SR-417-002-09
PCD:SF:EG:f:\pcd\share\2002Council\Dwntwn Prkng Tsk Frc Rcmndtns Rprt.doc
Council Meeting: April 9, 2002 Santa Monica, CA
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Conceptual Approval of the Downtown Parking Task Force?s Strategic Plan to
Retrofit, Rebuild and Add Parking Resources in Downtown Santa Monica and
Authorization to Proceed with Implementation Steps
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council conceptually approve the Downtown Parking
Task Force?s recommended strategic plan to retrofit, rebuild and add parking resources in
the Downtown area and authorize staff to: 1) prepare a programmatic environmental
impact report (EIR); 2) develop specific funding measures for adoption by Council to
ensure that net new spaces are financed through new rather than existing revenue
sources; and 3) proceed with next steps towards property acquisition or joint development
options for new perimeter structures predicated on the identification of funding.
BACKGROUND
On April 26, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed the ?Downtown Parking
Management Program? report prepared by Kaku Associates, dated April, 2000. The report
assessed parking utilization in the downtown area, identified specific parking shortage
issues and outlined a series of possible measures to improve parking conditions. The
Planning Commission supported the majority of the management and operational
recommendations, but expressed concern over the recommendation to add parking and
suggested that a public participation process take place to assess community sentiment.
1
The Commission also requested that cost and traffic impacts be assessed as part of the
process.
On December 19, 2000, City Council established the Downtown Parking Task Force in
response to a Planning Commission suggestion for a public process to assess community
sentiment concerning the need for more downtown parking. The six-member Downtown
Parking Task Force consisted of three City Council members, one Planning Commissioner
and two Bayside District board members. The task force initially convened in January
2001 and met on a monthly basis through November 2001. Each meeting was noticed to
the public and two additional community workshops were held, one near the outset and
one in October 2001, as the task force was concluding its recommendations. The Bayside
District Board of Directors unanimously supported the recommendations at its November
15, 2001 meeting. The Planning Commission reviewed the task force?s recommended
program at its January 9, 2002 meeting and comments are incorporated into this report.
On December 19, 2000, City Council also authorized staff to proceed with design work
necessary for the seismic upgrade of Parking Structures 7 and 8 serving Santa Monica
Place, since available FEMA funds have expenditure deadlines. A construction contract
was awarded on March 5, 2002 for the Structure 8 seismic work. The structures, being the
newest and largest downtown public parking structures, were not perceived as likely
candidates for additions or rebuilding absent major redevelopment of the shopping center.
Based on Council direction, the task force excluded these structures from consideration.
2
DISCUSSION
Resident Survey:
Downtown parking questions were added to the City?s annual public opinion telephone
survey, conducted in November, 2000, to provide input to the task force. The results
provided confirmation that the vast majority of residents regularly visit downtown, use the
parking resources and report difficultly in finding parking. Almost two-thirds of the
residents thought that the amount of parking in Downtown should be increased. Specific
results include:
66% of residents go Downtown once/week or more; 91% at least once/month
?
76% go for shopping, recreation or dining
?
68% drive; 19% walk; 8% take transit
?
62 % park in public structures; 18% park on street
?
81% report difficulty in finding parking
?
62% say the amount of parking in Downtown should be increased:
?
62% say they would not be likely to use daytime remote parking (within ½
?
mile and free Shuttle):
Current Parking Resources:
The task force began by reviewing current parking resources in the Downtown area,
ndth
including the six public parking structures (#1-6) along 2 and 4 Street and the two
rdth
structures (# 9 &10) north of Wilshire on 3 and 4 Streets. The characteristics of these
spaces are summarized below in Table A. The task force did not address the two public
structures (#7 & 8) that serve Santa Monica Place containing 1,869 spaces, since seismic
retrofit design was proceeding for these structures. There are also 1,805 private off-street
spaces identified in the 2000 Kaku report and approximately 236 metered on-street spaces
in Downtown.
3
Table A: City Owned Off-Street Parking Resource in Downtown*
Structure Spaces Floors Retail Year Built
th
#1: 1234 4 St. 312 5 no 1968
nd
#2: 1235 2 St. 633 9 no 1969
th
#3: 1320 4 St. 324 5 no 1968
nd
#4: 1321 2 St 652 9 no 1966/1974 (addition)
th
#5: 1440 4 St. 664 9 yes 1970/1989 (addition & retrofit)
nd
#6: 1431 2 St. 345 5 yes 1967
th
#9: 1135 4 St. 294 4 hsng 2001
rd
#10 1125 3 St. 87 2 no na
Total 3,311
* does not include structures #7 & #8 serving Santa Monica Place
Parking structures #1-6 are aging and have a number of functional deficiencies.
