:rd. "
(RD lO/30/80). It is likely that a Neilson structure would be more
heavily utilized than a Gardens structure. It is possible, however,
32
,
e
that a Gardens structure might stimulate additional development in the
North Main Street area.
2) According to the City Parking and Traffic Engineer, "...the
success of a pa'f'king struct-ure at the COul/:Iunity Gardens is dependent
upon a shuttle system. Without a shuttZe system the structure may not
be utiZized." (RD 10/30/80). It i~ unlikely that capital and opera-
ting costs of a shuttle could be recovered through rider charges. If
these costs were to be paid through parking structure user fees, this
would make a Gardens structure relatively less financially attractive
than a Neilson structure, which would not require shuttle service.
It is also questionable, even with shuttle service, whether persons
would be l,kely to utilize a park1ng structure in the North Main Street
area when their destination is in the South Main Street area.
3} Over 11,000 square feet of a Gardens structure would be reserved
for community-oriented uses, which mlght not generate signlficant reve-
nues~ and which would occupy potentially revenue-producing space. No
such uses are required in a Neilson structure.
SUMJ.1A.;:~Y
+ If a: !.fain Street parking stp'",wture were to be financed tr.rough an
assessment distr{,at~ there wouZ-d be no sigin.ficant differerr.c.e in
r~w the bond ~~ket would receive anu bo~s issued ~o finance a
~ .
stpwcture at either site.
+ If the st:r>...lCtu:re we!'e !ir..cnced through user fees3 a Neil.son struc-
tLU"e would be superior.
e
33
e
OTHER IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSALS
~
INTRODUCTION
This section considers various aspects of the two alternative projects,
including Visual Character, Views, Lighting, and Community Gardens Relocation.
VISUAL CHARACTER
The bulk, height and general nature of a parking structure would be
somewhat visually incongruous with surrounding structures at either site.
The visual impact of a Gardens structure would be greater since it would be
located on a entire block, visible from all four sides, and since most near-
by buildings are low in height and small in scale.
At the Neilson site, the structure would essentially be viewed from
only three sides, might be lower than a Gardens structure, and would be
near other large-scale uses (the Sea. Colony project and th~ twin 17-story
Santa Monlca Shores towers). Thus the visual impact of a Neilson structure
would seem relatively less evident than a structure at the Gardens site.
VIEWS
A structure ct elther site would restrict or eliminate some short-
range views around both sites. A Neilson structure would eliminate
some ocean Vlews from a few locations, such as westerly views down parts
of Ashland Avenue. However, the overall view losses associated with a
structure at either site would be mini~al, since existing buildings already
block most mld- and long-range views around both sites.
LIGHTING
Lighting systems installed at either structure site could increase
glare affecting neighboring uses. Good design may mitigate this problem.
e
34
.
COMMUNITY GARDENS RELOCATION
City Parking Lot 11 would appear to be an adequate site to establish
new Community Gardens. lot'l is approximately 50,529 square feet of land
area. The average size of the present Garden plots is 17 feet by 18 feet,
or 306 square feet. 120 new Garden plots would require a minimum of 36,720
square feet of land area, leaving 13,809 square feet for an access road,
paths, storage areas. and other uses, such as additional plots, a recycling
center, or several parking spaces.
Most of the existing asphalt surfacing of lot 11 would have to be
removed and suitable fencing, pathways, water systems and topsoll provided.
Accordl~g to Stanley School, City General Services Director, there is no
information indicating any type of soil pollution caused by chemical dump-
ing or other means. Chemical analysis of the soil should be undertaken
prior to establishment of new Gardens, however, and according to Mr. Scholl
would cost approximately $500.
There are several impacts, pos1tive and negative, associated with relo-
cation of the Community Gardens.
1) Many carefully tended gardens would be destroyed, no doubt to
the distress of the garden lease-holders.
2) Two mature palm trees may be destroyed.
3) The number of garden plots would be doubled. Two times as many
frustrated farmers would gain access to the soil.
SUl4P..ARY
+ Yne visual impaC!t of a Ga:rdens pa:.."!<.ing stF'..icture would be gY'eater
th~n a Neilson struat~e.
