City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: _05/02/11_ Item Number: _J-1
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD/ CULVER CITY
PARKING AUTHORITY AGENDA ITEM: Walker Study Implementation Report 1 -
Consideration of Parking Fee Increases for Downtown Public Parking Facilities.
Contact Person/Dept.:
Christopher Evans / CDD;
Todd Tipton / CDD
Phone Number:
(310) 253-5744
(310) 253-5783
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date: _______________
Public Notification (USPS) All Downtown Businesses within the Commercial Downtown
Zone (04/14/11); (E-Mail) Meetings and Agendas – City Council (04/27/11); (E-Mail)
Meetings and Agendas – Redevelopment Agency (04/27/11); Chamber of Commerce
(04/18/11); Culver City School District (04/18/11); Downtown Residential Organization
(04/18/11); OliverMcMillan (04/18/11); Downtown Business Association (04/18/11).
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (04/25/11)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (04/27/11)
Murray Kane (04/20/11)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball) (04/27/11)
City Manager/Executive Director Approval:
John Nachbar (04/27/11)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council, the Culver City Redevelopment Agency Board
(Agency Board) and the Culver City Parking Authority (Authority) authorize parking
fee increases for downtown parking facilities (Canfield Parking Lot and the Cardiff,
Ince, and Watseka Parking Structures) pursuant to recommendations in the
Comprehensive Downtown Parking Study (the “Study”) prepared by Walker Parking.
BACKGROUND:
On July 12, 2010, the City Council and Agency Board considered the Study that
included numerous recommendations related to parking fees, infrastructure
improvements, parking enforcement, parking administration, metered parking and
City Hall parking. The City Council and Agency Board directed staff to identify the
time, expense and general feasibility of implementing the Study recommendations
and return for further direction.
When considering the recommendations related to fee increases, the City Council
and Agency Board generally supported using fees to provide an incentive for parkers
to utilize the Ince Parking Structure rather than the heavily impacted Cardiff and
Watseka Parking Structures, but did not support a dramatic increase in fees (see
Attachments 2 & 3). City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
The Downtown Business Association and area residents also expressed concern
about increased fees in the public parking structures and at meters that could result
in spillover parking into the adjacent residential neighborhood, the loss of downtown
business and the perceived lack of parking enforcement needed to police the
spillover effects.
DISCUSSION:
The City Council directed staff to bring back detailed implementation reports for each
of the major Walker Study recommendations. The City Council and Authority are
asked to consider implementing fee changes related to downtown public parking
facilities (the three Downtown public parking structures and the Canfield Parking
Lot).
The specific fee changes recommended by Walker Parking are as follows:
1. Eliminate the two hours free parking period at the Watseka and Cardiff
Parking Structures and replace it with $1.00 per hour fee.
2. Eliminate two hours free period at the Ince Parking Structure and replace with
$0.50 per hour fee.
3. Eliminate “additional two-hour free” parking with a Pacific 12 Theater
validation and substitute with a maximum charge of $2.50, the maximum
charge allowed under the Redevelopment Agency’s agreement with
OliverMcMillan|1010|.
4. Increase the monthly employee parking rate at the Canfield Parking Lot and
the Cardiff and Watseka Parking Structures by $10.00|1010|.
Staff compared the proposed parking fees to those charged in other cities and found
they were comparable (see Attachment 6). Due to the concerns expressed by the
Downtown Business Association, staff has identified the following implementation
options:
Option 1: Approve fee increases as recommended by Walker Parking|1010|.
Option 2: Approve fee increases in phases, with partial implementation now and
full implementation one year from initial implementation. The proposed
phases are as follows:
Phase 1
1. Eliminate the two hours free parking period at the Watseka and Cardiff
Parking Structures and replace it with a $1.00 fee for the first two hours
and then $1.00 per hour thereafter, up to the current $8 maximum. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
2. No change in fees at the Ince Parking Structure.
3. Eliminate “additional two-hour free” parking with a Pacific 12 Theater
validation and substitute with a maximum charge of $1.50.
4. Increase the monthly employee parking rate at the Canfield Parking
Lot and the Cardiff and Watseka Parking Structures by $10.00.
Phase 2
One year after implementation of Phase 1, fully implement the remaining
Walker Parking recommendations as described below:
1. Increase the fee for parking in the Watseka and Cardiff Parking
Structures from $1.00 for the first two hours then $1.00 per hour
thereafter, to a fee of $1.00 per hour up to the current $8.00 maximum.
2. Eliminate two hours free period at the Ince Parking Structure and
replace with $0.50 per hour fee.
3. Increase the maximum charge with Pacific 12 Theater validation from
$1.50 to a maximum charge of $2.50.
Alternatively, the City Council and Authority could direct staff to return one year after
full implementation for further direction.
Option 3: No change in current fee structure.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
Projected revenue estimates for implementation of Options 1-3 are provided below.
These revenue projections do not include potential revenues from film production
and event parking.
Option 1 - If implemented, Option 1 is anticipated to generate approximately $1.4
million in net new revenue. A detailed summary is available in Attachment 4|1010|.
Option 2 - If implemented, Option 2 is anticipated to generate approximately
$420,000 in net new revenue in Phase 1, and $1.4 million in Phase 2. A detailed
summary is available in Attachment 4|1010|.
Option 3 – no change in revenues
Both the Cardiff Parking Structure and the Ince Parking Structure are subject to
restrictions on the expenditure of revenues in excess of operation and maintenance
costs. These restrictions are associated with the construction and financing of the
parking structures. Prior to expending any projected revenues after expenses City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
resulting from Study implementation the Finance Department will perform a review of
the restrictions and return to the City Council for direction.
