SR-410-007-01
y!{J- OtJ?-o/
) I-C
APR 4 1989
C/ED:HSG:CR:BAW:
COUNCIL MEETING: April 4, 1989
Santa Monica, California
TO:
Mayor and city Council
FROM:
city staff
SUBJECT: Recommendations Regarding
Parking/Housing Project
the
Main
street
INTRODUCTION
This report provides to the city Council, as requested,
information on non-structure parking proposals and recommends
that the Council implement a number of these proposals in
addition to authorizing staff to continue with work on the Main
street parking/housing project.
BACKGROUND
On February 23, 1988, the City Council authorized staff to
proceed to: (1) design; (2) prepare a specific financing plan~
(3)
conduct environmental analysis ~
and
(4)
to identify
construction period parking plans for a 460 space parking garage,
49 units of rental housing, and 3,600 square feet of retail space
on Parking Lot 9. Upon satisfactory completion of these tasks
staff was to return to the City Council for final action on the
project prior to commencement of construction.
On May 17, 1988 the City Council approved the selection of
Community Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM) as developer of the
hOlls ing component of the Main street proj ect .
CCSM will be
responsible for developing, owning, and managing the housing
- 1 -
[PR t -;C
/'
component of the project. Since its selection as Developer, CCSM
has worked with the Architect and city staff in refining the
housing program and the housing financing analysis.
City Council on October 25, 1988, in response to the requests of
several Main street merchants, directed staff to examine several
non-structure alternatives to the proposed project as a means of
addressing the parking need in the Main street area, while
continuing to proceed with work on the parking structure project.
As you may recall, the previous consultant studies examining the
parking needs in the Main Street area indicated that there was a
non-summer parking shortfall on Main street south of Ocean Park
Boulevard of approximately 390 spaces.
On February 14, 1989, City Council, in response to pUblic comment
on the Main street parking issue, requested that staff return to
the Council within 45 days with information on the non-structure
parking alternatives, and a status report on progress on the
project to date.
This staff report presents this information and recommends that
the city Council affirm it's prior direction to staff to continue
to work on the Main street parking/housing project. The
following discusses: (1) the results of staff's analysis of the
non-structure alternatives, and (2) progress on the project to
date including, design, planning, interim parking alternatives,
and financing of the garage.
- 2 -
./'
DISCUSSION
NON-STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
At the request of City Council and in response to two Main street
merchants, City staff investigated the feasibility of
implementing a series of alternatives in meeting the identified
parking need in the Main street area. These alternatives were
proposed as a response to the City Council direction to construct
a 460 space parking structure/housing development on Lot 9
located at Neilson Way between Kinney and Hill streets. The
proponents of the alternatives assert that up to 150 additional
parking spaces would be created, and that these spaces would
adequately meet the needs of the Main Street merchants. Staff
has previously reported to the City Council on February 9, 1989
regarding the alternatives.
The alternatives examined include: restriping Lot 9 to 90-degree
parking~ combining Lot 10 (Chronicle Lot) and lOA, and restriping
to 90-degree parking; removal of certain no parking zones on
Hill f Ashland, and Marine; rerouting the Blue Bus from Hill
Street to Ocean Park Boulevard; providing diagonal parking on
Pier Avenue between Main street and 2nd Street; and removal of
red zones in the Main Street area between Ocean Park Boulevard
and Marine street.
The implementation of diagonal parking on Main street was again
raised as a possible alternative and is included in the 150
additional parking spaces. As you may recall, the City
commissioned a consultant study on the feasibility of
- 3 -
implementing a diagonal parking scheme on Main street in February
1988. The consultant study analyzed two alternatives:
1) Alternative 1: 45-degree angle parking on both sides of
Main street - Net Gain 31 parking spaces; and
2) Alternative 2: 60-degree angle parking on the west side
of Main street with parallel parking on the east side
of Main street - Net Gain 45 parking spaces.
The study also examined the traffic safety, congestion, and
operations impacts of implementing either of these alternative
diagonal parking schemes. It was determined that diagonal
parking would not be feasible to implement due to reduced
carrying capacity of Main street thereby diverting traffic onto
Second, Fourth and Neilson Way, significant reductions in level
of service (LOS) at several intersections, and traffic safety
issues resulting from a diagonal configuration on a major
commercial street. staff has looked at these alternatives again
and still would not recommend that any diagonal parking scheme be
implemented due to the problems identified in the consultant
study.
The following discusses each of the other proposed alternatives
in detail including a discussion of feasibility of implementation
and a summary regarding the effectiveness of these alternatives
in meeting the parking needs of the Main Street area.
- 4 -
Lot 9:
Lot 9, the site of the proposed Main street project, runs along
Neilson Way between Hill street and Kinney street. The lot is
currently striped for 60-degree parking and contains 133 parking
spaces. The alley contiguous to Lot 9 (an area included as part
of the Main street Project) currently has 26 curb side parking
spaces. The total existing number of parking spaces in Lot 9 is
l59. In addition, Lot 9 currently has, as required by the zoning
code, a landscaped buffer, and landscaped islands and median
strips throughout the length of the lot. A 90-degree parking
pattern would require a modification to the lot and removal of
all existing landscaping, specifically the perimeter buffer
between the lot and the adjacent alley parking to allow
sufficient width to restripe the lot to a 90-degree pattern.
