Parking Challenges and Opportunities in the Downtown Central DistrictTOWN OF LOS GATOS
TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
PARKING LOT #4 (GRAYS LANE AND ELM STREET)
SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 -- 5:30 P.M.
Walking Tour: Station Way - From Main Street to Los Gatos -Saratoga Avenue
(See Attached Map)
Downtown Parking Issues
5:30 P.M. 1. Introductions
5:40 P.M. 2. Departing Lot No. 4 Traveling North to Lot No. 1 and Returning South to
Lot No. 6
6:10 P.M. 3. Discussion and Wrap -Up at the Opera House (140 West Main Street)
A. Parking Needs
B. Economic Development
C. Funding Options
D. Other Items
ADJOURNMENT
MG R076\TCAGENDAI9-11. SS
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, If You Need Special
Assistance to Participate in this Meeting, Please Contact Patsy Madrid
at (408) 354-6832. Notification 48 Hours Before the Meeting Will Enable the Town
to Make Reasonable Arrangements to Ensure Accessibility to this Meeting.
[28 CFR §35.102-35.1041
DOWNTOWN LOS GATOS PARKING
CIPIT MICHAEL RIR/ARD
Zoo
i
PPER LEVEL IS 3 HOUR
LOWER LEVEL IS 24 HOUR LI
9J
LEGEND
® 1 HOUR STREET PARKING
NUMITED PARKING
(NO OVERNIGHT PARKING)
® 3 HOUR PARKING
30 MINUTE PARKING
THIS MAP IS NOT PRECISE. PLEASE
NOTE POSTED SIGN UNIT RESTRICTIONS.
CADO 7: NARK NAP. DWG C.G.G. 9/6/95
COUNCIL/PARKING
COMMISSION AGENDA
DATE: 9/11/95
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL/PARKING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 1995
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT:
PARKING CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE DOWNTOWN CENTRAL
DISTRICT
Attached for information is a report entitled "Parking Challenges and Opportunities in the Downtown Central
District'.
PREPARED BY: DAVID W. KNAPP
Town Manager
DWK:pm
MGRO88 A:ICNCLRPTSI9-11-1 Revised: 9/7/95 3:09 pm
Attachment: Report entitled "Parking Challenges and Opportunities in the Downtown Central District"
Distribution: Parking Commission
Reviewed by: Attorney Clerk Finance Treasurer
COUNCIL ACTION/ACTION DIRECTED TO:
Form: 6/21/95
Civic Center Plaza
7 Levels
1020 Spaces
$12,900,000
1992
International
Parking
Design, Inc.
Architects
Parking Consultants
Niiya, Calpo
Hom & Dong
Exterior Design
Consultants
City of
Sacramento
Owner
Sacramento, California
The Civic Center Plaza Parking Structure is
situated adjacent to City Hall and is
designed to emulate the neoclassical style
and coloring of the older building. The
pedestrian character of the City is main-
tained by the creation of an arcade along
the ground -level perimeter with office and
retail space fronting on it.
The facade's colonnade, with granite bases
and precast concrete arches, provides
interest at ground level. Downlighting and
blue awnings projecting from the facade
accent the retail areas. A water sculpture,
as part of the City's "Arts in Public Places"
program, is incorporated into the facade at
one corner of the structure.
An 18,000-square-foot computer center for
the City is included in the office space at
ground level.
...4:11....M1111111111111M
ir4
International
Parking
Design, Inc.
6 Levels
333 Spaces
63,200,000
1992
International
Parking
Design, Inc.
Architects
Parking Consultants
Culver City
Redevelopment
Agency
Owner
Watseka Avenue
Culver City, California
The Watseka Avenue Parking Structure
serves patrons of local businesses and
employees of the nearby medical center.
The structure features four levels above
grade and two levels below grade. The
facade is an attractive brick treatment
incorporating rectangular openings with a
series of graceful arches. Low -maintenance
landscaping enhances the overall appeal of
the facility.
Security features include a glass -backed
elevator, stairways open to the exterior,
security grilles around the perimeter at
ground level, and ample exterior lighting.
The parking control system is designed to
be tied to a future City Hall card -access
system.
The structural system of cast -in -place
concrete columns with post -tensioned
concrete beams and slabs provides column -
free parking. Seismic resistance is provided
by reinforced concrete shear walls.
• International
I Parking
Design, Inc.
PARKING CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
IN THE DOWNTOWN CENTRAL DISTRICT
SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN COUNCIL AND PARKING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 1995
FROM: DAVE KNAPP, TOWN MANAGER
PREPARED BY: SCOTT BAKER, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & ENGINEERING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
II. INTRODUCTION 2
III. PARKING DEMAND AND COLLATERAL IMPACTS 4
IV. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 6
V. FINANCING NEW CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING COSTS 7
VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11
APPENDIX A Occupancy Survey 12
APPENDIX B Memorandum - Parking Issues 13
APPENDIX C - Parking Needs 14
APPENDIX D - Automated Parking Control 15
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Challenge
The Town's attempts to control parking by enforcing hourly limits and preferential parking districts
costs more than is received in ticket revenues. Issuing tickets generates letters and complaints
resulting in precious staff time spent in replies. Employees that arrive earlier than customers tend to
take prime customer spaces and customers are forced to park in residential areas or leave to shop
somewhere else. Merchants say their business (and sales tax) revenue is lost because of limited
parking and because customers won't come back after receiving a parking citation. Property owners
complain that they pay parking assessments and there is still not enough parking. Property owners
also express concern because the Parking Assessment District is not flexible enough to allow parking
credits which invariably means no intensification of commercial uses. The cost of operating and
maintaining municipal lots is borne solely by the general fund and currently there is no funding source
to pay for acquiring new parking spaces.