Under the current fee structure, the three parking structures combined generate
enough revenue to cover basic ongoing maintenance and operation costs, which are
approximately $900,000 annually (Ince $575,000; Cardiff $175,000; Watseka
$150,000)|1010|. However, these costs only include light repair and the parking
management contractor fee and do not include City staff or deferred maintenance
costs.
At present, there is no funding source for large repair projects (e.g. elevator repairs),
capital improvements (e.g. updating the parking management software or installing
pay-on-foot machines), deferred maintenance (e.g. painting the structures), or
related City staff costs. Consequently, funding for any of the afore-mentioned
activities must be allocated from the General Fund. Any revenues generated by
increased parking fees at the structures may be used to off-set these costs.
Modern Parking estimated a one-time cost of implementing the recommended rate
increases at approximately $3,000, which includes time and materials at all three
structures. There are sufficient funds currently appropriated at each parking
structure to cover the one-time cost.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Map of the Study Area
2. September 13, 2010 Staff Report, Item Number: J-2
3. September 13, meeting minutes
4. Summary of fiscal impacts associated with Options 1 and 2.
5. Appendix E (Facilities Maintenance) of the Study
6. Matrix comparing parking rates of other cities
7. Correspondence regarding proposed fee increases
MOTION:
That the City Council:
1. Authorize parking fee increases pursuant to Option 1 for downtown parking
facilities (Canfield Parking Lot, and the Ince and Watseka Parking Structures)
and authorize staff to utilize any net new revenue for purposes described in the
body of this Agenda Item Report;
Or
2. Authorize parking fee increases pursuant to Option 2 for downtown parking
facilities (Canfield Parking Lot, and the Ince and Watseka Parking Structures) City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
and authorize staff to utilize any net new revenue for purposes described in the
body of this Agenda Item Report;;
Or
3. Not authorize parking fee increases.
That the Agency Board:
4. Authorize parking fee increases pursuant to Option 1 for downtown parking
facilities (Canfield Parking Lot, and the Ince and Watseka Parking Structures)
and authorize staff to utilize any net new revenue for purposes described in the
body of this Agenda Item Report;
Or
5. Authorize parking fee increases pursuant to Option 2 for downtown parking
facilities (Canfield Parking Lot, and the Ince and Watseka Parking Structures)
and authorize staff to utilize any net new revenue for purposes described in the
body of this Agenda Item Report;;
Or
Not authorize parking fee increases.
That the Authority:
1. Authorize parking fee increases pursuant to Option 1 for the Cardiff Parking
Structure and authorize staff to utilize any net new revenue for purposes
described in the body of this Agenda Item Report;
Or
2. Authorize parking fee increases pursuant to Option 2 for the Cardiff Parking
Structure and authorize staff to utilize any net new revenue for purposes
described in the body of this Agenda Item Report;
Or
3. Not authorize parking fee increases
NOTES:
|1010| The Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the Agency and OliverMcMillan restricts
parking fee increases during the first five years after construction of the Ince Parking Structure. During
that time Pacific 12 patrons are stipulated to receive up to four hours of free parking. Five years after
construction the Agency may charge Pacific 12 patrons a maximum of $2.50 for parking, and the City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
stipulation that “two-hours free parking” be provided expires. Approval of the recommendations in this
report is consistent with applicable provisions of the Oliver McMillan DDA and related documents. |1010| Current monthly parking rates at the Cardiff and Watseka Parking Structures are $60.00 for 5-day
access and $80.00 for 7-day access. |1010| If the fees are increased, staff recommends that the resulting revenues be utilized as follows:
• Fund capital improvements recommended in the Study, such as an additional exit lane at the
Cardiff Parking Structure and installation of pay-on-foot machines at all the parking structures;
• Provide enhanced on-going maintenance such as light replacement painting; graffiti removal;
minor repair of parking equipment; and on-site maintenance supervision. As the parking
structures are now owned by the City, maintenance may come out of the General Fund;
• Fund additional maintenance services as described in the Study, Appendix E, Facility
Maintenance (attached);
• Create capital improvements fund to cover the costs of deferred maintenance items, such as
deck resealing, and expansion and construction joint replacement. Current revenue has not been
sufficient to fund deferred maintenance;
• Fund additional Parking Enforcement services in Downtown and the Downtown adjacent
residential neighborhood. |1010| If the Authority and City Council direct staff to pursue Options 1 or 2, they would be implemented as
follows:
• Mail and post notifications to monthly parkers of the changes in rates (45 days in advance);
• Coordinate with Modern Parking for the necessary changes to the rate signs and equipment
programs;
• Review of existing signs, obtain quotes for work, and implement sign and equipment changes (4-
8 weeks).
The implementation process will take approximately 3 months to complete and cost approximately
$3,000. |1010| (see endnote 4 above)
|1010| These costs do not include City staff costs, or deferred maintenance costs.
MEETING DATE: 5/02/11
AGENDA ITEM: A Joint City Council/and Parking Authority: Walker Study
Implementation Report 1 - Consideration of Parking Fee
Increases for Downtown Public Parking Facilities.
ATTACHMENTS
Item Description Pages
1. Map of the Study Area 1
2. September 13, 2010 Staff Report, 2 - 7
Item Number: J-2
3. September 13, meeting minutes excerpt 8 - 12
4. Summary of fiscal impacts associated with 13
Options 1 and 2.