Staff I s analysis assumed: (1) the inclusion of 40% compact
spaces; (2) 5 handicapped spaces; (3) elimination of the
landscape buffer: and (4) the parking on the alley would remain
as it is currently configured. This results in a total number of
spaces in Lot 9 of approximately 210 spaces, or a net increase of
51 spaces. Staff has estimated the cost of implementing this
al ternative at approximately $166,000, or $3,255 per net new
space, and would require approximately two months to implement.
Lot 10 and 10A:
Another proposal which was examined is the combination of Lot 10
(the site of the former Chronicle Restaurant and current Heritage
Museum) and City Lot lOA (located behind The Gap lot). These
- 5 -
lots run along Neilson Way between Ocean Park Boulevard and Hill
street. Currently, Lot 10 contains 87 spaces, and Lot lOA con-
tains 42 spaces, for a total of 129 parking spaces. However,
under the terms of Lease Agreement No. 2220, 25 spaces of the 87
spaces in Lot 10 are available to the public during the operating
hours of the Heritage Museum. The proposal to combine these two
lots would require reconstruction of the lots to eliminate exist-
ing fencing between the lots, and landscaping within the lots. A
parking pattern similar to that assumed for Lot 9, 90-degree
parking with curb side alley spaces, was found to be the most
efficient, and could result in 157 parking spaces, or a net gain
of 28 spaces. Staff estimates the cost of the reconfiguration
would be approximately $63,000 or $2,250 per net space gained,
and would take up two months to implement.
The proponents of the non-structure alternatives consider all 28
additional spaces as new spaces which would be available to the
Main street merchants. However, Lot 10 is currently under lease
to the owner of the former Chronicle Restaurant, and this pro-
posal would require the Lessee to renegotiate the terms of the
lease, to permit the reconfiguration and allow all the additional
spaces to be available to the public 24 hours a day at rates
similiar to those in Lot lOA. Staff believes that this outcome
is highly speculative and therefore is not assuming any addition-
al public parking spaces would be generated from a renegotiation
of the lease.
- 6 -
Removal of No Parking zones/Rerouting No. 2 Bus:
staff also examined the feasibility of removing certain no park-
ing zones along Hill street, Ashland Avenue, and Marine street,
east of Main street. The proponents estimated that approximately
70 spaces could be gained through removal of no parking zones on
these streets and rerouting the No. 2 Bus to Ocean Park
Boulevard. The analyses conducted by staff indicates that only 5
spaces would be gained which would be available to serve the
parking needs of the Main street merchants.
Hill street between Main street and Fourth street is currently
posted with no parking along the south side and includes several
red curb zones along the north side. The existing red curb zones
are necessary as the No. 2 Blue Bus route travels east and west
on Hill street between Neilson way and 4th street. The proposal
for Hill street requires the rerouting of the No. 2 bus to Ocean
Park Boulevard in order to remove the red curb zones. Transpor-
tation staff were consulted regarding the feasibility of rerout-
ing the No. 2 bus. Two concerns were expressed: (1) the dif-
ficulty of the making the turn onto Ocean Park Boulevard from 4th
street; and (2) the impact on the approximately 150 bus riders
who board daily at 4th and Hill streets. Transportation staff
indicated that a rerouting was not desirable and strongly recom-
mend that this proposal not be pursued. Therefore, rather than
gaining 32 curb side parking spaces no curb side spaces could be
provided.
- 7 -
No parking zones on Ashland Avenue and Marine streets were also
examined by staff. There was no traffic safety or circulation
issue which would necessitate the existence of these no parking
zones. Thus, removal of these zones would net approximately 22
curb side spaces on Ashland Avenue between Main Street and 4th
Street, and 16 curb side spaces on Marine Street. However, only
5 of these spaces are in sufficient proximity to the commercial
district of Main street to be viable to serve the parking needs
of the Main Street merchants. The remaining 33 spaces are lo-
cated in the residential districts east of Second Street where it
is not appropriate to encourage commercial users. It is also
undesirable from a traffic safety and circulation viewpoint as it
would exacerbate traffic intrusion into the residential area.
Pier Avenue - Diagonal Parking:
Pier Avenue currently has 10 metered spaces on both sides of the
street between Main street and 2nd street which primarily serve
the commercial area parking need. Staff examined the feasibility
of providing diagonal parking on Pier Avenue between Main street
and 2nd street. Several different patterns were explored, and it
was determined that employing a 60-degree parking pattern on the
south side of the street and maintaining two-way traffic on Pier
Avenue would be the most efficient. Implementing this proposal
would result in a net gain of 4 parking spaces. staff has esti-
mated the cost of implementing this alternative at approximately
$2,500, and would take about 7 working days to implement.
- 8 -
Main street - Red Zones:
Again in response to merchant requests, staff examined the
feasibility of removing red zones in the Main street area from
Marine street to north of Ocean Park Boulevard. However, staff
did not find any red curb zones that could be removed due to
traffic safety and circulation concerns. The red curb zones that
currently exist must be maintained in order to retain adequate
traffic safety and traffic flow in the Main street area.