Approximately $20 million of seismic upgrade work is needed (estimated in a April 2000
study by Integrated Design Services.) The aging structures currently require a significant
amount of funding for major capital repairs. Even with these expenditures, there remain
underlying functional and aesthetic issues related to circulation, accessibility, desirability
of ground-floor retail and contribution to street level vitality of Downtown.
How Much is Enough:
One purpose of the task force was to determine whether more parking is needed in the
Downtown. New commercial development in the Bayside District pays into a shared
4
parking fund and is not required to provide separate parking. Several perspectives were
explored to determine whether the current public parking resources are sufficient, given
that there has been approximately 50,000 square feet of growth per year since the Specific
Plan was adopted in 1996.
Parking Availability: Parking utilization information was updated through September,
?
2000. (Note: Normally the data would have been updated in September, 2001 but
because the ?9-11? events affected visitors? utilization, the data collected after that
event would not have been representative of average utilization.) The data indicated
that during the peak weekday hour (2-3 pm) the structures are 80% full, on average,
with utilization in some structures over 90% full. During the weekend peak on Saturday
(9-10 pm) the structures were, on average, over 85% full. During peak seasons the
parking structures fill to capacity, but the task force decided to focus on the typical or
reoccurring conditions rather than unusual peaks.
Recent management measures have improved the availability of short-term parking by
shifting monthly parkers to the underutilized structures and managing the flow of
vehicles into the structures using real-time information from new fee collection
equipment. Nevertheless, as incremental growth occurs in the Bayside District, the
structures are reaching critical capacity limits, particularly since new development
within the District is not required to provide its own parking. An additional factor that
has heightened demand over the years is a shift in the type of uses, with greater
emphasis on retail and entertainment.
5
Parking Ratio: The task force also explored how the parking ratio, consisting of the
?
total number of spaces (public, private and on-street) in the Bayside District (and the
two structures north of Wilshire) divided by the total commercial development in the
District, compared to similar districts around the country. It was concluded that the
Bayside existing ratio of 2.1 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial
development is low considering the high proportion of regional retail, local retail,
entertainment uses, general regional attraction of the Promenade and Southern
California?s dependence on driving. For comparison purposes, parking ratios in other
?park once? cities are between 1.5 to 2.0 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. for Portland, Oregon
(which is served by light rail); 1.85 to 2.2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. for Portsmouth, New
Hampshire and 1.89 to 2.0 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. for Old Alexandria, Virginia
(characterized by high transit use.)
Proposed Strategy:
The task force developed a flexible approach to address the needs of the aging structures
as well to add parking. The strategy was framed within the context of a ?Park Once -
Pedestrian First? orientation to encourage visitors to drive as little as possible. The
approach emphasizes prominent identification of parking entrances so that visitors park at
the first available parking. An active street frontage is essential to encourage walking,
which calls for ground-floor retail fronting the structures to minimize ?dead space? and
concealed parking facilities to improve street level views. The general philosophy is
consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Plan adopted in 1996. Implementation of the
6
entire program would ultimately result in the following number and types of spaces.
Action: Spaces:
Retrofit spaces in the tall structures (#2, 4 & 5) = 1,950 (retrofit)
?
Demolish, rebuild & add to short structures (#1, 3 & 6) = 981 (rebuild) + 712 (new)
?
Construct two new structures in vicinity of = ___ 1,000 (new)
?
th
2,931 1,712
5 Street (walking distance to Promenade)
upgraded net new
The strategy encompasses the following components:
Existing Structures: The existing structures are ideally located to serve the downtown area.
They are recommended to be preserved as parking resources and enhanced as follows.
Retrofit the tall structures: The three tall structures (#2, 4 &5) provide a large
?
number of spaces that should be maintained and upgraded. Ultimately, over a 20-
year time span, the City may decide to rebuild these structures for functional
reasons, but this would be a significant expense for no gain in the number of
spaces.
Rebuild the short structures and add spaces: The task force determined that the
?
effective long-term strategy is to demolish the short structures (#1, 3 & 6) and
rebuild them with additional parking levels and ground floor retail, adding
approximately 712 spaces. Rebuilding, rather than retrofitting, will address the
underlying functional problems, including improved traffic/pedestrian circulation,
handicap accessibility, ground-floor retail and reduced ongoing capital replacement
7
requirements.
