DOWNTOWN PARKING PROGRAM UPDATE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Transcription

1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DOWNTOWN PARKING PROGRAM UPDATE Prepared for: HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JUNE 24, 2009

2 606 S Olive St, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA Voice: Fax: June 24, 2009 Erika Cavicante Senior Administrative Analyst Housing and Economic Development Division, City of Santa Monica 1901 Main Street Santa Monica, CA Re: Downtown Parking Program Update Project number Dear Ms. Cavicante: Walker Parking Consultants is pleased to present the Downtown Parking Program Update for the City of Santa Monica. The following report combines each of the five analyses that were performed by Walker and Keyser Marston and Associates for this assignment: Parking Demand and Rate Recommendations; Revenue Options; Financing Potential; Parking Operations; Future Parking Supply Needs. We summarize the findings and recommendations of each section of the report together in the Executive Summary. In combining each of these tasks, the report presents an analysis of parking demand and supply in the area as well as a comprehensive examination of the revenue that can be generated by and for the parking system. Please let us know if you have any questions. We appreciate the opportunity to perform this important work for the City of Santa Monica. Best regards, WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Steffen Turoff Parking Consultant Richard Raskin Parking Consultant SIT:dpa Enclosure j:\ city of santa monica\report\final consolidated report\report for pdf\cover letter.doc

3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DOWNTOWN PARKING PROGRAM UPDATE Prepared for: HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JUNE 24, 2009

4 JUNE 22, TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...ii PART 1 - PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS AND RATE RECOMMENDATIONS...19 CURRENT CONDITIONS STUDY AREA...20 METHODOLOGY...20 Inventory...20 Design Day...21 Occupancy Data from Parking Structures...22 Peak Occupancy Public and Private Parking Combined...23 Effective Supply...26 Parking Adequacy...27 LENGTH OF STAY...37 RECOMMENDATIONS PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS...38 On-Street Meter Rates...38 Recommendations On-street Meter Rates...39 Metered Policies in Other Cities...41 Financial Impact of On-street Recommendations...44 PRICING POLICIES FOR THE PUBLIC GARAGES...46 Policy Goals for Structures...46 Policy Recommendations for Public Structures...47 Explanation of Recommendations...47 Parking Structures 7 & 8 and Employee Parking...52 Off-street parking policies in other cities...54 Revenue impact of recommendations for off-street parking...57 CONCLUSION SUMMARY OF PROJECTED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATIONS...59 PART 2 REVENUE OPTIONS ANALYSIS...61 Introduction and Background...61 In-Lieu Fees...62 Assessment Districts...62 Advertising and Retail Space...65 Valet Programs...66 Parking Validation Program for Businesses...67 Revenue from Long-Term Lessees, 100 Wilshire and Santa Monica Place Employees...67 REVENUE OPTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS...68 Summary of In-lieu Fee Programs for Other Cities PART 3 FINANCING POTENTIAL...75 INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS...75 Baseline Cash Flow Projections...76 New Assessment District...77 Capacity for Financing...77

5 JUNE 22, TABLE OF CONTENTS Baseline Parking Revenues...78 Supportable Parking Spaces...79 Existing In-Lieu Fee...79 REVENUES FROM FUTURE DEVELOPMENT...80 PART 3 FINANCING POTENTIAL CONCLUSIONS...81 PART 4 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Methodology CITY S MANAGEMENT OF PARKING SYSTEM Parking Operations Management Staffing and Staffing Recommendations PARKING OPERATIONS PARKING OPERATIONS ACTION ITEMS - IMMEDIATE REVENUE AND ACCESS CONTROL Monthly Parking Auditing REVENUE CONTROL ACTION ITEMS Immediate Long term FACILITY CONDITION Structural Maintenance and Action Items Facility Conditions Facility Condition Action Items Long Term Notes on Wayfinding and Signage Wayfinding and Signage in the Bayside District MAINTENANCE AND CUSTODIAL Action Items CUSTOMER SERVICE Customer Service Action Items COORDINATED ON-STREET VALET PARKING SYSTEM Calculating Level of Service Running the Operation Recommendation NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND PARKING Mechanical Garages Stackers Wayfinding Devices within Parking Facilities Conclusion New Technologies CONCLUSION AND FINAL RECOMMENDATION RE PARKING OPERATIONS Parking Operations and the LUCE PART 5 FUTURE PARKING SUPPLY NEEDS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FUTURE PARKING SUPPLY INTRODUCTION...155

6 JUNE 22, TABLE OF CONTENTS FUTURE PARKING DEMAND CURRENT CONDITIONS OVERALL PARKING DEMAND IN PUBLIC STRUCTURES 1 6, 9 & Occupancy Data from Parking Structures CHANGES IN PARKING DEMAND IN THE CIVIC CENTER AND LIBRARY STRUCTURES REDUCTIONS IN DEMAND RESULTING FROM CHANGES IN PRICING POLICY FUTURE PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY NEW DEVELOPMENT Parking Demand Project ion Assumptions Parking Demand from 50,000 Square Feet of Commercial Space per Year Santa Monica Place and Parking Structures 7 & BAYSIDE PARKING RATIO INCREASING FUTURE PUBLIC PARKING SUPPLY Increasing the use of currently underutilized spaces Restrictions on Monthly Parkers Valet Operations and Parking Availability Subsidizing Valet Parking and Social Equity Issues Demand and Fee for Valet Parking Recommendations for Valet Parking Employee Parking in Private Garages Nights and Weekends Spaces Leased by 100 Wilshire Office Building Opportunity to Increase Parking Supply Using Leased Spaces Utilizing Available Public Spaces Conclusion - Increasing Future Parking Supply ANALYSIS OF FUTURE PARKING ADEQUACY Parking Structures 1 6, 9 & Funding Additional Parking to Serve Future Development RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS FUTURE PARKING SUPPLY NEEDS LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, MAPS AND ATTACHMENTS TABLES Executive Summary Table 1: Projected Revenue...vii Part 1: Parking Demand Analysis Table 1.1: Number of Parking Spaces by Type and Location...21 Table 1.2: Percentage of Parking Spaces by Type and Location...21 Table 1.3: Occupancy Data from Public Garages 1-6 and Table 1.4: Summary of Occupancy Data...25 Table 1.5: Effective Supply...27 Table 1.6: Parking Adequacy Summary...28 Table 1.7: Summary of On-street Parking Supply and Occupancy...30

7 JUNE 22, TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 1.8: Inventory and Occupancy, Study Area Blocks...31 Table 1.9: Adequacy of On-street Parking Supply...32 Table 1.10: Adequacy of Off-street Parking Supply...33 Table 1.11: Summary of Preliminary Projections of Financial Impact of Recommendations...59 Part 2: Revenue Options Analysis Part 2 Table 1: Summary of In-Lieu Fee Programs throughout California...69 Part 2 Table 2: In-Lieu Fees per Space in sample of California Cities...74 Part 2 Table 3: In-Lieu Fees per Square Foot in sample California Cities...75 Part 3 Financing Potential Revenue Projections Part 3 Table 1: Summary of Revenue Potential...85 Part 3 Table 2: Summary of Bonding Capacity Baseline Projections...86 Part 3 Table 3: Summary of Potential Revenues with Incremental Revenues...87 Part 3 Table 4: Summary of Bonding Capacity with Incremental Revenues...88 Part 4 Parking Operations Analysis Table 4.5: Parking Garage Facility Conditions Criteria Score Table 4.6: Customer Survey Results Table 4.7: Valet Wait Times Part 5 Future Parking Supply Needs Table 5.1: Occupancy Data from Public Garages 1 6, Table 5.2: Parking Occupancies from 2008 Survey Days Public Structures Table 5.3: Reductions in Parking Demand Resulting from Changes in Parking Pricing Table 5.4: Projected Future Parking Demand from New Development Table 5.5: Future Parking Impacts on the Parking System Maps Map 1: Study Area...29 Map 2: Peak Weekday Parking Demand...34 Map 3: Peak Weekend Parking Demand...35 Map 4: Approximate Distances from Santa Boulevard and Third Street...36 Figures Figure 4.1: City of Santa Monica s Organizational Chart Figure 4.2: Current Management Structure Off-Street Parking Figure 4.3: Revised Management Structure Figure 4:4: Off-street Parking Operations Organizational Chart ATTACHMENTS PART 3: ATTACHMENT 1: WALKER PARKING REVENUE PROJECTIONS...88 PART 3: ATTACHMENT 2: BASELINE REVENUE PROJECTIONS...95 PART 3: ATTACHMENT 3: REVENUE PROJECTIONS WITH GROWTH...100

8 JUNE 22, TABLE OF CONTENTS PART4: OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ATTACHMENT COMMUNITY MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SERVICES MATRIX PART 5: ATTACHMENTS: FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS CONSIDERED...180

9 JUNE 24, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Santa Monica is seeking to identify sources of revenue for the purpose of funding additional parking needed to meet the demand for parking in the Downtown area. This report identifies and quantifies the funding sources that are available to construct additional parking. However, the analysis performed to answer these questions revealed a significant number of existing private and public parking spaces in the area that, during peak demand periods on both weekdays and weekends, are not used. Impacted parking conditions experienced by the public in Parking Structures 1 6 obfuscate the fact that hundreds and in some cases thousands of parking spaces in the area sit empty, even when the occupancy rates in the parking supply in Parking Structures 1 6 approach 100%. To the extent that visitors encounter a lack of parking, our findings indicate that this is primarily due to disequilibrium in pricing between different parking facilities within Downtown. The current pricing structure, as well as other policies currently in place, has the unintended consequence of putting visitors and employees, transient and monthly parkers in competition for the most convenient and often least expensive spaces. Meanwhile, other spaces in the area remain unoccupied. In order to achieve the goals of this study, which are ultimately to make more parking available to the public in as efficient and cost effective manner as possible, we recommend the implementation of adjustments in pricing and parking management policies. While we initially explored raising parking fees for the purpose of generating revenue to build more spaces, we note that the revenue generated, while substantial, is arguably secondary to the amount of funds that the City or property owners can save by using pricing cues to manage the existing supply of spaces and being spared the land, construction and opportunity costs of constructing new parking facilities. Building new parking spaces is likely to result in a cost per new space that is hundreds of dollars more per month than the amount of revenue that new space can be expected to generate. The purpose of our recommendations is to improve the public s access to Downtown Santa Monica by increasing the efficiency and utilization of existing parking spaces and the other transportation options that are available, in short the entire transportation system that serves the area. Further, we note that failure to implement these pricing and policy recommendations, even if additional parking were built, would not only be wasteful and expensive, but may not solve the problem or the perception of a parking shortage. Without implementing proper pricing policies, competition for the best spaces is likely to persist while in some cases thousands of parking spaces continue sit underutilized. Ultimately, we recommend that beyond the rebuilding of the expanded Parking Structures 1 and 6, parking pricing and management tools should be implemented and their effects monitored carefully before any additional parking structures are constructed. Our findings indicate that, given the extent of the current parking demand and new development that we have analyzed it is very likely that new structures will not be necessary. Finally, we note that the effects of subsidizing parking and the building of large numbers of spaces go far beyond efficiency, cost and access issues and that these effects should be considered in light of the City s broader goals. Building additional parking can contribute significantly to traffic congestion and increases in tailpipe emissions. They also undermine the use of alternative modes of transportation and ii

10 JUNE 24, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY many of the transportation and land use policies that the City has identified for the purpose of improving the overall quality of life of residents, employees and visitors to the area as well as the environment. The following are the findings and recommendations from each section of the study. SUMMARY OF PART 1 ANALYSIS OF PARKING DEMAND AND CURRENT CONDITIONS FINDINGS OF PARKING INVENTORY AND OCCUPANCY COUNTS Walker performed occupancy counts within the designated study area and found a peak parking occupancy rate of 65% occurring during the 1:00 pm counts on a weekday, when 6,927 of the total 10,595 public and private spaces were occupied. The weekend peak showed a lower occupancy rate when 60% (6,355) of the public and private spaces were occupied. Some of the public structures in the area, most notably Parking Structures 1 6 and 9, experienced much higher occupancy rates than the parking system as a whole. Three of the seven structures experienced occupancy rates over 90% during the peak hour of our weekday field surveys while the average occupancy rate for these structures was 93% during the peak hour of our weekend counts. The data collected during our field survey data was compared with 365 days worth of data from the City s parking equipment. Occupancy rates in the public structures on the days of our field surveys were at or above the 85 th percentile of demand for the entire year, indicating that the days of the counts were representative of busy days for the system. The reason for the greater overall parking demand during the week was the number of cars, likely belonging to weekday employees, parked in the 3,417 spaces located in private structures. Walker s surveyors counted 2,363 cars parked in the private spaces during the weekday peak but 1,081 cars parked in these same spaces on the weekend. This translated into over 1,000 available spaces in these facilities during the week and more than 2,000 available spaces in these facilities on weekends. Significant parking capacity was also found in Parking Structures 7 and 8 as well as the Civic Center and Library Structures. Some of the occupancy rates observed in our 2008 field counts later increased as a result in changes in parking policies in the area. We note that parking spaces in these facilities represent a valuable resource to help serve Downtown Santa Monica, but also note that a number of changes in both parking demand and policy likely to occur in the area may increase the utilization of these structures in the future. On both weekdays and weekends the area s on-street parking supply, consisting primarily of metered spaces, as well as Parking Structures 1 6 experienced the most impacted conditions. Overall parking demand in the area was lower on the weekend than during the week, but the peak demand for public parking spaces was higher on the weekend. Our analysis found that overall the parking system for the area still had available capacity to serve the needs of visitors and employees if steps are taken to better utilize underutilized spaces in the area. iii

11 JUNE 24, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINDINGS OF PRICING SURVEYS - COMPARABLE COMMERCIAL LOCATIONS We found the cost to park in public facilities in Santa Monica is significantly lower than comparable locations in the area, which is surprising given Downtown Santa Monica s enormous popularity on a regional and national level. The daily maximum to park all day in one of Santa Monica s public structures is $7.00 with two hours free. At comparable retail locations such as the Beverly Center, Westfield s Century City or The Grove, the all-day rate for parking at the time of our survey was $10.00, $22.00 and $22.00 respectively. At other municipal structures serving commercial areas the daily maximum is $6.00 in Pasadena with the first 90 minutes free, $7.00 in Santa Barbara with the first 75 minutes free, up to $13.50 in Beverly Hills with the first two hours free, and $12.00 in the parking structure which serves the popular 600 block of Robertson Boulevard in Los Angeles, a retail district adjacent to West Hollywood. As for hourly rates, after the two-hour free period, Santa Monica s public structures charge $2.00 per hour. The fee is $2.00 per hour in Pasadena, $1.50 per hour in Santa Barbara, and up to $1.50 per additional hour in Beverly Hills gated garages. In Los Angeles Robertson Boulevard structure, the public parking structure charge is $2.00 per hour for the first three hours of parking, and $4.00 per hour after three hours. The City of West Hollywood charges $1.00 per hour before 5:00 at the City s Sunset Strip lot. Santa Monica s evening public parking rate is currently $3.00. At the time of our survey, the evening flat rate in Old Pasadena was $5.00. In West Hollywood s public lot on the Sunset Strip it was $4.00 during the week and $6.00 on weekends. Weekend evening parking rates in private facilities on the Sunset Strip often top $ In Beverly Hills Golden Triangle, an area with significantly less activity than Downtown Santa Monica, evening rates in public structures are typically $2.00. Monthly parking permits in Santa Monica cost $82.50, which includes City tax. We noted employee monthly parking permit rates for unreserved parking, in privately owned facilities in Downtown Santa Monica, ranging from roughly $ to $ Monthly employee parking rates at newer buildings in the eastern part of Santa Monica were generally higher than those observed in the Bayside District, with starting rates of roughly $ per month. The City of Beverly Hills charges up to $ for monthly permits to park in its public garages. Monthly permit parking in Century City or Downtown Los Angeles often surpasses $ per month. On-street parking in Downtown Santa Monica costs $1.00 per hour. Pricing on-street parking spaces lower than off-street parking is common in commercial districts although increasingly the policy has been found to result in a shortage of available on-street spaces as well as significant traffic and emissions problems. Recently a number of cities have sought to change the practice. The City of Los Angeles recently began pricing on-street parking in popular areas at $2.00 to $4.00 per hour. Rates at parking meters in Downtown San Francisco are currently $1.50 to $3.00 but an increase is planned for July Parking meter rates in popular areas of West Hollywood, Old Pasadena and San Diego are $1.25 per hour. iv

12 JUNE 24, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS CURRENT CONDITIONS City staff has provided a projected construction cost of $57,000 for each public parking space to be built in Downtown Santa Monica. Given the cost to build more parking and considering the relative cost when compared to utilizing existing spaces or parking and transportation alternatives, we make the following recommendations. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRUCTURES 1 6, 9 The goals of our recommendations for Parking Structures 1 6 and 9 are the following: Make more spaces available for customer and visitor parking; Utilize parking spaces in locations where they are currently underutilized; Increase revenue for the creation of additional parking resources and improvements; Encourage cost effective and sustainable alternatives to building new parking facilities. In order to achieve these goals we recommend that the City take the following actions. Charge $1.00 for the second hour of parking in the structures. In dozens of municipal studies Walker has observed that it is virtually a universal practice for drivers to move their cars to avoid paying for parking virtually anywhere that a two-hour grace period for parking exists. We recommend charging for the second hour in order to: A) free up spaces for visitors and customers closest to destinations B) reduce the number of employees who drive in and out of the structures in order to get free parking and C) reduce the revenue loss that results from people driving. Increase the maximum rate in the parking structures to $9.00 per day in order to bring parking rates closer to market rates and capture additional revenue. Increase monthly permit fees to $ in the numbered parking structures, 1 in two steps if necessary. The purpose is primarily to encourage employees to park in underutilized spaces in the area, whether peripheral public spaces or the private spaces in their own office buildings, and make spaces closest to destinations available for visitors and customers, but also to generate revenue; Charge $2.00 for each additional hour instead of the current $1.00 per 30 minutes in order to generate revenue for the City; Raise the flat rate for parking after 6:00 PM from $3.00 to $5.00 nightly in order to generate revenue and better manage parking demand; Raise on-street meter rates to $1.50 per hour. Once the technology is in place to allow the public a convenient method of paying higher rates (i.e. credit card acceptance capability by parking meters and/or widespread use of Santa Monicards), consider raising on-street meter rates to a higher hourly amount if justified by continued high on-street occupancy rates. 1 The rate before the City s 10% parking tax would be $ v

13 JUNE 24, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Monitor parking occupancy rates at regular intervals for the purpose of periodic revisiting of parking policy issues and, specifically, determining whether parking prices should be adjusted to better manage parking demand; Create agreements with the owners and operators of private parking facilities in the area to encourage their use by employees and other members of the public in order to reduce the need to build additional parking in a cost effective manner. Such policies could include the City paying owner/operator expenses or subsidies to subsidize lower public rates; Consider charging a higher rate for parking during periods of peak demand, such as weekends, in order to better manage parking demand; Use a portion of the revenue from the increased parking rates to actively fund non-single occupancy vehicle modes of transportation by employees of businesses in the area, such as subsidized passes for transit service, bicycle commuting and carpooling; If necessary, and if occupancies make access to these facilities beneficial, run a shuttle between the Civic Center Parking Structure and/ or the Civic Center Parking Lots and the Third Street Promenade to diffuse parking demand during busy periods while Parking Structure 6 is being demolished and rebuilt; POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CIVIC CENTER STRUCTURE 2 AND LIBRARY Maintain rates for monthly key card holders in the Civic Center at the current $82.50 level. 3 Provide shuttle service between the Civic Center Parking Structure and the Bayside District. Advertise the lowered rate in the Civic Center Parking Structure in order to attract employees and offer an alternative to the higher rates recommended in the numbered structures. Maintain rates for monthly parking for key holders at the current $82.50 level, but monitor weekday occupancy rates and consider raising monthly key card fees in the Library Parking Structure if parking on weekdays becomes impacted. As we mentioned in the case of the other monthly rate increase, this increase may need to occur gradually, perhaps in two steps, and not simply in just one increase in order to have drivers become accustomed to the increase. 2 We recognize that making rate adjustments in the Civic Center Structure is significantly complicated by the pricing structure of the nearby Civic Center parking lots and that such issues may need to be addressed. 3 It should be noted that this rate may still be one of the lowest monthly rates for parking of any commercial district in the area. vi

14 JUNE 24, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The financial impacts of these recommendations if they were to be implemented today are summarized in the following table: Table 1: Projected Revenue Recommendation 2007 Revenue Projected Increase A Variance % On-Street (Meters) B $1,124,000 $1,613,000 $489, % Off-Street C Charge $1.00 for Hour 2 $0 $196,000 $196,000 N/A Charge $2 per hour/$9 max $4,506,000 $6,420,000 $1,914, % Increase evening rate to $5 $1,764,000 2,654,000 $890, % SubTotal $6,270,000 $9,270,000 $3,000, % Paid Key Card Program Parking Structures 1-6 D $1,039,000 $1,149,000 $110, % Total $8,433,000 $12,032,000 $3,599, % A These figures are preliminary in nature and should not be used in financing documents. B Includes increase in meter rates to initial recommendation of $1.50 only and extension of hours that meters are in effect. Ultimately increasing meter rates to $2.00 or more per hour as generally recommended would yield significantly more revenue. On-street revenue does not include current revenue from the use of "Santa Monicards." C Off-street revenue includes projections for Structures 1-6 and 9 only. D 2007 key card revenue includes City Parking Tax. Source: Walker Parking Consultants and City of Santa Monica, 2009 PART 2 REVENUE OPTIONS ANALYSIS Keyser Marston Associates reviewed parking assessment district and parking in-lieu fee programs as well as other potential sources of revenues from the City s parking structures in order to identify additional sources of revenue to fund the construction of additional parking spaces in the future. vii

15 JUNE 24, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PART 2 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN-LIEU FEES The City can estimate a cost for providing the additional parking and update or create a new in-lieu fee program that assesses the incremental cost of parking to those developers who choose not to provide parking on site. In order to implement a new assessment district, the City will need to have a parking development program and be able to identify which parcels will benefit from the additional parking as was outlined in the 2004 MuniFinancial Report. Based on the City s projected construction costs per space, the existing in-lieu fee does not cover the cost of providing additional structured parking. A fee high enough to cover this cost of construction, approximately $171 per square foot of new development (assuming one parking space for each 333 square feet of new development is required) or between $14.00 and $17.00 per year does not provide an economic incentive for private developers to participate in the public parking program. Taking into account net parking revenues and the potential for shared parking spaces, a lower fee is probably warranted. In-lieu fees in California cities which ranged from roughly $1,600 to over $66,000 per space were noted. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT If the City is able to implement an assessment district that includes the existing commercial properties in the Bayside District and possibly other properties outside the Bayside District, then significant additional revenues could be available for parking improvements. The existing commercial properties in the Bayside District, assuming an annual $0.50 per square foot assessment, were projected to generate approximately $1,205,000 per year. Adding the non-bayside parcels projected to be benefited increases the annual revenue to approximately $2,758,000. OTHER REVENUE SOURCES Other revenue sources that were explored included advertising both on the exterior and interior of parking structures, rents for retail space in the parking structures, valet parking operations and a parking validation program. It was noted that the revenue potential of exterior advertising can be significant, but given the complex nature of such a program we note that controversial factors other than revenue are involved and which should determine the City s policy in this area. Market rents for retail space in Downtown Santa Monica were found to support the significant increase in construction costs that would be required to accommodate traditional retail space. Valet parking operations are, at best, cost neutral but often require a subsidy. A parking validation program for visitors could provide some additional revenue to the City provided that validations were not sold at a discount. viii

16 JUNE 24, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PART 3 FINANCING PLAN Keyser Marston Associates and Walker examined the following in order to determine the number of new parking spaces that available revenues could be expected to fund. The revenue impacts included the following: Increased revenue flows from operational and pricing changes recommended by Walker; The income increase from reducing the free parking period from two hours to one hour; The need for capital reserves; Revenues from a new assessment district; and Revenues from the existing in-lieu fee. Assumptions using both 20-year and 30-year bond financing were used. FINDINGS The City has the potential to substantially increase the revenues that it receives from the use of its downtown parking facilities. The pricing changes proposed by Walker are projected to generate an additional $2,450,000 in parking revenues in That is a 27% increase over the existing $9,216,000 of net revenues. Eliminating the second hour of free parking and instead charging $1.00 provides another $196,000 in revenues. The increased revenues can be used to support financing for new or replacement parking spaces. Depending on financing market conditions and whether the City eliminates the second hour of free parking, the increased revenues could support financing of between $20,000,000 and $28,500,000 if 20-year bonds are issued and $21,600,000 to $30,800,000 if 30-year bonds are issued. The 20-year bonds could finance between 341 and 486 parking spaces and the 30-year bonds could finance between 368 and 525 spaces. The increased parking revenues may not be sufficient to fund all of the replacement or new parking spaces. The City has considered creating a new assessment district to include the Bayside District and possibly properties surrounding the Bayside District. As noted earlier, MuniFinancial prepared assessment district estimates for the City that showed that a $0.50 per square foot annual assessment in the Bayside District could generate approximately $1,200,000 in annual revenues and adding properties surrounding the Bayside District could generate an additional approximately $1,550,000 in annual revenues. The all-inclusive assessment district that could provide funding for 479 to 550 parking spaces with 20-year bonds and 574 spaces to 683 spaces with 30-year bonds. 4 This assumes a 6% biennial increase in existing revenue. ix

17 JUNE 24, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Additionally, the City has an existing in-lieu fee program. That program is projected to have a balance of $7,568,000 in Those funds are sufficient to fund an additional 129 parking spaces. The following table shows the ranges of parking spaces that can be supported by the various funding options. Funding Option Number of Spaces 20-year Bonds Number of Spaces 30-year Bonds Current In-lieu Fee Baseline Parking Revenues 341 to to 525 New Assessment District 479 to to 683 Overall Number of Spaces 949 to 1,165 1,071 to 1,337 As parking revenues grow over time, the City could undertake another financing. If the additional commercial development included in our assumptions occurs, and this development did not provide for its own parking, then the City could consider implementing a new in-lieu fee. PART 4 - PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS An analysis of the City s parking operation was performed in recognition that how the system operates directly impacts not only the availability of parking spaces to the public and their overall customer service experience, but also and just as essentially, parking revenues and expenses. It is an important component determining how much net revenue is generated for the City. FINDINGS 5 Given that millions of dollars in annual revenue is generated for the City by the parking operation, an effort to increase the monitoring of revenue within the system can be viewed as a revenue source in and of itself in that it is likely to increase efficiencies in the system and thereby increase net revenue further. However, monitoring parking revenue and the operation is not only important for revenue s sake but for maximizing the efficiency of the existing system. If the system is inefficient, a significant number of spaces are underutilized, potentially for a variety of reasons, ranging from unsuitable pricing or restrictions to equipment malfunction or poor signage. At the same time, an inefficient system suffers from demand for parking outstripping supply, often resulting in drivers searching inordinately for parking. 5 In some cases, changes have already been implemented. x

18 JUNE 24, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Revenue is in many ways the score keeper for the efficient management of the system. The more carefully it is monitored the better the spaces are managed, making sure that they are available to the public, and that efficiency is maximized. By improving the efficiency and accuracy of how parking data is reported and therefore monitored, the parking operation can be managed more effectively. Increased efficiency will likely translate into not only improved management of the parking operation, but increased revenue and ability to meet the City s policy goals in the area of land use and transportation. Policies regarding the management of on-street metered, unmetered and valet spaces, transient off-street spaces, monthly key cards, enforcement, citation and collections, revenue and other components of the parking system are all interrelated and impact one another. Santa Monica s parking system is made up of different components, many of which are managed by different departments. At the time of our analysis, if an issue arose in one area of the parking operation it would likely impact other areas that are managed by other departments, resulting in challenges in identifying and responding comprehensively and appropriately to issues and opportunities. Our findings indicated that a more comprehensive, concentrated, and active approach to monitoring the parking system would yield revenue and efficiency benefits. RECOMMENDATIONS The following are some of the key recommendations contained in the report. Note that some actions have been undertaken since our draft report was issued. STAFFING ACTION ITEMS Walker recommends a parking operations office organization that would manage all parking related issues, both off- and on-street, no matter where the parking facilities are located throughout the City. Walker recommends several changes in the City s existing organizational structure for the Parking Office: The addition of a new position for a Parking Operations Auditor to the Administrative Section of the Parking Office. This new position would ensure an additional and much needed level of fiduciary accountability of the operations and would provide additional information. That a senior level position with managerial and supervisory responsibilities lead the Administrative Section of the Parking Office. This position would supervise the new Parking Operations Auditor. Given the City s personnel structure, this position would be equivalent to a Senior Administrative Analyst position. In the Parking Office the current position of Administrative Analyst could be eliminated to create a senior level Administrative Analyst in order to reflect the additional analytical and supervisory responsibilities. xi

19 JUNE 24, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the changes is to increase accountability and responsibility for each function of the operations group. Under the revised management structure, the new senior level Administrative Analyst position would be directly responsible for overseeing the verification of cash collection, counting and deposits and for ensuring that an audit of the Parking Operator s operation is conducted on a daily basis. The Parking Operations Auditor will verify the operator s reports and perform on-site inspections of the operation. These are tasks that are not presently part of the department s scope. Last year approximately $9,700,000 in cash was collected in the structures. That amount of cash warrants a consistent and continual watchdog. PARKING OPERATIONS ACTION ITEMS The following are some of the key items recommended in this area: Including within the supervisors shift responsibilities extensive circulation through the parking structures. A response time by supervisors of four minutes or less. Stagger supervisors start times to ensure additional coverage at peak times. Customer service clerks who sell monthly passes need back up personnel during breaks in order to ensure coverage throughout business hours and not inconvenience the public. Robust customer service training by the parking operator for cashiers and all its employees who have contact with the public. REVENUE CONTROL ACTION ITEMS - IMMEDIATE Recommendations were made to: Establish a daily shift audit to be performed by the Parking Operations Auditor; Perform a booth audit for each parking facility roughly once per year. The value of this audit is that it will provide management with a true picture of the revenue realized in a single day. This is then tied in with the true number of tickets collected and the revenue per ticket figure is obtained, presenting management with a tool to forecast revenue and assist in detecting fraud. Reconfigure the cashier shifts in all facilities to provide 24-hour coverage. During the slow periods of activity the cashiers will perform vehicle inventories and complete requests for maintenance forms (see section on maintenance). Even in parking facilities where a pay-on-foot payment system is implemented, these facilities will still require minimal staffing of roving cashiers 6 who can perform these late night duties. Implement a nightly log that inventories all vehicles that remain in the garage at closing. Before the end of the last shift at closing, the booth cashier will walk the garage and write down the license plate number of each car in a log and the date. 6 Staff will need to be available for drivers who have lost their tickets, have no money or cannot figure out how to use the POF equipment. xii

20 JUNE 24, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Develop performance statistics to be compiled monthly, quarterly, and annually. At the beginning of each month, City management should review the performance statistics with the private parking operator. Performance statistics should be compared to last year s statistics for the same month, year-to-date, and against budget. The monthly performance statistics should include: i. Labor costs, ii. Expenses, iii. Revenue, iv. Customer service, v. Activity-based statistics, such as lost ticket percentages. REVENUE CONTROL ACTION ITEMS LONG TERM Proceed with the implementation of the City s Pay-on-Foot pay stations for the purpose of providing faster exiting from the garage, better 24-hour revenue coverage of the garage, and eventually reduced labor costs. Within the garages put in place an additional mechanism for payment to facilitate quicker exiting and to provide collection for after hours parking. There should be two POF pay stations per floor in the parking facilities where such a system is implemented, located near access points such as elevators and stairwells. Redundancy is important. Once the equipment has been use for a while, and the parking patrons are familiar with its presence, and how to use it, the cashiering staff could be pared down. This will increase the acceptance of the POF machines and expedite exit flow. Develop a web store for permits and parking tickets activity. The web store would allow monthly parkers to sign up, renew, terminate, or change status themselves. We note that the software for such a system would need to verify eligibility. It should also accept permit and parking ticket payments. The use of a web store for the sale of parking permits is a relatively new concept but there are universities in particular and a few municipalities that currently use it to sell parking permits, perhaps most notably in California the University of California, Berkeley. The City should review its practices including those for verifying eligibility, as the University has significant restrictions regarding who is entitled to receive a parking permit. STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE ACTION ITEMS FACILITY CONDITIONS Establish a structural maintenance fund for structural maintenance costs for all the City s parking facilities, including those structures that are seismically upgraded. xiii

21 JUNE 24, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Establish a process for an annual general review of each parking facility and a more comprehensive condition appraisal every three to five years. FACILITY CONDITION - MAINTENANCE & CUSTODIAL Once a month, the City Parking Operations Coordinator, Parking Operations Specialist, and the Parking Operator Manager should make random inspections of facilities and grade them for appearance. This team would be responsible for ensuring that written inspections have been provided to the appropriate parties each week, who are then responsible for completing the work in a quality and timely manner. CUSTOMER SERVICE Establish a customer service mystery shopper program to periodically check on the service performance of the parking staff, particularly cashiers, making the results part of the monthly meetings with the parking operator. Identify (and reward) parking individuals who excel in providing customer service. NEW TECHNOLOGIES While new technologies such as parking guidance systems and improved revenue control and access equipment offer the opportunity to greatly increase the efficiency of the parking system, in general we suggest that the greatest efficiencies will come from the ability to accurately monitor and collect data - and revenue - from the parking system. While some new technologies could be worth exploring in Santa Monica, the fact that their implementation is relatively uncommon in cities with even higher land costs and parking rates suggests that such technologies are often impractical, expensive, or inconvenient to put into use. They can also be a distraction from simpler and more cost effective solutions such as using pricing to manage parking. PART 5 FUTURE PARKING SUPPLY NEEDS ANALYSIS PART 5 - FINDINGS We project that our pricing recommendations will increase the availability of spaces in Parking Structures 1 6 and 9 by roughly 400 spaces. We also project that, based on the amount and type of new development in the Bayside District the demand for parking in the Parking Structures 1 6 and 9 will increase in the next several years by 211 spaces. We then performed the following analysis which suggests that, provided the appropriate parking management measures are put in place, the construction of new parking structures in the Bayside District, beyond the rebuilding of Parking Structures 1 and 6, is not necessary. xiv