Preferential Parking:
The proponents of the non-structure alternatives are also propos-
ing that in the Preferential Parking Zone C, including the area
bounded by Main street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Third street, and
Marine street, the hours be changed to restrict two hour parking
during the hours of 9AM to 6PM, thus gaining an additional 100
curb side parking spaces. Currently parking is allowed without
permit between the hours of 2AM and 6PM. Previous consultant and
staff analyses have included in the Main street parking needs
studies instituting a 2 hour parking restriction between the
hours of 9AM and 6PM without permit in Zone C, as has been re-
quested by the residents. While such a change would increase the
utilization of the spaces during these hours, it would also dis-
place users who have longer term parking needs. Further it would
increase traffic circulation along Second Street. No additional
parking is gained from this change in Zone C, and those with
longer term parking needs would be displaced with no alternative
- 9 -
parking available to them. Therefore, staff has previously ad-
vised that such a change in Zone C not be instituted until such
time as the public parking resources in the district have been
increased through the construction of the parking garage on Lot
9.
In addition to these specific proposals, staff was requested to
examine the impacts of improved directional signage for Lots 9
and lOA. While it is not possible to quantify the impact of im-
proved signage, certainly clear signage does aid the users in
locating parking facilities. It does not however, result in any
additional parking spaces, and as discussed earlier the issue in
the area is not utilization but supply.
Community Meetings
At the direction of the City council staff held a community meet-
ing on January 23, 1989 in the Ocean Park Branch Library, where
City staff discussed the proposed al terna ti ves . Approximately
100 people attended this meeting and the majority of the senti-
ment expressed at this meeting was to pursue these alternatives.
In addition to this meeting city staff organized or attended
numerous meetings with individual and groups of merchants and
property owners. These meetings were organized in an effort to
hear and address merchant and resident concerns in developing
plans for the Main Street Project. Included in these efforts were
three meetings with the Main Street Committee of the Chamber of
Commerce, five meetings with small groups of merchants, and one
meeting with Main street area property owners. Each of these
- 10 -
meetings was scheduled at a time and place convenient to the mer-
chants and owners. Staff has also maintained an ongoing dialogue
with the more active merchants in the area, both those in support
and those in opposition to the project.
The widespread concerns expressed at these meetings focused on
the visual impact of the proj ect and the potential loss of
revenues the merchants might suffer during the construction
period as a result of the loss of parking on Lot 9. In response
to this feedback, the architect developed the proposed design,
concentrating massing so as to lessen the visual impact of the
project from Main street, and incorporating traditional Ocean
Park design elements and materials consistent with the character
of Main street and Ocean Park which is discussed in grea ter
detail later in this report. In response to concerns regarding
construction period impacts, sta ff and the architect developed
phasing and interim parking plans outlined later in this report.
Summary of Analyses of Non-Structure Alternatives
The total increase of parking spaces which may result from im-
plementation of all the above discussed proposals is approximate-
ly 60 spaces rather than the over lSO which the proponents are
calculating. The Main street Area parking analysis conducted by
Kaku Associates in 1987 indicated a minimum peak parking demand
of approximately 390 spaces. The 60 spaces gained from the park-
ing proposals discussed in this report represents only 15% of
this demand. The number of spaces to be gained by construction
- 11 -
of the parking garage on Lot 9 is 217 or 56% of the identified
need.
MAIN STREET PROJECT
Design:
On June 28, 1988 city Council approved the selection and
execution of a contract for $592,500 with the design and
engineering team of Carde, Killefer, Flammang Architects, and
Parsons, Brinckerfhoff, Quade, and Douglas Engineers for the Main
street parking/housing project.
FOllowing the selection staff worked with the architecture team
to organize a series of three community design workshops. These
workshops were designed to facilitate interaction between the
community, the architect, and city staff leading to a project
design reflecting community wishes within the framework of the
project as outlined by the Council. Invitations to the workshops
were mailed to all Main street merchants, all residents of Main,
Second and Third streets, and to all participants of previous
Main Street parking structure meetings.
The three design workshops were held on September 11, 1988,
October 25, 1988 and February 25, 1989, and were attended by 49,
34, and 33 people, respectively. Merchants constituted
approximately 25% of the attendees. Attached for your review is
a summary of the comments and concerns expressed by the
participants at each of the three workshops conducted on the
project (Attachment 1).
- 12 -
The Council requested that the architect/engineer team consider a
number of issues in the design of the project, including:
preservation of the Ashland walkway and view corridor, security
features for the parking garage including natural light and
ventilation, and sufficient landscaping and private open space
for the residential units to be built on the upper levels of the
project. In addition when Council considered this project in
February 1988, they requested that the overall height profile of
the project remain below 35 feet.
A number of issues came out of the first and second community
design workshops which required there to be a number of design
trade-offs. An issue which was discussed early on was the
inclusion of retail space in the project. As you may recall,
when the project was originally presented staff recommended that
a small portion of retail space be included in the project. The
participants in the design workshops unamiously requested the
deletion of this component of the project. Staff felt that the
retail space was not required for the project design, and did not
significantly off-set any costs of the parking garage and thus
agreed to delete the retail space.
The other area where there was debate, discussion, and
disagreement was the overall height and massing of the project.
At the second workshop, participants were given model pieces to
manipulate to evaluate various massing schemes with the goals of
maintaining the Ashland walkway and view corridor, and creating
usable open space for the residential units. In response to
these issues the architect/engineer team proposed to staff that
- l3 -
in two locations over the length of the site the overall height
of the project extend to 42 feet rather than 35 feet. This
provides for massing the project at locations on the length of
the site where there are not existing views as Sea Colony and the
Santa Monica Shores Apartments are directly to the west of these
locations. This allowed the architect/engineer team to retain
the Ashland Walkway and view corridor completely open and to
provide other view corridors and open space for the residential
units. staff evaluated this scheme and believe the additional
height is not out of scale or character with the surrounding uses
to the west or to the east of the project site. While the height
does exceed that which we had hoped to maintain, staff feels that
the overall design and massing of the proj ect is significantly
enhanced as a result of the massing of the project to a height of
42 feet in limited areas where the ocean view is already blocked
by existing structures.