Additional parking on Downtown perimeter: The task force concluded that since current
parking resources are near capacity and incremental growth will continue in the downtown
area, additional parking resources are needed. It was determined that new parking
resources should be located within walking distance of the core of Downtown to expand
th
the vitality of the core area. The task force identified the 5 Street vicinity as the ideal
walkable distance. The task force recommendation calls for the construction of 1,000
spaces in two structures (Structures #11 and 12) over the next ten years. These structures
are assumed to include ground floor retail. New monthly parkers could be concentrated in
these perimeter structures to maximize the availability of the close-in parking for short-term
visitors.
The task force considered the additional spaces that will be added on Santa Monica
thth
Boulevard between 6 and 7 Streets as part of the Main Library reconstruction and
concluded that they are slightly beyond a comfortable walking distance for most people
destined for the Promenade area. The library construction project will create additional
pressure on downtown spaces, in the near term, since the existing surface library spaces
will be removed to make way for construction.
Phasing to maintain parking availability: A detailed phasing plan is a critical component of
the recommended strategy in order to avoid a net reduction in parking supply during
construction. Parking availability is currently critical in the downtown area and even a
8
temporary reduction in availablespaces will make a difference. Replacement parking is
necessary to make up for the removal of 150 spaces at a time in the tall structures as they
are retrofitted, and to accommodate the loss of the 300+ spaces from demolishing and
rebuilding each of the short parking structures. The phasing plan is dependent on two
sources of replacement parking: the construction of the new Civic Center parking structure
th
and the creation of new surface and structured public parking in the vicinity of 5 Street.
The task force recommended that the entire program be implemented within a ten-year
time frame with steps beginning in 2001, as shown in Attachment A. As more information
has become available, the schedule has been revised with the ?best case? scenario
provided in Attachment B. The new Civic Center Parking structure will be the primary
source of replacement parking and the structure is currently scheduled to be available in
early 2005. The sequencing also assumes acquisition of sufficient property for the two
th
new structures in the vicinity of 5 Street and the creation a 150-space surface lot at one
of the locations. The 150-space surface lot is dependent on the funding approval process,
the property acquisition process and the configuration of acquisition, and is not likely to be
available before the Civic Center spaces. Attachment B describes the phasing
requirements in terms of what must precede and how much time it will take to implement
each element of the program.
Re-assessment every two years: The task force recommended that the program be
assessed every two years in order to ensure that each succeeding component of the
program is needed, based on updated development and utilization information, and that
9
there is adequate revenue to fund the next phase.
New tram service to link structures: The task force recommended the provision of a
dedicated user-friendly tram to facilitate a ?park once? concept. Big Blue Bus has pointed
out that the TIDE shuttle already serves the downtown area and there is extensive bus
service throughout the downtown. A dedicated tram with sufficiently frequent headways
will cost over $1 million per year to operate, and an insignificant portion of this would be
made up in fare revenue (e.g., current cost of the TIDE shuttle is $.25). Big Blue Bus
operating funds would not be an eligible funding source, and it is likely that general fund
sources would be required to pay for this service.
Financing Plan:
The task force developed a funding program that would require contributions from both
downtown parkers and property owners. It is assumed that Redevelopment Agency funds
previously identified as needed for seismic retrofit of all six structures will be contributed
towards the retrofit or the rebuild of the six structures, since both are strategies to address
the strengthening requirements. The seismic retrofit requirements proposed to be funded
by the Redevelopment Agency total approximately $20 million. The new parking spaces
are assumed to be self-financed through revenue bonds paid for by increased parking fees
and Downtown property assessments (total cost of rebuilt and new spaces is estimated to
be $72.5 million). ?Moderate? and ?maximum? financing scenarios based on cost and
revenue projections over a 20-year debt service period were reviewed and discussed.
10
The task force developed a set of recommendations that came close to fully funding the
program based on those projections. However, the task force subsequently added several
programmatic elements that will likely result in an annual shortfall of several million dollars.
Further parking fee increases or deletion/delay of program element(s) may be necessary
for the program to be self-funding. The shortfall issue will be addressed as the program is
refined with more detailed analysis and specific fee/assessment/programmatic
recommendations are brought to Council for approval. As noted above in the ?phasing?
discussion, property acquisition for the new perimeter structures will not begin until funding
is identified.
The task force recommended the following components to generate funding for the new
spaces:
Monthly parking rate:
The task force recommended that the monthly rate could
?
be increased from the current pre-tax rate of $75/month to $105/month or
higher, based on a survey of private monthly rates currently being charged in
the downtown area. The rate for the perimeter parking could be slightly less
than the rate for the Promenade adjacent parking to encourage employees to
park on the perimeter.
Transient rate:
Based on a survey of areas with similar characteristics
?