5. Appendix E (Facilities Maintenance) of the Study 14 - 21
6. Matrix comparing parking rates of other cities 22
7. Correspondence regarding proposed fee increases 23 - 30
|1010|ATTACHMENT 1
1 City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: _09/13/10_ Item Number: J-2
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of the Comprehensive Downtown Parking Study Recommendations,
Including Parking Structure Rates and the Pooled Parking Program.
Contact Person/Dept.: Christopher Evans,
Redevelopment; Todd Tipton,
Redevelopment
Phone Number: (310) 253-5744/5783
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date: _______________
Public Notification (USPS) All Downtown Businesses within the Commercial Downtown
Zone (07/28/10); (E-Mail) Meetings and Agendas – City Council (09/08/10); (E-Mail)
Meetings and Agendas – Redevelopment Agency (09/08/10); Chamber of Commerce
(09/06/10); Culver City School District (09/06/10); Downtown Residential Organization
(09/06/10); OliverMcMillan (09/06/10); Downtown Business Association (09/06/10).
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld 08/25/10
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/07/10)
Agency General Counsel Approval:
Murray Kane (09/01/10)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball) () (09/08/10)
City Manager/Executive Director Approval:
John M. Nachbar (09/08/10)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council and the Culver City Redevelopment Agency
Board (Agency Board) consider the Comprehensive Downtown Parking Study
(Study) recommendations and provide direction to staff on the Study.
BACKGROUND:
On July 12, 2010, following public input and a presentation of their findings by
Walker Parking, the City Council and Agency Board were introduced to the Study
(See Attachment 1). Due to the scope of the Study and need for in-depth review,
the City Council and Agency Board continued the discussion.
On September 13 (continued from August 9) and September 27, 2010, Walker
Parking will provide a presentation of key Study findings and recommendations to
the City Council and Agency Board. The City Council and Agency Board will then be
asked to provide specific direction on a limited number of recommendations.
During the July 12
th
meeting, the public expressed concern about increasing rates in
the public parking structures and meters that could result in spillover parking in
residential neighborhoods; elimination of free parking in the public parking structures
resulting in loss of downtown business; the expense of hiring additional Parking |1010|ATTACHMENT 2
2 City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Enforcement Officers and lack of vigorous parking enforcement in the residential
neighborhood adjacent to downtown (See attached July 12
th
meeting minutes).
DISCUSSION:
Given the breadth of the Study recommendations staff recommends the following
items be considered this evening:
1. Pooled Parking Program
Recommendation:
Eliminate the current pooled parking program and replace with a
monitored system of parking credits.
The pooled parking program was established approximately 10 years ago
in anticipation of the need for parking that would result from future growth
in the downtown. The program provides that surplus public parking that
exists either in downtown or within 750 feet of downtown can be
considered for utilization by area businesses to meet their Zoning Code
required parking pending approval by the City Council/Agency Board.
Recommended Action: That the City Council and Agency Board direct
staff to include this item in an implementation plan.
2. Public Parking Structures Supply and Demand
During City Council’s consideration of the budget in June 2010, staff was
directed to study increasing parking rates as a means to generate revenue. At
the time, staff recommended that the Council consider parking management
objectives as well as revenue concerns, since proposed parking rate
increases will influence customer parking decisions at these structures. The
Study contains recommendations for rate increases at the Ince, Cardiff and
Watseka Parking Structures which are intended to reduce use of the
congested Watseka and Cardiff Parking Structures and promote increased
use of the Ince structure.
Recommendation:
A. Eliminate two hours free parking period at the Watseka and Cardiff
Parking Structures and replace with $1.00 per hour fee.
Due to the potential impact on downtown business a phased reduction in
free parking hours could be implemented with direction from the Agency
Board and City Council, to allow time for businesses and visitors to adjust. |1010|ATTACHMENT 2
3 City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Recommended Action: That the Agency Board and City Council direct
staff to study potential phasing of this item for inclusion in an
implementation plan.
Recommendation:
B. Eliminate two hours free period at the Ince Parking Structure and replace
with $0.50 per hour fee.
The Ince Parking Structure is subject to revenue restrictions because it
was built with ‘tax-exempt’ bond proceeds. The Watseka and Cardiff
Parking Structures are not subject to these restrictions because they were
funded using tax increment. The Agency owns the Ince and Watseka
Parking Structures and the City owns Cardiff. In summary the rates at
Watseka and Cardiff structures may be raised without consideration of
bond finance restrictions, however the tax exempt bonds used to finance
the Ince structure restricts how much revenue may be generated at Ince.
Net revenues at Ince cannot exceed $250,000 annually over the
remaining 15 years of the bond’s term (until 2025). If the Study’s
recommendation is adopted to eliminate the first two hours of free parking
at Ince and to instead charge 50 cents, it would generate $455,000
annually. When coupled with additional anticipated sources of revenue for
use of Ince, staff anticipates the $250,000 net income limit would be
exceeded by a total amount of $379,480 annually. Staff is now studying
the feasibility of converting the ‘tax-exempt’ bond to a ‘taxable’ or method
of eliminating the revenue restriction.
Recommended Action: That the Agency Board and City Council direct
staff to study the feasibility of including this in an implementation plan
given the revenue restrictions.
2. Operation of the Public Parking Structures
Recommendation:
A. Utilize pay-on-foot technology (POF) at the public parking structures.
Recommended Action: That the City Council and Agency Board direct
staff to include this item in an implementation plan.