This design was presented at the third community design meeting,
as well as at meetings of Main street property owners and
merchants. There was great concern expressed by both merchants
and residents alike that any height over l8 feet would be
impairing ocean views from Second, Third, and Fourth streets and
therefore they requested that staff consider ways to reduce the
overall height of the project.
The staff and architect/engineer have examined ways to reduce the
height. One trade-off which staff made early on in the design
development was to place as much parking as possible on the below
grade level. This allowed the architect to begin the housing
- 14 -
component on the first level above grade on portions of the site.
It is not possible however, to retain the program of 460 parking
spaces and 49 units of housing wi thin an 18 foot height. The
site presents constraints as the water table is 13 feet below the
surface of the site, therefore preventing without substantial
cost increases, any additional levels of parking below grade. In
addition, the cost and construction time impacts of increasing
the amount of subterranean parking are so great that the project
would be infeasible to undertake in such a configuration.
staff requested that the architect/engineer team examine the
impacts of the proposed project height on ocean views from the
east side of Main street, Second street, Third Street, and Fourth
Street. Also the architect/engineer team examined shade and
shadow impacts on the adj acent properties on Main street. The
results of those studies indicate that from Second, Third, and
Fourth streets some mid-block ocean views are impaired as a
result of the project. It appears from the architect's analysis
that the project would have no significant impact on the sunlight
to the properties to the east. However, issues of shading and
shadowing will be addressed in greater depth in the environmental
impact analyses.
Provided for City council information and review are elevations,
view perpectives, and a model of the proposed project design.
Environmental Analyses/Planning Issues:
The Main street Project was reviewed by the City's Environmental
Review Committee (ERC) in August, 1988, at which time the ERC
- 15 -
determined the need for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The firm of Phillips
Brandt Reddick (PBR) was selected to produce the EIR. Following
the development of the proposed design concept, PBR was directed
to proceed with the EIR and a public Notice of Preparation will
be issued on April 5, 1989. A public meeting to solicit input
regarding the scope of the EIR is scheduled to be held on April
l7. Staff estimates that in order to meet a January, 1990
construction start all environmental work must be completed and
an EIR certified by City Council not later than September, 1989.
In accordance with this schedule a draft EIR would be made
available in May, 1989 for public comment.
In February, 1988 when the city Council directed staff to prepare
plans for the proposed project, city projects were not subject to
the city of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning
Ordinance ("Zoning Code II ). The Zoning Code subsequently adopted
by the city council does not provide for an exemption from the
Zoning Code for City projects. Because a completed application
for the Main street Project was not filed before April 29, 1988,
the project is subject to the requirements of the new code.
The site is currently zoned R-4A and CM-2. While the scale of
the proposed project is consistent with existing developments in
the surrounding area, the project as proposed does not meet the
existing zoning standards. Above ground public parking structures
are not a permitted use in the R-4A zone. The zoning designation
most consistent with the proposed project is CM-4. The following
- 16 -
table summarizes the property development standards of the
various zoning designations and the Main street Project's
compliance with these standards:
Category R-4 CM-2 CM-4 Proposed Project
Building Height 45' 27' 47' 42'
Floor-Area Ratio NA 1.5 2.5 l.6
Front Setback* 20' 11' 11' 5 '
Rear Setback 1.51 7.5' None 0'
Side Setback None None 0'
*Front is presumed to be Neilson Way
Because a municipal parking structure is not a permitted or
conditionally permitted use in the CM-4 zone, in addition to a
zone change the project will also require a text amendment to the
Zoning Code. The text amendment would also exempt the project
from the setback and landscaping requirements of the CM-4 zone
with which the project would not comply. staff proposes that the
text amendment be site and project specific so that any future
project would have to meet the requirements of the CM-4 zone. As
required under CEQA the proposed zone change and text amendment
will be submitted for review and approval with other required
planning applications.
Again, when proposed, the parking calculated for the residential
component met the standards of the old zoning code. The
residential component of the project will require a reduced
parking permit. Under the City'S Zoning Code a reduced parking
permit may be granted administratively for low and moderate
income housing developments. The Main street Project will provide
one and one-half parking spaces for each of the 29 one-bedroom
units, and two spaces for each of the 20 two-bedroom units, for a
- 17 -
total of 84 spaces. A project not eligible for a reduced parking
permit would be required to provide a total of 108 spaces.
Because the project will be deed restricted to low and moderate
income households, and is located proximate to commercial
services and public transit, the 84 spaces will be sufficient to
meet the parking demand for the residential component of the
project and is consistent with the parking provided in the
recently completed Ocean Park 43 Cooperative.
Interim Parking:
During the construction of the Main street proj ect, staff is
considering the following interim parking measures to reduce the
impact of the loss of parking on Lot 9.
1. A shuttle bus between the Main street area and the
beach parking lot.
2. A centralized Main Street area valet parking zone.
3. A combination of a shuttle and valet.
4. Two-hour parking restrictions on Second street to
provide for greater parking turnover.
5. Free two-hour parking in the Main Street area through
"bagging" of existing parking meters.
6. Permitting free curb side areas for businesses who wish
to implement their own valet parking service.