(Pasadena, Beverly Hills, Westwood, etc) it was determined that there was
some room for upward adjustment of short-term parking rates. As a next step, a
demand analysis will be undertaken to fully determine the latitude that rates
11
could be raised without creating unanticipated impacts. The recommended
elements, to date, for short-term parking include:
First 2 hours free (the task force specifically recommended that the 2-
?
hour free parking policy be retained even though it has a very large
impact on the revenue generating potential)
Up to $1.25 each 20 minutes after first two hours
?
Up to $10 maximum or more, if necessary
?
Evening flat rate: weekdays at $4.00; weekends at $6.00, close to
?
Promenade, and at $4.00 further from the Promenade but within walking
distance.
Lease revenue:
The commercial space at ground-floor level of structures will
?
generate revenue.
Parking Developer ?In-Lieu? Fee:
There is a current balance of $2.5 million
?
that has been paid by developers and the annual levy of $1.50 per building sq.
ft. continues to be levied on all new space built after 1989.
Increase Bayside parking assessment:
The task force considered $.50 per
?
building sq. ft. to be a realistic increase given the fact that the assessment has
been declining every year as new development is added.
Expand the Assessment District:
A levy of approximately $.50 per sq. ft. could
?
be assessed to an expanded1.9 million commercial sq. ft. in the downtown area
that would benefit from the additional parking. The suggested expanded
boundaries, excluding the currently assessed Bayside District area, are the
th
north side of Wilshire, the east side of 6 Street, the north side of Colorado and
12
the east side of Ocean Avenue.
Meter revenue
: The on-street meter spaces are considered the premium spaces
?
in downtown because of their convenience. Increasing the rate to $1.00/hour
from the current rate of $.50/hour will encourage drivers staying longer to park in
the structures and leave the on-street spaces for those making quick stops in
the downtown.
Traffic Impacts:
In order to determine what traffic congestion might arise in the downtown
if all of the proposed new spaces were realized, Kaku Associates prepared two alternative
scenarios. The first followed the standard methodology that the City uses to prepare traffic
studies of potential development projects pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act. This is the type of conservative analysis that would be undertaken in an
Environmental Impact Report. But because the parking itself is not a generator, but rather
a facility required to support anticipated development and demand from downtown visitors
and employees, a second analysis was completed that simply adds anticipated trips from
the new parking spaces to existing trips; it assumes that the new parkers are the result of
future development and background growth and not an addition to it. This scenario gives a
more likely projection of what conditions would actually be like in the downtown if all of
these spaces were constructed. The anticipated operating conditions following
construction of the spaces as recommended is as follows:
Standard environmental analysis (worst case) with assumed background ?ambient?
?
13
traffic growth and the implementation of the 1,712 net new spaces (and 250 additional
library spaces) would result in 6 intersections operating at substandard conditions in
PM peak hours.
Expected operating analysis, based on the construction of 1,712 net new spaces (and
?
250 additional library spaces), and the assumption that they will be occupied, and
generate trips in the same pattern throughout the day that downtown parking currently
generates, but that there will not be additional background or development related
growth, indicates that two intersections would operate at substandard conditions in the
PM peak hours.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed strategic plan at its January 9, 2002
meeting and strongly supported the task force recommendations to retrofit, rebuild and add
parking, but raised the following issues.
Santa Monica Place Structures #7 & #8:
Several commissioners expressed concern
?
that the City is proceeding with seismic retrofit of the Santa Monica Place structures #7
and #8, at the public sector?s expense, when it?s possible that the owner may be
redeveloping the property within the foreseeable future. The issue was raised as to
whether it was wise for the City to proceed with this multi-million dollar investment until
more is know about the future of the site.
Staff response: This issue was not covered by the Downtown Parking Task Force since
14
it was defined by the Council as ?out of scope? prior to the outset of task force process.
On March 5, 2002 City Council approved the seismic retrofit construction contract for
nd
structure #8 (Colorado and 2 Street) and the construction work is scheduled to
commence later this Spring, 2002. Since the FEMA grant that is funding the project
has time constraints and it is unclear whether eventual plans for the shopping center
will necessarily call for rebuilding parking structures #7 and 8, staff recommends
proceeding with the work on these structures. The Redevelopment Agency owns the
structures and is ultimately responsible for them. Seismic retrofit construction work for
structure #7 will not take place for at least one year. However, the design work is
proceeding at a cost of $405,000. In the meantime Santa Monica Place has been
added to the Civic Center master planning process and the possible future of the sight
will be more clearly delineated through that process. Staff will proceed with the retrofit
of structure #8, since the future plans for the site have yet to be defined much less
reviewed and designed. Construction for structure #7 is scheduled to commence in
February, 2003 and further assessment can be made before bid award for that work.