22 JUNE 24, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table 5: Future Impacts on the Parking System PS 1 6, 9 & 10 Parking Related Impact Supply of Public Spaces Demand for Public Spaces Available Public Spaces Projected Timing 2008 Supply and Demand PS 1-6, 9 & 10 3,359 2, Spring 2008 New Pricing Policies Fully Implemented (411) 832 Winter 2010 PS 6 Demolition (342) 490 Spring 2010 New Development Comes On Line Spring 2010 Valet Parking Program Implemented A (200) 479 Summer 2010 PS 6 Rebuild Complete 565 1,044 Fall 2011 PS 1 Demolition (338) 706 Winter 2012 PS 1 Rebuild Complete 564 1,270 Fall 2013 PS 3 Demolition (339) 931 Winter 2014 Total 3,469 2, A Per earlier discussion of the use of private parking spaces for valet. We note that the demand numbers in the table reflect the weekday peak while the peak demand for valet parking is most likely to occur on evenings or weekends. Source: Walker Parking 2009 We project that the parking supply will be most impacted after Parking Structure 6 is demolished and once all the new development expected to occur in the parking district comes on line, assuming that this occurs in Spring At this point, unless additional spaces are made available in the private supply, the Civic Center Structure and/or Parking Structures 7 and 8, the small number of parking spaces becomes problematic. Policies that take advantage of these existing spaces, however, should ameliorate a supply shortage considerably. Ultimately we project a net gain in the number of available parking spaces. Provided that all the parking pricing and management policies recommended in Part 1 of this report are implemented together, the parking spaces that currently exist in the private parking supply as well as parking demand mitigation measures should be able to accommodate the projected increase in parking demand and temporary xv

23 JUNE 24, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY elimination of parking spaces. We also expect some drivers, commuters in particular, to switch to public transit and carpools in response to changes in parking prices and the eventual introduction of light rail into the study area within five years. On a separate note, we found that in the past decade, the ratio of the supply of parking spaces in the area to the amount of commercial square footage in the Bayside District may have dropped slightly. PART 5 - KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Beyond the planned rebuilding of Parking Structures 1 and 6, which represent an opportunity to increase the public parking supply where it is currently needed most (and on sites already devoted to parking), we do not recommend building additional parking structures in Downtown Santa Monica. We make this recommendation based on the following considerations: the large number of underutilized parking spaces that currently exist in Downtown Santa Monica, particularly in the private supply; the opportunities that exist to efficiently use many of the existing spaces, opportunities which will either generate revenue for the City or cost far less than building new parking facilities; the high cost of building parking in the area; the opportunity cost of building parking in the area; the oft-bemoaned traffic congestion within and around the area; the increase in transportation alternatives to driving to the area; 7 the City s broader goals of encouraging such alternatives and their environmental benefits. Instead of building additional parking structures to relieve impacted parking conditions we recommend implementing the parking pricing policies described in the Parking Demand Analysis (Part 1) of this study in order to encourage improved utilization of the existing supply of spaces, most notably the large number of private spaces but also the Civic Center Parking Structure, particularly on weekends. Additional findings developed in this section also lead to the following recommendations: Use the proposed central valet operation for the area to access private parking spaces that otherwise would not be utilized by the public; 7 These include the Exposition Line, which will link Downtown Santa Monica to points east, including Downtown Los Angeles and the region s rail network, as well as facilities that the City has planned for parking hundreds of bicycles. xvi

24 JUNE 24, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Either ensure that drivers who are permitted to park in the spaces leased by 100 Wilshire park in those spaces and not in the public area or explore the possibility of reserving spaces for the lease and allow parking space lease holders to park anywhere in the parking structure. xvii

25 PART 1 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS AND RATE RECOMMENDATIONS

26 PAGE 19 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS DEMAND ANALYSIS AND RATE RECOMMENDATIONS - INTRODUCTION The following is an analysis of the parking demand in Santa Monica s Bayside District. The findings of the analysis are then used to make recommendations with regard to parking rates for the purpose of achieving the following goals: Increased efficiency and appropriate use of the available parking resources Maximization of revenue Establishing parking fees that are competitive with comparable districts and destinations in the region for a variety of parking types including: - Employees - Daytime and evening visitors - Businesses - Parking leased for businesses Recommending best practices in parking pricing that will help to accomplish the parking management and revenue goals of the study This section of the report contains an analysis of parking patterns and makes broader recommendations with regard to raising revenue for the purpose of building additional parking spaces, as well as maximizing the efficiency of the parking system. At this time, we do not consider in detail the impacts of future development, construction, or the availability of additional parking inventory that is planned for the area. In this sense, the analysis and recommendations can be seen to be shorter term. We have tried to identify those trends or observations that we understand may be impacted by changes that are planned within the next two years. Most importantly, however, within this section we make recommendations based on parking policy and management principals that should overall remain sound regardless of the changes planned for the Bayside District. The revenue figures that we project from our recommendations are preliminary and order of magnitude in nature. We also note that, on the whole, we believe they are conservative. They will be explored in more detail later in the study and are not to be used for financing. We also note that not only in the near term, but even during the course of the first part of this analysis, some parking patterns have changed in several of the parking facilities in the study, most notably the Civic Center Parking Structure and Parking Structures 7 and 8. Due to the changing nature of how these structures are being used, the financial projections in this report do not include revenue forecasts for these parking facilities at this time. We begin by examining and demonstrating the existing conditions that were observed and then make parking management and revenue recommendations for both on-street and off-street parking. In both the on-street and off-street sections we examine parking rates and policies in other municipalities and commercial centers and conclude by projecting the financial impact of our recommendations Consolidated Document Doc

27 PAGE 20 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS CURRENT CONDITIONS STUDY AREA The primary study area for this project is an approximately fifteen-square block area centering on the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and Fourth Street. This fifteen-block area is bounded by Sixth Street to the east, Second Street to the west, Colorado Avenue to the south, and Wilshire Boulevard to the north, encompassing the boundaries of the area s business improvement district along with several square blocks to the east. In addition to this primary area, the study area includes several additional peripheral parking facilities. These include Santa Monica Public Structures 9 and 10, located north of Wilshire Boulevard, the parking areas of the main branch of the Santa Monica Public Library, and the new Civic Center Parking Structure. Map 1 depicts the study area. METHODOLOGY INVENTORY In preparation for the occupancy counts, Walker field staff performed an inventory of the study area during the week of February 25, The inventorying included the number of all the on-street and offstreet parking spaces that the field staff could access and therefore assumed were accessible to the public. In addition to the number of available parking spaces, the field staff also collected information to determine the parking rates, hours of operation and possible user groups. In the case of the nine public parking structures owned by the City or one of its agencies, and which contain, SKIDATA equipment, 8 Walker obtained the inventory from City staff. Table 1, on the following page, summarizes the number of parking spaces in the study area by location (on-street or off-street) and by ownership type (public or private). 8 These include numbered Parking Structures 1 6 and 9 as well as the Library and Civic Center Parking Structures.

28 PAGE 21 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Table 1.1: Number of Parking Spaces by Type and Location Location Public Private Total by Location On-street Off-street - core area 5,327 3,417 8,744 Off-street - non-core area 1,269 1,269 Total by Space Type 7,178 3,417 10,595 Overall, the study area consists of 10,595 parking spaces. The City of Santa Monica controls a majority of these spaces. Table 2, below, shows the breakdown of parking spaces as percentages of the study area total. Table 1.2: Percentage of Parking Spaces by Type and Location 9 Location Public Private Total by Location On-street 5% 0% 5% Off-street - core area 50% 32% 83% Off-street - non-core area 12% 0% 12% Total by Space Type 68% 32% 100% DESIGN DAY Design day conditions represent the peak level of parking demand on a busy weekday or weekend day. On such a day, the demand is not as high as it would be on one of the busiest days of the year (July 4 th, Labor Day or the Saturday before Christmas). Whereas a parking system designed for design day conditions would be used effectively on most busy days, a parking system designed to accommodate the demand of the busiest days would have a substantial number of spaces empty for virtually the entire rest of the year. In general, Walker recommends planning a parking system for the 85 th percentile level of parking occupancy. Again, we emphasize that accommodating parking demand for the absolute peaks typically results in valuable financial resources and real estate that is underutilized for almost the entire year. In 9 Core Area refers to the area bounded by Wilshire Boulevard, Sixth Court, Colorado Avenue and Second Street. Non-Core Area refers to parking located outside of the boundaries, including the Library Structure, the Civic Center Structure and Parking Structures 9 and 10.

29 PAGE 22 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS discussions with City staff, it was agreed that Saturday and Wednesday (as a result of the Bayside Districts Farmer s Market) were the busiest weekend and weekday respectively. OCCUPANCY DATA FROM PARKING STRUCTURES As mentioned earlier, Walker staff reviewed hourly parking occupancy data from gated Parking Structures 1-6 and 9 for the entire calendar year 2007 in order to observe patterns of peak demand and establish a design day. 10 We determined that the 85 th percentile day in 2007 was in fact on Wednesday, when the peak occurred at 1:00 pm, the same peak that we observed in our field surveys. The overall occupancy for the gated numbered parking structures at this time was 2,896 cars, which represented an overall occupancy percentage of 88.4% in these structures. Consistent with what we observed in much of the 2007 data, Structures 1, 3, 5, 6 and 9 were impacted with occupancy rates over 98%. Structures 2 and 4 experienced significantly lower occupancy rates, roughly between 68% and 78%. 11 From Hitech s occupancy data we also noted other data of interest including: The 27 busiest peak day hours occurred on a Saturday or Sunday. Wednesday was the busiest weekday. Weekday peaks in demand generally occurred between 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM, likely reflecting employee parking demand and potentially the overlap between daytime employees and afternoon and evening retail and restaurant employees. Weekend peaks typically occurred at 4:00 PM, 5:00 PM or 8:00 PM. Walker staff performed occupancy counts of the study area on Wednesday, 5 March 2008 and Saturday, 8 March The field staff performed the occupancy counts on each of the survey days at four intervals, 10:00 AM, 1:00 PM, 4:00 PM, and 7:00 PM. We then compared the occupancy data for the gated numbered structures on the day of our Wednesday count, 2,875 cars, with that of our earlier determined design day, 2,896 cars, and found that the results were statistically identical (less than 1% apart). 12 Similarly, the 3,080 cars that were parked at the peak hour in the structures during our Saturday counts would have represented occupancy on the 16 th busiest day of The results of our field surveys strongly suggested that the days of our counts were good representations of design day parking demand for both weekdays and weekends in the Bayside District. 10 Due to the similarity in these seven structures pricing and parking access and revenue control equipment, as well as location (walking distance to the Third Street Promenade), we refer to these parking structures as the gated numbered structures throughout the report. 11 Some staff members and members of the community expressed concern that these numbers were lower than expected. We address these concerns later in the report as well as possible explanations for numbers that were lower than expected. In general, however, we recognize that most of the public structures often experience impacted conditions. 12 In addition, the hours of peak parking demand for both the design day and the field survey day occurred during the 1:00 PM hour on a Wednesday. In Table 3 one can compare the peak garage occupancies during our survey day with that of the design day and note the similarities in occupancy rates, even on a structure-by-structure basis.

30 PAGE 23 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Table 1.3: Occupancy Data from Public Garages 1 6 and 9 Day DAY DATE TIME PS 1 Occ PS 1 Occ % PS 2 Occ PS 2 Occ % PS 3 Occ PS 3 Occ % PS 4 Occ PS 4 Occ% PS 5 Occ PS 5 Occ % PS 6 Occ PS 6 Occ % PS 9 Occ PS 9 Occ % Total Total Occ % Peak day 2007 Sat 12/15/07 3:00 PM % % % % % % % 3, % Weekend Survey Day Sat 03/08/08 3:00 PM % % % % % % % 3, % 85th Percentile Day 2007 Wed 12/05/07 1:00 PM % % % % % % % 2, % Weekday Survey Day Wed 3/5/2008 1:00 PM % % % % % % % 2, % Source: Hitech and Walker Parking Consultants, 2007 and 2008 PEAK OCCUPANCY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARKING COMBINED Table summarizes the occupancy data collected by Walker staff combined with the data recorded above from parking structure equipment, for both the weekday and weekend survey days. Despite the impacted conditions in several of the public garages, the parking occupancy rate at peak was 65% at peak for the entire study area. This figure appears to suggest that the study area overall does not suffer from a parking deficit. However, the overall number masks large imbalances in parking demand within the study area. People who go to the most popular areas to visit and park may find a shortage of parking while large parts of the parking supply remain highly underutilized. However, much of the underutilized public parking supply may only be available in the relatively short term (up to two years). We note that the overall peak parking demand observed coincides with the peak demand for only one of the subcategories of parking inventory, the parking located in private facilities. During the 1:00 PM count on Wednesday, approximately 69% of the study area s private parking spaces were occupied, the highest observed occupancy for private spaces of all the counts performed. CONCENTRATED AREAS OF IMPACT AND UNDERUTILIZATION While the overall system was at its busiest on Wednesday at 1:00 PM, the on-street and public off-street parking spaces experienced their highest level of demand on Saturday during the 4:00 PM hour. As shown in Table 3, the gated numbered parking structures experienced an average occupancy rate of 94% during the weekend peak, with five of the seven structures experiencing occupancies above 97%; they were effectively full. Although the weekday average occupancy during the peak is lower, five of the seven numbered, gated garages around the Promenade may still be considered impacted although the remaining two show significant capacity available. In general, the occupancy data from throughout

31 PAGE 24 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS 2007 suggested a significantly lower demand for parking in Structures 2 and 4 than in the other structures along the Promenade. 13 Parking Structures 7 and 8 (adjacent to Santa Monica Place). Other public structures demonstrated lower utilization levels as well, although changing policies and near-term development may impact the low occupancy rates that were observed during the data analysis. The nearly 2,000 spaces contained in Parking Structures 7 and 8 reached just 37% occupancy during the weekday peak and 68% occupancy during the weekend peak. This suggests that these two structures at times currently act as a pressure release when the gated public structures cannot accommodate peak demand; total peak occupancy for the gated structures varies between weekday and weekend by less than 200 cars, or 6% of demand. Much of the weekend peak parking demand is therefore accommodated by the large pool of underutilized spaces currently available in Structures 7 and 8, which are likely in part a result of the nearly vacant Santa Monica Place shopping mall and the current three hours free parking policy in the structures. A concern is to what extent this additional demand will be accommodated in Structures 7 and 8 once they are gated and their fee schedule changes to match that of the other gated structures as is planned within the next 18 months. 14 The Civic Center and Library Parking Structures. Parking policy for the Civic Center Parking Structure was changed after the 2008 field data was gathered in order to encourage more City employees to park at that location. At the time of the Walker field surveys, there were never more than 55 cars in the entire 744-space public parking area. Since that time, Walker understands that a new policy put in place encourages City employees to park in the structure. Since the policy change, occupancy rates have increased dramatically, but based on Walker s observations and Hitech equipment data that was recently obtained, hundreds of spaces still remain available on a daily basis. During Walker s field surveys the peak demand for the Library s garage occurred at the same time as the peak for the entire area, but with a 68% occupancy rate showed significant capacity still available. Walker understands from Parking Office staff that due to a pricing policy change, on weekends more people are parking in the Library Structure. Private Parking Supply. It is important to note that during the public structures weekend peak, the private spaces experienced an overall demand of less than half what it had been on Wednesday during the system s overall peak, a 32% occupancy rate; the private supply was highly underutilized at the same time that the public supply was experiencing its highest impacts. This shift in demand between a weekday and a weekend day is likely the result of businesses, largely offices and other businesses not associated with the area s thriving collection of retail shops, restaurants, and movie theaters, being closed during the weekend. In essence, the area behaves like a typical mixeduse area in which the local office space generates the preponderance of the weekday parking demand 13 Spot checks of occupancy levels in Structure 4 using Hitech s online parking counters suggested that this structure was experiencing impacted conditions more often in the second quarter of 2008 than it had been in We also note that to some extent Parking Structure 8 may be acting as free parking for visitors to the beach and the Pier. We analyze parking patterns in Structure 7 in greater detail in our later discussion regarding lengths of stay.

32 PAGE 25 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS but is significantly less prominent on the weekend. The conclusion is that the weekday peak demand for parking in the area overall is driven largely by the weekday employees. Table 1.4: Summary of Occupancy Data Inventory Occupancy Wednesday, March 05, :00 AM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied ON STREET TOTALS % % % % Off Street Private facilities* 3,417 2,297 67% 2,363 69% 1,960 57% % Public structures Structures ,327 2,893 54% 3,669 69% 3,129 59% 2,577 48% Library and Civic Center 1, % % % 94 7% Total public structures 6,596 3,198 48% 4,055 61% 3,484 53% 2,671 40% OFF STREET TOTALS 10,013 5,495 55% 6,418 64% 5,444 54% 3,407 34% SYSTEM TOTALS 10,595 6,031 57% 6,927 65% 5,927 56% 3,940 37% Inventory Occupancy Saturday, March 08, :00 AM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied ON STREET TOTALS % % % % Off Street Private facilities* 3, % 1,028 30% 1,081 32% % Public structures Structures ,327 2,195 41% 3,873 73% 4,431 83% 3,962 74% Library and Civic Center 1, % % % 76 6% Total public structures 6,596 2,337 35% 4,163 63% 4,722 72% 4,038 61% OFF STREET TOTALS 10,013 3,133 31% 5,191 52% 5,803 58% 4,843 48% SYSTEM TOTALS 10,595 3,694 35% 5,756 54% 6,355 60% 5,395 51% Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2008 On-street Parking. Finally we note that the on-street parking supply is clearly the most impacted of the different subgroups, experiencing parking occupancies above 90% on both the weekday and weekend. 15 While representing less than 5% of the total parking supply in the area, the allocation of the on-street supply is important for the proper functioning of the entire parking system as it should offer drivers the most convenient, short-term spaces, and many drivers will spend significant amounts of time and energy circling to find on-street parking before considering parking in a garage. Summary: While the parking supply in the Bayside District is characterized by areas of impacted parking, it also contains significant parking imbalances as well. Maps 2 and 3 illustrate the imbalances geographically, demonstrating significant areas of both red (impacted) and green (underutilized) parking within the study area. 15 We note that the on-street inventory includes loading zone and other unmetered spaces, which are often not available to the general public, suggesting that on-street occupancy rates for metered spaces are even higher than those quantified in the table above.

33 PAGE 26 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS EFFECTIVE SUPPLY In addition to the parking demand imbalances observed in the Bayside District, there is another factor which suggests that parking in the area is more impacted than the initial data suggests. Any evaluation of a parking system needs to account for factors that can reduce the system s parking supply. In an imperfect world, people sometimes take up more than one space when they park. Some vehicles are so large that they simply do not fit into one stall. Crews performing routine work or maintenance on a parking lot or a nearby facility may need additional spaces for their safety and their equipment. Moreover, the effective operation of a parking system requires that it have an appreciable number of spaces in addition to those that are occupied by cars. These spaces form a buffer that facilitates the flow of traffic into, out from, and within the parking area. Without such a buffer, users would find themselves competing for the last available spaces. Those waiting for a space to open would slow the flow of traffic up and down the lot s aisles. Eventually, a queue of waiting vehicles could slow the departure of exiting vehicles and even affect the flow of traffic on the adjacent street. To account for these everyday factors and to provide for the buffer of spaces, Walker Parking assesses the adequacy of a parking system by incorporating a cushion into the parking supply. This cushion, or effective supply factor, lowers the calculated number of available parking spaces. The reduction is prudent because it is unrealistic to expect parkers to search for the last available parking spaces without experiencing significant frustration and perceiving that parking is inadequate. The margin of extra spaces in the supply minimizes circulation problems, so that people can find spaces in a reasonable amount of time. Visitors in particular, who by definition are less familiar with the area in which they are parking, need to be able to find spaces in a conveniently located, well marked area. The effective parking supply factor thus allows for a more efficient use of a parking facility. The calculation of the effective supply factor for the study area requires careful consideration of several factors. These factors include the size of the parking system, the type of spaces, the users' familiarity with the system, and the level of turnover. In Santa Monica, lots purposed primarily to offices need a smaller effective supply factor than lots intended for visitors. Visitors have high turnover rates over the course of a day and are more likely to park in different places on different days; visitors may be unfamiliar with the parking systems altogether. Conversely, those familiar with the area tend to park more efficiently. This tendency is because members of these groups park in the location on a daily basis, are more familiar with the parking facilities, typically use the same parking areas each day, and frequently park in one place all day. As a result, they create less congestion. Consequently, in our analysis of the effective parking supply, we assumed that on-street parking spaces had an effective supply of 85%, public off street parking areas 90%, and private off-street parking areas 95%. Based upon these calculations, we can then analyze parking adequacy, or how well each type of parking area met the parking demand.

34 PAGE 27 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Table 1.5: Effective Supply Space Type (Effective Supply Factor) Inventory Effective Suppy On Street (.85) Public Structures (.90) 6,596 5,936 Total Public 7,178 6,445 Private Facilities (.95) 3,417 3,246 System Totals 10,595 9,692 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2008 PARKING ADEQUACY Comparing the parking demand to the study area s effective parking supply, we can see two trends. First, the on-street parking supply is generally impacted. During seven of eight survey intervals, the onstreet parking supply was effectively operating in a deficit situation. On the one occasion when there was a surplus of on-street parking spaces, it was but fifteen (15) parking spaces for the entire study area. Consequently, it is highly likely that even during those rare instances when the on-street parking supply is adequate, the demand is so high that the wide-spread perception will be that there are an inadequate number of parking spaces; it is also possible that both the impacted spaces and few available spaces will be concentrated in different locations. Second, as most business offices are closed on the weekend, their parking spaces by and large go unused. Conversely, the public parking spaces are in very high demand on a typical weekend day and early evening. Not only is the on-street parking supply inadequate, but the public parking structures are operating at or above capacity for most of the day. Indeed, during the interval of peak demand on Saturday, the public parking spaces faced a combined inadequacy of 149 parking spaces while over 2,000 private off-street parking spaces sat empty

35 PAGE 28 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Table 1.6: Parking Adequacy Summary Space Type (Effective Supply Factor) Inventory Effective Suppy 10:00 AM Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy Wednesday, March 05, :00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit On Street (.85) (27) (24) Public Structures (.90) 6,596 5,936 2, , , ,577 1,007 Total Public 7,178 6,445 3, , , , Private Facilities (.95) 3,417 3,246 2, , ,960 1, ,517 System Totals 10,595 9,692 5,726 1,559 6, ,572 1,889 3,846 3,500 Space Type (Effective Supply Factor) Inventory Effective Suppy 10:00 AM Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy Saturday, March 08, :00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit On Street (.85) (52) 565 (56) 552 (43) 552 (43) Public Structures (.90) 6,596 5,936 2,195 1,626 3, ,431 (78) 3, Total Public 7,178 6,445 2,756 1,574 4, ,983 (121) 4, Private Facilities (.95) 3,417 3, ,457 1,028 2,225 1,081 2, ,447 System Totals 10,595 9,692 3,552 4,031 5,466 2,490 6,064 2,051 5,319 2,616 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2008

36 PAGE 29 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Map 1: Study Area

37 PAGE 30 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Table 1.7: Summary of On-Street Parking Supply and Occupancy Wednesday, March 05, 2008 Saturday, March 08, :00 AM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 10:00 AM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM Segment # Inventory Occupancy Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied OS % 30 91% 28 85% 28 85% % % 30 91% % OS % 30 86% 28 80% 30 86% 33 94% 33 94% 33 94% 33 94% OS % 26 93% % 27 96% % % % % OS % % % % % % % % OS % 9 100% 9 100% 7 78% 9 100% 9 100% 9 100% 9 100% OS % 14 67% 15 71% % % % % % OS % % % % % % % % OS % % 8 73% % % % % % OS % 8 100% 8 100% 8 100% 8 100% 8 100% 8 100% 8 100% OS % % 26 81% % 28 88% 28 88% 30 94% % OS % 26 81% % % % % % 31 97% OS % 30 86% 34 97% 34 97% % % % % OS % 30 88% 29 85% 31 91% 31 91% 31 91% 32 94% 30 88% OS % % % % % % % % OS % % 12 80% 14 93% % % % % OS % 3 100% 3 100% 2 67% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% OS % 8 100% 8 100% 8 100% 8 100% 8 100% 8 100% 8 100% OS OS-19* % 14 54% 11 42% 20 77% % % % % OS-20* % 14 54% 14 54% 22 85% 25 96% % 25 96% % OS-21* % 16 64% 16 64% % % % % % OS OS % 18 86% % % % % % % OS % % 13 68% 14 74% % % 10 53% 10 53% OS % 9 82% 9 82% 7 64% % % % % OS OS OS OS OS OS % % % % % % % 10 77% OS % 18 86% 19 90% 17 81% % % % 20 95% OS % 9 100% 9 100% 9 100% 9 100% 9 100% 9 100% 9 100% OS % % 6 43% 9 64% 13 93% % 13 93% % OS % 9 180% 3 60% 8 160% 5 100% 5 100% 5 100% 5 100% OS % 7 44% 9 56% 9 56% 6 38% 8 50% 6 38% 6 38% Totals % % % % % % % % Notes: # Segment numbers OS-1 through OS-36 correspond to areas on Maps 1, 2, and 3. RED TYPE indicates segments that are impacted (occupancy greater than 85%) * Segments OS-19 through OS-21 have no parking at (12) spaces during 10:00 AM, 1:00 PM, and 4:00 PM counts. The available spaces were 100% occupied. Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2008

38 PAGE 31 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Table 1.8: Inventory and Occupancy, Study Area Blocks Block Area Description Inventory Occupancy Wednesday, March 05, :00 AM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied Private facilities* % % % 46 12% 65 18% 49 13% 48 13% 0 0% 1 Public structure Off street total % % % 46 12% 65 18% 49 13% 48 13% 0 0% Private facilities* % % % % % % % % 2 Public structure Off street total % % % % % % % % Private facilities* % % % % 74 20% % % % 3 Public structure Off street total % % % % 74 20% % % % Private facilities* % % % 9 2% 70 13% 77 14% 81 15% 11 2% 4 Public structure Off street total % % % 9 2% 70 13% 77 14% 81 15% 11 2% Private facilities* % 73 73% 55 55% 33 33% 27 27% 44 44% 35 35% 40 40% 5 Public structure Off street total % 73 73% 55 55% 33 33% 27 27% 44 44% 35 35% 40 40% Private facilities* % % % 71 20% 97 27% % % % 6 Public structure Off street total % % % 71 20% 97 27% % % % Private facilities* % 14 41% 5 15% 16 47% 2 6% 4 12% 11 32% 27 79% 7 Public structure Off street total % 14 41% 5 15% 16 47% 2 6% 4 12% 11 32% 27 79% Private facilities* % % % % % % % 88 50% 8 Public structure Off street total % % % % % % % 88 50% Private facilities* % % 38 79% 11 23% 14 29% 29 60% 45 94% 23 48% 9 Structure % % % % % % % % Off street total % % % % % % % % Private facilities* % % 30 91% 23 70% 18 55% 26 79% 27 82% % 10 Structure % % % % % % % % Off street total % % % % % % % % Private facilities* % % % 29 14% 26 13% 52 26% 56 28% 46 23% 11 Structure % % % % % % % % Off street total % % % % % % % % Private facilities* % 3 75% 2 50% 1 25% 0 0% 3 75% 2 50% 1 25% 12 Structure % % % % % % % % Off street total % % % % % % % % Private facilities* % % % % 74 14% % % % 13 Structure % % % % % % % % Off street total 1, % % % % % % % % Private facilities* % 8 89% 4 44% 5 56% 4 44% 4 44% 5 56% 5 56% 14 Structure % % % % % % % % Off street total % % % % % % % % Private facilities* Structure % % % % % % % % Structure 8 1, % % % % % % % % Off street total 1, % % % % % 1,169 59% 1,330 68% 1,150 58% Private facilities* A Structure % % % % % % % % Structure 10 (total) % 63 77% 50 61% 32 39% 33 40% 68 83% 64 78% % Off street total % % % % % % % % B Library Total % % % 64 12% % % % 43 8% C Civic Center Total % 27 4% 34 5% 30 4% 33 4% 35 5% 55 7% 33 4% Occupancy Percent Occupied Occupancy Saturday, March 08, :00 AM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied Occupancy Percent Occupied Private facilities* 3,417 2,297 67% 2,363 69% 1,960 57% % % % % % TOTALS Public structures Structures ,327 2,893 54% 3,669 69% 3,129 59% % % % % % Library and Civic Center 1, % % % 94 7% % % % 76 6% Total public structures 6,596 3,198 48% 4,055 61% 3,484 53% % % % % % OFF STREET TOTALS 10,013 5,495 55% 6,418 64% 5,444 54% % % % % % Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2008

39 PAGE 32 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Table 1.9: Adequacy of On-Street Parking Supply Wednesday, March 05, 2008 Saturday, March 08, :00 AM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 10:00 AM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM Segment # Inventory Effective Supply (.85 of Inventory) Occupancy Surplus/ Deficit Occupancy Surplus/ Deficit Occupancy Surplus/ Deficit Occupancy Surplus/ Deficit Occupancy Surplus/ Deficit Occupancy Surplus/ Deficit Occupancy Surplus/ Deficit Occupancy Surplus/ Deficit OS (4) 30 (1) (4) 33 (4) 30 (1) 33 (4) OS (3) 33 (3) 33 (3) 33 (3) OS (4) 26 (2) 28 (4) 27 (3) 28 (4) 28 (4) 28 (4) 28 (4) OS (6) 42 (6) 42 (6) 42 (6) 42 (6) 42 (6) 42 (6) 42 (6) OS (1) 9 (1) 9 (1) (1) 9 (1) 9 (1) 9 (1) OS (3) (3) 21 (3) 21 (3) 21 (3) 21 (3) OS (2) 17 (2) 17 (2) 17 (2) 17 (2) 17 (2) 17 (2) 17 (2) OS (1) 11 (1) (1) 11 (1) 11 (1) 11 (1) 11 (1) OS (1) 8 (1) 8 (1) 8 (1) 8 (1) 8 (1) 8 (1) 8 (1) OS (3) 32 (4) (4) (2) 32 (4) OS (4) (4) 34 (6) 32 (4) 32 (4) 32 (4) 31 (3) OS (3) (4) 34 (4) 35 (5) 35 (5) 35 (5) 35 (5) OS (1) (2) 31 (2) 31 (2) 32 (3) 30 (1) OS (1) 13 (1) 13 (1) 13 (1) 13 (1) 13 (1) 13 (1) OS (2) 15 (2) (1) 15 (2) 15 (2) 15 (2) 15 (2) OS OS (1) 8 (1) 8 (1) 8 (1) 8 (1) 8 (1) 8 (1) 8 (1) OS OS (3) 26 (3) 26 (3) 26 (3) OS (2) 26 (3) 25 (2) 26 (3) OS (3) 25 (3) 25 (3) 25 (3) 25 (3) OS OS (3) 21 (3) 21 (3) 21 (3) 21 (3) 21 (3) OS (2) 20 (3) (2) 19 (2) OS (1) 11 (1) 11 (1) 11 (1) OS OS OS OS OS OS (2) 13 (1) 13 (1) 13 (1) 13 (1) 13 (1) 13 (1) 10 2 OS (6) (1) (3) 21 (3) 21 (3) 20 (2) OS (1) 9 (1) 9 (1) 9 (1) 9 (1) 9 (1) 9 (1) 9 (1) OS (7) 18 (6) (1) 14 (2) 13 (1) 14 (2) OS (4) 9 (4) (3) OS (3) Totals (27) (24) 561 (52) 565 (56) 552 (43) 552 (43) # Segment numbers OS-1 through OS-36 correspond to areas on Maps 1, 2, and 3. Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2008

40 PAGE 33 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Table 1.10: Adequacy of Off-Street Parking Supply Block Area Description Inventory EFS Effective Supply Occupancy Wednesday, March 05, 2008 Saturday, March 08, :00 AM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 10:00 AM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit Private facilities* Public structure Off street total Private facilities* Public structure Off street total Private facilities* Public structure Off street total Private facilities* Public structure Off street total Private facilities* Public structure Off street total Private facilities* Public structure Off street total Private facilities* Public structure Off street total Private facilities* Public structure Off street total Private facilities* (3) Structure (4) 334 (30) 308 (4) (31) 327 (23) 330 (26) Off street total (33) (14) 372 (22) 353 (3) Private facilities* (5) (6) 10 Structure (37) 334 (29) 309 (4) (35) 335 (30) 332 (27) Off street total (29) 370 (34) 339 (2) (29) 362 (25) 369 (33) Private facilities* Structure (56) (22) Off street total (9) Private facilities* Structure Off street total Private facilities* Structure (2) Off street total Private facilities* Structure (25) 308 (1) (29) 333 (26) 331 (24) Off street total (24) (24) 338 (22) 336 (20) Private facilities* 15 Structure Structure Off street total Private facilities* A Structure (7) 309 (45) 293 (29) Structure (27) Off street total (34) 343 (5) (11) B Library Total C Civic Center Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit Inventory Effective Supply Factor Effective Suppy Occupancy Wednesday, March 05, 2008 Saturday, March 08, :00 AM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 10:00 AM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy TOTALS Private facilities* , , , , , ,447 Public structures , , (78) OFF STREET TOTALS , , , , , , ,659 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2008 Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy Adequacy/ Deficit Occupancy 7:00 PM Adequacy/ Deficit

41 PAGE 34 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Map 2: Peak Weekday Parking Demand, Wednesday, 5 March 2008, 1:00 PM

42 PAGE 35 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Map 3: Peak Weekend Parking Demand, Saturday, 8 March 2008, 4:00 PM

43 PAGE 36 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Map 4: Approximate Distances from Santa Monica Boulevard and Third Street

44 PAGE 37 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS LENGTH OF STAY While the occupancy rate of a parking facility tells us how many cars are parked at a given time, knowing how long cars are parked gives us an idea of how many cars may be accommodated at a given location over the course of a day. It also lets us know who is parking in the structure. For example, a 100-space parking lot where only employees park may not serve many more cars than the 100 drivers that are parked for eight to ten hours throughout the day. However, if the lot serves only shoppers who park for an average of an hour, the same lot may theoretically serve 1,000 cars in the same all-day period. The most important point to consider when analyzing length of stay statistics is that long-term parkers can displace many more times the number of visitors who park for shorter lengths of time. Performing a length of stay analysis in the Bayside District is tricky and inexact. Past experience in commercial districts and anecdotal evidence from parking staff suggests that many long-term parkers are skilled at avoiding measures designed to ensure that they do not park for a long time in a short-term space. They move their cars between different spaces designated as two-hour parking and may move their cars in and out of different garages several times a day so as not to pay a fee. In order to measure the length of stay of cars in a given location, Walker field staff typically conducts license plate identification surveys (LPI) in order to determine how long a car is parked. In the Bayside District such information is a little more difficult to gather, as the incentive to move one s car between parking spaces or even between parking garages is great. A prohibitively large amount of labor hours would be necessary to track all such cars. As a result, Walker chose to survey cars in Structure 7. We surmised that the three-hour time limit and lack of gated equipment to enforce parking durations would result in drivers making fewer efforts to avoid detection. Walker surveyed the garage on a weekday and counted a peak occupancy of 565 cars. Using LPI Walker staff counted 283 cars (roughly 50% of the peak occupancy) that were determined to be parked in the structure for four hours or more. 37% of cars were parked more than five hours. We assume that a large majority of these drivers were employees. Given the low weekday occupancy rates in Structure 7, the 50% employee parking rate was not necessarily a matter of great concern; visitors willing to drive up a few levels were able to find parking spaces. However, when parking is challenging or in some cases impossible for visitors to find, as is the case in most of the numbered structures (or once parking is in greater demand in Structure 7 when Santa Monica Place reopens), having a significant number of visitor spaces occupied by long term parkers becomes a major drain on parking resources and can result in the turning away of visitors.