The firm of Executive Parking Inc., an experienced parking
operator, has been retained to provide a program for operation
which will be tailored to serve the parking needs and a cost
analysis for the shuttle bus and valet parking.
The shuttle and
valet service would be available to all patrons and employees of
Main street.
The shuttle would circulate from the Beach lot
North on Barnard Way to Ocean Park Boulevard, South on Main
- 18 -
street and West on Marine street returning to the Beach Lot. The
consultant will recommend appropriate hours of operation and
intervals of the shuttle, but operation hours would most likely
be between 11AM and 2AM. The shuttle would operate at 10-15
minute intervals from the Beach Lot circulating the Main street
district. It is staff's estimate that the cost of these
alternatives is approximately $300,000 to $400,000 for a six (6)
to eight (8) month period when parking is not available on Lot 9.
Phasing Plan
In addition to the above interim parking measures the
architect/engineer team evaluated the practicality of phasing the
Main street project in a manner whereby throughout construction a
portion of Lot 9 would be available for pUblic parking. Three
schemes were evaluated and are briefly described.
Scheme l: This assumed that construction would commence in the
middle of the site and work towards both ends. No parking would
be available on the site for the first four (4) months of
construction, but after that four month period approximately llO
spaces would be available to the pUblic.
Scheme 2: This plan assumed that construction would be contained
in the southern portion of site and the northern portion of the
site would remain available for public parking. A minimum of 110
spaces would be available throughout construction of the project.
This phasing plan does increase the cost and the assessment levy
as discussed below, and lengthens the overall construction period
by 2 months, to 18 months.
- 19 -
Scheme 2A: This plan assumed that construction would be
contained in the northern portion of the site and the southern
portion of the site would remain available for public parking. A
minimum of 75 spaces would be available on Lot 9 throughout
construction of the proj ect. This phasing plan increases the
construction cost and consequently the assessment levy, and
lengthens the overall construction period by 1 month, to 17
months.
As the issue of disruption in parking availability on Lot 9 is of
great concern to the merchants, staff would recommend that Scheme
2 be utilized for the construction of this project. While this
phasing scheme does bring the assessment levy to $.04 cents per
square foot per month for retail uses, and $.08 cents per square
foot per month for restaurant uses, it results in the greatest
amount of parking available to patrons and employees of the Main
street merchants. Also it appears from staff meetings and
discussions with the merchants and property owners on Main street
that continuous parking availability on Lot 9 is worth the
increase in asessment levy.
Financial Analyses:
In October, 1988, the financial advisory firm of Evensen Dodge,
Inc. was retained by the ci ty for planning, structuring and
completing the financing of the parking portion of the proposed
Main Street Mixed-Use proj ect. As the lead financial advisor,
Evensen Dodge is also responsible for coordinating the efforts of
the other financing team members, including assessment consultant
- 20 -
Bartle Wells Associates and parking consultant Wilbur Smith
Associates. If staff is directed to proceed with the Main street
project, Evensen Dodge will further coordinate the efforts of the
underwriters, bond counsel, trustee, and others associated with
successfully financing the parking garage.
After having the key financial consultants in place, City staff
proceeded to identify specific project assumptions necessary to
determine financial feasibility. The financial consultant team
met with City staff, the Main street Merchants Committee and
Property Owners Association on numerous occasions to discuss the
assumptions used in determining project feasibility. These
assumptions have been continually refined and adjusted by Evensen
Dodge to estimate the split between assessment subsidy and
parking revenue. The financial feasibility of the structure was
evaluated based upon its projected utilization and the estimated
construction costs and bond costs.
wilbur smith Associates prepared a feasibility study to determine
and validate the potential revenue to be generated by user fees
from the parking garage, and consequently the city1s ability to
finance the garage. The final Wilbur smith Associates report was
transmitted to city Council through an information item on March
7, 1989.
In conjunction with the Wilbur smith Associates projection of
potential revenue from parking user fees, Bartle Wells Associates
was retained to advise the city on matters pertaining to
assessment district formation as an additional source of revenue
- 21 -
for the proposed project. Assuming an assessment district needed
to be established, the role of Bartle Wells was to help identify
assessment formulas, levies and ratios depicting a justifiable
spread of project costs on an equitable basis to benefitted
properties in the proj ect area. The proj ect area includes all
the properties on Main street south of Ocean Park Boulevard to
the City limits.
The work of the financial consultant team
feasibility of the proposed project. The
financial consultants are summarized below.
established
findings of
the
the
overview of Revenue projection Analyses
The Main Street Parking structure Feasibility study prepared by
wilbur Smith Associates projected the expected patronage and
utilization of the proposed parking structure, and the revenue
which the project is expected to generate. The annual average
24-hour occupancy rate was projected to be 29% in the first year
of operation, increasing to 38% by the tenth year. Data used in
this analysis came from field surveys conducted in December,
1988, interviews with City staff and other persons knowledgeable
about parking in the study area and other parking studies
conducted in the area. Using this data, the costs and revenues
for the proposed facility over the next ten years were projected.
These revenue projections established the need for an assessment
district to supplement revenues generated by user fees. Under a
no phasing scenario, the report identifies annual net income
after debt service ranging from $7,282 in year one to $l66,890 in
- 22 -
year ten.
This income does not assume repayment of existing
revenue obligations related to Lot 9 of approximately $136,500.
consequently, positive cash flow is not anticipated in the first
two years.