Employee Parking Needs:
The Issue was raised concerning the backlog of requests
?
for monthly parking and whether the task force considered the needs for employee
parking.
Staff response: It is envisioned that a portion of the 1,000 new perimeter parking
spaces will provide monthly parking opportunities.
Increased Assessment Fee:
A concern was raised that increasing the Bayside
?
District assessment fee could contradict measures that the newly created Bayside
District Uses task force may develop to encourage an appropriate mix of uses on the
Promenade.
Staff Response: The proposed assessment fee increase of $.50 per sq .ft. is an annual
assessment and is very small (within the 100?s of a percentage point) in relation to a
monthly lease rate and, therefore, should not create a significant burden. The amount
of assessment levied on existing property has declined as the amount of square
footage has increased within the District, and income per square foot has gone up
considerably since the initial assessment was levied so that the assessment has
become a reduced burden over time. Staff will monitor the progress of the ?Uses? task
force to ensure that the programs are compatible. Staff will also refine the assessment
recommendations to correspond with the payment zones that have been set up within
the Bayside District.
15
Traffic Impact:
A concern was raised that the resulting traffic will be so bad that no
one will be able to get to the downtown or move around within the downtown.
Staff response: As this issue was raised it was prefaced with the statement that there is
really no right answer, that it is a balancing act. Parking is important to continued vitality
of downtown, but not to the point that it reduces the quality of life and undermines the
economy . As explained in the Traffic Impacts section in this report, two levels of traffic
analysis were developed for presentation to the Downtown Task Force; the worst case
(standard environmental analysis) and the expected scenario. Staff anticipates
preparing a programmatic EIR for the project, which will require use of the standard
worst-case analysis.
IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
The following next steps will be initiated based on Council?s adoption of the conceptual
program:
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR): a programmatic environmental
?
impact report (EIR) will be prepared for the entire recommended strategic plan,
including the seismic retrofit work on Structures #2, 4 and 5; demolishing and
rebuilding Structures #1,3 and 6; and adding two new parking structures in the vicinity
th
of 5 Street. Conceptual design of the structures will need to be developed to a level
of detail necessary for environmental clearance. For the two new structures, the EIR
will assume possible locations; once specific sites are selected further environmental
study may be conducted as required.
Develop Funding Sources: Refined analysis to establish revenue generating potential
?
to fund the program, will include:
16
Outreach to the proposed expanded downtown assessment district to assess
?
likelihood for support of an assessment.
Refined analysis for the assessment zones within the Bayside District to develop
?
appropriate assessment rates for each zone.
Analysis to assess the impact of increasing short-term/transient parking rates on the
?
demand for parking.
Refine plan to increase downtown on-street meter rates to $1.00/hour, including
?
possible locations to add meters and adjust hours.
Work with Finance Dept. to develop plan for issuing revenue bonds.
?
Confirm Redevelopment Agency projections and availability of funds for retrofit
?
purposes.
Property Acquisition: work with the Economic Development Division towards property
?
acquisition and/or joint development partnerships for the development of the two new
perimeter structures.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
A total of $100,000 was programmed at Mid-Year (FY 01-02) in account 01265.555060 for
professional assistance to perform detailed revenue feasibility analysis of the proposed
assessment district and increased parking rates. Specific assessment, rate increase and
programmatic recommendations will be presented to Council once the feasibility studies
are completed. The programmatic environmental impact report is estimated to cost
$250,000 and will be funded from account C17062102. These funds could be repaid with
17
bond revenue once it is generated.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Conceptually approve the Downtown Parking Task Force?s recommended strategic
plan to retrofit, rebuild and add parking resources in the Downtown area for a total
of approximately 2,931 upgraded spaces and 1,712 net new spaces, based on a
schedule that addresses the necessary replacement parking; the creation of
sufficient funding to pay for the program; and periodic program review.
2. Authorize staff to proceed with the next steps towards implementation and bring the
specific fee and programmatic recommendations to Council for approval.
Attachment A: Schedule Reviewed by Task Force of Proposed Strategy of Retrofitting,
Rebuilding and Adding Public Parking in the Downtown Area
(August, 2001)
Attachment B: Downtown Task Force Recommended Parking Plan Schedule of
Implementation Steps (Best Case)
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director, Planning & Community Development (PCD)
Ellen Gelbard, Assistant Director, PCD
Lucy Dyke, Transportation Planning Manager, PCD
Reviewed by: Jeff Mathieu, Tina Rodriguez and Mark Richter, Resource Management
Stephanie Negriff and Joe Sticher, Big Blue Bus
Craig Perkins, Tony Antich and Jack Schroeder, EPWM
18
19