Recommendation:
B. Implement functional design changes at the public parking structures.
|1010|ATTACHMENT 2
4 City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Walker Parking recommends opening an additional exit lane at the Cardiff
Parking Structure and reconfiguring the Culver Boulevard entry lane at the
Ince Parking Structure.
Recommended Action: That the City Council and Agency Board direct
staff to include this item in an implementation plan.
3. Revenue Enhancement
Recommendation:
Implement the parking structure and meter rate recommendations and
recommended rate schedule contained in the Study for parking permits
and citations in residential permit areas. (See Residential Parking below).
(Staff has prepared a matrix comparing the cities identified in Appendix C
of the Study for your reference – Please See Attachment 3)
Recommended Action: That the City Council and Agency Board direct
staff to include this item in an implementation plan.
4. City Hall Parking Structure
Recommendation:
A. Install parking access control equipment at the entrance to City Hall,
parking structure level P-1.
Recommended Action: That the City Council and Agency Board direct
staff to include this item in an implementation plan.
Recommendation:
B. Utilize a parking attendant pay-on-entry system if needed to regulate the
use of City Hall, parking structure level P-1.
Recommended Action: That the City Council and Agency Board direct
staff to include this item in an implementation plan.
Residential Parking
Walker Parking considered the effect of implementing their recommendations
relative to the residential areas adjacent to downtown, recognizing that rate
increases may increase parking incursion into residential areas. To address the
potential impact, Walker Parking made the following recommendations:
• Implement permit parking in the residential area adjacent to downtown; |1010|ATTACHMENT 2
5 City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
• Vigorously enforce the residential permit parking program when/if established;
• Create tiered fines for repeat residential parking offenders; and,
• Increase enforcement of downtown metered parking, ensuring that short-term
parking spaces are available and will aid in reducing residential parking
incursion.
Next Steps
Staff provided notice that the City Council and Agency Board would consider this
item on August 9, 2010 and again this evening. As the item was continued without
discussion those items scheduled for discussion on August 9 will be considered
tonight. Contingent upon any direction the City Council and Agency Board provide to
staff, it is expected this item would return to the City Council and Agency Board on
September 27, 2010. Additional meetings may be necessary to finalize discussion of
Walker Parking’s recommendations. Upon completion of the Study review staff will
create a detailed implementation plan that will incorporate City Council and Agency
Board direction.
The purpose of the implementation plan will be to determine the cost, feasibility and
time needed to implement each of the Study recommendations. Upon completion of
the implementation plan staff will then return at a future date to the City Council and
Agency Board to present findings and obtain direction.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
As previously discussed, Walker provided a number of recommendations, most of
which have some form of fiscal impact. As discussions of this study progress, staff
intends to create a more focused set of recommendations that will identify potential
cost and resource impacts associated with recommendations in the Study as a
component of the implementation plan. The implementation plan will be considered
at a future City Council Agency Board meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. July 12, 2010 Staff Report, Item Number: J-1
2. Walker Parking Executive Summary matrix
3. Matrix comparing parking rates of other cities
4. July 12, 2010 Meeting minutes
|1010|ATTACHMENT 2
6 City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
MOTION:
That the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency Board:
Consider the Study recommendations and provide staff direction regarding the
Study.
|1010|ATTACHMENT 2
7
REGULAR MEETING OF THE September 13, 2010
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF CULVER CITY, 5:30 p.m.
CALIFORNIA
Call to Order & Roll Call
The meeting of the City Council was called to order at 5:30
p.m.
Present: Christopher Armenta, Mayor
Micheál O‘Leary, Vice Mayor
Jeffrey Cooper, Councilmember
D. Scott Malsin, Councilmember
Andrew Weissman, Councilmember
o0o
Closed Session
The City Council will adjourn to Closed Session to discuss
the following item:
CS-1 Conference with Legal – Anticipated Litigation
Re: Initiation of Litigation – 1 Matter
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c)
Heather Baker, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that the
matter to be discussed in Closed Session is City of Culver
City, et al. vs. Los Angeles Community College District, et
al.; Case No. BS128400.
o0o
Recess
The City Council recessed to Closed Session at 5:31 p.m.
o0o
Reconvene
The City Council reconvened its meeting at 7:10 p.m., with
all Councilmembers present. |1010|ATTACHMENT 3
8 9
September 13, 2010
Item J-1
(continued)
Further discussion continued regarding payments and the
timing of City billing; the NOFA panel; staff time
required; the value of the volunteer time; the budgetary
analysis; Agency sponsored events versus other events in
the City; concern that the policy proposal is based too
much on an arts model rather than an economic development
model; the importance of spurring economic activity in the
City; the difference between arts events and economic
development events; how efficient a group may be at doing
something balanced with which events are valuable to the
City; the 10% limit; annual consideration; the performing
arts grant program; promotional ties-ins with the City; the
value of media exposure and publicity; and developing new
audiences.
Discussion continued regarding looking at events from an
economic development standpoint; quantification; budgeting
a certain dollar amount; feasibility of grandfathering
organizations; total cost of each event and percentages of
the total; concern with damaging already successful events;
comparing guidelines with current practices; a desire for
guidelines; staff agreement to provide additional
information; events that become Culver City events; and
other events requesting assistance.
o0o
Item J-2
Consideration of the Comprehensive Downtown Parking Study
Recommendations, Including Parking Structure Rates and the
Pooled Parking Program.
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director, provided a
summary of the material of record.