Based upon these revenue proj ections, Evensen Dodge prepared
analyses associated with various assumptions in order to project
the financial feasibility and potential assessment levies
attributed to this project. These analyses indicate the need for
an assessment subsidy of $45,000 per year from the project area
without phasing, or $74,510 with phasing scheme 2A and $98,677
with phasing scheme 2 as outlined previously in this report.
The major assumptions utilized in these financial analyses, based
on research and evaluation completed by Evensen Dodge and other
consultant staff, include:
o Parking facility opened and staffed 24 hours per day, 7
days per week;
o 376 pUblic spaces;
o Credit to owners with dedicated parking spaces at 300
square feet per space available;
o Construction costs:
$5,840,000 Total Parking structure Cost
(1,376,451) Cost of 84 Residential Spaces/Additional
structural Costs attributable to Housing
$4,463,849 Net Construction Cost To Be Financed;
o Additional costs of phasing: $250,000 for phasing option
2A and $475,000 for phasing option 2;
o Debt service costs based on issuing Certificates of
Participation with City backing amortized over 24 years
with a 25-1/2 year life at a True Interest Cost of
7.96%:
- 23 -
o First year 24 hour average occupancy rate projected at
29%i
o Parking charges based at 75 cents per houri
o Due to increased parking demand generated by restaurants
their assessment is calculated at 2 times (2x) that of
retail propertiesi
o 75 permits sold monthly at $35 per month.
overview of Assessment Analysis
Based upon the three assessment subsidy scenarios identified by
Evensen Dodge, Inc. ($45,000, $74,510, $98,677), several analyses
were performed in order to proj ect an annual levy.
Under the
$45,000 assessment subsidy scenario, the maximum annual rate for
a retail outlet would be $0.21 per square foot, and a restaurant
would be required to pay twice that or $0.42 per square foot for
the life of the bonds.
Assuming the average retail outlet is
1,000 square feet, the annual assessment levy would be $210.00.
Likewise, a restaurant of 3,750 square feet would be obligated to
pay $1,575 annually. This scenario does not include any phasing
of the construction and assumes a down time of 4 to 6 months when
no parking will be available on site.
The second and third scenario's include two phasing options
recommended by the project architect as a means to make available
a number of parking spaces during construction.
These options
cause the construction cost to increase at varying degrees , thus
debt service requirements and the applicable assessment subsidy
will also increase. Phasing scheme 2A increases the assessment
subsidy to $74,510 from $45,000.
This increase will raise the
maximum annual retail assessment rate to $0.35 and restaurant
rate to $0.70 per square foot.
The annual levy for a 1,000
- 24 -
square foot retail outlet would be $350 and a 3~750 square foot
restaurant would be required to pay $2,625 per year.
Finally~ under the third scenario which presents the most costly
phasing scheme, Scheme 2, an assessment subsidy of $98,677 would
be required. This subsidy would result in a maximum annual
assessment rate for a retailer of $0.46 per square feet, and a
restaurant's assessment levy would be $0.92 per square foot.
Thus, aI, 000 square foot retail shop would be assessed $460
annually, and a 3,750 square foot restaurant would be assessed
$3,450.
City staff will continue to work with the financial consultants
to refine the financial plan for the Main street project, and
finalize the financing.
SUMMARY
To summarize, staff's evaluation of the alternatives to the
construction of the parking garage on Lot 9 indicates that a
total of 60 spaces would be gained, which only meets 15% of the
minimum parking need identified in the 1.987 Kaku study, and
confirmed in the 1.988 Wilbur Smith study. There does not appear
to be consensus within the Main street merchant community
regarding a favored approach to the parking needs identified. At
the recent meeting of Main street merchants held on March 22nd a
vote was held to determine support for implementing the
alternatives. The outcome was a split vote of 26 to 18 in
support of implementing the alternatives. Clearly there is
disagreement among the Main street merchants. Analyses and
- 25 -
design progress on the Main street project indicates that the
parking garage is financially feasible at an assessment levy
which is palatable to most merchants on Main street, that the
issues of construction impacts can be met through implementing
interim parking measures and phasing the project, and that a
design which provides for community needs and is appropriate to
the scale of the area is feasible.
In addition, while alternatives for adding parking to the area
have been discussed, no discussion has been held regarding an
alternative site for the residential component of the project.
As the Council is aware, sui table and affordable development
sites for low-cost rental housing are a scarce resource in Santa
Monica, and Lot 9 presents an opportunity for the City to meet
multiple objectives with a single project.
FINANCIAL/BUDGETARY IMPACTS
To date a total of $132,000 has been expended for soils testing,
survey, design, financial, and other project expenses. To
complete the design, environmental analyses, and financial work
for the project an additional $541, l16 will be expended. The
funds necessary for these costs have been budgeted in account
numbers 77-770-610-000-977 and 01-720-264-000-960.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council authorize
staff to:
(1) Proceed with the Main street Mixed Use Project
including 460 spaces and 49 units of low-cost rental
- 26 -
housing with the conceptual design presented by the
architect/engineer team, approval of a zone change and
preparation of a text amendment, implementing the
recommended phasing plan for construction of the
project, direct the City Attorney to prepare the
required Notice of Sale and Development Agreement to
transfer the air-rights to CCSM for the housing
component,
and to return to City council
for
certification of the EIR and for the public hearing
regarding the Notice of Sale and approval of the
Development Agreement in the early fall, 1989~
(2) Implement the following parking alternatives as soon as
possible, in order to provide increased parking for
residents in Ocean Park including:
Removing unnecessary no parking/red curb zones on
Ashland Avenue (22 spaces)
Removing unnecessary no parking/red curb zones on
Marine street (16 spaces).
converting Pier Avenue to diagonal parking (4
spaces) .