45 PAGE 38 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS With our recommendations we look first to improving the efficiency of the parking spaces and the parking system as a whole. However, we note that maximizing efficiency is the best way to raise revenue, reduce costs and ultimately improve the experience of the parking system user, providing the user with convenient parking. Parking spaces are extraordinarily expensive to construct and maintain. They occupy valuable land that could be devoted to uses that are arguably more productive and attractive than car storage. It is inefficient to construct additional spaces while existing spaces sit empty for significant periods of time. Through proper pricing measures, the City maximizes the efficiency of the system by serving more drivers and destinations with fewer spaces that are accommodating vehicles at a variety of times, days of the week and seasons. It also minimizes costs significantly. ON-STREET METER RATES Metered parking spaces are the preferred spaces in which to park in virtually any commercial area. The Bayside District is no exception. On-street spaces offer easier access, as they often providing at least a shorter walking distance and in some cases a space immediately in front of a driver s destination. In addition, when available, they provide quicker parking (without the expense of time and the inconvenience of driving into a garage) and generally a heightened sense of visibility and therefore security. There is also a comfort in knowing that one has only to walk outside to their car and not have to remember whether the garage was to the right or to the left or on which floor one parked. Metered on-street spaces are the most desirable and convenient spaces in which to park in the Bayside District, but to a large extent the higher demand for the spaces and additional convenience is not reflected in the price. The result of charging the lowest hourly rate 16 for the most desirable spaces is not surprising. As discussed earlier, Walker s surveyors found that on-street parking was the most impacted category of the parking supply. On both weekdays and weekends, the area typically experiences a lack of available onstreet parking spaces; as the most convenient spaces, the on-street parking will always fill first if not priced appropriately. It is reasonable to assume that a significant percentage of the District s traffic may consist of drivers spending several minutes trying their luck in finding on-street parking before giving up and parking off-street. 16 Taking into account the free period offered in the parking structures, arguably for short stays the rate is lower in the garages. However, we believe that a significant number of drivers parked on the street feed the meters continuously and/or move their cars to other metered spaces. If they are parked on the street long enough, the price of parking on street becomes lower than that of parking off street.

46 PAGE 39 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS ON-STREET METER RATES Demand for on-street spaces outstrips supply and the supply of these spaces is finite. For this reason we recommend raising the fees to park in on-street spaces in the Bayside District. More specifically we make the following recommendations: Increase on-street meter rates for the purpose of achieving a roughly 85% occupancy rate for onstreet spaces per block. While we recommend raising rates gradually rather than all at once, we project that meter rates may need to be restructured in some locations to $ $3.00 per hour during periods of peak demand. However, despite the reported high number of Santa Monica residents who shop in the Bayside District (and who presumably have greater access to the Santa Monicards than do visitors) we believe that raising rates to this level is unrealistic in the short term, given the lack of parking meter equipment that accepts credit cards or bills. In the short term we recommend that on-street parking rates be set at $1.50 per hour or $0.25 per ten minute intervals. Vary meter rates as necessary in order to regulate demand according to: -higher and lower demand locations. -higher and lower demand periods (i.e. daytimes and evenings, weekdays and weekends, high season and low season). Avoid time limits and use pricing as much as possible to encourage turnover of on-street parking spaces; create a progressive pricing structure that discourages long-term, on-street parking. Once equipment and a system that accepts credit cards is in place, we initially recommend a rate structure as follows: 1 st hour - $ nd hour - $ rd hour - $4.00 We recommend that each additional hour could be charged at the $4.00 or more per hour rate in order to discourage long term parking in on-street spaces. Where the demand for on-street parking justifies the need for turnover, extend the hours of operation for parking meters, seven days per week, from a start time of 8:00 AM to conclude at 10:00 PM 17 or later. Install and implement meter technology that allows for the acceptance of credit cards and possibly paper currency. 18 Create a body and a process to monitor occupancy rates. This body, on a scheduled basis, if necessary, would adjust on-street prices to achieve the desired on-street occupancy rates. If necessary, to address concerns, provide a frequent-parker discount on Santa Monicards for residents and other frequent users to receive a reduced rate for parking. 9 Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking. Chicago, Illinois: American Planning Association p Along some blocks meters are in effect for a significantly longer duration, until 2:00 AM. We do not recommend changing these hours. 18 This is dependant in part on the type of meter system that is installed. For some types of meters, currency acceptors function well while for others they can be problematic and should be avoided.

47 PAGE 40 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS GOALS OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON-STREET METER RATES Under current conditions, on-street parking is effectively unavailable to most drivers who seek it. Finding an available on-street space in the Bayside District requires extended searching, waiting and, for all intents and purposes, luck. The goal of our recommendations is to increase the availability of on-street parking spaces and serve more cars (and people) with the same number of spaces. The goals of our recommendations are the following: Increase the availability of on-street parking spaces by endeavoring to make roughly one to two parking spaces available per block during typical busy periods. Improve the flexibility of parkers length of stay while penalizing those who stay for long periods of times, and also minimizing the resources and cost spent on enforcement. Maximize the turnover of on-street spaces, 19 including during the evening hours while the demand for on-street parking spaces remains high. Reduce the number of drivers cruising Bayside District streets in search of inexpensive on-street parking or waiting in traffic for other drivers to vacate on-street spaces. Make paying for on-street parking convenient for drivers and improve the customer experience of the driver. Emphasize regulation of duration using pricing rather than time limits, which are expensive and ineffectual to enforce. Develop additional revenue for parking and other neighborhood improvements by removing some of the money that the City currently leaves on the table by charging less than market rate for onstreet parking in the Bayside District Use revenue from the increase in meter fees to increase accessibility to the area by making improvements to: o The parking system. o The pedestrian friendliness of the area. o Improved transit and bicycle access to the area. o Signage. 19 By this we specifically say that the goal of our recommendations is to increase the number of cars parked in each space per day by decreasing the length of stay of each car parked on the street.

48 PAGE 41 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS METERED PARKING POLICIES IN OTHER CITIES COMPARABLE AREAS City staff requested that Walker survey parking rates in areas deemed comparable with the Bayside District. Such areas include the commercial centers of Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and Pasadena. While we note that the on-street meter rates in most of these areas are similar or just slightly more than the $1.00 per hour charged within the Bayside District, we emphasize that low rates for on-street parking, demonstrated by a frequent lack of availability of spaces, is counterproductive to serving the public and the effective management of the parking system. 20 These parking rates are typically significantly below the market rate for parking in the area; that is, the amount charged for on-street, metered spaces in these areas is often just a fraction of the hourly parking rate that is charged in nearby, but typically less convenient, off-street public and private parking facilities. Although this is beginning to change, such a pricing phenomenon is typical of metered parking in cities throughout the United States. The most common reasons for such mismatched parking pricing are typically A) political and/or B) technological. Political pressure has created a policy of low on-street parking rates despite a lack of available spaces; people want low priced parking even though the result is often a shortage of available spaces. In addition, until recently, technology made charging more than roughly $1.00 per hour at a parking meter quite customer unfriendly, as drivers who did not have a handful of change available were unable to pay for parking. Progressive pricing policies are now beginning to take hold in some of these locations. In 2007, Beverly Hills and West Hollywood jointly launched a program using parking meters that accept credit cards as well as coins on a few select blocks in each city, possibly paving the way for charging market rates for parking at the curb. Parking meters in parts of West Hollywood operate until at least 10:00 pm. BEST PRACTICES IN ON-STREET PARKING POLICY The following cities, primarily in California, have taken the lead in on-street parking policy, much of which has been implemented in roughly the last three years or is still in the pilot or implementation stages. Generally these best practices include congestion/market pricing for on-street spaces based on both time and location and the implementation of parking technology that allows parking patrons a variety of options for payment to make charging higher rates a realistic option for cities. We also note another best practice. As mentioned earlier, on-street spaces are generally in higher demand than offstreet spaces. They are also cheaper to provide. It makes sense not only to set on-street and off-street parking prices comprehensively, but also to have the potentially higher earning on-street spaces subsidizing the off-street spaces when necessary. As a result, even in the few municipal parking systems 20 Metered parking rates in the most popular areas of West Hollywood and Pasadena go up to $1.25 per hour. In areas of Los Angeles where on-street parking is in high demand, some on-street meter rates were raised in 2008 to $3.00 to $4.00 an hour.

49 PAGE 42 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS that are able to cover their costs, off-street parking rates are rarely high enough to cover construction and operating costs on their own. Old Pasadena A significant amount has been written in planning literature about the turnaround of Old Pasadena from something akin to a skid row in the 1980s to an extremely popular, pedestrian-friendly commercial destination in the 1990s. Many in the field of urban planning and economic development have given much of the credit to the installation of parking meters in the district, which pushed the cars of business owners and employees to other locations and provided visitors and customers with improved accessibility to on-street spaces and property in the area. 21 The argument for the installation of meters was politically successful once it was agreed that the additional revenue earned would stay in the district to fund street improvements and, eventually, off-street parking supplies. Much of this revenue was used to fund or guarantee the public parking structures in the area. Parking rates in Old Pasadena are $1.25 per hour in the core area and meters are in effect until midnight on weekends and 8:00 PM on weekdays. San Diego San Diego s Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC) conducted a multiyear Downtown Parking Pilot Program in targeted sections of the City s downtown, the goal of which was to provide information and sample techniques that would optimize the use of on-street parking in the downtown area and that could later be applied citywide. A mixture of on-street parking policies and technologies were used to maximize utilization of the on-street spaces including a targeted utilization rate of 85% (15% vacancy). As part of the pilot program fees were raised in high demand areas (albeit to a relatively modest $1.25 per hour) but kept as low as $0.50 in a number of peripheral areas to encourage parking in underutilized areas. The results were an overall increase in the utilization of on-street spaces of 106%, with utilization in some areas increasing more than 300%. In addition, an 89% increase in meter revenue was observed. New parking meters that accepted credit cards increased compliance and reduced citations significantly, arguably resulting in some loss of revenue but a more positive experience for the parking user. Most significantly, in addition to requesting that the program be expanded to the entire downtown area, City staff requested of City Council 22 : To optimize on-street parking and achieve an 85 percent utilization rate within the Expanded Pilot area: i.) Allow varying the time limits for on-street parking; ii.) Allow parking meters to operate beyond 6:00pm, but no later than 2:00am of the following morning, Monday through Sunday, expect for holidays; 21 One of the parking field s leading experts, UCLA Urban Planning Professor Donald Shoup, has written extensively on the relationship between the meters and the commercial success that Old Pasadena has enjoyed. 22 Report to the Council, City of San Diego, Reference: Manager s Report , located at:

50 PAGE 43 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS iii.) Allow a range of parking meter rates from $0.25 to $3.00 per hour. We note that there are differences between the parking inventories in Downtown San Diego and the Bayside District. For one thing, in San Diego there was apparently a significant supply of underutilized on-street spaces located on the periphery of the higher demand area. However, the conclusions drawn from CCDC s Pilot Program suggest that the pricing principles involved, as well as the ability of new parking technologies to implement these policies, can have a significant effect on increasing the utilization, turnover, efficiency and availability of on-street parking spaces. We note that, similar to Old Pasadena, San Diego has a mechanism for keeping on-street meter revenue within the district where it is collected. In the case of San Diego, 45% of the collected revenue stays in the commercial districts while the City keeps the remaining 55%. In cities where parking meters are already in place, Shoup has recommended that all or a portion of the increment of additional parking fees charged be returned to the district in which meters are located, with the amount already being collected continuing to stay in the City s hands. San Francisco Beginning in September 2008, and expected to last for one year, the City of San Francisco began implementation of a comprehensive parking pricing and management plan designed to reduce traffic and parking congestion, make finding parking easier and reduce greenhouse emissions. SFPark is the most comprehensive of its kind to be implemented, one of the reasons it is receiving $18 million of the program s $23 million price tag from the United States Department of Transportation. The price of parking depends on demand, with the highest parking fees charged for those locations and times of day which experience the highest demand. In virtually all cases these high-demand spaces are located at the curb. The program covers on-street metered spaces in a number of commercial areas throughout San Francisco as well as off-street parking facilities. The total number is therefore significantly more than the number located in the Bayside District but the principles and measures are the same as those that we recommend above for on-street (and, later in the report, off-street) spaces in the Bayside District. By pricing those spaces in highest demand, San Francisco s goal is to serve more people with the same number of spaces by making the spaces more efficient. As of this writing, the pricing points for on-street meters in the SFPark program range from $1.50 to $3.00 per hour, but are scheduled to be raised on July 1, 2009 by $0.50 per hour. It is instructive to note also that in late 2006 through early 2007 the Port of San Francisco, which operates approximately 1,000 metered spaces in a mixed-use area adjacent to the City s financial district, undertook a pilot program in which it experimented with a different on-street pricing schedule to affect supply and demand by introducing pricing strategies that could be supported by new technologies... that also provide customers with multiple convenient payment options Staff Report Memorandum to the Port Commission of the Port of San Francisco, accessed at affrpt.pdf.

51 PAGE 44 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Under the program, on-street parking in much of the area was restricted to four hours: the first two hours of parking were priced at $3.00 per hour, the third hour at $4.00 and the fourth at $5.00. Both in terms of parking turnover and revenue enhancement Walker understands that the pilot program was considered a success. Redwood City In the past five years Redwood City has been at the forefront of municipal parking pricing policy. As part of a Downtown renovation which consisted in part in the relocation of a 20 screen cinema from the City s periphery to the downtown, the City embarked on an overhaul of the area s parking system, charging higher rates in the central area, lower rates on the periphery and in public garages, and returning much of the revenue to the district in order to make public improvements. Truckee, CA - Progressive rate increases and discounted parking for residents and frequent users Truckee, California is a seasonal destination and stopover for visitors in the Lake Tahoe region. Like many other popular visitor destinations, however, the commercial district suffered from long term (typically employee) parkers occupying the primary visitor spaces. In response, the City implemented some innovative parking policies. They not only installed parking meters on the streets, but also implemented a progressive rate structure as follows: $0.25 for fifteen minutes of parking. $1.00 for one hour of parking. $2.00 for two hours of parking. $4.00 for three hours of parking. $7.00 for four hours of parking. The rate structure provides flexibility for those who must stay longer than the desired time limit while making it costly to do so as well. Such a progressive rate structure discourages drivers from feeding the meter and staying for long periods of time while also making enforcement easier and less expensive. The progressive rate structure was implemented using the multispace meter and other meter technology used to enforce the rate schedule. Truckee has also implemented two policies to provide convenience and discounted rates for residents and other frequent parkers. The first is a prepaid Parcsmart card which provides the user with a 15% discount on parking fees. The second is an in-car solar parking meter that hangs from the drivers rearview mirror. Upon parking, the driver sets the meter and it begins ticking down. In this way, the driver essentially pays for parking in advance and throughout his/her stay, but is not subjected to meter anxiety because the in-car meter provides the driver with as much time as they need. Arguably this is a fairer way to charge for parking. FINANCIAL IMPACT OF ON-STREET RECOMMENDATIONS We summarize the revenue impact of our recommendations in Table 11 at the end of Part 1 of the report.

52 PAGE 45 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS RATE INCREASE FOR ON-STREET PARKING We make the recommendations noted earlier in order to better manage the parking system and provide drivers with greater on-street parking space availability. However, there are significant financial benefits as well. The following projections are based in part on data obtained from the City which was estimated. It is also based on a variety of assumptions made in order to reconcile gaps in some of the data. Based on figures obtained from the City s finance department, the meter revenue generated by the 488 metered on-street parking spaces in the Bayside District was just over $1.12 million dollars in calendar year 2007, an average of $93,000 monthly. This figure does not include the use of the Santa Monicard, prepaid parking cards that the public can purchase from the Parking Department. At this writing, data showing the extent to which Santa Monicards were used in the Bayside District are unavailable; the parking revenue from the Santa Monicard is therefore not taken into account in our recommendations or revenue projections. In place of the current $1.00 per hour on-street fee, we recommended raising parking rates initially to $1.50 per hour as we believe a higher amount (and the resulting need for credit card acceptance) could not be accommodated by the existing meters within the near term. Based on this fee we believe that it is reasonable to project an approximate 50% increase in revenue annually, but the challenge to drivers of having adequate change may be a factor. The total projected revenue generated by this measure is therefore a conservative one, roughly $380,000 annually. Once equipment is in place that will accept credit cards, we recommended raising rates to $2.00 per hour for the first hour to $4.00 per hour for the third hour in the long term, although the price of on-street parking should ultimately be set based on demand and a review of the new occupancy rates, in order to make sure that a few spaces remain available. In such a case, rates would fluctuate based in part on location and high and low periods of demand. If, once a method of accepting credit cards is put in place, we project an average increase in revenue per meter of nearly $1.00 per hour, given the $2.00 rate and a likely much higher revenue capture. Potentially the result could be more than $1.0 million per year in additional revenue, not including additional revenue related to additional hours of stay. Because the demand for on-street parking is strong, and likely a significant latent demand for on-street parking exists, we believe that the higher rate would not reduce parking demand significantly on the street and would remain strong enough to keep up this level of revenue. EXPANDED HOURS OF OPERATION Based on our survey data and observations, we conclude that metered spaces in the Bayside District are impacted significantly later than the hours of operation. Walker understands that roughly 127 meters in the area are in effect until 2:00 AM, but most are in effect only until 6:00 PM.

53 PAGE 46 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Extending the hours of operation would also provide additional revenue for the City. At this stage of our study we make the following order-of-magnitude projections. We estimate that 315 of the metered spaces in the Bayside District could reasonably extend their hours of operation until an average of 10:00 pm in the evening. 24 Based on our survey data and an analysis of evening parking patterns in the garages, we project that these spaces would be occupied on average for 3.5 of the four additional hours of operation. 25 Based on the current hourly meter rates and an analysis of meter revenue in 2007, we project that each space would generate $0.60 per hour for these 3.5 hours. We project the additional revenue generated on an annual basis would be roughly $210,000. Based on $1.50 and $2.00 per hour rates, we project that the additional annual on-street meter revenue would be roughly $300,000 and $360,000 respectively. PRICING POLICIES FOR THE PUBLIC GARAGES Although it is not to the level or the duration of impacts experienced by the on-street parking system, as a whole the gated numbered parking structures (1 6 and 9) suffer from impacted parking both on weekday afternoons and on weekends. However, the extent of the impacts is likely driven by different user groups at different times. On weekday afternoons our analysis suggests that a significant number of the cars parked belong to employees who work in the area. This may, to some degree, be the case on weekends as well. However, as opposed to weekdays, the high number of visitors on weekends is a major source of impacts in these gated public structures as well. POLICY GOALS FOR STRUCTURES The goals of our recommendations for Parking Structures 1 6 and 9 are the following: 1) Make more spaces available for customer parking. 2) Utilize parking spaces in locations where they are currently underutilized. 3) Consider varying rates when necessary in order to regulate demand according to: higher and lower demand locations higher and lower demand times, days and seasonality 4) Bring monthly permit parking rates closer to the rates of private parking facilities in the Bayside District and in the general area. 5) Minimize the number of long-term cars parked in the garage. Doing so will largely depend on reducing the number of employees who currently use these structures for long term parking: a. by taking advantage of the two hours free parking and moving their cars out of the garage three times a day. b. attracted to the significantly below-market monthly parking rates available to local employees 24 On weekends it would be reasonable to extend hours of operation later, on weekdays possibly earlier. 25 This projection conservatively takes into account the possibility that spaces on or east of 5 th Street may not enjoy as robust a level of occupancy as those closer to the Promenade. It also takes into account occupancy data for the parking structures which suggests that while occupancy remains high in the 6:00 pm through 8:00 hours, it would likely drop significantly in the final 9:00 pm hour of operation.

54 PAGE 47 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS 6) Bring parking rates in line with area rates also taking into account the premium Santa Monica location 7) Increase revenue for the creation of additional parking resources and improvements. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRUCTURES 1 6, 9 In order to achieve these goals we recommend that the City take the following actions: 1) Charge $1.00 for the second hour of parking in the structures. 2) Charge $2.00 for each additional hour instead of the current $1.00 per 30 minutes. 3) Increase the maximum rate to $9.00 per day. 4) Increase monthly permit fees to $ in the numbered parking structures. 26 The rate increase may be easier to implement if it is done gradually and not all at once. 5) Raise the flat rate for parking after 6:00 PM from $3.00 to $5.00 nightly. 6) Consider charging a higher rate in the parking structures during periods of peak demand, such as weekends. 7) Consider policies that will incentivize or encourage owners or managers of private parking structures to make parking available to the public at more competitive rates. 8) Provide reduced or free transit passes to employees. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CIVIC CENTER STRUCTURE 27 AND LIBRARY 1) Maintain rates for monthly key card holders in the Civic Center at the current $82.50 level. 28 2) Provide shuttle service between the Civic Center Parking Structure and the Bayside District. 3) Advertise the lowered rate in the Civic Center Parking Structure in order to attract employees and offer an alternative to the higher rates recommended in the numbered structures. 4) Maintain rates for monthly parking for key holders at the current $82.50 level, but monitor weekday occupancy rates and consider raising monthly key card fees in the Library Parking Structure if parking on weekdays becomes impacted. 29 As we mentioned in the case of the other monthly rate increase, this increase may need to occur gradually, perhaps in two steps, and not simply in just one increase in order to have drivers become accustomed to the increase. EXPLANATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS CHARGE $1.00 FOR THE SECOND HOUR OF PARKING IN STRUCTURES 1-6 AND 9 26 The rate before the City s 10% parking tax would be $ We recognize that making rate adjustments in the Civic Center Structure is significantly complicated by the pricing structure of the nearby Civic Center parking lots and that such issues may need to be addressed. 28 It should be noted that this rate may still be one of the lowest monthly rates for parking of any commercial district in the area. 29 This rate is equal to $90 plus the City s 10% parking tax.

55 PAGE 48 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS In a large number of Walker studies of impacted on-street parking in unmetered commercial areas, the findings are the same. Employees arrive early, occupy the most convenient spaces and move their car every two hours in order to avoid a parking ticket for violating the two hour time limit. Customers who arrive after the employees are unable to find convenient parking and complain about parking in a more distant location; a parking problem is born. Although often unpopular, and implemented solely for the purpose of making spaces available rather than raising revenue, the installation of parking meters on the street becomes the most reasonable way to make spaces available for customers. Business owners, employees and customers may complain, but ultimately the meters result in parking spaces made available for customers, who prefer the availability over the lack of parking, even with some cost attached. The example above illustrates what we believe is taking place to varying degrees in the gated public structures: The two-hours of free parking that is provided, in this case at a significant cost to the City, is being used to obtain free parking by many of the employees in the area. As a result customers visiting in the area may arrive at one or several parking structures to discover that it is full or that they must spend a significant amount of time cruising the structure in order to find one of the last available spaces. In addition, it may lead the City to conclude that a larger shortage of visitor parking exists than is in fact the case, and that the necessity of constructing additional spaces is greater than it appears. As discussed earlier, the results of our duration analysis of cars parked in Parking Structure 7 indicated that 50% of the cars parked at that location during the peak hour (when parking is in the shortest supply) were parked there for four hours or longer, 37% for five hours or more. This is not to suggest that all 283 of these cars belong to employees. On the other hand, a number of cars recorded as being parked for shorter stays may likely have been moved to or from other parking structures. Finally, we note that the lack of parking access and revenue control system (PARCS) equipment likely leads to a greater number of longer term parkers parking in Structures 7 and 8 than in Structures 1 6. Nonetheless, given the more convenient location of Structures 1 6 to businesses and offices, it is reasonable to believe that long term parking in spaces meant for visitors is a problem in the gated public parking structures as well as in Structures 7 and 8. While charging $1.00 for the second hour of parking is therefore first and foremost a tool to properly manage parking demand and make more spaces available for customers, as we will discuss later it also would provide the City with revenue to support needed parking improvements. It is important to point out that our decision to recommend a) charging only for the second hour and not the first hour of parking as well as b) charging $1.00 and not the current rate of $2.00 per hour for the second hour is a political one meant to minimize the potentially negative reaction by, and feelings of, the public. Charging the full amount per hour as well as charging for both hours would maximize the efficiency of the parking system as well as efforts to enhance revenue. Such a policy would communicate to drivers the significant costs of providing the parking and could be implemented gradually; if reductions in garage occupancies beyond what is desirable were observed, the increase in rates or reduction in the free period could be stopped or reversed. However, due to the sensitive nature of raising parking rates we make our recommendation as stated, charging $1.00 for the second hour in the public parking structures.

56 PAGE 49 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS CHARGE $2.00 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL HOUR, WITH A MAXIMUM RATE OF $9.00 PER DAY Raise the maximum daily rate. The Santa Monica Promenade is one of the most popular retail and dining destinations in California and coastal Santa Monica real estate is some of the most expensive. Both these factors play a direct role in the cost of parking. Yet parking in this area not only does not reflect the premium location, it is discounted significantly when compared with other commercial centers in the area. The result is the shortage of parking observed in the garages. The parking rates charged in private off-street parking in the area reflect the popularity of the location and range from roughly $3.75 to $8.00 per hour, often increasing in 15 or 20 minute increments and there is no free period offered. The daily maximum rates range from $12.00 to $ Currently, for someone parking just over two hours in the Bayside District, a private parking structure will cost them at least five times more than a public structure and in some cases twice this. Clearly, even for those buildings where parking is available, it is worth it for most drivers to park in a public parking structure instead. In comparison to private parking rates, our recommended daily maximum rate of $9.00 for the public gated structures, a $2.00 per day increase, results in a rate that is still significantly less than market rates in the area and those in other areas that are less popular shopping and dining destinations than is the Bayside District (as we will discuss later). The relatively low daily rate and initial analysis of the data has led Walker staff to believe that some drivers may be using the structures for medium term car storage when out of town in order to avoid parking tickets on the street. It is not uncommon for retail centers or districts to subsidize parking rates with the goal of attracting customers to their businesses. 30 We note, however, that in a mixed-use area such as the Bayside District, the system of rates currently in place effectively provides a low parking price for everyone in the area including retail, restaurant, and office employees (as well as office visitors, in some cases) at the expense of providing parking availability for the customer. Flatten the hourly rate by charging hourly instead of in 30 minute increments. It is important to point that, unlike our other recommendations for raising parking rates, which offered significant parking management and efficiency benefits, the purpose of this recommendation is strictly to increase parking revenues. The simplification of the rate schedule may be a small additional benefit, but raising revenue is the purpose of this recommendation. 30 By acknowledging such measures we are not necessarily stating that such measures are effective. In many cases, as we say, the destination is the draw. The price of parking is typically not a major determinant of whether or not a customer frequents an area in which to shop.

57 PAGE 50 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS In some sense, the rate restructuring is not a rate increase as the hourly rate remains at $2.00. Admittedly, however, the rate restructuring raises a significant amount of revenue by effectively raising the rate from $1.00 to $2.00 for those who are parked less than 30 minutes of the final hour of their stay. RAISE THE EVENING FLAT RATE FOR PARKING FROM $3.00 TO $5.00 Santa Monica s evening flat rate for parking of $3.00 is unnecessarily low, particularly on weekend evenings, which experienced some of the highest parking occupancies of the entire year. The evening flat rate in Old Pasadena is $5.00 and $9.00 in West Hollywood s public lot on the Sunset Strip. In Beverly Hills Golden Triangle area, evening rates in public structures is typically $2.00 although we note that it is a significantly less popular evening destination than Santa Monica, Old Pasadena, or West Hollywood s Sunset strip. The strong demand for parking on weekend evenings justifies an increase for those two evenings per week to $5.00 RAISE MONTHLY PERMIT FEES IN THE NUMBERED STRUCTURES TO $ The fee for office and commercial leases have increased in Santa Monica and the region over the past decade or so, yet the City s monthly parking lease rates have remained flat and significantly below market rates charged by neighboring properties and properties throughout the region. However, unlike the policy of holding parking rates low for retail and restaurant customers, the benefit of keeping monthly permit rates well below market prices is less apparent, particularly when monthly permit holders reduce the supply of parking available for the customers. The current monthly rate of $82.50 represents significantly less than half the monthly amortized construction costs of a new parking space in an aboveground structure, not including the cost of operations. It is also significantly below the market rate for monthly parking in Santa Monica and other popular commercial destinations and office centers across the region. The primary benefit of increasing monthly permit rates is therefore not necessarily an increase in revenue, but rather an increase in the availability of parking spaces, particularly during the weekdays when the demand generated by 9:00 5:00 employee parking is at its highest. We project that such an increase would encourage some parkers to park in the underutilized private spaces identified earlier. Significantly higher rates would also encourage some employees to use alternative forms of transportation such as carpools or public transit. Walker observed monthly parking permit rates for unreserved parking in the area, in privately owned facilities, ranging from roughly $ to $ We recommend that the City increase its monthly permit rate at least to the low end of that range. It is interesting to note that monthly employee parking rates at newer buildings in the eastern part of Santa Monica were generally slightly higher than those observed in the Bayside District, with starting rates of roughly $ per month. Walker recommends raising the monthly permit fee to $121.00, including the 10% parking tax.

58 PAGE 51 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS We recognize that this nearly 50% increase may initially be unpopular and point out that the City may choose to increase the rates gradually over time. However we also note that the new rate would still be at or below market rates for the preferred locations near the Third Street Promenade. It is also worth noting that rates for monthly employee parking in locations such as Century City and Downtown, rates can easily exceed $ Finally, according to City staff, the City s monthly fees have not been raised for at least six years and possibly much longer. Positive results of such an increase would include not only a significant increase in revenue, but potentially an increase in the utilization of the underutilized private parking facilities as well and ultimately more parking availability for customers and visitors to the area. MAINTAIN THE KEY CARD RATE FOR THOSE WHO PARK IN THE CIVIC CENTER STRUCTURE AT $82.50 PER MONTH. OFFER SHUTTLE SERVICE FOR CIVIC CENTER STRUCTURE PARKERS. Recent changes to parking policy for the Civic Center Structure have increased parking utilization in the structure significantly. Nonetheless, it is still currently underutilized as hundreds of spaces typically sit vacant during the peak hours for the system. The resource is too valuable, even in the short term, to let sit empty. In order to encourage employees to take advantage of these spaces and make more Promenadeadjacent spaces available for customers, we recommend maintaining the current monthly rate for those who are willing to park in this less convenient location. As the structure is too far from most of the Bayside District for the average person to walk, it would be necessary to run a shuttle between the structure and the District in order to attract employees to park at the location. The cost of the shuttle could be covered if a significant enough number of employees park in the structure. The relatively lower rate is meant to remedy the imbalances in parking demand in the area and make more spaces for visitors available near the 3 rd Street Promenade. However, it is also meant to offer a relatively lower cost alternative for parking for employees. We recommend that the City make an effort to advertise the lower rate to employees, especially when rate increases at other parking structures are announced. Finally, we point out that the parking occupancy in the Civic Center Structure would need to be monitored to make sure that the relatively low rates did not result in an impacted parking situation. Should that occur, spaces would have to be more carefully allocated, perhaps using an increase in parking rates. MAINTAIN MONTHLY PERMIT FEES IN THE LIBRARY STRUCTURE AT THE CURRENT $82.50 PER MONTH RATE We recommend that the monthly key card rate for the Library Structure be maintained at the current rate as it is significantly below the market rate in the area. However, given the availability of parking spaces within the library structure we believe that the rate should reflect the lower demand for spaces. The occupancy rates in the structure should be monitored frequently in order to determine the effect that the increase in fees in the numbered structures would have on parking demand in the Library Structure. If the parking structure becomes impacted, the rate may need to be increased to bring demand for the structure closer to supply.

59 PAGE 52 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS INCENTIVIZE PRIVATE PARKING FACILITIES TO MAKE PARKING MORE ACCESSIBLE/AFFORDABLE FOR THE PUBLIC As we discussed earlier, the peak demand for public parking spaces in the Bayside District occurs when the demand for private spaces in the area is lowest, on the weekends. The rates charged by the private facilities are often many times higher than those in the public structures, with many rates in private facilities reaching the daily maximum of $15.00 or $16.00 after just two to three hours. Building additional parking in the Bayside District is expensive and wasteful if large numbers of existing parking spaces sit empty a significant amount of the time. We recommend that the City either explore agreements with owners and operators of those existing private facilities that show a surplus of available spaces, such as subsidizing rates and expenses in order to make the cost of parking in private structures cheaper to the public. 31 Another option is for the City itself to operate some of these parking facilities itself during their slowest periods of operation. While such agreements or policies may negatively impact parking revenue initially, they could significantly reduce the need for construction outlays to build more parking in the future. PARKING STRUCTURES 7 & 8 AND EMPLOYEE PARKING The goals of the recommendations contained within this section are aimed at managing parking demand as much as they are aimed at earning additional revenue. Much of the demand management strategy is aimed at limiting the impact of long-term parkers, which will primarily be employees, on short-term spaces. As noted earlier, one car parked for the entire day potentially displaces ten or more short-term parkers looking for spaces. Even if the car is moved every few hours, the result is the same. In preparation for its closing and imminent remodel, the Santa Monica Place Mall has been shedding tenants for roughly the past two years. It is currently closed with the exception of the Macy s Department Store. The closure of the mall combined with the earlier discussion of the lengths of stay for cars parked in Parking Structure 7 suggests that Parking Structures 7 and 8 are acting to some extent as an overflow area for employee parking in the District and perhaps as an incentive to drive to the area, given the availability of free parking, something rarely enjoyed by employees in a major commercial center. When parking access and revenue control equipment is installed in the two structures, which will enforce a grace period and parking rate plan consistent with Structures 1-6, it will make parking in Structures 1 6 relatively more attractive for many long term parkers including employees. Demand for parking in Structures 7 and 8 will then increase when Santa Monica Place reopens. In short, the changes in Structures 7 and 8 could add additional demand pressure to Structures 1 6, even if alternative parking areas are available on the periphery. Proper pricing policies in the unnumbered structures, as well as the supply of private spaces, could ameliorate this pressure. 31 Later in the report we discuss how the City of San Diego s Centre City Development Corporation has successfully done this in Downtown San Diego.

