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
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. 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.
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, including the six public parking
structures (#1-6) along 2nd and 4th Street and the two
structures (# 9 &10) north of Wilshire on 3rd and 4th
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.
|
Structure |
Spaces |
Floors |
Retail |
Year Built |
|
#1: 1234
4th St. |
312 |
5 |
no |
1968 |
|
#2: 1235 2nd St. |
633 |
9 |
no |
1969 |
|
#3: 1320 4th St. |
324 |
5 |
no |
1968 |
|
#4: 1321 2nd St |
652 |
9 |
no |
1966/1974 (addition) |
|
#5: 1440 4th St. |
664 |
9 |
yes |
1970/1989 (addition & retrofit) |
|
#6: 1431 2nd St. |
345 |
5 |
yes |
1967 |
|
#9: 1135 4th St. |
294 |
4 |
hsng |
2001 |
|
#10 1125 3rd 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 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.
·
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 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)
5th Street (walking distance to Promenade) 2,931 upgraded 1,712 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.
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 the
vitality of the core area. The task
force identified the 5th 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 Boulevard between 6th
and 7th 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 temporary reduction
in available spaces 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 and the creation of new surface and structured
public parking in the vicinity of 5th 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 new structures in the vicinity
of 5th 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 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.
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 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 north side of Wilshire, the east side of 6th Street, the north side of Colorado and 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” 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 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 structure #8 (Colorado and 2nd 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.
· 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.
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.
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 of 5th 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:
Ø Outreach to the proposed expanded downtown assessment district to assess likelihood for support of an assessment.
Ø Refined analysis for the assessment zones within the Bayside District to develop appropriate assessment rates for each zone.
Ø Analysis to assess the impact of increasing short-term/transient parking rates on the demand for parking.
Ø Refine plan to increase downtown on-street meter rates to $1.00/hour, including possible locations to add meters and adjust hours.
Ø Work with Finance Dept. to develop plan for issuing revenue bonds.
Ø 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 bond revenue once it is generated.
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 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