Steffen Turoff, Walker Parking Consultants, discussed the
current pooled parking program; monitoring and quantifying
supply and demand; parking structures, parking management
challenges; revenue; inventory; parking operations; the
City Hall Parking structure; the parking credit system;
monitoring; and goals and recommendations. |10 10|ATTACHMENT 3
9 10
September 13, 2010
Item J-2
(continued)
Discussion ensued between the City Council, Mr. Turoff, and
staff regarding covenants and long term leases; changing
parking rates to direct parking to underutilized areas;
issues created by free parking; and follow up after changes
have been implemented.
Mayor Armenta invited public comment.
The following members of the audience addressed the City
Council:
Ken Kaufman, Downtown Business Association, distributed and
read from a letter from the Association about the parking
study; discussed comparisons with Beverly Hills and Santa
Monica; the importance of balancing price, convenience and
accessibility; the two-hour free parking; and City Hall
parking.
Cary Anderson provided a DVD presentation regarding
problems addressed by the parking firm and feeding meters;
he suggested metering loading zones; and he discussed
parking in residential areas and enforcement of permit
parking.
Neil Rubenstein felt it would be offensive to have to pay
to park in the City Hall parking structure when coming to
address City issues.
Meghan Sahli Wells, Downtown Neighborhood Association,
reported that she was not receiving notices about items
regarding the downtown area; reiterated a previous request
to be notified for any items regarding the Downtown
Neighborhood Association; expressed agreement with
statements from the Downtown Business Association; and she
asked that a protection for the residents be put in place
before any changes are made.
Mayor Armenta asked staff to ensure that Meghan Sahli Wells
was on the proper notification lists and suggested that any
interested people enter their information in the computer
at the back of the Council Chambers.
10
ATTACHMENT 3
10 11
September 13, 2010
Item J-2
(continued)
Robert Zirgulis expressed support for maintaining the free
two-hour parking; he suggested moving employee parking
offsite; and he reported that the Culver City School Board
and Linwood E. Howe allegedly had offered to lease their
parking to the City.
Discussion ensued between the City Council and staff
regarding the School District offer; two-hour free parking;
length of parking time allowed in the busy Cardiff and
Watseka structures; cost differentials as incentives to
balance parking between the structures; validation for
those visiting City Hall for City business; implementing
changes in tandem with increased enforcement; parking
credits; costs for parking structures; usage of
Redevelopment Agency funds for pay on foot systems;
improving traffic flow in the structures; funding and
timeframe for space inventory signage; enforcement; revenue
considerations; parking management considerations;
neighborhood parking; rising meter rates; and the rate of
ticket writing per hour for the downtown area.
Discussion ensued between the City Council and Steffen
Turoff regarding results of predictions in the past;
outcomes of other projects in other cities; the fact that
the popularity of the area increases parking demand;
concrete evidence; information from the industry leader;
past experience; and cutting edge techniques.
Further discussion ensued between the City Council and
staff regarding concern that the system would fail without
consistent enforcement; the price of parking tickets and
how much of the fine comes to the City; monitoring the
effect of the changes; price versus available parking;
consistent treatment of different areas in the City; driver
habits; consumer turnover; impacts to nearby residents;
protections for businesses in the downtown area; and moving
traffic to different areas.
11
ATTACHMENT 3
11 12
September 13, 2010
Item J-2
(continued)
Discussion continued between the City Council, staff; and
Steffen Turoff regarding incentives for people to move
after the first two hours; consultant experience managing
parking at The Grove; the two-hour shuffle; concern with
creating more movement; grace periods; validations;
one-hour parking versus two-hour parking; incremental
changes with monitoring; flexibility; success indicators;
incentivizing parking in a different structure; keeping
City business parking validated; contracting out
enforcement; and new enforcement technology.
Responding to Councilmember Cooper, Ken Kaufman, Downtown
Business Association, indicated that businesses promoted
the two-hour free parking in the structures.
At this time, Meghan Sahli Wells, Downtown Neighborhood
Association, discussed the importance of effective
communication that parking is available in another lot and
real time parking information, and she suggested more
creative solutions.
Further discussion ensued between the City Council and
staff regarding the time frame for the installation of real
time parking signage; staff offering to provide a summary
of recommendations made at this meeting for the City
Council’s review and input; monitoring the parking supply
in the City; the way parking affects transportation
decisions; the Metro project coming to the City; and
transporting people from the Metro station to the downtown
area.
o0o
12
ATTACHMENT 3
12SUMMARY OF OPTIONS 1 & 2
Option 1
The table below shows projected revenues for fiscal year 2010-11, based on the
current fee schedule and projected revenues for fiscal year 2011-12, if the City
Council and Agency Board approve implementation of Option 1.
Option 2
The table below shows projected revenues for fiscal year 2010-11, based on the
current fee schedule and projected revenues for fiscal year 2011-12, if the City
Council and Agency Board approve implementation of Option 2, Phase 1. Phase
2 implementation is projected to generate revenues as shown above for Option 1.