60 PAGE 53 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS We therefore emphasize that our recommendations for this portion of the study are based on current conditions. The effects on parking demand in Parking Structures 7 and 8, including the introduction of pricing, the reduction in the demand for parking currently generated by the many construction personnel working on Santa Monica Place, the introduction of hundreds of bicycle parking spaces, and the reopening of the new Santa Monica Place itself introduce a number of variables that make precise parking demand projections difficult. We project that our recommendations will remain valid despite these changes, but that continued monitoring of parking demand in Parking Structures 7 and 8 will be necessary. As a result of this monitoring additional adjustments, rate increases or other policy changes may be warranted. The initial parking fee implementation and recommended rate increase in these structures is an important first step. INCENTIVIZE EMPLOYEE PARKING ALTERNATIVES Building parking is extremely expensive. In addition to the monetary cost, which is significant, there are other costs to consider. Parking facilities take up large blocks of land, creating gaps in the urban fabric and displacing other uses that may attract more people to visit the location. Further, more parking spaces tend to equate to more cars attracted to an area and the resulting traffic issues, further taxing the existing road network. In this way, the construction of parking is an environmental issue with wide ranging implications as well. We note these issues when considering that the goal of parking is to provide people with access to a destination, and that there are significantly less expensive and more environmentally friendly alternatives to providing people with access. The alternatives need not be used by everyone coming to a given location in order to be effective. Alternatives are perhaps easiest to provide to employees; their longer stays and typically greater familiarity with an area give them more willingness and flexibility in dealing with alternatives. Further, as we emphasized earlier, long-term parkers often have a greater impact on a parking system overall. Because their longer lengths of stay can displace a significant number of short term parkers, providing driving alternatives to a few employees can open up parking spaces to many visitors. Finally, building subsidized, structured parking for use by employees becomes an extremely generous benefit, in some cases representing a significant percentage of some employees salaries, but offering only limited usefulness. Employees cannot see the true costs nor exchange the subsidy for cash. Given the opportunity to receive the cash value of parking, particularly where parking is expensive, many employees would choose the cash, but the option is not available. 32 There is also a fairness issue. Those employees who drive receive a perk to which those who do not drive simply have no access. Employees who drive effectively get paid more, potentially significantly more, than those who use transit, walk or bicycle. Those who do not drive receive do not receive the benefit and, arguably, end up subsidizing those who drive. 32 A parking cash out policy has become popular, and in some cases mandated, for employers who provide paid parking for employees. Parking cash out laws require large employers to offer the cash equivalent of the cost of parking to their employees to allow them to see the cost of parking and make their own choice with regard to how to allocate their transportation dollars.

61 PAGE 54 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS In a recent discussion, City Transportation staff raised these issues. According to staff, the City s Land Use and Circulation Element emphasizes the need to encourage employees to use, as much as possible, modes of transportation other than single occupancy vehicles. These modes include the City s extensive transit network, which has its western hub within the Bayside District, and its bicycle parking program, which has been successful in providing hundreds of residents with access to popular parts of the City without the use of the automobile and which will be adding significant bicycle parking infrastructure in the Bayside District. While it may be unreasonable to expect all employees to use transit, providing parking for all or even most employees may be unrealistic as well. In many commercial centers, public or private, it is not done. Recommendation: Given the high cost of providing parking, incentivizing employees not to drive will yield significant savings in the cost of providing parking by reducing the demand for the resource. There are also potentially important environmental and traffic-related benefits to not overbuilding parking as well. A number of cities have programs through which employees are provided with subsidized or free transit passes (called ecopasses in cities such as San Jose, Salt Lake City, and Denver). Such passes can be paid for through higher parking fees. Policies that promote cycling, walking or other alternatives to driving alone can also be successful in reducing the parking demand of both employees and visitors. OFF-STREET PUBLIC PARKING IN OTHER LOCATIONS BEVERLY HILLS 33 Depending on how the boundaries are identified, the City of Beverly Hills Golden Triangle area, located roughly southeast of Santa Monica Boulevard and north of Wilshire Boulevard, contains nine gated public parking structures and five that are regulated by single head parking meters. The free period for the gated structures varies from one to two hours. We focus on the City s recent experience as it may be instructive for Santa Monica. Two-hour free parking in the Golden Triangle was put in place by the City Council in 1984, at which time City staff was requested to perform an analysis to determine if there were any sales tax benefits that could be observed as a result of the policy. The following year City staff presented its analysis which stated that a relationship between the two hours of free parking and sales tax was inconclusive. In January 2006, the City of Beverly Hills converted all of its gated public parking structures that serve commercial uses from two-hour to one-hour free parking. 34 Prior to this, businesses had complained of a lack of customer parking at the heart of the Golden Triangle. Meanwhile, public surface lots on the periphery remained underutilized. Based on conversations with City staff, Walker understands that the result of the change to the one-hour free parking policy was dramatic. 33 The following information was obtained through archives of City of Beverly Hills City Council meetings, minutes of said meetings, as well as s and conversations with City of Beverly Hills staff. 34 The metered structures were unaffected as were the City Hall and La Cienega Park structures.

62 PAGE 55 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS The number of spaces available in the structures during the day increased and the turnover increased substantially; short-term parkers were finding spaces and using the garages. Revenue increased substantially as well, primarily from the additional one hour of revenue but also from the fact that the spaces were not dominated by employees attempting to take advantage of free parking. The City also found a significant increase in utilization and revenue from the peripheral surface parking spaces. Apparently, employees who had been parked in the two-hour free structures were choosing to park in the peripheral lots instead. In short, more cars were being accommodated by the system and significantly more revenue was being generated. At a November 13, 2007 City Council meeting Beverly Hills Mayor Jimmy Delshad stated that he had initially supported the change in response to misuse by employees of the two hours free policy. However he changed his mind due to several factors including: o The distrust, anger, (and) emotion with which the public had responded to the policy; o Stories from retailers regarding the expense of validating the public s second hour of parking, which they felt obligated to provide, even if the driver had not made a purchase at their store; o An anxiety factor that retailers reported hearing from their customers, that customers wanted to return to their car before the free period ended. City staff was requested to explore measures to address the challenges that the reversal in policy would cause including a $1.7 million financial shortfall. Staff was also requested to explore license plate recognition systems and other measures that would prohibit the revolving door of employee re-parking at the structures. In December 2007, all of the facilities that were changed from two hours free to one hour free were changed back, with the exception of one structure recognized as serving a number of medical commercial facilities. Despite what was an apparent management and revenue success resulting from the change in policy, Walker understands that the decision to reverse the policy was largely the result of political pressure from the public, which changed the mind of those elected officials who had originally supported the plan. Unfortunately the public s perception of the plan seemed to overwhelm its many merits. The City of Beverly Hills charges $75.00 to $ for monthly permits. Hourly rates for the first paid hour are $1.00 and $1.50 per additional hour in its gated garages. The daily maximum rates in these garages range from $7.00 to $13.50 per hour. DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO USING PRIVATE FACILITIES San Diego s Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC) goals with regard to parking are: 35 Affordable Parking Convenient Parking 35 As outlined by a Corporation staff member at panel discussion at the League of California Cities Planners Institute, Sacramento, March 26, 2008

63 PAGE 56 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Short & Long Term Parking Multiple Parking Strategies Better Utilization of Existing Parking Provide Alternative Forms of Transportation Significant revenue from on-street parking meters funded and bonded CCDC s first public structure, Park It on Market, much of the revenue from which then went to fund a second parking structure, the 6 th and K Parkade. Despite the revenue, the public structures represent the least expensive parking in the area. One of CCDC s goals for expanding the parking supply has been to make use of the area s significant amount of private (typically office) parking spaces for public use during peak evenings and weekends. As of this writing, the City has successfully made the supply of one office building available to the public from Friday night through Sunday afternoon. Per the agreement the City paid the building owner for the increased expenses of staying open the additional hours. Revenue from the additional hours is then divided 25%/75% between CCDC and the operator. The evening rate is capped at $5.00 and can be changed by the agency. Because expenses are covered by the agency, all revenue (minus the 25% that comes back to the agency) should represent profit to the building owner. OTHER MUNICIPALITIES Public parking structures in Old Pasadena offer 90 minutes free, after which the fee is $2.00 per hour up to a maximum of $6.00. In Santa Barbara, including Paseo Nuevo, the free period is 75 minutes, after which the hourly rate is $1.50 up to a maximum of $7.00. West Hollywood contains several commercial districts. While weekend evening parking rates on the Sunset Strip are some of the highest in California, with flat rates typically topping $25.00 per night, a new public parking facility located on Sunset charges an evening rate of $4.00 on weekdays, $9.00 on weekends, and a $1.00 per hour rate from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM during the day. In the high end 600 block of Robertson Boulevard, adjacent to West Hollywood, contains some of the highest retail rents in the City of Los Angeles. The public parking structure that serves the area charges $1.00 per 30 minutes for the first three hours of parking, $1.00 per 15 minutes after three hours, and a maximum rate of $12.00 per day. One can generally see that the rate structure in many of these parking facilities is designed to encourage short-term visitor parking and discourage long term parkers. COMPARABLE RETAIL CENTERS The high daily maximum rate that Walker observed in the area s most popular retail centers is indicative of their aggressive attempts to discourage long-term parking. Daily rates range from $10.00 at the Beverly Center to $21.00 and $22.00 for parking all day at the Westfield Century City Shopping Center and The Grove, respectively. The Beverly Center currently does not offer any free parking, but charges just $1.00 for the first four hours. Both The Grove and Westfield Century City offer a period of free parking, one hour free at The Grove and two hours with validation. The Century City Shopping Center offers three hours free (but charges $7.00 per hour after that). It is worth noting that the free parking at Century City is required per a decades-old covenant, created when the Center was constructed, in order

64 PAGE 57 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS to win the approval of a nearby homeowners association for the Center. Whether or not the policy would change for the purpose of management and economic benefits if the owners were able to make such a change is unknown; our understanding is that the policy is legally locked into place. Hollywood s Dome Entertainment Center, anchored by the Arclight Theatre, charges $3.00 per hour up to a $6.00 maximum, with no free period. However, the Cinema offers a validation which provides four hours of parking for $2.00. At the time of our survey, it is worth noting that the area s newest upscale commercial center, The Americana at Brand, offered one hour free parking, charge $3.00 for the second hour, and $2.00 each additional hour up to a $9.00 maximum. 36 This despite the fact that the Glendale Galleria located immediately across the street does not charge for parking and that concerns had been raised about the short term success of the project given the current state of the economy. It is also interesting to note that recent comments regarding The Americana posted on a blog encouraged visitors to the center to park at the nearby Galleria or Target and then walk to the Americana because parking would then be free. REVENUE IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING We summarize the revenue impact of our recommendations in Table 11 at the end of this part of the report. Charge $1.00 for the second hour of parking. We project that charging the additional $1.00 for the second hour of parking would earn the City roughly an additional $196,000 annually. This figure is based on the current length of stay statistics which, as we noted earlier, likely includes a significant number of employees who enter and exit the garage within the two-hour free period. As discussed above, we believe that charging this $1.00 for the second hour may reduce the number of employees who engage in this behavior; however given the high level of occupancies experienced by the garage, we believe that the employee cars will be replaced by customers looking for parking. To be conservative, our projection incorporates an assumption of 20% fewer cars leaving during the second hour only, in part to take into account those employees who will no longer be driving their cars in and out in order to take advantage of the 2-hours free parking. Charge $2.00 for each additional hour, with the daily maximum rate increased to $9.00 per day: Based on total 2007 revenue from Parking Structures 1 6 and 9 of $4.5 million dollars, we project that charging the additional $1.00 for the second hour of parking would earn the City roughly an additional $1.91 million dollars per year. Increase the evening flat rate from $3.00 to $5.00. By raising the evening flat rate for parking to $5.00, we project an annual revenue increase of roughly $890,000. Raise monthly key card fees in the numbered structures and library structure. Maintain monthly key card fees in the Civic Center Structure. Provide shuttle service to the Civic Center Structure. Information received from the City s Finance Department and Parking Office indicated that annual revenue from 36 Validation from some tenants is also provided.

65 PAGE 58 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS monthly key cards for use in Parking Structures 1 6 is $1.04 million. 37 This translates into the total number of key cards that are issued for use in Parking Structures 1 6 as roughly 1,055. We make project that our recommended rate structure will reduce the overall demand for monthly key cards by 15% to 25% in the parking structures, but that some key card holders will choose to park in the Civic Center and Library Structures in order not to pay the increased cost. We project an annual increase in revenue from the increase in key card fees ranging from roughly $110, Recommendations requiring an outlay of funds. Additional recommendations made earlier included subsidizing non-parking dependent modes of transportation including transit for employees. Recommendations also included the exploration of subsidizing private parking suppliers in the District in order to offer more affordable parking to the general public. As noted earlier, both measures would require continuing outlays by the City. The scope of this study does not include a cost analysis of such programs. However, it is reasonable to assume that such outlays would be significantly lower than the cost of constructing new parking spaces, the demand for which would be reduced by the implementation of such policies. 37 This figure includes the City s parking tax. 38 We project that monthly shuttle costs for such a plan could cost up to $275,000 per year. We note that additional revenue would be generated by the Civic Center and Library Structures as well. However, the overall benefit of this policy is the significant number of new spaces that would be made available to visitors as a result of drivers parking in peripheral parking locations and private spaces within the Bayside District.

66 PAGE 59 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS CONCLUSION SUMMARY OF PROJECTED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATIONS The following is a summary of the financial impact of the recommendations contained in this part of the report and based on the assumptions contained herein. The figures are order of magnitude projections and preliminary in nature. We note that they should not be used in financing documents, but should be useful in determining the opportunities that the City has to raise funds for the parking system and, perhaps equally important, gain capacity through pricing management techniques. Table 1.11: Summary of Preliminary Projections of Financial Impact of Recommendations Recommendation 2007 Revenue Projected Increase A Variance % On-Street (Meters) B $1,124,000 $1,613,000 $489, % Off-Street C Charge $1.00 for Hour 2 $0 $196,000 $196,000 N/A Charge $2 per hour/$9 max $4,506,000 $6,420,000 $1,914, % Increase evening rate to $5 $1,764,000 2,654,000 $890, % SubTotal $6,270,000 $9,270,000 $3,000, % Paid Key Card Program Parking Structures 1-6 D $1,039,000 $1,149,000 $110, % Total $8,433,000 $12,032,000 $3,599, % A These figures are preliminary in nature and should not be used in financing documents. B Includes increase in meter rates to initial recommendation of $1.50 only and extension of hours that meters are in effect. Ultimately increasing meter rates to $2.00 or more per hour as generally recommended would yield significantly more revenue. On-street revenue does not include current revenue from the use of "Santa Monicards." C Off-street revenue includes projections for Structures 1-6 and 9 only. D 2007 key card revenue includes City Parking Tax. Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2008 Parking, like all real estate in the Bayside District, is in high demand. However, unlike much of the real estate in the area, the price of public parking has not kept up with the demand. The result is a demand which outstrips supply. At a time when the City of Santa Monica is in need of revenue in order to make improvements to its parking system, it makes sense not to leave money on the table, when the demand for parking is so great. Equally if not more importantly, proper pricing of parking throughout the system will help to ensure that all spaces in the system are used as efficiently as possible. This will minimize the amount of additional resources that must be devoted to building more parking.

67 PART 2 REVENUE OPTIONS ANALYSIS

68 PAGE 61 REVENUE OPTIONS ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION As part of its work scope for the Downtown Parking Program Update for the City of Santa Monica, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) reviewed parking assessment district and parking in-lieu fee programs utilized by other cities. In addition, KMA reviewed the potential for advertising revenues and commercial lease revenues. This section of the report summarizes and interprets the information that we have collected. BACKGROUND The need and desire to create off-site public parking varies by City depending on the resources available, as well as City design. Oftentimes, cities are looking to become more pedestrian-friendly where parking once and walking is encouraged as opposed to driving and parking at multiple destinations. Also, historic reuses such as in Old Pasadena can prove to be a challenge due to lack of space for adequate on-site parking. A change in use oftentimes comes with an increased parking requirement that cannot be met on-site, thus the purpose for creating public off-site parking. Unlike on-site parking, which is typically borne by the property owner, public off-site parking is typically paid through a variety of sources. Just as the design of the City is an issue, the type of City is also very important. Many suburban cities pride themselves in having free public parking; therefore, creative means of financing are necessary to fund the construction as well as maintenance and operation of the public offsite parking. Some downtown areas use meter fees, parking permits, parking in-lieu fees and parking assessments as a way to viably fund the construction of public off-site parking due to variables such as high land costs. There are many variations on the ways in which cities generate the necessary funds for the off-site parking.

69 PAGE 62 REVENUE OPTIONS ANALYSIS IN-LIEU FEES Cities utilize in-lieu fee programs to support the development of centralized parking programs. In an inlieu fee program, a developer will pay the City or parking authority a fee to offset the costs of developing parking. Paying the in-lieu fee relieves the developer of having to build some or the entire project parking on-site. Typically, the in-lieu fee involves a trade off between the market price for parking and the cost of providing parking spaces. KMA surveyed 11 cities that have in-lieu fee programs. Summaries of the programs are provided in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 provides a written summary of each of the City programs and Table 2 shows the cost per space in each City. Carmel has the highest fees at $66,260 per parking space and Concord has the lowest fee at $1,572 per space. All of the programs include mechanisms for adjusting the amount of the fee. The most common adjustment mechanisms are CPI or an adjustment for increased construction costs. For the most part, developers are more concerned about the cost per building square foot rather than just the cost per space. The cost per building square foot takes into account both the cost per space and the number of spaces required for a project. This is shown in Table 3 with the costs arranged from high cost to low cost. Palo Alto has the highest cost per building square foot at $241 and Concord and Davis have the lowest costs at $8 per square foot. It is important to note that even though Carmel has the highest cost per space it has only the third highest in-lieu fee because Carmel only requires 1.7 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of development, while Palo Alto requires four parking spaces. By the same token, the building costs in Davis and Concord are similar because Davis requires two parking spaces per 1,000 square feet and Concord requires five. ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS A few cities utilize parking assessment districts. Assessment districts are somewhat more difficult to implement, particularly since the passage of Proposition 218. Under assessment district law, each parcel that is assessed must have an assessment that is directly related to the benefit that parcel receives. Also, the assessment district program requires an up front specification of the improvements to be provided. All assessments must be supported by a detailed engineer s report, which must contain the following information: Total amount of money chargeable to the assessment district Amount chargeable to each parcel Duration of the payments Reason for the assessment Basis upon which the proposed assessment was calculated

70 PAGE 63 REVENUE OPTIONS ANALYSIS Finally, if a majority of the property owners (weighted by assessments) oppose formation of the district then the District can not be formed. Two cities, which have assessment districts, are described below. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA Mountain View formed and adopted a Downtown Parking Maintenance and Operation Assessment District in 1979 in order to create the necessary funding to maintain and operate the previously established Parking District. It was determined that the properties within the Downtown Parking Maintenance and Operation Assessment District benefit from the maintenance and operation of the public off-street parking, thus they should be assessed for the cost of said maintenance and operation. Seventy-five percent of the assessment payment is based on land use and its corresponding parking requirements. The remaining twenty-five percent is based on parcel size. The total annual assessment is currently $158,606, which is then divided among the 220 property owners in the District. In-lieu fees are used to help fund the construction of new parking. The one-time fee is currently $26,000 per space for sites within the Parking District that do not meet the on-site parking requirements. PASADENA, CALIFORNIA Unlike most cities, Pasadena has implemented a Parking Credit Program. This program may only be utilized if there is an addition or change of use that requires a greater number of parking spaces. The Parking Credit Program allows property owners to pay an annual in-lieu fee to satisfy their parking requirements. The current annual fee is $ per space, which is adjusted annually in July based on a CPI factor determined by the Finance Department. The revenues derived from the fee go towards paying down debt on existing off-site parking structures. The maintenance and operation of the off-site parking structures is funded through various sources. Monthly permit sales, Rose Parade parking, ground floor retail lease revenue, investment earnings and transient parking revenue from the structures is all used to fund existing parking structures. SANTA MONICA PROGRAMS The City has initiated a number of special districts for operations, maintenance and services in the Third Street Promenade area. Only two of the districts are directly related to parking activities. The Bayside Mall Assessment District was created in This assessment district covers properties fronting on Second, Third and Fourth Streets between Wilshire and Broadway. Assessments are set annually to cover required debt service. The assessments are scheduled to expire in The second applicable district is the Downtown Parking Developer Fee program that covers the same area as the Bayside Mall Assessment District. Under this program, developers may choose not to provide all of the required parking on-site. If the developer chooses not to provide all required parking, then the

71 PAGE 64 REVENUE OPTIONS ANALYSIS project is assessed an annual fee of $1.50 per square foot of building area for which parking is not provided. For example, if a 100,000 square foot project is developed but the developer only provides parking to satisfy the demand for 80,000 square feet of space, then the project is assessed an annual fee of $30,000 ($1.50 per square foot times the 20,000 square feet for which parking is not provided). The ability to collect these annual fees is scheduled to expire at the same time as the Bayside Mall Assessment District in The City should be aware that its current in-lieu ($1.50 per square foot per year) is far below the cost of providing structured parking, even if the cost of land is ignored. Assuming that the fee is levied over a 30-year period, the $1.50 per square foot annual fee will provide between $15 per square foot and $18 per square foot of financing revenues depending upon bond interest rates. If we assume that, on average, one parking space is required for each 333 square feet of building area, then the in-lieu fee only provides between $5,000 and $6,000 toward the construction of each parking space. This is between 8.8 percent and 10.5 percent of the cost of developing a parking space in Santa Monica, excluding land costs. The City accepted a report from MuniFinancial in early 2004 that set out the procedures for establishing a new assessment district to be part of the financing plan for the Downtown Parking Improvements. The report also included projections of annual revenues that could be raised from an assessment of $0.50 per square foot of building area from commercial properties in the Bayside District and immediately surrounding properties. The MuniFinancial report projected the following annual revenues by area. 39 Commercial Sq. Ft. Revenue at $0.50 per Sq. Ft. Bayside Zone 1 1,108,807 $554,400 Bayside Zone 2 706,477 $353,240 Bayside Zone 3 594,452 $297,220 Non-Bayside Parcels 3,105,680 $1,552,840 Total 5,515,416 $2,758,000 The projected annual assessment for the three Bayside zones was $1,204,860. The non-bayside parcels were also projected to receive benefit from the parking improvements, so it was proposed that they be included in any assessment district. 39 Bayside Zone 1 parcels are identified as parcels within the Bayside District fronting on 3 rd Street. Zone 2 parcels within the Bayside District are located on the east side of 2 nd Street and on the west side of 4 th Street. Zone 3 parcels within the Bayside District are identified as parcels located on the west side of 2 nd Street and the east side of 4 th Street. Non-Bayside parcels are those parcels outside of the Bayside District located within the following boundaries: the south side of Wilshire Boulevard, the east side of 6 th Street, the north side of Colorado Avenue and the east side of Ocean Avenue.

72 PAGE 65 REVENUE OPTIONS ANALYSIS ADVERTISING Advertising and signage revenues have become significant revenue generators for retail and entertainment projects. Billboards and signage are also quite controversial. As part of the research for this assignment, KMA has reviewed its files, past discussions with advertising firms, appraisals, and developer projections of advertising income at shopping centers and entertainment venues. The value of advertising and signage is a function of how many people will view the advertising. High visibility and high traffic locations command higher values than do low visibility and low traffic locations. In that context, advertising within parking structures has a lower value than advertising on the outside of parking structures. Advertising inside parking structures tends to be small and seen only by the users of the parking structure. Exterior advertising tends to be larger and is seen by a much larger audience. In addition to location and traffic, the advertising media also affects value. Currently, LED display signs command a higher price than do older incandescent display signs. Traditional billboards have the lowest value. Based on information KMA has reviewed, street and highway billboards can generate $60,000 to over a million dollars per year. The highest values are along major streets in the West Los Angeles area. The City of West Hollywood has a double-sided billboard that provides more than $500,000 per year to the City. A recent appraisal that KMA reviewed indicated that the advertising value of freeway-oriented display signs was $360,000 to $1,000,000. The landowner could expect to receive thirty percent to forty percent of this amount or between approximately $100,000 and $400,000. The owner of a shopping center near the 405 Freeway projected $2.4 million of income from a combination of 11 display signs and wall billboards. Finally, developer projections for billboard-type displays and digital television type displays near a major entertainment area indicated that the potential annual revenues to the landowner and developer could be between $200,000 and $1,000,000 per sign or display. RETAIL SPACE The City has incorporated retail space into several of its parking structures. The rent for these leases is less than the rent at nearby privately owned retail space. There is approximately 8,700 square feet of space of which approximately 6,400 square feet are occupied. The average rent is $1.95 per square foot. This is substantially below the market rate of $4.00 per square foot to $7.00 per square foot. It is also worth noting that the existing retail space in the parking structures is less than optimal. The space is set back in the structure and is somewhat below grade. Most retailers require a minimum ceiling height of 14 feet and a preferred height of 18 feet. This means that the floor-to-floor height is 17 feet to 21 feet. The minimum bay depth is 60 feet and could be up to 80 feet. The City of San Jose has published design guidelines for mixed-use parking garages that include similar development requirements, which are included as an attachment to this part of the report.

73 PAGE 66 REVENUE OPTIONS ANALYSIS VALET PROGRAMS Walker was asked to evaluate the feasibility of a single operator, coordinated valet parking service as a public benefit to downtown Santa Monica visitors. We evaluate a public, centralized valet program based on a number of criteria throughout this report. In this section we evaluate the revenue implications of a centralized valet parking program operated by the City, the overall effect of different valet policies on parking revenue, and provide a brief cost benefit analysis, comparing a centralized valet program run by the City with valet operations run privately. Providing valet parking is highly labor intensive and, as a result, is at best a break-even proposition. In many cases, valet operations must be subsidized by the business or entity which it serves. When considering whether or not a city should operate such a program itself or contract with a private operator, we note that contracting out the valet parking operation will result in significant savings for the following reasons: The labor rate for private employees is lower than the City s pay rates; The benefits for private employees are lower than the City s benefits; The amount of annual hours worked for private employees is higher than for City employees; Private entities staff fewer positions for the same workload. We note that there are additional advantages of contracting with a private firm to perform valet operations. These include: Experienced management; Lower wages; Lower benefit costs; Lower overhead costs; Ability to terminate employees at will; Flexibility of staffing levels, that is the ability of the operator to increase and decrease staffing levels as needed; Contracted operator can purchase equipment, usually at a preferred discount, and charge back City on an amortized basis as a reimbursable expense; And the ability of the City to terminate contract if dissatisfied. However there are disadvantages to contracting services as well. These include: Less control over customer service; Higher turnover rate; Lower revenue controls unless closely monitored; Possible conflicts of interest; Customer complaints will still go to City; And a lessened culture of loyalty to City.

74 PAGE 67 REVENUE OPTIONS ANALYSIS We recommend that the City contract with a private operator for the purpose of running its public valet system. PARKING VALIDATION PROGRAM FOR BUSINESSES AND RETAIL The proposed rate structure for the City of Santa Monica s downtown parking program consists of fairly reasonable parking fees that translate into the City as an attractive destination point. Walker does not believe that any discount of rate structure is required or would have any effect other than a reduction of income to the City. However, there are several advantages in providing validations to businesses at full market price: 1. Parkers will appreciate patronizing businesses that provide discounted or complimentary parking; 2. If validations are sold in bulk, as is typical in the industry, it allows the parking operation to benefit from collecting revenue up front; 3. Often parking tickets are over validated, resulting in the parking operation receiving more revenue than is actually required; 4. Businesses and retail shops, at times, lose their validations, requiring them to purchase more and providing extra revenue that is never earned by the parking operation. The disadvantages are chiefly that retail employees will abuse the validations and use them for their own long-term parking. Again, we do not recommend providing discounted validations. REVENUE FROM LONG TERM PARKING LESSEES, INCLUDING 100 WILSHIRE AND SANTA MONICA PLACE EMPLOYEES We understand that some leases negotiated many years ago currently represent rates that are significantly below market. To the extent that these leases can be renegotiated it would be in the City s interest to do so. We understand from City staff that some efforts have been made in this area. However, given the tremendous benefits that the lessees enjoy from the terms of the leases, at least one of which can be extended through options for decades into the future, we do not anticipate that the City would be able to gain any significant additional revenue from these leases.

75 PAGE 68 REVENUE OPTIONS ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS The City can estimate a cost for providing the additional parking. The City can update or create a new in-lieu fee program that assesses the incremental cost of parking to those developers who choose not to provide parking on-site. In order to implement a new assessment district, the City will need to have a parking development program and be able to identify which parcels will benefit from the additional parking as was outlined in the MuniFinancial Report. IN-LIEU FEE As noted above, the existing in-lieu fee does not cover the cost of providing additional structured parking. If the City wishes to levy the entire cost of providing parking spaces, then the in-lieu fee needs to be levied in a way that generates approximately $57,000 per incremental parking space. If the private developments are levied the full cost of spaces not provided, than the fee would be approximately $171 per building square foot (assuming on parking space for each 333 square feet of building). On an annual basis the fee could be between $14.00 and $17.00 per year. A fee this high does not provide an economic incentive for private developers to participate in the public parking program. If they are paying the full cost of the space, then they are likely to want full control of the space as well as the parking revenue. Taking into account net parking revenues and the potential for shared parking spaces, a lower fee is probably warranted. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT If the City is able to implement an assessment district that includes the existing commercial properties in the Bayside District and possibly other properties outside the Bayside District, then significant additional revenues could be available for parking improvements. The existing Bayside commercial properties, assuming an annual $0.50 per square foot assessment, were projected to generate approximately $1,205,000 per year. Adding the non-bayside parcels projected to be benefited increases the annual revenue to approximately $2,758,000. ADVERTISING Advertising on the exterior of existing or new parking structures can be a substantial revenue source. This is a very controversial revenue source, however. Exterior advertising also is likely to require changes in City regulations and ordinances. Given the complex nature of the exterior advertising, KMA is not making any recommendations as to how the City should proceed. It does not appear that interior advertising in the parking structures will provide substantial revenues, because the viewing audience is limited. RETAIL SPACE If the City wishes to incorporate true retail space into its parking structures, then the space needs to be designed to fit the retailer s needs. Ceiling heights should be a minimum of 15 feet and preferably 18 feet. Depths should be a minimum of 60 feet. Depending on location of the parking structure and

76 PAGE 69 REVENUE OPTIONS ANALYSIS orientation of retail space, a conservative rent estimate would be $3.00 per square foot per month for traditional retail space. Rents at this level will support construction costs of $350 to $400 per square foot. These amounts are well in excess of construction costs and also could offset a portion of the parking costs. VALET PROGRAMS AND VALIDATIONS We recommend that the City contract with a private firm for the purpose of running its planned centralized valet system. With regard to a validation program, we believe that the advantages outweigh the potential disadvantages provided that validations are provided to participants at a market and not a discounted rate. We note, however, that vigilance will necessary in order to prevent employees from using validations to park themselves. If validations are provided at market rate, the issue would not represent a revenue loss for the City; however it could translate into a loss of available visitor spaces to employee parkers. PART 2: TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAMS PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA Palo Alto currently has a Parking Assessment District In-Lieu Fund (Fund) that collects all parking in-lieu fees. The current in-lieu parking fee is a one-time fee of $60,293 per space adjusted annually by the chief transportation officer. The fee is based on the sum of construction, land acquisition and administrative costs attributable to the provision of one new parking space. The current parking requirement is one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. The Fund is maintained as a separate capital facilities account in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues, funds or accounts of the City. The Fund is only used for construction of public parking spaces within the assessment district. At no time are the funds to be used for regular maintenance of parking facilities or for any parking facilities not available to employees and customers of businesses located in the assessment district. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA Mountain View formed and adopted a Downtown Parking Maintenance and Operation Assessment District in 1979 in order to create the necessary funding to maintain and operate the previously established Parking District. It was determined that the properties within the Downtown Parking Maintenance and Operation Assessment District benefit from the maintenance and operation of the public off-street parking, thus they should be assessed for the cost of said maintenance and operation. Seventy-five percent of the assessment payment is based on land use and its corresponding parking requirements. The remaining 25% is based on parcel size. The total annual assessment is currently

77 PAGE 70 REVENUE OPTIONS ANALYSIS PART 2: TABLE 1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAMS $158,606, which is then divided among the 220 property owners in the District. Interest earnings, permit fees and property taxes also assist in funding the maintenance and operation of the District. In-lieu fees are used to help fund the construction of new parking. The one-time fee is currently $26,000 per space for sites within the Parking District that do not meet the on-site parking requirements. Bonds from the Revitalization District are used when appropriate along with Capital Improvement Project funding to assist in constructing new off-site parking spaces. LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA Laguna Beach currently has a one-time in-lieu fee of approximately $19,000 per space in the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). There is a maximum of three in-lieu parking certificates for any one site; however, additional certificates may be granted by the city council for public/private partnerships. The in-lieu fee is based on the value to improve or construct a space in the City and is adjusted as needed. The current parking requirement for general retail and office in Laguna Beach is one space per two hundred fifty square feet of gross floor area. HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA Hermosa Beach recently updated their one-time in-lieu fee to $28,900 per space. The adjustments are on an as-needed basis, with the most recent coming in 2006 based on an appraisal of the actual cost of building parking. Hermosa Beach has had an in-lieu fee program in place since 1982 with adjustments done periodically. The current parking requirement for general retail and office in the downtown district is three spaces per one thousand square feet of gross floor area. The revenues collected from the in-lieu fees goes into a parking fund that is used to construct new off-site parking. Other revenues are collected from parking fees and fines to fund the maintenance and operation of existing parking facilities. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Huntington Beach established a one-time parking in-lieu fee in The fee is currently $17, per space and is adjusted annually based on CPI. The current parking requirement for non-medical office and general retail in the Downtown Parking Master Plan is one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area and one space per 333 square feet of gross floor area, respectively. All revenues collected from the in-lieu fee are used for creating opportunities for additional parking in the Downtown Parking Master Plan area including valet parking, restriping or the construction of surface or structured parking. There are no other revenues assigned specifically for the purpose of maintaining or operating the off-site parking in the Downtown Parking Master Plan.