Prepared by:
Peggy Curranl Director C/ED
Stan Scholl, Director General Services
Candy Rupp, Housing Program Manager
Jeff Mathieu, Economic Development Division Mgr.
Ron Fuchiwaki, Parking and Traffic Engineer
Desi Alvarez, City Engineer
Darrell George, Sr. Administrative Analyst, EDD
Jeff MudriCk, Sr. Administrative Analyst, Housing
:mainrep6
- 27 -
APPENDIX l: SUMMARY OF MAIN STREET PROJECT MEETINGS
Community Desi9n Meetin9s
The first of three community design workshops was held on
September 11, 1988. The purpose of this workshop was to
familiarize the attendees with the site, and to identify design
issues to be addressed by the Architect and workshop participants
in subsequent workshops. Forty-nine (49) people, including nine
merchants attended this workshop. Few of the attendees, however,
participated in the walk of the site intended to identify view
corridors and relate proj ect heights to potential views from
various locations. Most of the attendees who expressed an opinion
indicated opposition to the project as proposed. There was
consensus that if constructed the project should be designed to
present as low a profile as possible. There was also consensus
that the project should be warm, inviting, and fit in with the
surrounding community, and that the retail component of the
project should be eliminated.
The second workshop was held on October 8, 1989. The purpose of
the workshop was to analyze massing options for the project.
This workshop was attended by thirty-four (34) people, including
twelve merchants. Twenty-one (2l) of the attendees also
participated in the first workshop. Teams of workshop
participants recommended various project massing options; one
team refused to provide a proposal to indicate their opposition
to the project. Based upon the input of the participating teams,
staff, CCSM and the Architect determined to concentrate the
- 28 -
massing of the project at locations where views are already
blocked by the Sea Colony and santa Monica Shores developments.
In this way most existing views could be preserved and
significant open space provided within the housing component.
The third community design workshop was held on February 25. At
this workshop the Architect summarized previous workshop outcomes
and presented the proposed design concept in the form of a model
and drawings. This workshop was attended by thirty-three (33 )
people, including six merchants. Comments from workshop
participants primarily focused on the merits of the project as a
whole and not on the proposed design concept. Specific concerns
were raised regarding project height and the lack of substantial
setback from Kinney street and Ashland Avenue. The Architect
expressed his opinion that proj ect height could not be reduced
due to site constraints. The Architect indicated he would explore
the possibility of increasing setbacks at Kinney street and
Ashland Avenue.
Meetings with Merchants and Property Owners
city staff presented a review of parking alternatives at a public
meeting on January 23rd in accordance with Council direction.
The meeting was attended by ninety-nine (99) people, including
twenty-four (24) merchants, and twenty (20) members of El Sermon
Del Monte Church. Most of the opinions voiced in response to
staff's presentation were from merchants calling for
implementation of alternatives before proceeding with the
proposed structure. Two merchants spoke in support of the
- 29 -
proposed project. Representatives of El Sermon Del Monte
expressed the need for additional parking experienced by their
members, and also expressed their interest in working with other
sectors of the community to identify parking solutions.
staff met three times with the Main street street Committee of
the Chamber of Commerce. On January 25th, staff presented its
preliminary financing analysis to the Main street Committee of
the Chamber of Commerce. Staff returned to meet with Main Street
Committee members on February 22nd, and again on March 22nd.
Approximately forty (40) merchants attended the February 22nd
meeting. Most of the merchants voicing an opinion expressed a
desire to implement parking alternatives to the structure and not
proceed with the proposed project. A motion for the Committee to
formally take this position was tabled~ an informal show of hands
appeared to indicate that project opponents at this meeting
outnumbered project proponents by approximately three or four to
one, with some not indicating a preference. The Committee decided
to hear a presentation from City staff regarding the project
schedule, and continue discussion of the project to March 22nd.
At the committee meeting on March 22nd, staff made a presentation
regarding phasing options and the proj ected proj ect schedule.
FOllowing staff r s presentation the motion made at the previous
meeting recommending implementation of the alternatives was voted
upon. The vote was 26 in favor, and 18 against the motion
indicating support of the alternatives. The Committee Chair
indicated a ballot would be mailed to each of the approximately
- 30 -
100 merchants in the proposed assessment district to solicit
opinions regarding the project from all the merchants.
In addition to the above meetings, small group meetings of
merchants were held at the Pink Cadillac Cafe, Merlin McFly IS,
Fish Enterprise Co., the Tavern on Main, and the Oar House
between February 9th and February 17th, 1989. Each meeting was
attended by city staff and four to eight merchants. The most
widespread concern voiced by the merchants attending these
meetings was regarding the possible impact of project
construction on Main street businesses. Concerns were also
raised regarding structure security, aesthetic impacts on the
street, and the fairness of assessing merchants previously
assessed for improvements to Lot 9 for the construction of the
proposed structure. Despite other concerns regarding the project,
the merchants I response to the proposed design was generally
favorable.