PARKING REVENUES
Projected 2010-11* Projected 2011-12**
Transient Monthly Total Transient Monthly Total Variance
Cardiff PS 175,000 $ 61,200 $ 236,200 $ 821,363 $ 103,785 $ 925,148 $ 688,948 $
Watseka PS 75,000 $ 198,720 $ 273,720 $ 383,302 $ 229,881 $ 613,183 $ 339,463 $
Ince PS 135,000 $ 377,280 $ 512,280 $ 556,698 $ 377,280 $ 933,978 $ 421,698 $
Canfield Parking Lot - $ 19,200 $ 19,200 $ - $ 24,642 $ 24,642 $ 5,442 $
385,000 $ 656,400 $ 1,041,400 $ 1,761,363 $ 735,588 $ 2,496,951 $ 1,455,551 $
* Figures provided by Culver City Finance Department and Culver City Redevelopment Agency
** Figures provided by Walker Parking
PHASE 1 - PARKING REVENUES
Projected 2010-11* Projected 2011-12**
Transient Monthly Total Transient Monthly Total Variance
Cardiff PS 175,000 $ 61,200 $ 236,200 $ 410,682 $ 103,785 $ 514,467 $ 278,267 $
Watseka PS 75,000 $ 198,720 $ 273,720 $ 191,651 $ 229,881 $ 421,532 $ 147,812 $
Ince PS 135,000 $ 377,280 $ 512,280 $ 135,000 $ 377,280 $ 512,280 $ - $
Canfield Parking Lot - $ 19,200 $ 19,200 $ - $ 24,642 $ 24,642 $ 5,442 $
385,000 $ 656,400 $ 1,041,400 $ 737,333 $ 735,588 $ 1,472,921 $ 431,521 $
* Figures provided by Culver City Finance Department and Culver City Redevelopment Agency
** Figures provided by Walker Parking
13
ATTACHMENT 4
13APPENDIX E
FACILITY
MAINTENANCE
PROGRAM
14
ATTACHMENT 5
14APPENDIX E - FACILITY MAINTENANCE
ROUTINE AND STRUCTURAL
MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
A concerted effort must be consistently exercised to properly maintain parking structures and surface
parking lots. A comprehensive maintenance program should be implemented to direct such efforts and
document progress in this area.
POLICY AND OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT
Comprehensive maintenance programs that include general housekeeping, preventive maintenance and
repairs are essential to a facilities long-term structural survival. Such programs should be tailored to each
individual parking facility. In addition, implementing “best practice” policies are essential to maintaining
the cleanliness and overall appearance of a facility.
MANAGEMENT
The Parking Manager position that we have recommended be established should ensure compliance with
the Maintenance Program developed for each facility. The Manager should conduct and document
Monthly Maintenance Inspections and Audits that should guide future maintenance efforts and provide
substance for planning future maintenance improvements. These inspections should be completed and
documented regularly, on a monthly basis.
STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE
Failing to properly maintain the condition of a concrete parking structure could result in significant
deterioration and ultimately in the collapse of key structural components. The Parking Operator and
Owner of a structure should collaborate on a regular basis in regard to implementing structural
maintence “best practice” policies. These collaborative efforts in developing a sound Structural
Maintenance Program should include at a minimum the following schedule that is traditionally
recommended by engineers:
o Bi-Annually Power Sweeping and/or Scrubbing
o Annually Power Washing, Professional Draining Inspection, Professional Visual Inspection
o Every 4 years Reseal Decks
o Every 5 years Professional Condition Testing
o Every 8-10 years Replace Construction Joints
o Every 12-14 years Replace Expansion Joints
o As needed Route and seal Concrete Cracks
15
ATTACHMENT 5
15APPENDIX E - FACILITY MAINTENANCE
ROUTINE AND STRUCTURAL
HOUSEKEEPING
The objective of the Housekeeping plan is to establish and maintain a clean, safe parking facility. If
applicable, the Parking Operator should monitor outside contractors' schedules and performance (i.e.,
trash dumpsters, window cleaning, elevators, exterminator service, equipment and fixture service, and
landscaping services). If operated in-house, the Manager should ensure these routine services are
planned and that a schedule of services is implemented and performed by the maintenance staff members
assigned to the Facilities.
JANITORIAL MAINTENANCE PLAN
The Manager shall maintain the Facilities based on the standards outlined in the Parking Garage
Maintenance Manual published by the Parking Consultants Council of the National Parking Association.
MAINTENANCE LOG
The Maintenance Log is a daily list of janitorial/ maintenance tasks to be performed and reported by
shift. The Log also covers seasonal related duties that must be performed when required. The Manager
shall review this log on a monthly basis, for compliance, completeness, accuracy, and quality. All logs or
related reports and inspections shall be filed and available for future reference.
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE INSPECTIONS
The Manager should prepare a report annually that details maintenance efforts throughout the year. The
goal of the annual report is to facilitate efforts toward developing a long-term Capital Maintenance plans
and to ensure that routine housekeeping efforts consistently maintain the level of service preferred by the
Agency.
MAINTENANCE STAFF
The quality of the maintenance staff should be professional in appearance. Staff members should be
trained to ensure a level of job knowledge appropriate to complete their assignments and maintain the
Facilities. The maintenance staff shall be responsible for the following at a minimum:
o Regular site inspections for areas that require attention (i.e. housekeeping and unsafe conditions);
o Take corrective action to address conditions that are sub-standard or unacceptable;
o Responding to spills, hazardous conditions and changing of light bulbs, as required;
o Policing areas throughout the Facilities, clearing stairwells and other areas where debris collects.
In addition to these general items, all items contained in the Facility Maintenance and Parking Equipment
Reports and the Facility Maintence Schedule shall be addressed (see accompanying Reports and
Schedule).
16
ATTACHMENT 5
16APPENDIX E - FACILITY MAINTENANCE
ROUTINE AND STRUCTURAL
Facility Maintenance Report
Location:_______________
Time In:________
Date: _________________
Time Out: ______ Employee:___________________________________
Daily Items below must be completed daily; check-off when completed.
Check parking equipment for proper operation. Repair or report
malfunctions to Supervisor.