+ OveraZZ vi~w losses associated wi~h a st~ACture at either site
i,Jo:.<.l.d be m-;.,nimaL
+ Lighting sbstems at either site ~ay increase g~are probZ~8 affect-
i~~ neighboring uses.
+ City Pa.rking Lot 11 would be an adequate site to establish ne7J
Commu.ni ty Gardens.
+ Chemical ar~Zysis of tr~ soiL at the Gardens site should be under-
taken pr(,or to estabZisr.ment of new Gmodens.
e
35
-
+
Present CO~dni~~ C~rde~ :ease~~rders wouZd be distressed by
destruction of their ptots at the GCrdens site.
.--
...M
+ 'I'lJO mature pa~'71 trees rn";ght be destroyed tr..rough deveZoprr.ent at
the Ga:t>ds"I. site.
+ The numoer of potentiaZLy felicitous farmers wouZd be doubled
tr..rough the Gardens deve Z-opment plan.
,
>- .
.
1'jO d I.' b... kd I, 'i rCf' IS iu..-,,, (1:$["'''''=-'"'-)
PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUEST10NS AND RETURN IN ENCLOSED ENVELOPE
lcvu~ ~,L ~e.
~ ~ ~/S/ff! -;<1-0
1.
If a parking structure were to be built~ at which of the followlng
sites would you prefer to see it located?
a. Northern site: Community Gardens. between Hollister
and Strand, Main and Neilson. (Gardens would be moved }~park- A~~
1n9 lot 11~ just south of the gardens, on Neilson.) J~ .~~
b. Southern site: The Neilson Way parking lots between .1/
Hill and Kinney. ~ I
7"3%
2. Would you support a special parking assessment district for
the ~~in Street Commercial district from Pica south to the
city limits to finance construction and operation of a park-
1ng structure at the northern site?
Yes 110 No 2.0 Undecided 25
~ 157'1) SIte> I.J1I. Z
J. Would you support a special parking assessment district for
the Main Street Commercial district from Ocean Park Blvd.
south to the city limits to finance construction and oper-
ation of a parking structure at the southern site?
Yes 30 No l'1 Undecided
477" "3clh
If a special parking assessment district were
assessed should be
4.
/5
2.32-
formed those
a. Property o...mers r~ lo7D
b. Business owners It{ t.l iD
c. Both property and business owners ~ ~i.
d. OtherKeS\~ G-eu.. n,.,J. v.?..-ht17\$ 7 l to;"
I I
5. Assessments should be based on
a. Square footage
b. Assessed valuation
c. Annual business tax
d. Proximity to parking structure
e. Parking requirement deficiency
of existing development
f. Fixed payments for specific
numbers of spaces requested by
individual property/business owners
g.- Equal assessments for all benefiting
property/business owners
17
Zfo
4li..
{to
1.E'711
Spaces in the parking structure. when completed. should be (ok
to check more than one)
a. Free of charge and available for open
parking
b. Open parking at a rnlnimal charge
c. Open parking at fair market rates
d. leased to individual property/
business owners at a minimal rate
e. leased to individual property!
business owners at a fair market
rate
,
".. ..-
'-
, e
,QUESTIONNAIRE - ASSESSMENTS - CON'T.
6.
f. Operated by a private parking
concessionarre according to eco-
nomic necessity
g. Sold to property/buslness owners
at a set rate
tt
\2..
tB
15
lo
I,b
l{
lo
lCZ70 1
'iti/o 58
'Z. ~ 741'
Cj \ 70-
\b'", 1
to
t&?~
~l7.
11~D
\tory;>
7. FOR PROPERTY OWNERS ONLY
The apprOxlmate sq. ft. of property I own between Pica
and Ocean Park Blvd. is
a. Land
b. Floor Space
Ocean Park Blvd. and the,south city limits
a. Land
b. Floor space
8. FOR BUSINESS OWNERS ONLY
MY city business tax last year was approximately
a. For business between Pica and Ocean
Park Blvd.
b. For business between Ocean Park Blvd.
and the south city limits
OPTIONAL
Name
Phone
Address
Business name
Location of Main St. property/business