78 PAGE 71 REVENUE OPTIONS ANALYSIS PART 2: TABLE 1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAMS BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA Beverly Hills has established a one-time in-lieu fee based on the location of the project. The current parking in-lieu fees are as follow: Rodeo Drive is $45,760 per space, Beverly Drive is $36,608 per space and the fee for all other locations is $27,456 per space. These fees are adjusted annually based on CPI, and they are adopted by City Council as well. The in-lieu fees are only one of the revenue streams in the Parking Enterprise Fund. Daily transient fees, monthly parking, special public and private events and property lease revenues are all part of the Parking Enterprise Fund as well. The parking requirement for general commercial use is one space per 350 square feet of gross floor area

79 TABLE 2 IN-LIEU FEE SANTA MONICA PARKING STRUCTURES SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Locations Fee Amount Fee Adjustments Carmel $66,260 Adjusted as-needed based on cost of construction Palo Alto $60,293 Adjusted annually based on sum of the cost of contrustion, land acquisition and administrative costs Mountain View $26,000 Adjusted as-needed based on cost of construction Laguna Beach $19,000 Adjusted as-needed based on cost of construction Hermosa Beach $28,900 Adjusted as-needed based on cost of construction Huntington Beach $17,795 Adjusted annually based on CPI Beverly Hills Rodeo: $45,760 Beverly: $36,608 Other CBD: $27,456 Adjusted annually based on CPI Mill Valley $9,300 Adjusted as-needed based on cost of construction Claremont $9,000 Adjusted as-needed based on cost of construction Davis $4,000 Adjusted as-needed based on cost of construction Concord $1,572 Adjust as-needed based on cost of construction Source: City Municipal Codes, websites, City personnel Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: In-Lieu Table-1004; Sheet1; 6/18/2009; jtu

80 TABLE 3 IN-LIEU PARKING COMPARISON WALKER PARKING SANTA MONICA SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Parking Parking Impact In-Lieu Fee Requirement Fee City Per Space Spaces / 1,000 SF $ / Building SF (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) x (3) / 1,000 Palo Alto, CA $60, $ Beverly Hills, CA 1 $45, $ Carmel, CA $66, $ Hermosa Beach, CA $28, $86.70 Mountain View, CA 2 $26, $85.80 Laguna Beach, CA $19, $76.00 Huntington Beach, CA 3 $17, $44.49 Mill Valley, CA 4 $9, $39.06 Claremont, CA 5 $9, $30.60 Davis, CA 6 $4, $8.00 Concord, CA 7 $1, $7.86 Pasadena, CA 8 $ per year 1 $45,760 per space on Rodeo Dr., $36,608 per space on Beverly Dr. and $27,456 per space anywhere else spaces are requred for restaurant, retail and personal services; 3 spaces are required for office. 3 2 spaces are required for non-medical office and 3 spaces is required for general retail spaces are required for business & professional offices, including real estate and medical; 4 spaces are spaces are required for administrative and professional office; 2 spaces are required for retail. 6 $4,000 per space in Downtown/Commercial district; $3,000 per space in all other areas spaces if project is over 50,000 SF; 5 spaces if project is under 50,000 SF. 8 Annual in-lieu fee. Source: Each city's planning or community development departments; 6/17/08. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Santa Monica In-Lieu Fee Comparison-1004; Sheet1; 6/18/2009; jtu

81 PART 3 FINANCING POTENTIAL

82 PAGE 75 FINANCING POTENTIAL INTRODUCTION As part of its work scope for the Downtown Parking Program Update for Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) and the City of Santa Monica (City), Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has estimated the incremental cash flows from parking operations, and how these funds and other funds might be used to provide bond financing for the redevelopment of existing structures or the development of new parking structures. We note that the purpose of Walker s revenue projections from parking users is to inform and aid decision makers within the City to form a strategy to move forward in the planning process. These projections are therefore not intended to be used by third parties for the purposes of obtaining outside financing. BACKGROUND The City has received several individual parts of this report from Walker and KMA as this study has progressed and has received several reports and analyses over the years from other consultants related to the financing of downtown parking. To the maximum extent possible, this part of the report incorporates those previous analyses. Specifically this section of the report addresses: Increased revenue flows from operational and pricing changes recommended by Walker; The income increase from reducing the free parking period from two hours to one hour; The need for capital reserves; Revenues from a new assessment district; and Revenues from the existing in-lieu fee. Revenues and expenses from future development are also addressed. ANALYSIS The cash flow projections are based upon revenue projections developed by Walker, and which are shown in Attachment _1_Figure 1 of this section (Part 3) of the report. A brief summary of the assumptions contained in the Walker projections, including increases in metered, transient and monthly parking rates, are provided in Attachment 1 as well. The cash flow projections for the period 2010 through 2019 are provided in Attachments 2 and 3 of this section of the report. Attachment 2 provides projections assuming the baseline revenue projections. Attachment 3 provides projections that assume that there will be 50,000 square feet of new development

83 PAGE 76 FINANCING POTENTIAL each year that require use of the parking structures, and that the additional public spaces will come on line in time to accommodate the parking demand generated by the new development. Based on discussions with the City, the cash flow analysis estimates future total parking revenues under various assumptions. The existing 2008 parking revenues, adjusted for inflation, are deducted from the projected revenues to estimate the net increase in parking revenues. The existing parking operating surplus is not included in these projections and is not considered to be available for funding new parking facilities. BASELINE CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS The Baseline projections are split into two versions, with and without the $1.00 charge for the second hour of parking. There are also two financing scenarios applied to the Baseline projections. The first scenario assumes that the City issues 20-year bonds and the other assumes the City issues 30-year bonds. The tables in Attachment 2 are organized as follows: Attachment 2 Table 1 Without $1.00 per second hour 20-year bonds Attachment 2 Table 2 Without $1.00 per second hour 30-year bonds Attachment 2 Table 3 With $1.00 per second hour 20-year bonds Attachment 2 Table 4 With $1.00 per second hour 30-year bonds The revenue flows are summarized for two years (2011 and 2016) in Part 3 - Table 1. Changes in rates for parking meters and monthly parking permit fees to bring them in line with current market rates, provide a total of $1,613,000 and $1,149,000 in annual revenues in The changes in the transient daytime and evening parking rates increases parking revenues to $6,420,000 and $2,654,000, respectively. 41 The changes outlined in Part 1 of this report increase annual parking revenues in 2010 to $11,836,000. This is a $2,620,000 increase over the projected parking revenues for 2011 if no changes are made. 42 By 2016, the annual revenue increase is $3,244,000. KMA and Walker also recommend that the City begin setting aside capital reserves for the parking facilities. For purposes of this analysis, KMA has assumed a $50 per space reserve for parking structures 1 through 6, 9 and 10, which amounts to approximately $170,000 per year. The City should review the use and depreciation of the parking facilities to determine if the $170,000 represents an adequate capital reserve amount. Taking into account the capital reserves, the net increase in parking cash flow in 2011 is projected to be $2,450,000. By 2016, this amount is projected to increase to $3,244,000 assuming an average parking fee increase of 3% per year. 40 These annual revenue totals are based on the 2008 revenue assumptions shown in Part 3 Attachment 1 Figure 1, then adjusted for the recommended rate increases outlined in Attachment 1. The revenues are projected to increase every two years. 41 Ibid. 42 Includes an assumption of a 3% per year increase in parking revenue.

84 PAGE 77 FINANCING POTENTIAL At present, the City provides two hours of free parking in the parking structures. If the City changes the policy to only provide one hour of free parking and to charge $1.00 for the second hour of parking, the City is projected to generate an additional $196,000 in 2011 and $233,000 in 2016, as shown in Part 3 Table 1. NEW ASSESSMENT DISTRICT There is an existing parking assessment district that covers the properties within the Bayside District. This assessment district expires in 2016 The City has been considering the implementation of a new assessment district to provide a portion of the funding for new or rehabilitated parking structures. KMA discussed this assessment district in Part 2 of this report. The assessment district option reviewed by the City in 2004, assumed an annual assessment of $0.50 per square foot of non-residential space. This rate was applied to the existing properties within the Bayside District and immediately surrounding properties. These properties were projected to benefit from the development of the new parking structures. The projected revenues from the assessment district are summarized in the bottom half of Table 1. Applying the $0.50 per square foot rate to the properties within the Bayside District is projected to generate $1,204,860 annually. Applying the $0.50 rate to the parcels outside the Bayside District is projected to generate $1,552,840 annually. 43 CAPACITY FOR FINANCING KMA has prepared conceptual projections of the public financing that might be available as a result of the increased revenues. Discussions with City staff indicate that the City is unlikely to utilize parking revenue bonds as this represents an inefficient financing source. The City is likely to use a general fund financing (e.g. Certificates of Participation) that would be based upon the incremental parking cash flow. For purposes of this analysis, KMA has utilized the following conservative financing assumptions: Bond term 20 years or 30 years Low interest rate of 5.0% and a high interest rate of 6.5% Reserve fund equal to one year s debt service Cost of issuance equal to 2.0% of the bond issue 125% debt service coverage ratio for parking revenues 43 Parcels outside the Bayside District, surrounding the District, are located east of Ocean Avenue, south of Wilshire Boulevard, east of 6 th Street and north of Colorado Avenue.

85 PAGE 78 FINANCING POTENTIAL The potential funding amounts are summarized in Part 3 Table 2. For purposes of this analysis, KMA assumed an initial funding in This is only an assumption to indicate the potential for funding. No decisions regarding funding have been made. In Table 2 we show the potential funding from 20-year bonds and 30-year bonds and if interest rates are low (the High Estimate) and if interest rates are high (the Low Estimate). BASELINE PARKING REVENUES Using the Baseline Parking Revenue projections as a starting point, the $2,450,000 of incremental parking revenues can support between $20,000,000 and $23,000,000 of financing with 20-year bonds or $24,000,000 to $28,500,000 with 30-year bonds, as shown in Table 2. If the City eliminates the second hour of free parking and charges $1.00 for that parking, then the financing can be increased between $1,600,000 and $1,800,000 depending on the financing assumptions. The total amount of financing available in 2011, if the second hour of free parking is eliminated, is $21,600,000 to $24,800,000 with 20-year bonds and $25,900,000 to $30,800,000 with 30-year bonds. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FINANCING As noted above, a new assessment district imposed on the Bayside District properties could raise $1,204,860. Adding the properties outside the Bayside District, would provide an additional $1,552,840 in annual assessment revenues. As shown in Table 2, the Bayside District properties could support between $12,300,000 to $14,100,000 assuming 20-year bonds and $14,700,000 to $17,500,000 assuming 30-year bonds. 44 The parcels outside the Bayside District can support between $15,800,000 and $18,200,000 assuming 20-year bonds and between $19,000,000 and $22,600,000 assuming 30-year bonds. 44 KMA assumes that 125% debt service coverage is not required for the assessment bonds.

86 PAGE 79 FINANCING POTENTIAL SUPPORTABLE PARKING SPACES Analysis that the City has done indicates that parking spaces in new or rehabilitated parking structures are expected to cost $57,000 per space in In 2011 that cost would increase to $58,700 per space. The table below indicates how many parking spaces can be supported by potential bond financing in 2011 at a cost of $58,700 per space year Bonds year Bonds Low Estimate High Estimate Low Estimate High Estimate Baseline Parking Revenues $20,000,000 $23,000,000 $24,000,000 $28,500,000 Number of Spaces Baseline Parking Revenues without Second Hour Free Number of Spaces $21,600,000 $24,800,000 $25,900,000 $30,800, Assessment District - Bayside $12,300,000 14,100,000 $14,700,000 $17,500,000 Number of Spaces Assessment District - Outside Bayside $15,800,000 $18,200,000 $19,000,000 $22,600,000 Number of Spaces The Baseline changes in parking revenues could support the development of between 341 and 486 parking spaces, depending on the financing markets and the term of the financing. If the City elects to eliminate the second hour of free parking, then the number of spaces supported increases by a minimum of 27 spaces (from 341 to 368) with the most restrictive financing assumptions to a maximum of 39 spaces (from 486 to 525) with the best financing assumptions. The implementation of a new assessment district, using the assumptions from the MuniFinancial report, can support between 210 to 298 parking spaces from the properties within the existing Bayside District and an additional 269 to 385 spaces, if the area is expanded to include properties that surround the Bayside District. The total number of parking spaces supported by the assessment district, in 2011, ranges between 479 spaces and 683 spaces. EXISTING IN-LIEU FEE The City has an existing in-lieu fee program that has been accumulating funds. The fund balance is expected to grow to nearly $7,600,000 during This in-lieu fee will expire in The $7,600,000 balance in 2011 will fund another 129 parking spaces.

87 PAGE 80 FINANCING POTENTIAL REVENUES WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT The above analysis does not assume any significant new development in the downtown area, if development occurs it provides for its own parking. KMA and Walker have prepared an additional analysis that assumes 50,000 square feet of new commercial development each year that makes use of the public parking structures. 45 The cash flows for this analysis are provided in Part 3 Attachment 3. The cash flows follow the format of Part 3 Attachment 2 as indicated below: Attachment 3 Table 1 Without $1.00 per second hour 20-year bonds Attachment 3 Table 2 Without $1.00 per second hour 30-year bonds Attachment 3 Table 3 With $1.00 per second hour 20-year bonds Attachment 3 Table 4 With $1.00 per second hour 30-year bonds This cash flow analysis also incorporates the additional operating costs for the incremental spaces added at PS1, 3, and 6, which are expected to total 712 spaces. Walker estimated that incremental operating expense would be $327 per space per year. For purposes of this analysis, KMA assumed that one of the structures opens in 2011 and the second opens in Summaries of the operating cash flows are provided in Table 3. In comparison to the Baseline Cash Flow, there is little difference in The 2011 Baseline Cash Flow is $2,450,000 (see Part 3 Table 1) and the incremental cash flow is $2,549,000 (see Table 3), an increase of approximately $100,000. The increase is more pronounced in In 2016 the incremental cash flow is $4,842,000, which is $1,602,000 greater than the Baseline Cash Flow. The increased cash flow in 2016 supports a much larger financing. In the Baseline Cash Flow scenario, the 2016 cash flow of $3,244,000 will support between $6,500,000 and $7,400,000 of additional financing. Assuming the incremental demand, the increased cash flow supports $18,700,000 to $21,500,000 of financing, an increase of $12,200,000 to $14,100,000. The cost per parking space in 2016 is projected to be $68,100, so the incremental financing will support the cost of between 179 and 207 parking spaces. This is approximately 25% of the 712 incremental spaces. Alternatively, the incremental cash flow covers approximately 25% of the cost of spaces in 2016 and that percentage will increase over time. The fact that the incremental cash flow will cover a portion of the capital costs means that an in-lieu fee need not cover the full capital cost of the parking spaces. In this case it appears that an in-lieu fee that covers 65% to 75% of the capital cost of a parking space will be sufficient to fund the incremental parking spaces. In Part 2 of this report KMA estimated that an in-lieu fee of $179 per square foot of building area was required to cover the full 45 The 50,000 square feet per year figure comes from documents produced earlier in the decade for the Downtown Parking Task Force, in which the rate of downtown development was projected at 50,000 sf per year. 46 We also note that, after reviewing garage occupancy data in the area, we assume little to no revenue loss for the City resulting from spaces temporarily eliminated; the availability of spaces in other public structures would allow for parking and subsequent revenue capture in the area, in some cases Structures 1 6 and in cases PS 7 9 or potentially the Civic Center. The implementation of parking management measures may be necessary to ensure that vehicles park in these other structures.

88 PAGE 81 FINANCING POTENTIAL capital cost. If the operating cash flow will support 25% of costs and an in-lieu fee would cover 75% of costs, then the in-lieu fee could be $134 per square foot. CONCLUSIONS PART 3 The City has the potential to substantially increase the revenues that it receives from the use of its downtown parking facilities. The pricing changes proposed by Walker are projected to generate an additional $2,450,000 in parking revenues in That is a 27% increase over the existing $9,216,000 of net revenues. Eliminating the second hour of free parking and instead charging $1.00 provides another $196,000 in revenues. The increased revenues can be used to support financing for new or replacement parking spaces. Depending on financing market conditions and whether the City eliminates the second hour of free parking, the increased revenues could support financing of between $20,000,000 and $28,500,000 if 20-year bonds are issued and $21,600,000 to $30,800,000 if 30-year bonds are issued. The 20-year bonds could finance between 341 and 486 parking spaces and the 30-year bonds could finance between 368 and 525 spaces. The increased parking revenues may not be sufficient to fund all of the replacement or new parking spaces. The City has considered creating a new assessment district to include the Bayside District and possibly properties surrounding the Bayside District. As noted above, MuniFinancial prepared assessment district estimates for the City that showed that a $0.50 per square foot annual assessment in the Bayside District could generate approximately $1,200,000 in annual revenues and adding properties surrounding the Bayside District could generate an additional approximately $1,550,000 in annual revenues. The all-inclusive assessment district that could provide funding for 479 to 550 parking spaces with 20-year bonds and 574 spaces to 683 spaces with 30-year bonds. Additionally, the City has an existing in-lieu fee program. That program is projected to have a balance of $7,568,000 in Those funds are sufficient to fund an additional 129 parking spaces. The following table shows the ranges of parking spaces that can be supported by the various funding options. Funding Option Number of Spaces 20-year Bonds Number of Spaces 30-year Bonds Current In-lieu Fee Baseline Parking Revenues 341 to to 525 New Assessment District 479 to to 683 Overall Number of Spaces 949 to 1,165 1,071 to 1,337 As parking revenues grow over time, the City could undertake another financing. Using 2016 for example, the growth in Baseline Cash Flow (depending on financing conditions) could support 95 to 115 parking spaces using 20-year bonds or 115 to 142 spaces using 30-year bonds.

89 PAGE 82 FINANCING POTENTIAL Finally, if the additional commercial development included in our assumptions occurs, and this development does not provide for its own parking, then the City could consider implementing a new inlieu fee. As noted above, an in-lieu fee of $179 per building square foot is required to fund the capital costs of the parking spaces. It appears that the incremental parking revenues from this increased demand could be sufficient to finance approximately 25% of the capital costs. In this case, the in-lieu fee could be reduced by approximately 25% to $134 per building square foot.

90 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL REVENUES SANTA MONICA PARKING STRUCTURES SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Parking Revenues 1 Metered $1,613,000 $1,922,000 Monthly $1,149,000 $1,368,000 Transient Daytime/Hourly 6,420,000 7,646,000 Evening 2,654,000 3,161,000 Total Parking Revenue $11,836,000 $14,097,000 (Less) FY08 Net Parking Revenue (9,216,000) (10,683,000) Incremental Parking Revenues $2,620,000 $3,414,000 Less Capital Reserves (170,000) (170,000) Baseline Incremental Cash Flow $2,450,000 $3,244,000 Additional Revenue from $1.00 for 2nd hour $196,000 $233,000 New Assessment District Funding Bayside Properties $1,204,860 $1,204,860 Non-Bayside Parcels $1,552,840 $1,552,840 Total Assessment Payments $2,757,700 $2,757,700 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: SM Parking w Walker Numbers Summary; 6/18/2009; JAR

91 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF BONDING CAPACITY - BASELINE PROJECTIONS SANTA MONICA PARKING STRUCTURES SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Issue 20-year bonds in 2011 Issue 30-year bonds in 2011 Low Estimate High Estimate Low Estimate High Estimate Parking Operations Baseline Parking Revenues $20,000,000 $23,000,000 $24,000,000 $28,500,000 Baseline Parking Revenues with $1 charge for second hour $21,600,000 $24,800,000 $25,900,000 $30,800,000 Increase in Bonding Capacity from $1 charge $1,600,000 $1,800,000 $1,900,000 $2,300,000 New Assesment District Bayside Area Properties $12,300,000 $14,100,000 $14,700,000 $17,500,000 Outside Bayside $15,800,000 $18,200,000 $19,000,000 $22,600,000 Total Issue Additional Issue Additional 20-year bonds in year bonds in 2016 Low Estimate High Estimate Low Estimate High Estimate Baseline Parking Revenues $6,500,000 $7,400,000 $7,800,000 $9,200,000 Baseline Parking Revenues with $1 charge for second hour $6,800,000 $7,800,000 $8,100,000 $9,700,000 Increase in Bonding Capacity from $1 charge $300,000 $400,000 $300,000 $500,000 Note 20-year bond values are from Attachment 2 - Tables 1 and 3 30-year bond values are from Attachment 2 - Tables 2 and 4 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: SM Parking w Walker Numbers Summary; 6/18/2009; JAR

92 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL REVENUES - WITH INCREMENTAL REVENUES SANTA MONICA PARKING STRUCTURES SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Parking Revenues 1 Metered $1,613,000 $1,922,000 Monthly $1,149,000 $1,368,000 Incremental Demand $223,000 $1,884,000 Transient Daytime/Hourly 6,420,000 7,646,000 Evening 2,654,000 3,161,000 Total Parking Revenue $12,059,000 $15,981,000 (Less) FY08 Net Parking Revenue (9,216,000) (10,683,000) Incremental Parking Revenues $2,843,000 $5,298,000 Less Incremetnal Expenses ($124,000) ($286,000) Less Capital Reserves (170,000) (170,000) Baseline Incremental Cash Flow $2,549,000 $4,842,000 Additional Revenue from $1.00 for 2nd hour $196,000 $233,000 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: SM Parking incremental Summary; 6/18/2009; JAR

93 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF BONDING CAPACITY - WITH INCREMENTAL REVENUES SANTA MONICA PARKING STRUCTURES SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Issue 20-year bonds in 2011 Issue 30-year bonds in 2011 Low Estimate High Estimate Low Estimate High Estimate Parking Operations Baseline Parking Revenues $20,800,000 $23,900,000 $25,000,000 $29,600,000 Baseline Parking Revenues with $1 charge for second hour $22,400,000 $25,700,000 $26,900,000 $31,900,000 Increase in Bonding Capacity from $1 charge $1,600,000 $1,800,000 $1,900,000 $2,300,000 New Assesment District Bayside Area Properties $12,300,000 $14,100,000 $14,700,000 $17,500,000 Outside Bayside $15,800,000 $18,200,000 $19,000,000 $22,600,000 Total Issue Additional Issue Additional 20-year bonds in year bonds in 2016 Low Estimate High Estimate Low Estimate High Estimate Baseline Parking Revenues $18,700,000 $21,500,000 $22,400,000 $26,700,000 Baseline Parking Revenues with $1 charge for second hour $19,000,000 $21,800,000 $22,800,000 $27,100,000 Increase in Bonding Capacity from $1 charge $300,000 $300,000 $400,000 $400,000 Note 20-year bond information is from Attachment 3 - Tables 1 and 3 30-year bond information is from Attachment 3 - Tables 2 and 4 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: SM Parking incremental Summary; 6/18/2009; JAR

94 PAGE 87 FINANCING POTENTIAL FINANCING POTENTIAL PART 1 ATTACHMENT 1 WALKER PARKING REVENUE PROJECTIONS

95 PAGE 88 FINANCING POTENTIAL ATTACHMENT 1 WALKER REVENUE PROJECTIONS The following is a discussion of the revenue portion (that which is earned directly from users of the parking system) of the financial projections contained in this analysis. We note that the revenue figures provided here are order of magnitude projections that are preliminary in nature and therefore should not be used in bond documents. They will, however, be useful in determining the opportunities that the City has to raise funds for the parking system while, as was explained in Part 1 of this document, increasing parking availability through pricing management techniques. METHODOLOGY, ASSUMPTIONS AND PROJECTIONS TRANSIENT PARKING Each of the line items that make up the Transient Parking portion of the revenue, Daytime Hourly Parking, Charge for the Second Hour and the Evening Rate were based on an analysis of ticket data from the Skidata access and revenue control equipment in operation in the City s Parking Structures 1 6 as well as Parking Structure 9. Ticket data for the entire calendar year 2007 was analyzed and revenue for all seven of these parking structures was determined. The assumptions related to future revenue including rate increases and changes in pricing policy were then applied (see the table on the following page). We project that parking rate recommendations made with regard to each of the three categories of transient parking will result in an increase in revenue of $3,000,000± annually. ON-STREET METERED SPACES Revenue projections for on-street metered parking spaces in the study area were made using an estimated monthly meter revenue for the area 47 that were obtained from the City s financing department as well as a survey of the number of parking meters in the area, their current rates, hours of operation and the assumptions outlined below in the table below. We project that the implementation of our on-street meter rate recommendations will result in an increase in revenue of $490,000± annually. 47 We understand that the collection of money from the meters in the area is done as part of a larger city-wide collection. Figures for the revenue collected from the on-street meters, and the projected additional revenue, may therefore not be exact, nor do they take into account revenue from the use of Santa Monicards.

96 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE 89 MONTHLY PERMITS Future revenue projections are based on information from City staff regarding the number of parking permits that are currently held by the public 48 and the increase in monthly permit rates recommended by Walker in Part 1 of this report and summarized in the table below. We project that the implementation of our pricing recommendations for monthly permits will result in an increase in revenue of $110,000± annually for Parking Structures 1-6 and Revenue Source Transient Park ing Current Policy Future Assumption Second Hour of Parking In PS 1-6, 9 Parking rate from 3rd Hour Daily Maximum Evening Flat Rate Free $1.00/2nd Hour $1.00/30 minutes $2.00/hour $7.00 $9.00 $3.00 $5.00 Monthly Parking Monthly permit fee before tax $75.00 $ Metered Parking Parking Rate at Meters $1.00/hour $1.50/hour Minimum meter hours of operation Until 6:00 PM Until 10:00 PM Revenue from additional parking spaces in rebuilt garages The construction of an additional 712 parking spaces is planned for the Bayside District as part of the demolition and reconstruction of Parking Structures 1, 3 and 6. In projecting the amount of 48 Monthly projections were based on an assumption of 1,055 monthly parking permits within the system. 49 Despite our recommendation for a significant increase in the cost of monthly parking permits, we project that revenue earned by Structures 1 6 and 9 will not increase concomitantly with the amount of the increase due to the relative increase in attractiveness of other options including parking in private structures, the Library and Civic Center Parking Structures, the use of carpooling and transit that such an increase would bring. We note that the purpose of the rate increase is in part to make more spaces available for transient parkers. j:\ city of santa monica\report\final consolidated report\report for pdf\consolidated document doc

97 PAGE 90 FINANCING POTENTIAL revenue that these additional spaces will generate, we first note that in our analysis of 2007occupancy data these structures reached full occupancy on roughly forty days of the year. The additional spaces that will be constructed will effectively be the last to fill. Although the construction of new spaces may arguably induce additional parking demand from drivers who otherwise may not have come to Downtown Santa Monica, we do not expect that this induced or latent demand for parking would occur on days other than those which already experience impacted parking. On the majority of days when the parking system is not impacted we therefore assume that these new spaces will not generate income; additional income from new parking spaces is likely to result only from additional generators of parking demand being constructed, by which we mean new development. A number of City documents related to parking, including the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Public Parking Program released in 2006, refer to an annual growth rate in commercial development in the area of 50,000 square feet as well as the City s desire to maintain a parking generation rate of 2.1 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of said development. Our projections for the revenue that will be generated by the new parking spaces contained in the rebuilt garages are therefore based primarily on this projected additional 2.1 spaces X new 50 (ksf) per year. Assuming that this amount of additional commercial square footage is brought on line (and stabilized), along with the new parking spaces that will serve it, we project additional annual revenue of $220,000± in 2011 and $1.1 million± by However, it is crucial to note that if either the assumed amount of new commercial square footage or the new spaces that will accommodate the parking generated by this new square footage does not come on line at the rate assumed, this additional revenue will not materialize.

98 PAGE 91 FINANCING POTENTIAL Part 3 - Financing Potential - Attachment 1: Table A: Projected Parking Revenue - Santa Monica 1 Revenue Source 2008 Revenue Assumptions Meters (on-street) 2 $ 1,124,416 3 $ 1,613,000 $ 1,613,000 $ 1,710,000 $ 1,710,000 $ 1,813,000 $ 1,813,000 $ 1,922,000 $ 1,922,000 $ 2,037,000 $ 2,037,000 $ - Monthly parking 4 $ 1,039,529 $ 1,149,000 $ 1,149,000 $ 1,218,000 $ 1,218,000 $ 1,291,000 $ 1,291,000 $ 1,368,000 $ 1,368,000 $ 1,450,000 $ 1,450,000 Transient parking PS 1-6, 9 5 Charge $1 for second hour $ 196,000 $ 196,000 $ 208,000 $ 208,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 233,000 $ 233,000 $ 247,000 $ 247,000 Daytime hourly parking $ 4,505,331 $ 6,420,000 $ 6,420,000 $ 6,805,000 $ 6,805,000 $ 7,213,000 $ 7,213,000 $ 7,646,000 $ 7,646,000 $ 8,105,000 $ 8,105,000 Evening rate to $5.00 $ 1,764,489 $ 2,654,000 $ 2,654,000 $ 2,813,000 $ 2,813,000 $ 2,982,000 $ 2,982,000 $ 3,161,000 $ 3,161,000 $ 3,351,000 $ 3,351,000 Total transient parking $ 6,269,820 $ 9,270,000 $ 9,270,000 $ 9,826,000 $ 9,826,000 $ 10,415,000 $ 10,415,000 $ 11,040,000 $ 11,040,000 $ 11,703,000 $ 11,703,000 Total Revenue $ 8,433,765 $ 12,032,000 $ 12,032,000 $ 12,754,000 $ 12,754,000 $ 13,519,000 $ 13,519,000 $ 14,330,000 $ 14,330,000 $ 15,190,000 $ 15,190,000 Source: Walker Parking Consultants and City of Santa Monica, Future revenue projections (beginning 2010) assume implementation of Walker rate recommendations outlined in Attachment 1 and a 6% biennial increase in parking fees beginning in Revenue projections are preliminary and should not be used to obtain financing. 2 Current revenue for on-street meters within the study area provided by Department of Finance and based on CY 2007 data. 3 Future meter revenue projections assume an increase in on-street meter rates to $1.50/hr and that 75% of the area's 370 meters observed to be in effect in the daytime only would extend hours of enforcement into the evening. 4 Monthly parking revenue is based on information provided by the Finance Department and Parking Office for February Projections include the City's 10% parking tax. A $121 monthly rate (including the parking tax) was assumed as well as a significant reduction in demand for monthly parking in PS 1-6 resulting from the higher monthly rate. 5 Transient parking revenue calculated by Walker using CY 2007 data provided by the Parking Office.