Empty trash/litter on all floor and on surface lots, replace can liners.
Clean and remove all litter and debris in stairwells, entrance/exit areas; spot
clean and sweep as needed.
Wipe down hand rails.
Walk garage ramps; remove litter and debris, spot sweep, as needed.
Clean cashier/security booth areas; remove all litter and debris.
Clean elevator vestibules, floors and walls; remove litter and debris and spot
sweep, as needed.
Inspect areas for vandal damage; spot clean and report to Supervisor.
Note light bulbs out by floor and location.
Clear pedestrian areas of obstacles and debris as required.
As Needed Items below must be completed as assigned by Supervisor.
Window cleaning;
Wash out trash receptacles;
Wipe down signage;
Dust ledges and remove cob-webs;
Paint curbs, bollards, fire extinguisher boxes;
Clear drain plates of debris.
Weekly Items below must be completed weekly; check-off when completed.
Wipe down parking equipment
Mechanical sweeping (may be a contracted service)
Light bulb and lamp repair (within a week of notice, contracted service)
Annually Items below must be completed annually; check-off when completed.
Line striping of parking areas (contracted service)
Guard rail painting (contracted service)
Stairwell painting (contracted service)
Pressure wash designated areas within the Facility (contracted service)
Upon completion of a shift, sign below and submit to Supervisor
Date: _______________
By: _________________________________________________________
17
ATTACHMENT 5
17APPENDIX E - FACILITY MAINTENANCE
ROUTINE AND STRUCTURAL
Parking Equipment Maintenance Report
Location:_______________
Time In:________
Date: _________________
Time Out: ______ Employee:___________________________________
As Needed Items below must be completed as assigned by Supervisor;
Check-off when completed.
Ticket Dispensers;
Validators;
Gate Repair;
Gate Mechanism;
Card Readers;
Fee Computers;
Multi-space Meters;
Pay-on-Foot Machines;
Pay-in-Lane Machines;
Fee Displays;
Add other items below:
Upon completion of a shift, sign below and submit to Supervisor
Date: _______________
By: _________________________________________________________
18
ATTACHMENT 5
18APPENDIX E - FACILITY MAINTENANCE
ROUTINE AND STRUCTURAL
Facility Safety Maintenance Schedule
Location:_______________ Employee:______________________
Date: _________________
A = Acceptable; R = Corrections
Required N/A = Not Applicable
Part I: Injury and Accident Prevention Documentation
A. OSHA Documentation A R Target Date N/A
Injury and Illness prevention program
General Safety rules identified
New Hire Safety Orientation
Postings in Place (OSHSA, Worker’s Compensation, Safety Rules, etc.)
List of Chemicals
OSHSA 300 Log available and up to date
Facility Safety Maintenance Schedules completed and up to date
B. Employee Safety Training A R Target Date N/A
Documentation of training of new employees
Documented monthly safety talks
Documented safety training attendance rosters
Documentation of safety training for specified job classifications
Documentation of violence prevention training
C. Health and Safety Programs A R Target Date N/A
Hazard Communication Program
Respiratory Protection Program
Facility Inspection Program
Lane Monitoring Program
D. Emergency Procedures A R Target Date N/A
First Aid (personnel, procedures and supplies)
Emergency Evacuation/Response Plan
Workplace Violence Protocol in Place
Emergency Contact List (up to date and in place)
Part II: Physical Inspection
A. Parking Lot or Garage A R Target Date N/A
All Exits clearly signed and marked
Presence of Liability Signs (must match information contained on tickets)
All lot surfaces in good repair
Wheel stops in good repair/properly placed
Line striping clear and defined
Traffic directional arrows clear, defined and in place
Convex mirrors installed at “blind intersections”
Pedestrian ways defined/non-skid surfaces in place and in good repair
Posted speed limit and caution signs present
Sufficient lighting
Lighting fixtures in good working order
Gate Arms working properly (protective padding and “not a walkway” posted)
Curbs painted in a contrasting color
All areas free of debris and obstruction
Parking areas and walkways free of debris and “slip and fall” hazards
Ticket Dispensers closed and locked
Gate Arm control boxes closed and locked
All key boxes locked and secure
19
ATTACHMENT 5
19APPENDIX E - FACILITY MAINTENANCE
ROUTINE AND STRUCTURAL
B. Cashier Booths and Pay-on-Foot Station Areas A R Target Date N/A
Security cameras in place
Doors and windows operable and lockable
Money drop and cash collection procedures in place and documented
Security and training procedures documented
Emergency phone numbers in place
Heating, ventilation and air conditioning system (HVAC) operational where
applicable
Electrical cords in good condition
Workstation ergonomics addressed and adjustments made
Cashier chair stable and in good condition
Pay-on-Foot station clean and general appearance is acceptable (If POF is installed)
Sufficient lighting and visibility present
Fire extinguishers in place
No Smoking Policies observed and documented, signage in place
Areas around booths and pay-on-foot stations well lit, free of obstructions, secure
C. Stairwells A R Target Date N/A
All required stairwell signage in place
Exit signs in place per local Building Codes
Doors to stairwell can open and close and in good condition
Exterior doors closed and locked, if applicable
Stairs clean and clear of debris, “slip and fall” hazards
Non-slip strips in place on individual stairs
Sufficient lighting and in good working order
Appropriate signs posted in accord with local Fire Codes
D. Elevators A R Target Date N/A
Elevator cabs operating properly
Doors safely open and operational
Elevator cabs level on all floors
Sufficient lighting in elevator cabs and in elevator vestibule areas
Emergency alarms and telephones operational
Directions to nearest stairwell posted
Liability disclaimers present and posted near elevator cabs
Permits and appropriate licensing displayed in cabs
E. Employee and Public Restrooms A R Target Date N/A
Supplies in stock (paper, soaps, etc.)