On February 2lst, City staff, the Architect, and the Developer
attended a meeting of approximately twenty (20) Main street
property owners. The Architect presented the preliminary design
concept, in the form of drawings and a model, and staff reviewed
financing for the project, and a preliminary construction
schedule. Property owners who voiced an opinion indicated
general support for the proj ect. EChoing the concerns of many
merchants regarding the impact of significant downtime, the group
suggested that staff investigate the feasibility and cost
implications of phasing the project. There appeared to be
consensus that the property owners would accept some increase in
- 31 -
assessments in order to phase the project and make parking
available throughout construction.
- 32 -
CiTY OF SANTA MONICA
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
DATE:
April 6, 1989
TO:
Councilmember Abdo
FROM:
Clarice E. Johnsen, City Clerk
SUBJECT:
List of Speakers for Item ll-C of April 4, 1989
Martha N. Fisher
2302 Fifth street, Apt. C
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Mike Kerr
231 Beach street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Sharon Jaquith
6 Sea Colony Drive
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Elena pOPP
42l Rose Ave.
Venice, CA 90495
Renee Ellis
721 Pine st.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Alison St. Onge
407 Hill Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Lilly Schwartz
518 pier Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Josephine Powe, Esq.
Hedges, Powe and Caldwell
606 S. Olive Street, Suite l4l0
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Mrs. Barr
2707 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
- 1 -
Richard orton (Represents OPCO Board Parking committee)
2915 2nd street
Santa Monca, CA 90405
Jean-Marie Webster
2711 l-iain street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Daniel Marquez
Westside Mexican American Political Association (MAPA)
Santa Monica
Rita Morales
528 Colorado
Santa Monica, CA 9040l
Carol Platt
2708 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Tim Spence
915 Third
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Barbara Jean
43 Sea Colony
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Michael Grandcolas
247 Ocean Park Blvd.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Irene zivi
2016 Euclid St. #4
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Bill Sundblad
2435 6th street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Elsa Petrucelli
2829 2nd street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Gary Elliott
2911 2nd street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Fae Miles
2800 Neilson Way
Santa Monica, CA 90405
- 2 -
Sarah Braff
720 Pier Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Donna Alvarez
3329 Virginia
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Tony Haig
237 Beach
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Femmy DeLyser
2931 3rd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Tay Yoshitani
3110 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Dolores Sloan
2629 6th street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Joy FUllmer
1531 6th street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Leslie Lambert
1913 6th street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Suzanne Mitchell
544 11th street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Lynne Coyne
20 Ocean Park Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Ann sewill
10569 Ayres
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Jim Mount
1201 San vicente
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Joe Carreras
2219 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
- 3 -
Paul Rosenstein
1518 Yale street, #6
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Tricia Cochee
3005 Highland Ave., #5
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Wylola Greff
2407 4th street, #10
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Susan Koda
3005 Highland #4
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Boris Kogan
3005 Highland #10
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Lou Atlee
518 pier Avenue, #4
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Sherry May
3005 Highland AVe. #6
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Daris Ganga
2020 Delaware Ave. #2
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Laurel Roennau
3112 4th street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Heidi Gralinski
3015 3rd street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Ted Brock
3015 3rd Street #2
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Clare Branfman
2545 Beverly Ave. #C
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Nick Kazan
3014 3rd street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
- 4 -
C. D. Shen
2665 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Dave Paradis
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce
1460 4th street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Howard Abrams
3120 4th street, #15
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Peter Lecouras
2402 5th Street, #2
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Naidoo Srinavasan
l418 14th street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Henry McGee
517 9th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Anita Landecker
732 1/2 Navy
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Gary Squier
3129 6th street, IC
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Scott Ashley
2654 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Craig McDonald
2665 Main stret
Santa Monica, CA 90405
David Hewitt
2907 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Pete Barrett
2800 Neilson Way #1009
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Ray Davis
3010 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
- 5 -
Joe Pallozzolo
Santa Monica Boulevard*
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Phyllis Barnard
2936 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Peter Spellman
2732 Third street #B
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Robin Swicord
3014 3rd street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Peter DeKrassel
3015 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Jim Conn
235 Hill street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Luz ospitia
602 pier Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Ruth Fraposo
2701 Hill street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Herb Sandel
2800 Neilson Way
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Richard Vickers
2700 Neilson
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Greg Broughton
llll Euclid Street. #30l
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Susan Lieberman
2703 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Jane Walker
2715 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
- 6 -
Brandon MacNeal
2904 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Michael Ankefell
2904 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Kay Miller
2818 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Lisa Perlick
2908 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
William Trutle
2651 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Carl Wright
2654 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
George Laczko
2720 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Parke Meek
270l Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Gary Confoff
Main street Gallery
2803 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Frank Safechuck
2723 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Kathleen Pauly
2702 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Russell Barnard
2219 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Jeanne Friedman
3005 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
- 7 -
Cathy Wiley
3005 Highland Ave., #1
Santa Monica, CA 90405
John Boone
275 pier Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Kelly Logan
l238 12th Street, #3
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Denise Bernier*
Al Ehrengle
2640 Main Street
Santa Monica,CA 90405
Kersten Anderson
3007 3rd street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Eric Parlee
2016 Euclid Street, #2l
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Roger Genser
2709 2nd street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
John Given
2240 6th street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Ken Haker
2726 2nd street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Nance Epstein
2714 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Sandra Cannon
In Browns
2924 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Vicki Haighton
2714 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
- 8 -
Penny Wortman
Ocean Park Shells
2724 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Frances smith
3005 Highland Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Anthony White*
Nickey Goloteer*
*Some chits incomplete or without address
CEJ:jj
jjlist
- 9 -