99 PAGE 94 FINANCING POTENTIAL FINANCING POTENTIAL ATTACHMENT 2 BASELINE REVENUE PROJECTIONS

100 ATTACHMENT 2 - TABLE 1 CASH FLOW FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS - BASELINE CONDITIONS - CHARGE FOR SECOND HOUR NOT INCLUDED - 20 YEAR BONDS SANTA MONICA PARKING STRUCTURES SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Parking Operations Parking Revenues 1 Metered $1,613,000 $1,613,000 $1,710,000 $1,710,000 $1,813,000 $1,813,000 $1,922,000 $1,922,000 $2,037,000 $2,037,000 Monthly 1,149,000 1,149,000 1,218,000 1,218,000 1,291,000 1,291,000 1,368,000 1,368,000 1,450,000 1,450,000 Transient Daytime/Hourly 6,420,000 6,420,000 6,805,000 6,805,000 7,213,000 7,213,000 7,646,000 7,646,000 8,105,000 8,105,000 Charge $1 for 2nd Hour Evening 2,654,000 2,654,000 2,813,000 2,813,000 2,982,000 2,982,000 3,161,000 3,161,000 3,351,000 3,351,000 Subtotal Transient 9,074,000 9,074,000 9,618,000 9,618,000 10,195,000 10,195,000 10,807,000 10,807,000 11,456,000 11,456,000 Total Parking Revenue 11,836,000 11,836,000 12,546,000 12,546,000 13,299,000 13,299,000 14,097,000 14,097,000 14,943,000 14,943,000 (Less) FY08 Net Parking Revenue 1 (8,948,000) (9,216,000) (9,492,000) (9,777,000) (10,070,000) (10,372,000) (10,683,000) (11,003,000) (11,333,000) (11,673,000) Incremental Parking Revenues 2,888,000 2,620,000 3,054,000 2,769,000 3,229,000 2,927,000 3,414,000 3,094,000 3,610,000 3,270,000 Parking Expenses Operating Expenses 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Reserves 3 (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) Total Parking Expenses ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) Incremental Parking Expenses (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) Incremental Parking Cash Flow $2,718,000 $2,450,000 $2,884,000 $2,599,000 $3,059,000 $2,757,000 $3,244,000 $2,924,000 $3,440,000 $3,100,000 Net Present 6.0% $21,210,000 Bond Debt Service ($1,960,000) ($1,960,000) ($1,960,000) ($1,960,000) ($1,960,000) ($2,595,000) ($2,595,000) ($2,595,000) Cash Flow after Debt Service $2,718,000 $2,450,000 $924,000 $639,000 $1,099,000 $797,000 $1,284,000 $329,000 $845,000 $505,000 CF Available for Debt Service (1.25 coverage) $1,960,000 $635,000 Construction Funds Available Low estimate (6.5% rate - 20 year term) $20,000,000 $6,500,000 High Estimate (5% rate - 20 year term) $23,000,000 $7,400,000 Parking Costs per Space $57,000 $58,700 $60,500 $62,300 $64,200 $66,100 $68,100 $70,100 $72,200 $74,400 Potential parking spaces (low Potential parking spaces (high Memo: New Development Parking Assessment Fee 4 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $59,000 $59,000 $59,000 Existing Parcels 5 589, , , , , ,000 Cumulative Balance 5 $6,959,000 $7,566,000 $8,173,000 $8,821,000 $9,469,000 $10,117,000 Potential Parking Spaces Existing parking revenues and parking revenue projection prepared by Walker Parking. 2 Estimated Operating Expenses for additional parking spaces at Parking Structure 1 or 6. 3 A capital reserve of $50 per space is recommended by Walker and KMA. 4 KMA estimates based upon projects under construction and/or approved. KMA has assumed that residential parking will be provided onsite and commercial parkign will be provided through the in-lieu fee. 5 Per City of Santa Monica total current amount in Parking Fee Account is $5,763,200 through 09/2008, and annual assessments from existing parcels are $589,000. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Filename:SM Parking w Walker Numbers;CshFlw A;6/18/2009;jtu

101 ATTACHMENT 2 - TABLE 2 CASH FLOW FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS - BASELINE CONDITIONS - CHARGE FOR SECOND HOUR NOT INCLUDED - 30 YEAR BONDS SANTA MONICA PARKING STRUCTURES SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Parking Operations Parking Revenues 1 Metered $1,613,000 $1,613,000 $1,710,000 $1,710,000 $1,813,000 $1,813,000 $1,922,000 $1,922,000 $2,037,000 $2,037,000 Monthly 1,149,000 1,149,000 1,218,000 1,218,000 1,291,000 1,291,000 1,368,000 1,368,000 1,450,000 1,450,000 Transient Daytime/Hourly 6,420,000 6,420,000 6,805,000 6,805,000 7,213,000 7,213,000 7,646,000 7,646,000 8,105,000 8,105,000 Charge $1 for 2nd Hour Evening 2,654,000 2,654,000 2,813,000 2,813,000 2,982,000 2,982,000 3,161,000 3,161,000 3,351,000 3,351,000 Subtotal Transient 9,074,000 9,074,000 9,618,000 9,618,000 10,195,000 10,195,000 10,807,000 10,807,000 11,456,000 11,456,000 Total Parking Revenue 11,836,000 11,836,000 12,546,000 12,546,000 13,299,000 13,299,000 14,097,000 14,097,000 14,943,000 14,943,000 (Less) FY08 Net Parking Revenue 1 (8,948,000) (9,216,000) (9,492,000) (9,777,000) (10,070,000) (10,372,000) (10,683,000) (11,003,000) (11,333,000) (11,673,000) Incremental Parking Revenues 2,888,000 2,620,000 3,054,000 2,769,000 3,229,000 2,927,000 3,414,000 3,094,000 3,610,000 3,270,000 Parking Expenses Operating Expenses 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Reserves 3 (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) Total Parking Expenses ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) Incremental Parking Expenses (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) Incremental Parking Cash Flow $2,718,000 $2,450,000 $2,884,000 $2,599,000 $3,059,000 $2,757,000 $3,244,000 $2,924,000 $3,440,000 $3,100,000 Net Present 6.0% $21,210,000 Bond Debt Service ($1,960,000) ($1,960,000) ($1,960,000) ($1,960,000) ($1,960,000) ($2,595,000) ($2,595,000) ($2,595,000) Cash Flow after Debt Service $2,718,000 $2,450,000 $924,000 $639,000 $1,099,000 $797,000 $1,284,000 $329,000 $845,000 $505,000 CF Available for Debt Service (1.25 coverage) $1,960,000 $635,000 Construction Funds Available Low estimate (6.5% rate - 30 year term) $24,000,000 $7,800,000 High Estimate (5% rate - 30 year term) $28,500,000 $9,200,000 Parking Costs per Space $57,000 $58,700 $60,500 $62,300 $64,200 $66,100 $68,100 $70,100 $72,200 $74,400 Potential parking spaces (low Potential parking spaces (high Memo: New Development Parking Assessment Fee $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $59,000 $59,000 $59,000 Existing Parcels 5 589, , , , , ,000 Cumulative Balance 5 $6,959,000 $7,566,000 $8,173,000 $8,821,000 $9,469,000 $10,117,000 Potential Parking Spaces Existing parking revenues and parking revenue projection prepared by Walker Parking. 2 Estimated Operating Expenses for additional parking spaces at Parking Structure 1 or 6. 3 A capital reserve of $50 per space is recommended by Walker and KMA. 4 KMA estimates based upon projects under construction and/or approved. KMA has assumed that residential parking will be provided onsite and commercial parkign will be provided through the in-lieu fee. 5 Per City of Santa Monica total current amount in Parking Fee Account is $5,763,200 through 09/2008, and annual assessments from existing parcels are $589,000. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: SM Parking w Walker Numbers CshFlw C; 6/18/2009; JAR

102 ATTACHMENT 2 - TABLE 3 CASH FLOW FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS - BASELINE CONDITIONS - CHARGE FOR SECOND HOUR INCLUDED - 20 YEAR BONDS SANTA MONICA PARKING STRUCTURES SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Parking Operations Parking Revenues 1 Metered $1,613,000 $1,613,000 $1,710,000 $1,710,000 $1,813,000 $1,813,000 $1,922,000 $1,922,000 $2,037,000 $2,037,000 Monthly 1,149,000 1,149,000 1,218,000 1,218,000 1,291,000 1,291,000 1,368,000 1,368,000 1,450,000 1,450,000 Transient Daytime/Hourly 6,420,000 6,420,000 6,805,000 6,805,000 7,213,000 7,213,000 7,646,000 7,646,000 8,105,000 8,105,000 Charge $1 for 2nd Hour 196, , , , , , , , , ,000 Evening 2,654,000 2,654,000 2,813,000 2,813,000 2,982,000 2,982,000 3,161,000 3,161,000 3,351,000 3,351,000 Subtotal Transient 9,270,000 9,270,000 9,826,000 9,826,000 10,415,000 10,415,000 11,040,000 11,040,000 11,703,000 11,703,000 Total Parking Revenue 12,032,000 12,032,000 12,754,000 12,754,000 13,519,000 13,519,000 14,330,000 14,330,000 15,190,000 15,190,000 (Less) FY08 Net Parking Revenue 1 (8,948,000) (9,216,000) (9,492,000) (9,777,000) (10,070,000) (10,372,000) (10,683,000) (11,003,000) (11,333,000) (11,673,000) Incremental Parking Revenues 3,084,000 2,816,000 3,262,000 2,977,000 3,449,000 3,147,000 3,647,000 3,327,000 3,857,000 3,517,000 Parking Expenses Operating Expenses 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Reserves 3 (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) Total Parking Expenses ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) Incremental Parking Expenses (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) Incremental Parking Cash Flow $2,914,000 $2,646,000 $3,092,000 $2,807,000 $3,279,000 $2,977,000 $3,477,000 $3,157,000 $3,687,000 $3,347,000 Net Present 6.0% $22,820,000 Bond Debt Service ($2,117,000) ($2,117,000) ($2,117,000) ($2,117,000) ($2,117,000) ($2,782,000) ($2,782,000) ($2,782,000) Cash Flow after Debt Service $2,914,000 $2,646,000 $975,000 $690,000 $1,162,000 $860,000 $1,360,000 $375,000 $905,000 $565,000 CF Available for Debt Service (1.25 coverage) $2,117,000 $665,000 Construction Funds Available Low estimate (6.5% rate - 20 year term) $21,600,000 $6,800,000 High Estimate (5% rate - 20 year term) $24,800,000 $7,800,000 Parking Costs per Space $57,000 $58,700 $60,500 $62,300 $64,200 $66,100 $68,100 $70,100 $72,200 $74,400 Potential parking spaces (low Potential parking spaces (high Memo: New Development Parking Assessment Fee 4 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $59,000 $59,000 $59,000 Existing Parcels 5 589, , , , , ,000 Cumulative Balance 5 $6,959,000 $7,566,000 $8,173,000 $8,821,000 $9,469,000 $10,117,000 Potential Parking Spaces Existing parking revenues and parking revenue projection prepared by Walker Parking. 2 Estimated Operating Expenses for additional parking spaces at Parking Structure 1 or 6. 3 A capital reserve of $50 per space is recommended by Walker and KMA. 4 KMA estimates based upon projects under construction and/or approved. KMA has assumed that residential parking will be provided onsite and commercial parkign will be provided through the in-lieu fee. 5 Per City of Santa Monica total current amount in Parking Fee Account is $5,763,200 through 09/2008, and annual assessments from existing parcels are $589,000. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Filename:SM Parking w Walker Numbers;CshFlw B;6/18/2009;jtu

103 ATTACHMENT 2 - TABLE 4 CASH FLOW FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS - BASELINE CONDITIONS - CHARGE FOR SECOND HOUR INCLUDED - 30 YEAR BONDS SANTA MONICA PARKING STRUCTURES SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Parking Operations Parking Revenues 1 Metered $1,613,000 $1,613,000 $1,710,000 $1,710,000 $1,813,000 $1,813,000 $1,922,000 $1,922,000 $2,037,000 $2,037,000 Monthly 1,149,000 1,149,000 1,218,000 1,218,000 1,291,000 1,291,000 1,368,000 1,368,000 1,450,000 1,450,000 Transient Daytime/Hourly 6,420,000 6,420,000 6,805,000 6,805,000 7,213,000 7,213,000 7,646,000 7,646,000 8,105,000 8,105,000 Charge $1 for 2nd Hour 196, , , , , , , , , ,000 Evening 2,654,000 2,654,000 2,813,000 2,813,000 2,982,000 2,982,000 3,161,000 3,161,000 3,351,000 3,351,000 Subtotal Transient 9,270,000 9,270,000 9,826,000 9,826,000 10,415,000 10,415,000 11,040,000 11,040,000 11,703,000 11,703,000 Total Parking Revenue 12,032,000 12,032,000 12,754,000 12,754,000 13,519,000 13,519,000 14,330,000 14,330,000 15,190,000 15,190,000 (Less) FY08 Net Parking Revenue 1 (8,948,000) (9,216,000) (9,492,000) (9,777,000) (10,070,000) (10,372,000) (10,683,000) (11,003,000) (11,333,000) (11,673,000) Incremental Parking Revenues 3,084,000 2,816,000 3,262,000 2,977,000 3,449,000 3,147,000 3,647,000 3,327,000 3,857,000 3,517,000 Parking Expenses Operating Expenses 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Reserves 3 (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) Total Parking Expenses ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) ($170,000) Incremental Parking Expenses (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) Incremental Parking Cash Flow $2,914,000 $2,646,000 $3,092,000 $2,807,000 $3,279,000 $2,977,000 $3,477,000 $3,157,000 $3,687,000 $3,347,000 Net Present 6.0% $22,820,000 Bond Debt Service ($2,117,000) ($2,117,000) ($2,117,000) ($2,117,000) ($2,117,000) ($2,782,000) ($2,782,000) ($2,782,000) Cash Flow after Debt Service $2,914,000 $2,646,000 $975,000 $690,000 $1,162,000 $860,000 $1,360,000 $375,000 $905,000 $565,000 CF Available for Debt Service (1.25 coverage) $2,117,000 $665,000 Construction Funds Available Low estimate (6.5% rate - 30 year term) $25,900,000 $8,100,000 High Estimate (5% rate - 30 year term) $30,800,000 $9,700,000 Parking Costs per Space $57,000 $58,700 $60,500 $62,300 $64,200 $66,100 $68,100 $70,100 $72,200 $74,400 Potential parking spaces (low Potential parking spaces (high Memo: New Development Parking Assessment Fee 4 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $59,000 $59,000 $59,000 Existing Parcels 5 589, , , , , ,000 Cumulative Balance 5 $6,959,000 $7,566,000 $8,173,000 $8,821,000 $9,469,000 $10,117,000 Potential Parking Spaces Existing parking revenues and parking revenue projection prepared by Walker Parking. 2 Estimated Operating Expenses for additional parking spaces at Parking Structure 1 or 6. 3 A capital reserve of $50 per space is recommended by Walker and KMA. 4 KMA estimates based upon projects under construction and/or approved. KMA has assumed that residential parking will be provided onsite and commercial parkign will be provided through the in-lieu fee. 5 Per City of Santa Monica total current amount in Parking Fee Account is $5,763,200 through 09/2008, and annual assessments from existing parcels are $589,000. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: SM Parking w Walker Numbers CshFlw D; 6/18/2009; JAR

104 PAGE 99 FINANCING POTENTIAL FINANCING POTENTIAL ATTACHMENT 3 REVENUES PROJECTIONS WITH GROWTH

105 ATTACHMENT 3 - TABLE 1 CASH FLOW FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS - WITH INCREMENTAL DEMAND - CHARGE FOR SECOND HOUR NOT INCLUDED - 20 YEAR BONDS SANTA MONICA PARKING STRUCTURES SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Parking Operations Parking Revenues 1 Metered $1,613,000 $1,613,000 $1,710,000 $1,710,000 $1,813,000 $1,813,000 $1,922,000 $1,922,000 $2,037,000 $2,037,000 Monthly 1,149,000 1,149,000 1,218,000 1,218,000 1,291,000 1,291,000 1,368,000 1,368,000 1,450,000 1,450,000 Incremental Demand 105, , , ,000 1,107,000 1,465,000 1,884,000 2,263,000 2,548,000 2,548,000 Transient Daytime/Hourly 6,420,000 6,420,000 6,805,000 6,805,000 7,213,000 7,213,000 7,646,000 7,646,000 8,105,000 8,105,000 Charge $1 for 2nd Hour Evening 2,654,000 2,654,000 2,813,000 2,813,000 2,982,000 2,982,000 3,161,000 3,161,000 3,351,000 3,351,000 Subtotal Transient 9,074,000 9,074,000 9,618,000 9,618,000 10,195,000 10,195,000 10,807,000 10,807,000 11,456,000 11,456,000 Total Parking Revenue 11,941,000 12,059,000 12,993,000 13,288,000 14,406,000 14,764,000 15,981,000 16,360,000 17,491,000 17,491,000 (Less) FY08 Net Parking Revenue 1 (8,948,000) (9,216,000) (9,492,000) (9,777,000) (10,070,000) (10,372,000) (10,683,000) (11,003,000) (11,333,000) (11,673,000) Incremental Parking Revenues 2,993,000 2,843,000 3,501,000 3,511,000 4,336,000 4,392,000 5,298,000 5,357,000 6,158,000 5,818,000 Parking Expenses Operating Expenses 2 $0 ($124,000) ($127,000) ($131,000) ($135,000) ($278,000) ($286,000) ($295,000) ($304,000) ($313,000) Capital Reserves 3 (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) Total Parking Expenses ($170,000) ($294,000) ($297,000) ($301,000) ($305,000) ($448,000) ($456,000) ($465,000) ($474,000) ($483,000) Incremental Parking Expenses (170,000) (294,000) (297,000) (301,000) (305,000) (448,000) (456,000) (465,000) (474,000) (483,000) Incremental Parking Cash Flow $2,823,000 $2,549,000 $3,204,000 $3,210,000 $4,031,000 $3,944,000 $4,842,000 $4,892,000 $5,684,000 $5,335,000 Net Present 6.0% $28,590,000 Bond Debt Service ($2,039,000) ($2,039,000) ($2,039,000) ($2,039,000) ($2,039,000) ($3,874,000) ($3,874,000) ($3,874,000) Cash Flow after Debt Service $2,823,000 $2,549,000 $1,165,000 $1,171,000 $1,992,000 $1,905,000 $2,803,000 $1,018,000 $1,810,000 $1,461,000 CF Available for Debt Service (1.25 coverage) $2,039,000 $1,835,000 Construction Funds Available Low estimate (6.5% rate - 20 year term) $20,800,000 $18,700,000 High Estimate (5% rate - 20 year term) $23,900,000 $21,500,000 Parking Costs per Space $57,000 $58,700 $60,500 $62,300 $64,200 $66,100 $68,100 $70,100 $72,200 $74,400 Potential parking spaces (low Potential parking spaces (high Memo: New Development Parking Assessment Fee 4 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $59,000 $59,000 $59,000 Existing Parcels 5 589, , , , , ,000 Cumulative Balance 5 $6,959,000 $7,566,000 $8,173,000 $8,821,000 $9,469,000 $10,117,000 Potential Parking Spaces Existing parking revenues and parking revenue projection prepared by Walker Parking. 2 Estimated Operating Expenses for additional parking spaces at Parking Structure 1 or 6. 3 A capital reserve of $50 per space is recommended by Walker and KMA. 4 KMA estimates based upon projects under construction and/or approved. KMA has assumed that residential parking will be provided onsite and commercial parkign will be provided through the in-lieu fee. 5 Per City of Santa Monica total current amount in Parking Fee Account is $5,763,200 through 09/2008, and annual assessments from existing parcels are $589,000. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Filename:SM Parking incremental;cshflw A;6/18/2009;jtu

106 ATTACHMENT 3 - TABLE 2 CASH FLOW FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS - WITH INCREMENTAL DEMAND - CHARGE FOR SECOND HOUR NOT INCLUDED - 30 YEAR BONDS SANTA MONICA PARKING STRUCTURES SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Parking Operations Parking Revenues 1 Metered $1,613,000 $1,613,000 $1,710,000 $1,710,000 $1,813,000 $1,813,000 $1,922,000 $1,922,000 $2,037,000 $2,037,000 Monthly 1,149,000 1,149,000 1,218,000 1,218,000 1,291,000 1,291,000 1,368,000 1,368,000 1,450,000 1,450,000 Incremental Demand 105, , , ,000 1,107,000 1,465,000 1,884,000 2,263,000 2,548,000 2,548,000 Transient Daytime/Hourly 6,420,000 6,420,000 6,805,000 6,805,000 7,213,000 7,213,000 7,646,000 7,646,000 8,105,000 8,105,000 Charge $1 for 2nd Hour Evening 2,654,000 2,654,000 2,813,000 2,813,000 2,982,000 2,982,000 3,161,000 3,161,000 3,351,000 3,351,000 Subtotal Transient 9,074,000 9,074,000 9,618,000 9,618,000 10,195,000 10,195,000 10,807,000 10,807,000 11,456,000 11,456,000 Total Parking Revenue 11,941,000 12,059,000 12,993,000 13,288,000 14,406,000 14,764,000 15,981,000 16,360,000 17,491,000 17,491,000 (Less) FY08 Net Parking Revenue 1 (8,947,631) (9,216,060) (9,492,541) (9,777,318) (10,070,637) (10,372,756) (10,683,939) (11,004,457) (11,334,591) (11,674,628) Incremental Parking Revenues 2,993,369 2,842,940 3,500,459 3,510,682 4,335,363 4,391,244 5,297,061 5,355,543 6,156,409 5,816,372 Parking Expenses Operating Expenses 2 $0 ($124,000) ($127,000) ($131,000) ($135,000) ($278,000) ($286,000) ($295,000) ($304,000) ($313,000) Capital Reserves 3 (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) Total Parking Expenses ($170,000) ($294,000) ($297,000) ($301,000) ($305,000) ($448,000) ($456,000) ($465,000) ($474,000) ($483,000) Incremental Parking Expenses (170,000) (294,000) (297,000) (301,000) (305,000) (448,000) (456,000) (465,000) (474,000) (483,000) Incremental Parking Cash Flow $2,823,369 $2,548,940 $3,203,459 $3,209,682 $4,030,363 $3,943,244 $4,841,061 $4,890,543 $5,682,409 $5,333,372 Net Present 6.0% $28,590,000 Bond Debt Service ($2,039,000) ($2,039,000) ($2,039,000) ($2,039,000) ($2,039,000) ($3,873,000) ($3,873,000) ($3,873,000) Cash Flow after Debt Service $2,823,369 $2,548,940 $1,164,459 $1,170,682 $1,991,363 $1,904,244 $2,802,061 $1,017,543 $1,809,409 $1,460,372 CF Available for Debt Service (1.25 coverage) $2,039,000 $1,834,000 Construction Funds Available Low estimate (6.5% rate - 30 year term) $25,000,000 $22,400,000 High Estimate (5% rate - 30 year term) $29,600,000 $26,700,000 Parking Costs per Space $57,000 $58,700 $60,500 $62,300 $64,200 $66,100 $68,100 $70,100 $72,200 $74,400 Potential parking spaces (low Potential parking spaces (high Memo: New Development Parking Assessment Fee $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $59,000 $59,000 $59,000 Existing Parcels 5 589, , , , , ,000 Cumulative Balance 5 $6,959,000 $7,566,000 $8,173,000 $8,821,000 $9,469,000 $10,117,000 Potential Parking Spaces Existing parking revenues and parking revenue projection prepared by Walker Parking. 2 Estimated Operating Expenses for additional parking spaces at Parking Structure 1 or 6. 3 A capital reserve of $50 per space is recommended by Walker and KMA. 4 KMA estimates based upon projects under construction and/or approved. KMA has assumed that residential parking will be provided onsite and commercial parkign will be provided through the in-lieu fee. 5 Per City of Santa Monica total current amount in Parking Fee Account is $5,763,200 through 09/2008, and annual assessments from existing parcels are $589,000. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: SM Parking incremental CshFlw C; 6/18/2009; JAR

107 ATTACHMENT 3 - TABLE 3 CASH FLOW FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS - WITH INCREMENTAL DEMAND - CHARGE FOR SECOND HOUR INCLUDED - 20 YEAR BONDS SANTA MONICA PARKING STRUCTURES SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Parking Operations Parking Revenues 1 Metered $1,613,000 $1,613,000 $1,710,000 $1,710,000 $1,813,000 $1,813,000 $1,922,000 $1,922,000 $2,037,000 $2,037,000 Monthly 1,149,000 1,149,000 1,218,000 1,218,000 1,291,000 1,291,000 1,368,000 1,368,000 1,450,000 1,450,000 Incremental Demand 105, , , ,000 1,107,000 1,465,000 1,884,000 2,263,000 2,548,000 2,548,000 Transient Daytime/Hourly 6,420,000 6,420,000 6,805,000 6,805,000 7,213,000 7,213,000 7,646,000 7,646,000 8,105,000 8,105,000 Charge $1 for 2nd Hour 196, , , , , , , , , ,000 Evening 2,654,000 2,654,000 2,813,000 2,813,000 2,982,000 2,982,000 3,161,000 3,161,000 3,351,000 3,351,000 Subtotal Transient 9,270,000 9,270,000 9,826,000 9,826,000 10,415,000 10,415,000 11,040,000 11,040,000 11,703,000 11,703,000 Total Parking Revenue 12,137,000 12,255,000 13,201,000 13,496,000 14,626,000 14,984,000 16,214,000 16,593,000 17,738,000 17,738,000 (Less) FY08 Net Parking Revenue 1 (8,947,631) (9,216,060) (9,492,541) (9,777,318) (10,070,637) (10,372,756) (10,683,939) (11,004,457) (11,334,591) (11,674,628) Incremental Parking Revenues 3,189,369 3,038,940 3,708,459 3,718,682 4,555,363 4,611,244 5,530,061 5,588,543 6,403,409 6,063,372 Parking Expenses Operating Expenses 2 $0 ($124,000) ($127,000) ($131,000) ($135,000) ($278,000) ($286,000) ($295,000) ($304,000) ($313,000) Capital Reserves 3 (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) Total Parking Expenses ($170,000) ($294,000) ($297,000) ($301,000) ($305,000) ($448,000) ($456,000) ($465,000) ($474,000) ($483,000) Incremental Parking Expenses (170,000) (294,000) (297,000) (301,000) (305,000) (448,000) (456,000) (465,000) (474,000) (483,000) Incremental Parking Cash Flow $3,019,369 $2,744,940 $3,411,459 $3,417,682 $4,250,363 $4,163,244 $5,074,061 $5,123,543 $5,929,409 $5,580,372 Net Present 6.0% $30,190,000 Bond Debt Service ($2,196,000) ($2,196,000) ($2,196,000) ($2,196,000) ($2,196,000) ($4,059,000) ($4,059,000) ($4,059,000) Cash Flow after Debt Service $3,019,369 $2,744,940 $1,215,459 $1,221,682 $2,054,363 $1,967,244 $2,878,061 $1,064,543 $1,870,409 $1,521,372 CF Available for Debt Service (1.25 coverage) $2,196,000 $1,863,000 Construction Funds Available Low estimate (6.5% rate - 20 year term) $22,400,000 $19,000,000 High Estimate (5% rate - 20 year term) $25,700,000 $21,800,000 Parking Costs per Space $57,000 $58,700 $60,500 $62,300 $64,200 $66,100 $68,100 $70,100 $72,200 $74,400 Potential parking spaces (low Potential parking spaces (high Memo: New Development Parking Assessment Fee 4 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $59,000 $59,000 $59,000 Existing Parcels 5 589, , , , , ,000 Cumulative Balance 5 $6,959,000 $7,566,000 $8,173,000 $8,821,000 $9,469,000 $10,117,000 Potential Parking Spaces Existing parking revenues and parking revenue projection prepared by Walker Parking. 2 Estimated Operating Expenses for additional parking spaces at Parking Structure 1 or 6. 3 A capital reserve of $50 per space is recommended by Walker and KMA. 4 KMA estimates based upon projects under construction and/or approved. KMA has assumed that residential parking will be provided onsite and commercial parkign will be provided through the in-lieu fee. 5 Per City of Santa Monica total current amount in Parking Fee Account is $5,763,200 through 09/2008, and annual assessments from existing parcels are $589,000. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Filename:SM Parking incremental;cshflw B;6/18/2009;jtu

108 ATTACHMENT 3 - TABLE 4 CASH FLOW FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS - WITH INCREMENTAL DEMAND - CHARGE FOR SECOND HOUR INCLUDED - 30 YEAR BONDS SANTA MONICA PARKING STRUCTURES SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Parking Operations Parking Revenues 1 Metered $1,613,000 $1,613,000 $1,710,000 $1,710,000 $1,813,000 $1,813,000 $1,922,000 $1,922,000 $2,037,000 $2,037,000 Monthly 1,149,000 1,149,000 1,218,000 1,218,000 1,291,000 1,291,000 1,368,000 1,368,000 1,450,000 1,450,000 Incremental Demand 105, , , ,000 1,107,000 1,465,000 1,884,000 2,263,000 2,548,000 2,548,000 Transient Daytime/Hourly 6,420,000 6,420,000 6,805,000 6,805,000 7,213,000 7,213,000 7,646,000 7,646,000 8,105,000 8,105,000 Charge $1 for 2nd Hour 196, , , , , , , , , ,000 Evening 2,654,000 2,654,000 2,813,000 2,813,000 2,982,000 2,982,000 3,161,000 3,161,000 3,351,000 3,351,000 Subtotal Transient 9,270,000 9,270,000 9,826,000 9,826,000 10,415,000 10,415,000 11,040,000 11,040,000 11,703,000 11,703,000 Total Parking Revenue 12,137,000 12,255,000 13,201,000 13,496,000 14,626,000 14,984,000 16,214,000 16,593,000 17,738,000 17,738,000 (Less) FY08 Net Parking Revenue 1 (8,947,631) (9,216,060) (9,492,541) (9,777,318) (10,070,637) (10,372,756) (10,683,939) (11,004,457) (11,334,591) (11,674,628) Incremental Parking Revenues 3,189,369 3,038,940 3,708,459 3,718,682 4,555,363 4,611,244 5,530,061 5,588,543 6,403,409 6,063,372 Parking Expenses Operating Expenses 2 $0 ($124,000) ($127,000) ($131,000) ($135,000) ($278,000) ($286,000) ($295,000) ($304,000) ($313,000) Capital Reserves 3 (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) (170,000) Total Parking Expenses ($170,000) ($294,000) ($297,000) ($301,000) ($305,000) ($448,000) ($456,000) ($465,000) ($474,000) ($483,000) Incremental Parking Expenses (170,000) (294,000) (297,000) (301,000) (305,000) (448,000) (456,000) (465,000) (474,000) (483,000) Incremental Parking Cash Flow $3,019,369 $2,744,940 $3,411,459 $3,417,682 $4,250,363 $4,163,244 $5,074,061 $5,123,543 $5,929,409 $5,580,372 Net Present 6.0% $30,190,000 Bond Debt Service ($2,196,000) ($2,196,000) ($2,196,000) ($2,196,000) ($2,196,000) ($4,059,000) ($4,059,000) ($4,059,000) Cash Flow after Debt Service $3,019,369 $2,744,940 $1,215,459 $1,221,682 $2,054,363 $1,967,244 $2,878,061 $1,064,543 $1,870,409 $1,521,372 CF Available for Debt Service (1.25 coverage) $2,196,000 $1,863,000 Construction Funds Available Low estimate (6.5% rate - 30 year term) $26,900,000 $22,800,000 High Estimate (5% rate - 30 year term) $31,900,000 $27,100,000 Parking Costs per Space $57,000 $58,700 $60,500 $62,300 $64,200 $66,100 $68,100 $70,100 $72,200 $74,400 Potential parking spaces (low Potential parking spaces (high Memo: New Development Parking Assessment Fee 4 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $59,000 $59,000 $59,000 Existing Parcels 5 589, , , , , ,000 Cumulative Balance 5 $6,959,000 $7,566,000 $8,173,000 $8,821,000 $9,469,000 $10,117,000 Potential Parking Spaces Existing parking revenues and parking revenue projection prepared by Walker Parking. 2 Estimated Operating Expenses for additional parking spaces at Parking Structure 1 or 6. 3 A capital reserve of $50 per space is recommended by Walker and KMA. 4 KMA estimates based upon projects under construction and/or approved. KMA has assumed that residential parking will be provided onsite and commercial parkign will be provided through the in-lieu fee. 5 Per City of Santa Monica total current amount in Parking Fee Account is $5,763,200 through 09/2008, and annual assessments from existing parcels are $589,000. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: SM Parking incremental CshFlw D; 6/18/2009; JAR

109 PART 4 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS

110 PAGE 103 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The City of Santa Monica (City) owns 10 parking garages 50 and 2 surface lots 51 located in and around downtown Santa Monica. The Parking Office, which reports to the Transportation Management Division (TMD), a division of the Planning and Community Development Department, is responsible for the operation, basic maintenance, and management of these facilities. The Parking Office has four staff positions to accomplish its administrative and operational functions for these Downtown facilities. 52 The Parking Office oversees a third party contract parking operator which supplies labor, management, and materials to provide the day to day operation of the facilities. The City commissioned Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) to update the work and the financing plan associated with the Downtown Public Parking Program created by the Downtown Parking Task Force. This Part 5 of this report, an operations assessment of the parking system, is part of a series of five sections. The present assessment includes an evaluation of the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the City s parking processes. The following areas have been examined: City s Management of its Parking System, Off-Street Parking Operations, Facility Condition, Maintenance and Custodial, Valet Operations and a proposed centralized valet system, Technology Opportunities. Each area of this assessment includes a description of the current operation, followed by Action items. Each Action is a single point that warrants attention; some items may be followed by a brief description. In an effort to make the assessment report manageable, the supporting text and tables related to each Action item will be located in the Appendix for the particular area it addresses. The Santa Monica Pier and Beach parking activity are excluded from this assessment, but the approach to managing parking in the downtown area can be applied to the management of all City parking facilities. Action items are categorized into three types, which are defined as follows: 50 The study area boundaries are 2 nd Street to the west; 6 th Court on the east; Wilshire Blvd. on the north and Colorado Blvd. to the south. The reference to the 10 parking garages include: Parking Structures 1 through 6, 7 & 8, 9, and the Main Library Parking Structure. The Civic Center Parking Structure serves the downtown area, but is located just outside of the study area boundaries. 51 The 2 surface parking lots are the Library parking lot and the Civic Center parking lot. 52 Walker notes that these four positions are devoted to managing off-street parking in the Bayside District. We do not include the additional position within the parking office which is devoted to managing the beach and pier lots. Throughout this study, we focus on parking facilities within the Bayside District and do not include the beach and pier lots in our discussion.

111 PAGE 104 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 1. Immediate These are immediate problems on which management should take quick action. Also included in this category are solutions that, while not necessarily critical, can be easily implemented. 2. High Priority These items need to be examined after immediate priority items are addressed. 3. Long Term These are actions that are advisable but require extended time and/or expenditures. City staffing is an area of the parking system which deserves to be addressed. The assessment identifies opportunities for staff additions as well as modified positions. Overall, we found the parking staff to be enthusiastic and proud of their individual contributions to the parking system. They have been instrumental in the assessment process. The parking system is comprised of three primary components financial, management, and operating. Walker examines each of these components in this report. METHODOLOGY Walker conducted a series of interviews with City staff, parking operator staff, and members of the Bayside District Corporation, and provided written surveys to others. These interviews and survey responses were used to determine staff involvement in parking and parking related tasks, the extent of inter-department coordination and to solicit ideas for improving the system. We solicited surveys from parkers in the Bayside District, Bayside District Corporation staff and members, as well as City staff who are responsible for the parking system. In addition, we requested and received statistical reports that provided insight into the system and directed us to areas that needed scrutiny. The consulting team spent several days meeting with City and parking operator staff, observing off-street parking activity, and conducting stakeholder interviews. During that time we interviewed management, administrative personnel, and a representative sample of persons assigned to the parking facilities. We interviewed stakeholders identified by the City. Walker observed the operation of: Cashiers, supervisors, and management of the third party contract parking operator, Off-street oversight functions by City personnel, Contract administration by City personnel, General and structural maintenance, Statistical reports for insight into important areas of the system. We also performed the following procedures for off-street parking activity: Observed the cash control procedures starting with the patron and ending with the parking operator reports; Obtained copies of each document and discussed in detail how the document was completed and processed; Reviewed each computer application used for every position and determined the source and input requirements for each.

112 PAGE 105 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS CITY S MANAGEMENT OF PARKING SYSTEM PARKING OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT The Parking Office reports directly to TMD, which is a division of the Planning and Community Development Department. Figure 1 below provides the City s overall organizational chart and highlights the Parking Office s inter-relation throughout the City s various departments. Figure 4.1: City of Santa Monica s Organizational Chart Mayor & City Council Records & Election Services City Manager City Attorney Assistant City Manager Fire Deputy City Manager Police Housing & Econ Dev Community Maintenance Administration & Redevelopment Housing Economic Dev Planning and Community Dev Administration City Planning/Development Strategic Planning Building & Safety Transportation Mngmnt Parking Office Right of Way Mngmnt Human Resources Finance Administration & Budget Financial Operations Risk Management Revenue Information Systems Administration Systems & Networks Software Systems Support Systems Transportation Planning Administration Community & Cultural Services Big Blue Bus Public Works Library The Parking Office is highlighted in goldenrod. Departments highlighted in light yellow receive financial reports, or service, or provide maintenance, infrastructure or other services. Departments indicated in green are the City s highest level of management. Departments indicated in light blue represent all other departments.