Drinking and washing water available
Appliances are operating properly
Employee signs posted
No Smoking signs in place
F. Parking Office Area A R Target Date N/A
Workstations are ergonomically correct
Office is neat and clean (free from debris, electrical and “trip & fall” hazards)
Emergency Evacuation Diagrams posted
Fire extinguishers in place
Emergency contact numbers on file and current for all employees
All chairs and furniture in good working order
Interior and exterior lighting is sufficient
G. Emergency Equipment A R Target Date N/A
Emergency Evacuation Plan in place
Flashlights, batteries, drinking water supplies in stock
Fire extinguishers in place; inspection dates are current
First Aid supplies available and in good condition
20
ATTACHMENT 5
20APPENDIX E - FACILITY MAINTENANCE
ROUTINE AND STRUCTURAL
Personal Protective Equipment available (i.e. gloves, safety glasses, masks, etc.)
H. Valet Operations (This applies only to valet operations for which the City
has responsibility.)
A R Target Date N/A
Sufficient supply of tickets available
Attendants trained to check for pre-existing damages
Entrances clearly marked as “Valet Areas” and “Caution” signage
Attendants trained in chain of protocol for key handling procedures
All keys are secured in a secure box or area
Column and wall padding in place and in good condition
Liability signs posted “Do Not Leave Valuables in Vehicle”
Non-skid surfaces in valet loading areas
I. Forms A R Target Date N/A
Employee Injuries/Worker’s Compensation Claim Forms
Supervisor Reports for Employee Injuries and Investigation
Medical Service Order Forms
Customer Injury/Public Liability Forms
Personal Injury Accident Report Forms
Standard Insurance Claim Information Forms
Vehicle Collision/Property Damage Forms
Facility Loss report Form
Standard Insurance Claim Forms
Facility Safety Maintenance Schedule Form
Comments – Physical Evaluation Needs Assessment
Manager Name: (Print) ________________________ Signature:_____________________________________________
Completed By: (Print) __________________________ Signature:_____________________________________________ 21
ATTACHMENT 5
21Municipal Parking Rate Survey
Per Appendix C of Comprehensive Parking Study
Municipalities Parking Authority Meter Rates
Parking Meter
Enforcment Hours
Parking
Structures/Lots Daily
Rate
Variable Time Rate (such as
unique evening rate)
Parking Structure
$/per month
Culver City (current) N/A $1.00 per hr
8 AM - 6 PM Monday -
Saturday
$1.00 per hr/$8.00
max/2 hrs free
2 hr validation for theater
patrons
$60 for 5 day
access, $80 for 7
day access
City of Santa Monica
Contract Operator/Parking
Office
(w/proposal to
increase to $1.50
per hr)
8 AM - 6 PM Monday-
Saturday
$2.00 per hr/$7.00 max
w/2 hrs free $3.00 evening flat rate
$82.50 (proposed to
be raised to
$121.00)
City of Beverly Hills
Parking Operations
Division $1.00 per hr 8 AM - 6 PM
$2-$3.00 per hr/ $10 -
$22.00 max w/1-2 hrs
free typically $5.00 flat rate after 6PM $65.00 - $185.00
City of West Hollywood
City of Beverly Hills
(meters) & Contract
Operator $1 - $4.00 per hr
until 8 PM weekdays and
midnight on weekends $1.00 per hr until 5 PM $6.00 evening flat rate $145.00
City of Pasadena (Old Town) Parking Division $1.25 per hr 8 AM - 12 AM daily
$1.00 to $2.00 per
hr/$5.00 to $6.00 max
/1.5 to 2 hrs free $5.00 evening flat rate $65 - $90.00
City of Inglewood Transportation Division $0.50 per hr. 7 AM - 7 PM daily
$1.50 to $2.00 per
hour/$7.50 all day. Not Applicable $30 - $50.00
City of Hermosa Beach
Contracted Operator &
Community Services Div. $1.00 per hr
10 AM - 10 PM 7-days per
week
$1.00 per hr, $16 daily
maximum
$4.00 peak evening flat rate;
$6.00 flat rate on weekends $50.00
City of Redwood City
Finance Deprtment &
Contract Operator
FREE or $0.25 -
$0.50 per hr
10 AM- 6 PM; some free
all day Saturday; some
free all day Sunday; some
free all weekend; (NO
$0.25 per hr base rate
non-peak; $2.50 - $5.00
per hr. peak (depends
on garage)
4-hours free validation for cinema
patrons; 1-2 hours free with
validation by downtown
businesses $30 - $60
City of San Luis Obispo Parking Services Division
$0.75 to $1.25 per
hr.
9 AM to 6 PM Monday-
Saturday
$0.75 per hr/ $7.50
max w/1 hr free Not Applicable $40
Culver City (Walker Parking
recommends) Parking Department $1.50 per hr
8 AM - 11 PM 7 days
per wk
$1.00 per hr (Cardiff
PS, Watseka PS) $.50
per hr Ince PS
$2.50 max charge w/theater
validation
$70 for 5 day
access at Cardiff
PS, Watseka PS
22
ATTACHMENT 6
22ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7
23ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7
24ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7
25ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7
26ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7
27ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7
28ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7
29ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7
30