113 PAGE 106 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS The City of Santa Monica is known for its parking innovation. The City is a national leader in implementing parking cash out. The City has a shared parking district in its downtown area; implements residential preferential parking regulations; provides employee parking in residential districts; provides variable pricing based on demand to reduce congestion; provides real time parking space availability in its largest facilities city-wide; provides special event parking reduction programs that have resulted in comparable levels of bicycle to car parking at the actual site of many events. However, managing day-to-day operations requires close oversight. Even when parking firms are hired to operate parking, a city remains responsible for managing the parking system. Policy decisions, coordination between various city and public agencies, and continued monitoring of operational and financial performance must be performed by the city. Given the size and complexity in its parking system, the City faces challenges in this coordination. The contracts for services for the off-street parking facilities are administered by the Transportation Management Division. On-street revenue is monitored by the Finance Department. Community Maintenance is responsible for building, repairs and maintenance to the City s parking facilities. Community Maintenance performs sweeping and scrubbing and provides custodial services for the parking facilities. Redevelopment funding has been used by the Public Works Division to seismically upgrade the parking facilities. Directing a parking division includes financial, operational, and public relation issues. It is crucial for a city to have someone overseeing parking activity to ensure the success and financial soundness of the entire parking system. Cities who view parking as an extension of the circulation system place the parking activity in the transportation department. Cities with a strong emphasis on revenue control and income generation place the responsibility in the finance department. Cities that focus on construction and maintenance of the facilities choose the planning or maintenance department to oversee parking activity. Municipalities concerned with enforcement assign parking duties to public safety. Parking could also be managed by a business district; however the City of Santa Monica s parking operation covers much more than the downtown district and involves several City departments for its operation. Rather than assigning responsibility for managing parking to a non-city entity, keeping management of its parking resources within the City will ensure better communication and coordination among departments, reduce confusion and ensure that the parking resources are managed in a comprehensive manner. The City s current organizational structure of a Parking Office within the Transportation Division provides a good balance because the staff assigned to parking management has unfettered responsibilities and their duties are not shared in other aspects of transportation. While the Parking Office reports to the Transportation Planning Manager, financial reporting should be provided to the Finance Director. The problem with placing parking in other departments is that is usually takes second place to the department s primary activity and results in a neglected parking division. Based on the size and activity of the City s parking system, Walker believes four full time positions dedicated to off-street parking in the Bayside District are needed to properly administer parking for the

114 PAGE 107 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS City. The first three positions are presently in the departmental structure. The first is the Parking Coordinator position, the second is (what we will propose be upgraded to a senior level) Administrative Analyst, and the third is a Parking Operations Specialist. 53 The fourth is a newly created position, the Parking Operations Auditor. The position s duties will be discussed in greater detail later in the report. The Parking Office should be the single source point for both off-street and on-street parking information and reports in the City. While certain functions, such as enforcement and maintenance, naturally fall under the scope of other departments, most statistical and data based information for the entire parking system should be available as part of the Parking Office s reports. Technical information concerning the numbers of parking spaces, whether off- or on-street, rates for all spaces, availability, parking conditions and the like should be generated from one source, the Parking Office. 53 Walker notes that there is an additional Parking Operations Specialist position in charge of the beach and pier lots. We do not consider staffing for these facilities in this report.

115 PAGE 108 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS STAFFING The Parking Office staff for all City-wide parking includes a Parking Coordinator, two Parking Operations Specialists, one Administrative Analyst and one Staff Assistant III. Figure 2 illustrates the current management organizational structure. Figure 4.2: Current Management Structure Off-Street Parking Parking Coordinator (1) Parking Operations Specialist (2) Administrative Analyst (1) Parking Structures Beach Parking and Pier A Staff Assistant III (1) A Walker notes that the Beach and Pier Parking operations and management were not included specifically in our analysis. In the organizational structure, the Parking Operations Specialists help the Parking Coordinator oversee all areas of the Off-Street Parking Operations. One of the Parking Operations Specialists is responsible for Parking Structures 1 6 and 9, located in the City s Bayside District, while the other is solely responsible for the beach and pier parking lots. Walker notes that our study has focused entirely on the parking operations within the Bayside District and we have not studied the beach and pier operations; our discussion therefore deals only with the off-street parking operations in the Bayside District. The Administrative Analyst is based in the parking office and has the assignment of maintaining SantaMonicard activity sales, refilling, etc., - and monthly parkers payments. RECOMMENDATION - STAFFING Walker recommends a parking operations office organization that would manage all parking related issues, both off- and on-street, no matter where the parking facilities are located throughout the City. Walker recommends several changes in the City s existing organizational structure for the Parking Office: The Operations Section of the Parking Office should remain, with one Parking Operations Specialist responsible for Downtown Parking Structures (and the second Parking Operations Specialist responsible for the Beach and Pier parking facilities).

116 PAGE 109 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Walker recommends that the Administrative Section of the Parking Office add a new position for a Parking Operations Auditor. This new position would provide better information and would ensure better accountability of the operations. Walker recommends that the Administrative Section of the Parking Office be led by a senior level position that has managerial and supervisory responsibilities. This position would supervise the new Parking Operations Auditor. Given the City s personnel structure, this position would be equivalent to a Senior Administrative Analyst position. In the Parking Office the current position of Administrative Analyst could be eliminated to create a senior level Administrative Analyst in order to reflect the additional analytical and supervisorial responsibilities. The two existing Parking Operations Specialists (already part of the City s organization) are responsible for the Downtown Structures and Beach/Pier. Job duties for the positions are as follows: PARKING OPERATIONS SPECIALIST: 1. Garage Operations 2. Contract Compliance 3. Special Events 4. Maintenance SENIOR LEVEL ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST: 1. Receipts 2. Santa Monicard Administration 3. IT Services 4. Auditing 5. Accounting

117 PAGE 110 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS The revised organizational structure for the off-street parking operations, excluding the pier and beach lots, is shown in Figure 3. Figure 4.3: Revised Management Structure Parking Coordinator Parking Operations Specialist (2) Senior level Administrative Analyst A Parking Operations Auditor Staff Assistant III A It is important to note that the senior level Administrative Analyst position is a supervisory position Note: New positions are highlighted in goldenrod. The Parking Operations Specialist (already a part of the existing organizational structure), is responsible for the parking facilities; the other, the senior level Administrative Analyst, would be responsible for financial integrity. Overlapping is eliminated to maintain these positions focus on clearly defined responsibilities. The purpose of the changes is to increase accountability and responsibility for each function of the operations group. Under the revised management structure, the new senior level Administrative Analyst position would be directly responsible for overseeing the verification of cash collection, counting and deposits and for ensuring that an audit of the Parking Operator s operation is conducted on a daily basis. The Parking Operations Auditor will verify the operator s reports and perform on-site inspections of the operation. These are tasks that are not presently part of the department s scope. Last year approximately $9,700,000 in cash was collected in the structures. That amount of cash warrants a consistent and continual watchdog. If 5% of the overall amount were to have gone unstated, it would represent a $535,000 loss to the City s system. Many municipalities have experienced losses greater than that and we have seen losses in the 15 20% range. [Please note that our use of the term Parking Operations Auditor is to describe the job position in industry terms. We understand that this particular nomenclature may connote a specific position within the confines of the City s structure and substituting a different title will not alter our recommendations.] The Parking Coordinator s duties would include:

118 PAGE 111 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Financial Responsibilities 1. Review the financial performance of the parking system. 2. Review daily revenue, financial and operational incident reports. 3. Review monthly financial status reports including revenue trends and newly implemented cash control procedures. 4. Implement new procedures as directed by the Transportation Management Division Planning Manager and the Finance Department Director. 5. Oversee budgetary responsibilities. 6. Determine the financial feasibility of implementing suggested programs to benefit downtown. Operational Responsibilities 1. Physically inspects off-street parking facilities. 2. Meet weekly with the manager of parking operations to review observations and follow up of previous requests. 3. Meet weekly with the senior level Administrative Analyst to review revenue control concerns. 4. Meet monthly with the third party operators to review revenue and expense performance, modify operating policies to meet the City s goals, and monitor compliance with contractual obligations. 5. Monitor public complaints and the operator s responsiveness to the public and adjust procedures as needed. 6. Work with parking operators to take corrective action, training, or disciplinary actions with attendants/cashiers with repeated complaints, shortages, or unusual activity. 7. Coordinate implementation of policy recommendations concerning demand management between on and off street spaces, reserved and unreserved space mix, oversell factors, and enforcement levels. 8. Obtain knowledge of parking industry including trends in parking management and equipment options. 9. Maintenance of facilities. 10. Maintain ongoing inventory of facilities including rate surveys, available parking for monthly and daily users in all downtown parking facilities. Track demand and occupancies.

119 PAGE 112 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Business Responsibility 1. Analyze parking rate structure and make recommendations that maximize potential parking revenue. 2. Make recommendations on new ways to generate additional demand and revenue for the City and evaluate feasibility of such programs. Present findings and recommendations to City for review. 3. Make recommendations on future demand and development programs. 4. Administer third party management contracts designed to promote the City s parking goals. Parking Liaison 1. Meet with various City departments to coordinate efforts related to on and off street parking. 2. Meet monthly with civic groups such as the Bayside District to ensure that parking policies and goals complement the City s greater vision. 3. Monthly meetings with the parking operator s representatives to coordinate parking efforts. The senior level Administrative Analyst should be trained to understand parking systems, revenue controls, and management issues related to the parking industry. The position should provide a monthly report summarizing parking activity and should be distributed to the department head and the finance department. Responsibilities of the senior level Administrative Analyst include: 1. Prepare monthly financial status reports including revenue trends. 2. Prepare and monitor budget. 3. Perform trend analysis of parking activity to detect unusual activity. 4. Review all current financial and revenue control processes and systems and make recommendations for improvements. 5. Evaluate effectiveness of parking revenue control. 6. Perform random audits of parking activity. 7. Perform random security audits for compliance with cash controls. 8. Assist with financial analysis to evaluate rate and policy changes as requested. 9. Maximize parking to meet management s objectives. 10. Assist with administration and review of contracts. 11. Supervise Parking Operations Auditor. The Parking Operations Auditor will be tasked daily with the following:

120 PAGE 113 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 1. Examining the parking operator s shift reports and tickets. 2. Auditing exception tickets. 3. Reviewing and tracking: a. Lost ticket transactions. b. ADA transactions. c. Signed Tickets transactions. d. Manual transactions. e. Grace Period transactions. f. Promise to Pay (IOU) transactions. g. Over and Under rings. h. Cash overs/shorts. 4. Reconciling the following: a. Total Gate Activity b. Total Loop Activity (from Shift Report) c. Total Transactions from the Cashier Summary and Cashier Counts section of the Tape. d. Total Vends from the Car Counts section of the Tape. e. Count Loop Unaccounted Cars from the Car Counts section of the Tape. f. Complete ticket reconciliation and summary; 5. Compiling statistics and recording on tracking forms; a. By cashier: b. By facility: c. Over/Short d. Missing Ticket; e. Missing Cash; f. Incorrect Amount Charged; g. Cash per ticket; h. Revenue per ticket; i. Incorrect drop; j. Exception tickets.

121 PAGE 114 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS PARKING OPERATIONS The City operates Parking Structures 1 6, 9, the Library Structure and the Civic Center Facility through a management contract with a private parking operator. The City is currently out to bid for the contract. The private parking operator provides the necessary hourly labor cashiers and attendants to run the parking facilities and to staff them during the operating hours. In addition, the private parking operator provides the following management and administrative staff: 1. One structure manager; 2. One office manager; 3. Two assistant structure managers; 4. Eleven supervisors; 5. Three money counters; 6. One accounting supervisor, 7. One office cashier; 8. One customer service clerk; 9. Four administrative assistants. Figure 4, below, provides the organizational chart for the entire off-street parking operation, most of which shows the structure for the private parking operator. Figure 4.4: Off-Street Parking Operations Organizational Chart Parking Office Private Parking Operator Structure Manager Asst. Structure Managers (2) Office Manager Accounting Supervisor Supervisors (11) Customer Service Clerk Administrative Assistants (4) Money Counters (3) Office Cashier Cashiers and Attendants

122 PAGE 115 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS PARKING OPERATIONS ACTION ITEMS IMMEDIATE A. Establish the supervisors shift responsibilities to include extensive circulation through the parking structures. B. Supervisors should respond in less than four minutes. C. Stagger supervisors start times to ensure additional coverage at peak times. D. Customer service clerks who sell monthly passes need back up personnel during breaks in order to ensure coverage throughout business hours and not inconvenience the public. E. The parking operator should provide robust customer service training for cashiers and all its employees who have contact with the public. F. Provide the parking operator with enough of a bank so that each day s starting banks have been prepared the day prior, and not the very same morning. At 5:00 am, there should be a starting bank ready to go for each cashier lane that day, and a second bank that needs to be fixed (after the drops are counted) for each lane for the next day.

123 PAGE 116 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS REVENUE AND ACCESS CONTROL The parking structures are all outfitted with SkiData Parking Access and Revenue Control System (PARCS) equipment. The SkiData equipment controls both the monthly parking access and the daily (visitor) access and fee collections. In addition the facilities are equipped with a count system, provided and maintained by HiTech Systems, Inc., that monitors and records entrance and egress activity and overall occupancy. These figures are incorporated into the City s real time Web site and are also displayed on message signs located in front of each facility and adjacent to the entrance. The quality and condition of the equipment is very good. Standard revenue control features such as entry and exit gate counts, automated tickets, and loop activated fee computers are present at the equipped parking facilities. These are important controls that are considered basic to most large parking operations. These controls significantly reduce opportunities for revenue loss. DAILY PARKING Upon entry a daily parker receives a time-stamped parking ticket from the ticket dispenser, which activates the entrance barrier gate. Upon exit, the daily parker drives to the cashier booth exit and gives the ticket to the cashier. The cashier swipes the ticket through the fee computer reader, which automatically calculates the parking fee owed. If the ticket has validations, the cashier enters the validation type and number into the fee computer, which automatically subtracts the cash value of the validation from the parking fee. When the transaction is completed the barrier gate in the exit lane is activated. During the shift, garage supervisors maintain a log that is a brief summary of activity for the shift, focusing on the banks and a series of yes/no questions about equipment problems, spitter tickets, and keys. Cashiers are responsible for the accuracy of transactions during their shift. Cash collected is placed in a drop safe located in the cashier booth. At the end of their shift, cashiers reconcile all of their transactions and revenue collection to the fee computer. They then complete a daily Register Balancing Report summarizing the number of transactions. The garage supervisor collects the cash dropped in the safe and the amounts are verified and matched to the cashier s report. The numbers of tickets issued and collected, the number of cash tickets collected (sorted by amount charged), validated tickets received, and any miscellaneous tickets make up this report. Both the supervisor and the cashier sign the report. The cash, report, tickets, and supervisor s log are brought to the parking operation office. A Daily Revenue Deposit log is completed and the cash is placed in the safe to be verified by the counter at a later time. FINDINGS We have identified the following as areas of revenue control that need to be addressed by both the City and the parking operator.

124 PAGE 117 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 1. Money counting and deposit preparation should be performed by two people, preferably one person from the City (the senior level Administrative Analyst or the Parking Operations Auditor) and one person with the private parking operator. The Parking Operations Auditor will be responsible for monitoring this system on a random and surprise basis. 2. The Parking Office should maintain its newly implemented tracking procedures to ensure collection of Promise to Pay forms filled out by exiting patrons who do not have funds to make payment at that time, as these procedures have successfully reduced receivables in this area. 3. Additionally, lost tickets these are transactions in which the parker has misplaced or cannot find their ticket at time of exit are charged at full value for one day. An effort needs to be made to determine if the parker was in the facility for multiple days and should be assessed for more than one day s parking. 4. There are parkers who wait for the gates to be raised at the end of the staffed operational hours and are able to exit without paying. MONTHLY PARKING The parking facilities are equipped with a card-access system that is used to monitor all monthly parking activity. Monthly parkers are issued individual key cards, which activate the entrance and exit barrier gates. Key card activation/deactivation is separate from the invoicing process. The system operates on-line, and a transaction report of all activity is stored on the computer in the parking office. Only authorized Parking Division staff can access the system to make changes to the roster of monthly parkers. Monthly parkers wishing to make a payment or arrange for a replacement access card are to go to either the City s Parking Office at 429 Santa Monica Blvd or to the private parking operator s office in Parking Structure 5 at th Street. Both offices are open typical business hours. The controls over permits and access cards are sound and provide the necessary restrictions on the ability to sell permits outside of the accounting system. AUDITING The cash collected by each cashier is reconciled to the fee computer tape. The current audit procedures consist of this cash reconciliation, and the supervisor reviewing the cashier shift report for completeness. These procedures verify that reported revenue is collected. A system needs to be developed in order to detect unreported revenue. This system should include the audit procedures that we have discussed throughout the report including the creation of an auditing position within the department. It should also include auditing measures such as those we recommend below.

125 PAGE 118 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS REVENUE CONTROL ACTION ITEMS IMMEDIATE A. Establish a daily shift audit to be performed by the Parking Operations Auditor as follows: 1. Review each exception ticket for proper documentation. 2. Count the number of exception tickets and compare to the fee computer tape. 3. Review over/under rings and documented explanation. 4. Verify the completeness and mathematical accuracy of the cashier shift report. 5. Verify that the tickets are properly sorted, bundled, and labeled with the cashier name, location, and date. 6. Sign the cashier shift report indicating that the shift audit was performed. B. Perform a booth audit for each parking facility roughly once per year. The value of this audit is that it will provide management with a true picture of the revenue realized in a single day. This is then tied in with the true number of tickets collected and the revenue per ticket figure is obtained, presenting management with a tool to forecast revenue and assist in detecting fraud. During a booth audit, a person sits with the cashier and writes down the ticket number and dollar amount of every transaction. The booth audit is for the entire day and must occur for every cashier that works during that day. Consequently, several people are needed to perform a booth audit. The booth audit staff should not be in the Operations Division of the Parking Office. Typically temporary help is hired for booth audits, with one coordinator experienced in parking. Ideally booth audits of all of the parking are all done simultaneously. A typical weekday should be selected for the booth audit (usually a Wednesday). The following benchmarks are utilized: average cash per ticket collected, average cash per cash ticket collected, and a percentage of uncollected tickets. The booth audit results should be compared to the same weekday for the previous six weeks. C. Perform random spot or cash drawer audits. This practice is a surprise verification of transaction activity at a given point of time during a shift. Supervision will count out the cash drawer and match the money to the collected tickets. The cashier and supervisor sign the audit form, which is filed in the cashier s performance file. Such audits should be performed several times per month. E. Record manual gate raises and the reason for gate raises on the supervisor log. F. Cashiers should not have access to ticket dispensers or gates. Only supervisors should have such access. In cases where cashiers would need to raise gates, they would have to call a supervisor. This is one reason for the importance of the short supervisor response times that we recommend elsewhere in Part 5 of the report. G. Utilize the entry and exit counters in the parking facilities. Cashiers should record the beginning and ending counts on their shift reports. This should be reconciled to the number of transactions processed at the exit.

126 PAGE 119 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS H. Incorporate credit card payments at the structures. 54 I. Continue monitoring all Promise to Pay transactions in order to maintain a reduced rate of receivables. J. Reconfigure the cashier shifts in all facilities to provide 24-hour coverage. During the slow periods of activity the cashiers will perform vehicle inventories and complete requests for maintenance forms (see section on maintenance). As mentioned earlier, even in parking facilities where a pay-on-foot payment system is implemented, these facilities will still require minimal staffing of roving cashiers 55 who can perform these late night duties. Walker recommends that the City continue a policy of 24- hour coverage of the gates even if initial results yield less additional revenue than expected. Analysis of parking activity in November 2008 revealed that nearly 16% of parkers exited the garages without going through the PARCS equipment (a cashier, pay on foot or exit verifier). Walker recommends that the City leave the parking gates down 24 hours per day. K. Implement a nightly log that inventories all vehicles that remain in the garage at closing. Before the end of the last shift at closing, the booth cashier will walk the garage and write down the license plate number of each car in a log and the date. Booth cashiers will cross-reference any lost ticket transaction to the nightly log. If the car s license plate number is on the log, for example, and the log indicates that the car has been in the garage for 3 previous nights, then the cashier can charge the full parking rate for all days. L. The Parking Office s senior level Administrative Analyst position will oversee and participate in the cash counting and deposit preparation. M. To increase accountability, efficiency, and quality of work, City and operator management will need to focus on the following areas: 1. Understand the tasks of each function and coordinate the work effort. 2. Document the job duties of each position. 3. Develop written operating procedures and work methods. 4. Develop and implement performance and output standards for each function. N. Performance statistics should be developed and compiled monthly, quarterly, and annually: a. At the beginning of each month, City management should review the performance statistics with the private parking operator. The monthly performance statistics should include: 54 As of this writing, we understand that such a policy is currently being implemented in the parking structures. 55 Staff will need to be available for drivers who have lost their tickets, have no money or cannot figure out how to use the POF equipment.

127 PAGE 120 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS i. Labor costs, ii. Expenses, iii. Revenue, iv. Customer service, v. Activity-based statistics, such as lost ticket percentages. Performance statistics should be compared to last year s statistics for the same month, year-to-date, and against budget.

128 PAGE 121 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS LONG TERM A. In December 2008 the City installed ten (10) Pay-on-Foot (POF) pay stations for some of the cashier type parking facilities. While the City has used standard parking access and revenue control equipment, which relies on cashiers, at other garage locations to collect revenue, it is only employed during hours in which cashiering is scheduled. Gates are left up when there are no scheduled cashiers, and this practice results in uncollected revenue. Communities that wish to offer parking to the public, but without the costs associated with staffing, often provide parking arrangements through POF equipment. Pay stations are installed in a surface lot or garage facility and patrons will insert their parking ticket in the machine. The machine will read the ticket, determine the fee due and accept payment. After payment is made, and this can be by either cash or credit/debit card, the ticket is encoded to allow exit and is returned to the patron. The patron then uses this ticket at the exit gate and is granted exit. B. POF equipment can be installed at the garages, thereby allowing the City the ability to collect revenue 24 hours a day and seven days a week. At the garages it would not necessarily be a replacement for the staffed booths but an additional mechanism for payment to facilitate quicker exiting and to provide collection for after hours parking. There should be two POF pay stations per floor in the parking facilities where such a system is implemented, located near access points such as elevators and stairwells. Redundancy is important. People generally will not go to another floor in order to find another POF pay station if the only unit on their level is out of order or experiencing a long line of users. We note that one of the two machines per floor should be a machine that is accessible to the disabled, particularly on the first floor where the disabled spaces are located in the garage. C. A typical patron to cashier transaction takes approximately 27 seconds to process, allowing approximately 135 vehicles an hour through a manned exit lane. Exiting patrons, who have only to insert a validated POF ticket into a ticket acceptor, can exit in 8.3 seconds, or at the rate of 435 vehicles per hour. If only half of the patrons used the POF machines, the flow rate would be 283 vehicles an hour, an average of 12.7 seconds per transaction. D. Once the equipment has been use for a while, and the parking patrons are familiar with its presence, and how to use it, the cashiering staff could be pared down. This will increase the acceptance of the POF machines and expedite exit flow. E. Pay-on-foot machines cost about $20,000 $50,000 each to purchase and install and do require maintenance. However, there is a quick return on investment as a result of the reduction in the number of parking cashiers and associated labor costs (the average cost to recruit, evaluate and train an employee is over $13,400). F. Develop a web store for permits and parking tickets activity. The web store would allow monthly parkers to sign up, renew, terminate, or change status themselves. We note that the software for such a system would need to verify eligibility. It should also accept permit and parking ticket payments. The use of a web store for the sale of parking permits is a relatively new concept but there are universities in particular and a few municipalities that currently use it to sell parking permits, perhaps

129 PAGE 122 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS most notably in California the University of California, Berkeley. The City should review its practices including those for verifying eligibility, as the University has significant restrictions regarding who is entitled to receive a parking permit. FACILITY CONDITION STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE Structural maintenance costs typically represent the largest portion of the total maintenance budget. Facility owners tend to underestimate the structural maintenance cost and budget inadequately for timely corrective actions that must be performed to extend the service life of the facility. The cost of structure maintenance is relatively small considering the potential liability associated with the failure to properly maintain the facility. The age and the geographic location of a parking facility will impact maintenance costs. Older facilities require more maintenance than a new facility. A structure located in a region with a moderate climate will require less maintenance than a structure located in a region with a harsher climate. The City has made a significant investment in its parking structures. Since 2004, it has seismically upgraded Parking Structures Nos. 5 and 4, and is in design to upgrade Parking Structure No. 2. Parking Structure No. 4 includes a new central restroom and trash bin area. Beginning September 2008, Parking Structure Nos. 1 through 6 are being repainted and new art features will be installed on Parking Structure Nos. 2, 4 and 5. Parking Structure Nos. 7 and 8 are being upgraded as the Redevelopment Agency s contribution to the upgrading of Santa Monica Place Mall. However, these facilities require on-going attention. Walker recommends that a structural survey be performed regularly. We recommend that a general review of each parking facility be performed by the City s in-house engineering staff on a yearly basis. We recommend that every three to five years a more comprehensive condition appraisal be performed by a specialist in parking facility maintenance and restoration and that a five-year maintenance plan be prepared, funded and implemented. Periodic structural maintenance includes items such as patching concrete spalls and delaminations in floor slabs, beams, columns, walls, etc. In many instances there are maintenance costs associated with the topping membranes, the routing and sealing of joints and cracks, and the expansion/construction joint repairs. STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE ACTION ITEMS HIGH PRIORITY A. Establish a structural maintenance fund for structural maintenance costs for all the City s parking facilities, including those structures that are seismically upgraded. Typically Walker recommends annual contributions of $25 per structured space and $15 per surface lot space be placed into the structural maintenance fund. However, the City s structures are much older than most systems. The City s Engineering Department, which best understands the degree and scale of required repair, should be involved in determining the amount to be set aside.

130 PAGE 123 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS B. Establish a process for an annual general review of each parking facility and a more comprehensive condition approval every three to five years. FACILITY CONDITION There are numerous inter-related factors that affect the popularity and success of a particular parking facility, besides location and pricing. These factors include: 1. Type of facility (i.e. surface lot, aboveground structure, or subterranean garage); 2. Age and condition of the garage; 3. Design or layout of the garage (the configuration and required turning maneuvers as well as the size of the parking stalls can have some bearing on the facility s attractiveness); 4. Ease of ingress and egress to and from the garage, taking into consideration access by transient (daily) parkers; 5. Wayfinding or ease of accessibility, i.e., two-way traffic, multiple access points, adequate signage; 6. Cleanliness and appearance. Walker performed a survey of the structures to determine their condition, particularly in respect to appearance and attractiveness. The following features were evaluated for each parking facility: 1. Landscaping; 10. Operation of Driveways; 2. Natural Surveillance; 11. Circulation Patterns; 3. Signage; 12. Functional Layout; 4. Façade Condition; 13. Efficiency of Design; 5. Pavement Surface; 14. User Friendliness; 6. Pavement Markings; 15. Cashier Booth; 7. End Islands; 16. Staff; 8. Lighting; 17. Equipment. 9. Cleanliness; 18. Elevators Each facility received a score from one to five on the 18 features listed above. We used the following rating system: 1 = Unacceptable 3 = Average 5 = Excellent

131 PAGE 124 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS The following table provides the combined score for each feature evaluated. Table 4.5: Parking Garages Facility Condition Criteria Score Elevators 1.0 Landscaping 2.0 Natural Surveillance 2.5 Signage 3.5 Façade Condition 2.5 Pavement Surface 3.5 Pavement Markings 2.5 End Islands 3.5 Lighting 3.0 Cleanliness 2.5 Operation of Driveways 4.0 Circulation Patterns 2.5 Functional Layout 2.5 Efficiency of Design 3.0 User Friendly 3.5 Pay Station 4.5 Staff 3.0 Equipment 4.5 Overall Score 3.0

132 PAGE 125 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS The newest structure, the Civic Center, scored highest, which is to be anticipated. However, in the other structures, several factors, which are not entirely tied to age or design, such as landscaping and elevators, scored lower than what could be expected. On a typical day, about 13,000 vehicles enter the structures, bringing a minimum of 13,000 people (and many of their bad habits and their waste) into the structures, and, with most of them, into the elevators. Over the course of the year, that s a minimum of 4,745,000 people, which is a substantial challenge for any parking system s upkeep and cleaning. Activity to this extent is expected to place a strain on the appearance of the properties and a thorough program is a requirement. We were supplied with the Community Maintenance Department (CMD) Management Plan Services Matrix (a copy of which is attached at the end of this report) and find that the attention and frequency are appropriate for maintaining appearance standards in the City s structures. The parking structures are virtually free of graffiti which is an accomplishment in any community, and especially one in which the public parking attract a youthful component. CMD has a staff of 27 whose tasks and responsibilities include the maintenance and cleaning of the parking structures. Parking operator management and CMD supervisors work together, as needed, to facilitate emphasis on any particular element of cleaning that needs immediate attention. We note that a property based assessment district (PBAD) has recently been established in the area. Out of the $3.6 million which the PBAD will generate, one-third has been designated for enhanced maintenance, which will include the parking structures. The City and the Bayside District will collaborate to develop a plan for maintenance of the structures using these funds. Walker is aware that there are some constraints in place that are impediments to thoroughly cleaning the structures. CMD management has pointed out that noise complaints from downtown condominium owners have reduced their window of steam cleaning to the period between 5:00 and 8:00 am, which is not sufficient enough to thoroughly clean a garage. Because of this, and the type of equipment that the CMD utilizes in its cleaning, structures are on a six-week rotation. FACILITY CONDITION ACTION ITEMS LONG TERM A. Enhance the parking wayfinding program to direct parkers into the City facilities and improve utilization. The City has an advantage over private parking owners in that it can use on-street signage to bring parkers into its parking facilities. Some City parking facilities have room for additional customers, particularly at certain times of the day or week. An on-street signage program to provide wayfinding to City parking facilities would increase utilization. The signage program should have a consistent theme with an attractive, colorful logo.

133 PAGE 126 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS NOTES ON WAYFINDING AND SIGNAGE The term "wayfinding" was first used in 1960 by Kevin Lynch in The Image of the City, where he referred to maps, street numbers, directional signs and other elements as "way-finding" devices. Lynch s early description may explain the current misunderstanding that wayfinding is essentially the same as "signage." Though the two terms are often used interchangeably, they are not synonymous. Signs and signage specifically refers to the size, shape, design and fabrication of signs. Wayfinding is a term that refers to one s ability to help navigate unfamiliar environments and does not rely exclusively on signs. We raise this point in order to emphasize that the best way to improve wayfinding in the area likely involves more than adding signage. People who find themselves in unfamiliar environments need to know where they actually are in terms of the designated area as a whole, the layout of the area, and the location of their specific destination in order to formulate their action plans. En route to their chosen destinations, people are helped or hindered by the areas architecture, street and sidewalk layout and signage. Faulty sign design can cause navigation problems in unfamiliar environments. Some signs lack conspicuousness or visibility, because lettering lacks legibility when viewed from a distance. Others contain inaccurate, ambiguous or unfamiliar messages; many are obscured by obstructions or contain reflective surfaces, which hinder comprehension. Often there are just not enough signs or enough consistency of directional signs in the area to help people navigate. Consequently, many people do not see or read signs. When this happens it indicates that it is easier to ask for directions than to read the signs. Because wayfinding problems are not confined to signs alone, they typically cannot be solved by simply adding more signs. Typically such problems can be solved by designing an environment that identifies logical traffic patterns that enable people to move easily from one spot to another without confusion. WAYFINDING AND SIGNAGE IN THE BAYSIDE DISTRICT Currently the Downtown Santa Monica signs are used to direct the public to points of interest in the downtown area. The logo for the Downtown Santa Monica signs is eye-catching and appealing and would be a good fit for the wayfinding parking program. This logo with a capital P under it and directional arrow could be placed at the downtown entry points, including freeway off-ramps, and used to guide parkers to City parking facilities. Once the parker arrives at the City parking destination, the same logo should be visibly displayed on the parking facility so that the customer knows this is where they should park. This type of wayfinding system is effective and makes the downtown experience easier for the public, plus, it increases the City s parking revenue. Additionally, it brands the facilities as belonging to the City while assisting parkers in deciding where to park We note that our discussion does not include a comprehensive assessment of the City s existing on-street wayfinding system. A full wayfinding analysis is multifaceted and typically requires a separate study performed by an expert in this specific area.

134 PAGE 127 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS The City does have a smart parking sign system installed at the entrance to the downtown area parking structures which displays real time parking availability and adjusts the totals automatically as cars leave. For drivers, the greatest challenge the parking system currently faces with regard to wayfinding is informing drivers of the location of available parking, particularly once they have determined that parking is not available at their current location; if parking is full at one location, there exists neither signage nor an intuitive mechanism that leads them to the next available parking location. While display signs at gateway points to the Bayside District could provide assistance to drivers, one would need to be careful with the implementation and appearance of such a system; a driver traveling to the Bayside District confronted with signs proclaiming full throughout the City s parking system would not receive a positive impression. As parking often sets the tone for a visitors impression when arriving at a destination, care would need to be taken to direct drivers to available parking in a positive fashion and not only alert them to occupied areas. When one parking facility becomes full, signage or an attendant/ambassador that directed drivers to one or two additional parking facilities with available spaces would be helpful to the public. 57 Large maps would be of significant assistance to pedestrians, once parked in Parking Structures 1 6, who could quickly identify their location of the pedestrian and proximity to attractions such as the Promenade, Santa Monica Place and the Pier. On a larger scale, wayfinding cues would direct the driver to the Promenade or other prominent destinations. Currently, once they park, drivers (who then become pedestrians) either exit the parking structures on the street away from the Promenade or exit on to an alley where there is little to demonstrate a connection to the majority of shops and restaurants. 58 Providing attractive pedestrian walkways between the structures, beautified alleys and the Promenade would ameliorate this situation. Old Pasadena is an example of an older commercial district where pedestrian walkways are used effectively. In Downtown Los Angeles Broadway, the creation of mid block pedestrian walkways has been discussed to provide theatre goers with direct access to parking structures located along Hill Street one block to the west. Such a solution, while perhaps impractical for Santa Monica s existing parking structures should be considered for those structures that will be rebuilt. Finally, we note that best practices dictate that in general a hierarchy must be clearly established to differentiate vehicular wayfinding from pedestrian signage. Consistency in location as well as distinction in height and coloration will allow for improved readability of signage. Several successful pedestrian wayfinding signage systems have been highlighted in several cities across the United States including Philadelphia s Walk!Philadelphia, the largest comprehensive pedestrian sign system in North America We note that in Part 1 of this report we discuss raising the price of parking in the area in order to prevent, as much as possible, parking facilities from becoming completely filled. Pricing parking in order to ensure that there are generally at least a few spaces available at every destination could would reduce the need for certain wayfinding strategies designed to deal primarily with a lack of parking availability. 58 We understand that the City may desire to have pedestrians spill on to streets throughout the Bayside District and not only be exposed to businesses on the Promenade. 59

135 PAGE 128 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS General rules for sign design and placement should be followed when planning the streetscape improvements. All signage should have a general organizing principle consistently evident in the system. Direction signage for both pedestrians and vehicles must be continuous (i.e., repeated at each point of choice) until the destination is reached. Signs should be placed in consistent and therefore predictable locations. MAINTENANCE & CUSTODIAL The City s older structures were built about 50 years ago and suffer from a design that does not allow for cross aeration, or ventilation. Solid, interior walls that run the length of the north-south axes prevent natural disbursement of carbon waste and in fact, promote and accelerate build-up and accumulation. This, coupled with the moisture in the air that tends to stimulate bonding of the carbon particles with the surfaces that they are exposed to, creates the sense that the structures are dirtier than most. MAINTENANCE ACTION ITEMS A. Once a month, the City Parking Operations Coordinator, Parking Operations Specialist, and the Parking Operator Manager should make random inspections of facilities and grade them for appearance. Facilities that are below standard need to have documentation that these areas have been pointed out and have not yet been resolved. This team would be responsible for ensuring that written inspections have been provided to the appropriate parties each week, who are then responsible for completing the work in a quality and timely manner.

136 PAGE 129 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS CUSTOMER SERVICE The Parking Office assisted us in performing a customer service survey. We received almost 300 Offstreet parker responses. The areas of highest concern for the parkers were lines at exiting, ease of finding a space, cleanliness and the elevator service. Table 2, below, provides a summary of the surveys. Table 4.6: Customer Survey Results Personnel courtesy 3.6 Lighting Overall service PARCS Equipment Parking rates Safety Ease of finding space Ease of exit Facility cleanliness Elevators Ease of finding space PARCS Facility Equipment Lighting Elevators Cleanliness Safety Ease of Exit Personnel Courtesy Parking Rates Overall Service % Excellent 28.6% 38.1% 39.7% 18.1% 26.2% 28.8% 29.1% 67.7% 36.2% 35.4% % Good 43.3% 46.3% 48.7% 34.9% 48.0% 56.3% 42.7% 24.8% 38.9% 52.2% % Fair 17.7% 8.3% 8.5% 33.5% 19.2% 11.8% 15.9% 6.2% 19.0% 8.8% % Poor 10.4% 7.3% 3.1% 13.5% 6.6% 3.1% 12.3% 1.3% 5.9% 3.5% Avg. (1-4) Percentile

137 PAGE 130 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Santa Monica is embarking on an ambitious and innovative program called I am Santa Monica to foster enhanced customer service. I am Santa Monica is an interactive program designed to encourage and empower Santa Monica businesses and their employees to become better informed about Santa Monica and all it has to offer, and, it is hoped, impart that knowledge in a timely and enthusiastic manner to visitors and customers that they encounter. The program is available on line to sign up and consists of a free 2-hour training workshop followed by a bus tour of Santa Monica. Trained individuals become Information Ambassadors and are armed with a database of facts, figures, and Did You Know anecdotes about Santa Monica for use in customer interaction. We recommend that all parking staff members are required to enroll in and be part of this program. CUSTOMER SERVICE ACTION ITEMS HIGH PRIORITY A. Establish a customer service mystery shopper program to periodically check on the service performance of the parking staff, particularly cashiers, making the results part of the monthly meetings with the parking operator. B. Identify (and reward) parking individuals who excel in providing customer service.

138 PAGE 131 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS A COORDINATED ON-STREET VALET PARKING SYSTEM The chief advantage to offering valet services is to give parking patrons an alternative to finding their own space and walking the distance from and back to that space. The City of Santa Monica allows valet parking as one element of its coordinated parking system. There are 27 city-licensed, but privately operated, valet locations in the downtown area. These valet operators adhere to the same City standards and regulations as valet operations in other parts of the City. Currently, valet parking operators pay a permit fee of $1,750 per location per year, and a space use fee of $1.00 per space per hour of valet operations in Parking Meter Zone A (downtown) and $0.75 per hour in the rest of the City. Santa Monica Place plans to implement a valet parking program in the downtown area in the parking structures adjacent to the Santa Monica Place Mall (Parking Structures 7 and 8). Walker has been asked to evaluate the feasibility of a single operator, coordinated valet parking service as a public benefit to downtown Santa Monica visitors. Currently, downtown Santa Monica has a dozen downtown parking garages with a total of 6,600 spaces, plus 582 metered spaces. As Downtown Santa Monica has continued to develop and prosper, this success has put great demand on both on-street and off-street parking. The single operator, coordinated valet parking service would offer motorists valet drop-off and pick-up at various stations within the district. Drivers would follow signs to curbside valet stations and drop off their cars. The cars would be parked at a parking storage area. To encourage valet guests to walk around downtown, wander and perhaps patronize multiple businesses, they can park at one of the valet stations and pick up their vehicle at another. The system would be operated by a single, insured valet parking operator that would indemnify the City and Bayside District Corporation from liability. Such a system operates as a pilot program in the downtown area of Culver City. Regent Parking Inc. is the valet parking operator for the downtown Culver City valet parking service. CALCULATING LEVEL OF SERVICE Valet parking has its own levels of service that do not approximate those in the rest of the parking industry. The only service level that makes a difference is the time that the patron has to wait. And each valet patron has his or her own way of gauging time; but almost invariably they estimate two minutes as ten, and five minutes as a half-hour. They also may maintain that the other valet patrons, who came out after they did, got their vehicles back first. As valet parking is more a service than it is anything else, service levels should be built on foundations established in the service industry. The following are ideal levels of service (LOS) for wait times when claiming vehicles:

139 PAGE 132 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Table 4.7: Valet Wait Times -- Level of Service (LOS) LOS Wait Time (1) A B C D F Less than 4 minutes 4-6 minutes 6-8 minutes 8-10 minutes Exceeds 10 minutes (1) From presentation of ticket to return of vehicle to porte cochere. Arriving patrons, on the other hand, must not be made to wait in their vehicles for any substantial length of time before they are greeted and attended to. A key factor in wait times, for establishing a good level of service, is the distance between the porte cochere and the location of the parked vehicles. If the area where the vehicles are parked is over six minutes away, the LOS can never be better than a C. And, unfortunately, many valet patrons will likely not be convinced that they only waited six minutes. Valet operations with remote parking areas are sometimes best operated by radio or telephone dispatch to help cut down on wait times. In addition to enhancing service, locating parking spaces close to the porte cochere saves on labor costs, as fewer valets are required to move vehicles. RUNNING THE OPERATION The City would find that running an operation in-house would be an expensive and frustrating venture. Instead, the City should contract with a single operator to run the entire valet system. Valet operations are labor intensive and require a lot of training. Operators have the ability to draw from other locations at peak times or when absenteeism is a problem. If the City pursues a coordinated on-street valet system, the City should contract with only one operator. As multiple drop-off and pick-up points are envisioned, there are severe disadvantages to employing several operators at different points. Ideally, the vehicles should all be staged, when parked, in a single area. The single valet parking area should be within three blocks of the valet drop-off/pick-up station. However, if a single parking area is not available, the operator with whom the City contracts will need to secure multiple parking facilities, likely in under-utilized private parking facilities. So long as there a mechanism to track where cars are parked, when retrieved, the desired drop-off point can be electronically conveyed to the valet. The City would need to remove from public parking four spaces for each valet drop-off/pick-up station.

140 PAGE 133 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Valet operations are best employed in settings when an enhanced level of service is desired, or in parking operations in which an operator or facility owner needs to optimize use of limited or undesirable parking. The chief advantage to offering valet services is to give parking patrons an alternative to finding their own space and walking the distance from and back to that space. In determining pricing, it is important to note that most valet operations have a cost per parked car of anywhere from $3.50 to $7.00. This cost varies depending on the attendants wages, the distance between the drop off point(s) and where the vehicles are parking, the number of staff required, and on the experience factor of the operator, which determines insurance and workers compensation levels. Setting a price much less than $5.00 will result in a program that runs in the red. RECOMMENDATION Although the City s existing private valet system works well, the City may want to test the coordinated onstreet valet parking system to see whether the benefits to customers of being able to drop off their cars in one location and retrieve them from another proves to be cost-effective and improve parking and circulation within the Downtown. If, after considering the responsibilities associated with offering a coordinated valet program (administrative overhead to administer the contract, damage claims, customer complaints with wait times, pricing and care provided their vehicles) the City still wants to test the merits of such a program, Walker recommends that the City issue an RFP for valet parking operations. The RFP would specify the City s determination of: Location of the drop-off/pick up points Location of the parking area (whether centralized or dispersed) Minimum of insurance and bonding requirements LOS that the City expects Minimum hours of operation A say in the uniforms and appearance of the valets The valet operator having responsibility for all damage claims, which would not be passed on to the City The valet operator honoring all legitimate claims. Respondents to the RFP would be asked to describe: Qualifications, hiring and training of valets Pricing Revenue sharing Examples of operations the company is currently operating Amenities to be provided at the valet stands (e.g. umbrellas, etc.)

141 PAGE 134 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND PARKING As density of land uses have increased in many of the world s biggest cities, the demand for parking has increased as well. Developers and local governments have increasingly sought technological solutions to the problem of parking shortages. However, when it comes to parking, there are few easy solutions to solutions aside from market rate pricing. Below we discuss three proposed solutions to which people have increasingly looked, but note that the monetary costs, as well as costs of convenience and reliability, typically make such solutions impractical. MECHANICAL GARAGES Automated, mechanical parking structures utilize computer-controlled, motorized vertical lifts and horizontal shuttles to transport vehicles from the arrival level to a remote compartment for storage without human assistance. They are analogous to automated valet parking. They offer a number of advantages to standard parking structures including reduced space width, lower space height, little or no ventilation systems or stairs and elevators. Overall, they provide increased parking capacity in a given space, often one that will not accommodate a standard parking facility. However, mechanical garages, while improving in cost, speed and reliability can present significant challenges including: Reliability The reliability of mechanical garages has improved over the years after several high profile incidents that presented major problems for some of the few mechanical garages in the United States not long after their opening. Nonetheless, even a garage that suffers from even infrequent breakdowns can present the public with an unacceptable level of inconvenience or damage to vehicles. Wait times and practicality Like a valet, mechanical garages require significant waiting time for a member of the public to receive his/her car. However they also increase the dwell time that one must spend at one s car, which is the amount of time one must wait after parking before they may leave their vehicle. Mechanical garages may therefore be useful for a parking facility that serves a slow study stream of in-and-out traffic, such as monthly parkers. However, they are typically impractical for large events or venues such as movie theatres, which may experience a large number of patrons leaving or arriving at a single time. Cost The cost to both construct and operate a mechanical parking structure is typically twice that of a normal above ground parking space. 60 The cost benefit increases for irregularly sized parcels. However, given Santa Monica s projected high construction cost per space and shallow parcels for some of the parcels on which it plans to rebuild parking structures, the cost disadvantages of a mechanical parking structure may be significantly lower than we typically observe. 60 Compared with an automated cashier facility such as pay on foot.

142 PAGE 135 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS STACKERS Mechanical stackers, which can increase the capacity of a given footprint, are typically used in low turnover parking facilities (i.e. for employees) with high clearances that will allow for two vehicles to be placed above one another. Santa Monica s parking facilities currently have at least two characteristics that make stackers impossible, but also impractical. First, the facilities do not have the high clearances necessary to stack two cars. However, the majority of the vehicles parked in the Bayside District s public structures are also parked for a relatively short period of time, making this highly labor (and time intensive) method of intensifying the number of cars that can park in a given facility unrealistic. WAYFINDING DEVICES WITHIN PARKING FACILITIES Signage that shows drivers on which levels parking spaces are available can allow drivers to locate spaces more efficiently. Arrows or green light indicators that direct drivers to individual vacant spaces provide more specific directions and can therefore reduce search times even further. Given the current layout of Parking Structures 1 6 however, such devices are of limited use. The current structures essentially require a motorist to drive up the length of the garage past all the spaces in order to find a space. There is little opportunity for a driver to select access to an underutilized area as there is in other facilities; one must typically drive past all the spaces to find one which is underutilized. A wayfinding system should be considered when building new parking structures. Arguably such wayfinding systems could provide parking users with benefits. Motorists driving up through a structure would have more realistic expectations about where they might find a space and how high up they may have to drive. Underutilized spaces on the downward section of a facility s helix could be accessed more quickly. However, such wayfinding systems can represent a significant cost for solving a problem that may not be a priority in the public s collective mind. In Walker s survey of parking system users, the public s complaints typically were not that there were available spaces that were difficult to find but rather the overall lack of available spaces. CONCLUSION NEW TECHNOLOGIES While new technologies offer the opportunity to greatly increase the efficiency of the parking system, in general we suggest that the greatest efficiencies may come from the ability to accurately monitor and collect data - and revenue - from the parking system. While some new technologies could be worth exploring in Santa Monica, the fact that their implementation is relatively uncommon in cities with even higher land costs and parking rates enforces the idea that such technologies are often impractical, expensive, or inconvenient to put into use. They can also be a distraction from simpler and more cost effective solutions such as using pricing to manage parking.

143 PAGE 136 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS CONCLUSION AND FINAL RECOMMENDATION Our discussion of parking operations in Downtown Santa Monica demonstrates the complexity of the existing system and the variety of tasks that the operation of the system requires. In addition, the data used to monitor this complex system are assembled by and distributed to several departments and individuals, many of which are not part of what is designated as Parking Operations, as was demonstrated earlier in Figure 2. We recognize that parking policy and operations impact many departments and facets of Downtown Santa Monica. It is precisely because of this that we suggest that a consolidation of parking operations would be beneficial for monitoring and managing parking in the district. Perhaps most importantly, placing the operations of both the metered on-street spaces in the Downtown area as well as the parking structures under the authority of the Parking Office would facilitate the management of parking in the area as an integrated system, as we discuss further below. PARKING OPERATIONS AND THE LUCE A goal of this five part parking study is to make policy recommendations that are consistent with, and therefore promote, the goals of the Land Use and Circulation Element that is currently being developed by the City. Maximizing the efficiency of the parking system through the recommendations discussed in this document is not only consistent with but we suggest necessary for the City to meet the LUCE s goal of striking the right balance 61 among the different modes of transportation serving Santa Monica s Downtown district. We agree with the LUCE framework, which approaches parking as one component of a comprehensive transportation system that offers the public a variety of options that includes transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and other modes. In the same way, we recommend that the parking system for Downtown be managed comprehensively as well. Policies regarding the management of on-street metered, unmetered and valet spaces, transient off-street spaces, monthly key cards, enforcement, citation and collections, revenue and other components of the parking system are all interrelated and impact one another. Currently, if an issue arises in one area of the parking operation it is likely to impact other areas that are managed by other departments, resulting in challenges in identifying and measuring potential issues, or opportunities, and the ability to respond to them appropriately. The framework and goals of the LUCE suggest prioritizing improved management of existing parking over new parking construction. 62 We believe that the recommendations contained within this analysis support this goal. However, whether or when the City chooses to add parking supply, these recommendations are designed to make the existing - or expanded - parking system more efficient, more responsive to the public and more economical for the City to provide. 61 Rolling Out the LUCE, Working Through the Details, Presentation by Nelson Nygaard before Santa Monica City Council, July 8, Page Ibid, Page 8.

144 PAGE 137 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS In the presentation of the LUCE framework before City Council on July 8 th, 2008 the formation of district organizations to manage parking and traffic, was mentioned as one tool that could be used to achieve the goals of LUCE. 63 We agree that district organizations that manage parking can provide numerous benefits for the parking system and, by extension, the area as a whole. When a district organization, manages the parking for a specific localized area rather than City wide, the parking system gains a constituency which advocates for initially unpopular but often important measures, such as raising parking rates (to better manage parking and fund improvements) or increasing enforcement and restrictions, both of which can ultimately improve the service and efficiency of the parking system for the public, and offer numerous additional benefits including the increased viability of alternative modes of transportation, another goal of the LUCE. The Parking Benefit District in Old Pasadena is given significant credit for that area s revitalization and increased popularity in the last two decades, by creating a body and mechanism that better manages existing parking, raises revenue for additional off-street parking and neighborhood improvements, and made paid parking in the area a viable policy alternative for both City residents and business people in the district. In districts where parking revenue already exists, parking increment financing policies have been implemented whereby a portion of the increase in parking revenue from increased rates stays in the local district, in some cases to fund parking and other improvements and localizing parking policy. Bayside District Corporation serves a similar function in Santa Monica. However, Walker recommends that the City retain management of operations of its on- and off-street parking operations in-house to ensure that the resources are managed through a coordinated delivery system that integrates parking management within the City s larger overall circulation system. The City and Bayside District Corp need to strengthen their communication links so that Bayside receives relevant and timely information which can be used to provide informed feedback to the City. By improving the efficiency and accuracy of how parking data is reported and therefore monitored, the parking operation can be managed more effectively. This efficiency will likely translate into not only improved management of the parking operation, but increased revenue and ability to meet the City s policy goals in the area of land use and transportation. 63 Rolling Out the LUCE, Working Through the Details, Presentation by Nelson Nygaard before Santa Monica City Council, July 8, Page 8.

145 PAGE 138 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Part 4 Operations Analysis Attachment COMMUNITY MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SERVICES MATRIX 138

146 PAGE 139 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Section One - 3 rd Street Promenade: From the north side of Wilshire to the south side of Broadway Shifts: Effective 7/6/08 1 = 4:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 2 = 2:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (Sunday Thursday) 2:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. (Friday & Saturday) 3 rd Street, Promenade Maintenance: Service Description Frequency Shift Pedestrian Walkways: 146,400 sq. ft. Sweeper Sweeper scrubber Picks up large debris Picks up small debris, applies degreaser, scrubs pavement & recovers excess water Once daily, 6 days a week (Mon. Sat.) Once daily, 5 days a week (Mon. Fri.) 1 1 Pressure Washer Pre-treat stains Steam cleans in places scrubbers can t reach Degreaser applied with handsprayer Once daily, 5 days a week (Mon. Fri.) 1 1 Policing Benches (85) Drinking Fountains (7) Once daily, 5 days a week (Mon. Fri.) Walk site, sweep & remove Twice daily, Mon. Thu. 1 & 2 debris Three times daily, Fri. - Sun. & Holidays Spray & wipe Once daily, 7 days a week 1 Spray & wipe Twice daily, 7 days a week 1 & 2 139

147 PAGE 140 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Section One - 3 rd Street Promenade, Promenade Maintenance, Cont d. Service Description Frequency Shift Trash Containers (38) Trash Container Liners (38) Public Phones (28) Stainless Steel Bollards (27) Directories (13) Sculptures (9) Wipe top, remove trash, replace bag Four times daily, Mon. Thu. Five times daily, Fri. Sun. & Holidays Steam clean & deodorize Two times weekly 1 1 & 2 Spray & wipe Once daily, 7 days a week 1 & 2 Spray & wipe, steam clean Once daily, 7 days a week 1 Spray & wipe Once daily, 7 days a week 1 Spray & wipe Once daily, 7 days a week 1 Graffiti Remove Daily, as needed, 7 days a week Dinosaur Pools Remove debris Daily, as needed, 7 days a (4) week Special Events Spot Cleaning & Customer Calls Extra trash containers & general maintenance frequencies Additional cleanings, graffiti, broken glass, animal waste, etc. 30 to 40 times, yearly, as needed As needed throughout the day, 7 days a week 1 & 2 1 & 2 1 & 2 1 & 2 Supervision Onsite, documented inspections Three times daily, 7 days a 1 & 2 week Schedules Updates daily on computer Once daily, 7 days a week 1 Off Duty Emergency Call-outs Toxic spills, electrical, water, accidents, etc. As needed 140

148 PAGE 141 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Section One 3 rd Street, Public Landscape: Service Description Frequency Shift Tree Trimming 3,790 sq. ft. Regular Once, yearly (spring) TruGreen (154) Tree Maintenance 3,790 sq. ft (154) Color (136) Well Inspect for grate displacement and/or debris & litter Clean debris, reset tree grates Maintain flower pots Change out annual color and install Poinsettias Daily As needed, based upon inspections Weekly Thanksgiving through New Years week TruGreen TruGreen Shrubs & Topiary 705 sq. ft. Prune & shape Once every six weeks TruGreen Turf Maintenance 1,425 sq. ft. Mow Weekly TruGreen Irrigation Inspection Fountain Maintenance Check system and controller for proper settings Maintain fountains and provide cleaning service for the Topiary pools Weekly TruGreen / In House Bi-weekly California Waters 141

149 PAGE 142 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Section Two - Parking Structures: Consists of Structures 1-6; Structures 9 and 10; Ken Edwards Center; Main Library; Civic Center, Public Safety Facility Shifts: Effective 7/6/08 1 = 4:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 2 = 2:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (Sunday Thursday) 2:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. (Friday & Saturday) Parking Structures, Promenade Maintenance: Total Square Footage: 1,644,334 sq. ft. Service Description Frequency Shift Structures 1 6 Mobile Vacuum Vacuums debris from large areas. Once daily, 5 days a week 1 (Mon. Fri.) Sweeper Scrubber Picks up small debris, applies 1 structure, every 8 weeks 1 degreaser, scrubs pavement & recovers excess water Pressure Washer Steam cleans in places scrubbers 1 structure, every 8 weeks 1 can t reach Policing Walk site, sweep & remove debris Twice daily, 7 days a week 1 & 2 Trash Containers (100) Trash Container Liners (100) Wipe top, remove trash, replace bag Twice daily, 7 days a week 1 & 2 Steam clean & deodorize Weekly, as needed 1 Directional Informational Signs (913) & Spray & wipe Weekly, as needed 1 Note: We have highlighted in yellow the CMD sections that pertain to the Parking Structures. 142

150 PAGE 143 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Section Two - Parking Structures, Promenade Maintenance Cont d. Service Description Frequency Shift Soft Broom Bin Rooms (6) Stairwells (19) Elevators (24) Elevator Lights (91) Restrooms 1-6 Removes dust and soot from ledges, islands, entrances and exits. Pressure wash, degrease, scrubber. Organize trash and recyclables. Remove graffiti, sponge walls, clean and deodorize. Remove graffiti, clean & deodorize Replace Clean & deodorize Once weekly 1 & 2 Once daily, 6 days a week 1 & 2 Three times daily, 7 days a week 1 structure, every 3 weeks 1 & 2 Two times daily, Mon. Thu. Three times daily, Fri. - Sun. & Holidays As needed Five times daily 1 & 2 1 & 2 *Restrooms 3 & 4 Clarifiers: Structure 1 *Onsite attendants Clean out sludge Every Fri, Sat & Sun, restrooms are staffed with onsite attendants Twice monthly 1 & 2 1 & 2 Structures 2-6 Structures 9 & 10 Remove restaurant grease Policing, sweep & remove debris Empty Trash containers Motor Sweeper As needed, contracted (once weekly) Two times daily, 7 days a week Two times daily, 7 days a week 1 & 2 1 & 2 1 Ken Edwards Center Parking Structure Policing, sweep & remove debris Pressure Washer & Sweeperscrubber Once, monthly Two times daily, 7 days a week Once, monthly 1 &

151 PAGE 144 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Section Two - Parking Structures, Promenade Maintenance Cont d. Service Description Frequency Shift Main Library Parking Structure Civic Center Parking Structure Policing, sweep & remove debris Pressure wash (select areas) Pressure Washer & Sweeperscrubber Vacuum Truck Empty trash Two times daily, 7 days a week Two times monthly, as needed Twice yearly Twice weekly Once daily, 7 days a week 1 & & 2 Sweep & deodorize stairways Once daily, 7 days a week 1 & 2 Public Safety Facility Parking Structure & Sweeper- Pressure Washer scrubber Motor sweep Twice yearly Twice monthly Pressure Washer & Sweeperscrubber Twice yearly Spot Cleaning Additional cleanings, graffiti, Daily as needed 7 days per & Customer Calls broken glass, animal waste, etc. week Graffiti Remove Daily, as needed, 7 days per week Absorbent For oil, grease, etc. Daily, as needed, 7 days per week Off Duty Toxic spills, electrical, water, As needed Emergency Call-outs accidents, etc & 2 1 & 2 1 & 2 Parking Structures, Public Landscape: Service Description Frequency Shift Planter Maintenance (ground level planters only) 2,225 sq. ft. Pick up litter & debris Water plants Prune shrubs Daily Manually, as needed weekly Every 6 weeks TruGreen 144

152 PAGE 145 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Section Three - Arizona Avenue & Wilshire Boulevard: Sidewalks on both sides of streets from east side of Ocean Avenue to east side of 5 th Street. 2 nd and 4 th Streets: Sidewalks on both sides of streets from north side of Wilshire Boulevard to south side of Colorado Avenue. Total Square Footage: 184,920 sq. ft. (Arizona & Wilshire = 89,760 sq. ft. + 2 nd & 4 th Streets = 95,160 sq. ft). Shifts: Effective 7/6/08 1 = 4:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 2 = 2:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (Sunday Thursday) 2:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. (Friday & Saturday) Arizona Avenue & Wilshire Boulevard and 2 nd & 4 th Streets, Promenade Maintenance Service Description Frequency Shift Pedestrian Walkways: 184,920 sq. ft. Sweeper Sweeper -scrubber Picks up large debris Picks up small debris, applies degreaser, scrubs pavement & recovers excess water Once daily, 6 days a week (Mon. Sat.) Once daily, 5 days a week (Mon. Fri.) 1 1 Pressure Washer Pre-treat stains Steam cleans in places scrubbers can t reach Degreaser applied with hand-sprayer Once daily, 5 days a week (Mon. Fri.) 1 1 Once daily, 5 days a week (Mon. Fri.) 145

153 PAGE 146 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Section Three - Arizona Avenue & Wilshire Boulevard and 2 nd & 4 th Streets, Promenade Maintenance, Cont d. Service Description Frequency Shift Policing Walk site, sweep & remove debris Twice daily, Mon. Thu. 1 & 2 Three times daily, Fri. - Sun. & Holidays Bus Stop Steam clean Three times, weekly 1 (4) Trash Containers (30) Wipe top, remove trash, replace bag Twice daily, Mon. Thu. 1 & 2 Three times daily, Fri. - Sun. & Holidays Steam clean & deodorize Weekly, as needed 1 Trash Container Liners (30) Parking Structure Signs Spray & wipe Once a week, as needed 1 & 2 (10) Tree Wells Rake out debris Once weekly, as needed 1 & 2 Spot Cleaning & Customer Calls Off Duty Emergency Call-outs Additional cleanings, graffiti, broken glass, animal waste, etc. Toxic spills, electrical, water, accidents, etc. Daily, as needed, 7 days a week 1 & 2 As needed 146

154 PAGE 147 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Section Three - Public Landscape, 2 ND & 4 th Street Service Description Frequency Shift Tree Trimming (182) Regular Once, yearly (fall season) West Coast Arborists Tree Well Backfill tree wells with Maintenance decomposed granite (182) *139 new Ginko trees planted in 2008 Arizona Ave. As-needed Prep for summer West Coast Arborists Service Description Frequency Shift Tree Trimming (46) Tree Maintenance (61) Well Regular As needed, yearly West Coast Arborists Backfill tree wells with decomposed granite As-needed Prep for summer West Coast Arborists Wilshire Blvd. Service Description Frequency Shift Tree Trimming (66) Regular Every 2 years West Coast Arborists 147

155 PAGE 148 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Section Four - Transit Mall: Sidewalks on both sides of the streets: Broadway east side of Ocean Avenue to east side of 5 th Street, and Santa Monica Boulevard from east side of Ocean Avenue to east side of 6 th Street. Total Square Footage: 100,980 (Broadway = 44,880 sq. ft. + Santa Monica Boulevard = 56,100 sq. ft.) Shifts: Effective 7/6/08 1 = 4:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 2 = 2:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (Sunday Thursday) 2:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. (Friday & Saturday) Transit Mall, Promenade Maintenance: Service Description Frequency Shift Pedestrian Walkways: Sweeper Picks up large debris Once daily, 6 days a week (Mon. Sat.) 1 Sweeper -scrubber Picks up small debris, applies degreaser, scrubs pavement & recovers excess water Once daily, 5 days a week (Mon. Fri.) 1 Pressure Washer Pre-treat stains Steam cleans in places scrubbers can t reach Degreaser applied with handsprayer Once daily, 5 days a week (Mon. Fri.) 1 1 Once daily, 3 days a week, as needed Policing Walk site, sweep & remove debris Twice daily, Mon. Thu. Three times daily, Fri. - Sun. & Holidays Benches (241) Spray & wipe, polish wood Once daily, 7 days a week 2 1 & 2 148

156 PAGE 149 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Section Four - Transit Mall, Promenade Maintenance, Cont d: Service Description Frequency Shift Drinking Fountains (3) Trash Containers (36) Spray & wipe Twice daily, 7 days a week 1 & 2 Wipe top, remove trash, replace bag Four times daily, Mon. Thu. Five times daily, Fri. - Sun. & Holidays Trash Container Liners Steam clean & deodorize Weekly, as needed 1 (36) Tile Bollards Spray, wipe & polish Once daily, 7 days a week 2 (35) Informational Signs Spray & wipe Once daily, 7 days a week 2 (6) Newspaper Racks Spray & wipe Once daily, 7 days a week 2 1 & 2 Arbors Spray & wipe Once daily, 7 days a week 2 (6) Graffiti Remove Daily, as needed, 7 days a 1 & 2 week Spot Cleaning & Additional cleanings, graffiti, Daily, as needed, 7 days a 1 & 2 Customer Calls broken glass, animal waste, etc. week Off Duty Toxic spills, electrical, water, As needed Emergency Call-outs accidents, etc. Section Four - Transit Mall, Public Landscape: Service Description Frequency Shift Tree Trimming (193) Tree Maintenance Well Regular Once, yearly (spring) West Coast Arborists Inspect for grate displacement and/or debris & litter Daily TruGreen / In House Clean debris, reset tree grates As needed, based upon inspections Irrigation Inspections Check system and controller for Weekly TruGreen proper settings / In House Policing Remove debris from tree wells Daily TruGreen 149

157 PAGE 150 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Section Five - Alleys: 1 st Court: Between Ocean Avenue & 2 nd Street from north side of Wilshire Boulevard to south side of Colorado Avenue. Mall Court West: Between 2 nd Street and 3 rd Street from north side of Wilshire Boulevard to south side of Broadway. Mall Court East: Between 3 rd Street and 4 th Street from north side of Wilshire Boulevard to south side of Broadway. 4 th Court: Between 4 th and 5 th Streets from north side of Wilshire Boulevard to south side of Colorado Avenue. 5 th Court: Between 5 th Street and 6 th Street from north side of Wilshire Boulevard to south side of Colorado Avenue. Shifts: Effective 7/6/08 1 = 4:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 2 = 2:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (Sunday Thursday) 2:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. (Friday & Saturday) Alleys, Promenade Maintenance: Total Square Footage: 262,062 sq. ft. (1 st Court = 58,236 + Mall Court West = 43,677 + Mall Court East = 43, th Court = 58, th Court = 58,236) Service Description Frequency Shift Sweeper -scrubber Picks up small debris, applies degreaser, scrubs pavement & recovers excess water Once Daily, 5 days a week (Mon. Fri.) Policing Walk site, sweep & remove debris Twice daily, 7 days a week 1 & 2 1 Spills Apply absorbent, collect into plastic bags, pressure washer and scrubber Daily, as needed, 7 days a week 1 & 2 Spot Cleaning & Customer Calls Discarded furniture, appliances, spills, etc. Daily, as needed, 7 days a week 1 & 2 150

158 PAGE 151 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Section Five - Alleys, Promenade Maintenance, Cont d. Service Description Frequency Shift Graffiti Remove Daily, as needed, 7 days a 1 & 2 week Supervision Onsite, documented inspections Three times daily, 7 days a 1 & 2 week Schedules Updates daily on computer Once daily, 7 days a week 1 Off Duty Toxic spills, electrical, water, As needed Emergency Call-outs accidents, etc. 1 st Court: Mobile Vacuum Vacuums debris from large areas Once daily, 5 days a week 1 (Mon. Fri.) Policing Walk site, sweep debris Once daily, 7 days a week 1 & 2 Spills Apply absorbent, collect into Daily, as needed, 7 days a 1 & 2 plastic bags, pressure washer and week scrubber Spot Cleaning Discarded furniture, appliances, Daily, as needed, 7 days a 1 & 2 & Customer Calls spills, etc. week Graffiti Remove Daily, as needed, 7 days a 1 & 2 week Supervision Onsite, documented inspections Three times daily, 7 days a 1 & 2 week Schedules Updates daily on computer Once daily, 7 days a week 1 Off Duty Emergency Call-outs 4 th & 5 th Courts: Toxic spills, electrical, water, accidents, etc. As needed Mobile Vacuum Vacuums debris from large areas Once daily, 5 days a week 1 (Mon. Fri.) Policing Walk site, sweep & remove debris Once daily, 7 days a week 1 & 2 Spills Apply absorbent, collect into Daily, as needed, 7 days a 1 & 2 plastic bags, pressure washer and week scrubber 151

159 PAGE 152 PARKING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Section Five - Alleys, Promenade Maintenance, Cont d. Service Description Frequency Shift Spot Cleaning Additional cleanings, graffiti, Daily, as needed, 7 days a 1 & 2 & Customer Calls broken glass, animal waste, etc. week Graffiti Remove Daily, as needed, 7 days a 1 & 2 week Supervision Onsite, documented inspections Three times daily, 7 days a 1 & 2 week Schedules Updates daily on computer Once daily, 7 days a week 1 Off Duty Emergency Call-outs Toxic spills, electrical, water, accidents, etc. As needed Alleys, Public Landscape: Service Description Frequency Shift Planter Maintenance (ground level planters only) 2,225 sq. ft. (140) Pick up litter & debris Water plants Prune shrubs and vines Daily Manually / as-needed, weekly Every other month TruGreen 152

160 PART 5 FUTURE PARKING SUPPLY NEEDS