"The worst way to manage a scarce resource is to give it away."
The Opportunity
This is a complex problem which requires a positive and comprehensive approach to achieve a long
term solution. The Parking Assessment District and the Town General Fund have thus far been the
contributors in creating and maintaining downtown parking. Staff suggests that the "user" should
now be called upon to contribute to the parking solution and that a nominal fee for parking in the
municipal lots be established. At the Community Forums, citizen comments supported "fee" parking,
provided that payment were convenient. High tech advances have made their way into the parking
industry, and many options to the conventional parking meter are now available. Computer parking
control can accept; cash, credit cards, ATM cards, monthly passes, designate employee parking, allow
for merchant discount tickets, and provide many other benefits as well.
A comprehensive parking control and revenue program in the Downtown Municipal lots would
establish:
• An ongoing funding source for new lot construction, operation, and maintenance
• Flexibility and control in providing employee and customer parking options
• Reduced need for Parking Control Enforcement and parking citations in the lots
• Economic development and better use of existing land
• A funding source for Downtown capital improvements
1
INTRODUCTION
Finding a parking solution for downtown is a challenge facing many older communities. The Los
Gatos' downtown was laid out with the horse and buggy in mind. Existing streets and sidewalks are
narrow by modern standards and on -site parking is almost nonexistent. Some financial experts hold
the opinion that the municipal costs to support an older downtown exceed revenue potential and
represent a bad investment. The Los Gatos Downtown, to the contrary, is an excellent investment.
The premise of this report is that a solution is attainable.
Improving economic conditions Downtown depends upon solving the parking problem. The Town
is very fortunate to have acquired the Southern Pacific Right -of -Way (i.e. Station Way) and other
properties for Downtown core parking (Map next page). The funding for the lots has been
accomplished by a "Downtown Parking Assessment District" (DPAD) and Town general fund
contributions. DPAD monies are collected from the property owners in the district and general fund
monies come from many sources with Property tax and Sales tax providing a substantial share.
Operating expense for the Downtown lots is estimated at $60,000 per year and comes entirely from
the Town's general fund. The DPAD and the general fund have already made substantial
contributions to the parking solution. It seems only fitting that the users (i.e. the occupants of the
parking spaces) should be called upon to pay their share of the parking solution.
Parking Lot 4 provided the first multi -level parking structure downtown and completed the parking
enhancements specified in the 1987 DPAD. Under the current assessment, property owners will be
making payments until the year 2007. Casual observation and occupancy surveys confirm that
parking demand is greater than current capacity at peak occupancy times (See Appendix A). The
municipal Downtown parking lot spaces are predominantly 3-hour limited parking with some
unlimited parking spaces for employees and long term needs. By early morning these long term
spaces are filled and the overflow spills into the 3-hour spaces, reducing the number of spaces
available for customers. Customers overstay the time limits and get angry when they are ticketed.
In a 1994 Memo to the Parking Commission the Assistant Town Manger identified
(See Appendix B):
• Cost to enforce parking control was almost $7,000 greater than the revenue generated by
parking citations
• A new parking space generates about $ 1 20 per year in sales tax revenue to the Town
• Cost to construct a parking space is $10,000-30,000 which would require a debt service
payment of about $800 to $2,400 per year for 20 years
Parking Lot 4 cost approximately $3,000,000 and accommodates 320 spaces. This equals $9,375
per space to construct. Since the property was already owned by the Town, land acquisition did not
add to the cost per space. Also, the cost per space does not reflect that about half the 320 spaces
existed as surface parking spaces before construction of the bi-level parking structure. If the cost is
considered function of the net new spaces created, the $9,375 figure would double to $18,750 per
net new space.
2
DOWNTOWN LOS GATOS PARKING
O11947 ADCBAHL HIBBARD
7/441-3.11"
PPER LEVEL IS 3 HOUR
LOWER LEVEL IS 24 HOUR LI
9)
i
'Ty
LEGEND
f;7 1 HOUR STREET PARKING
UNLIMITED PARKING
(NO OVERNIGHT PARKING)
7I 3 HOUR PARKING
30 MINUTE PARKING
THIS MAP IS NOT PRECISE. PLEASE
NOTE POSTED SIGN UNIT RESTRICTIONS.
CA007:MARKMAP.DWG C.C.C. 9/6/95
This report discusses a parking solution which could meet the challenges and present a constructive
set of possible alternatives. This report will pay particular attention to revenue potential and
construction of new spaces in the Downtown central core including municipal Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5/6,
9 and 13 (see map previous page).
A comprehensive long term parking solution should provide:
• An ongoing funding source for new lot construction, operation, and maintenance
• Flexibility and control to provide employee and customer parking options
• Eliminate the need for Parking Control Enforcement and parking citations
• Economic development and better land uses
Street parking revenue is not under consideration because:
• Low efficiency factor - Street spaces cannot be fully automated and would require parking
control and individual meters
• Current fiscal needs can be satisfied from municipal lot revenue
• Political and practical reasons should allow for some limited "free" parking in the Downtown
and there is no practical potential for substantially increasing net new spaces on the street
• Equity concerns due to gas tax subventions may be used to maintain and upgrade street
parking spaces (not so for the municipal lots)
This report identifies the "parking demand" and "need" related to the Downtown core area. We will
explore the challenges and opportunities for economic development within the proposed parking plan.
A conceptual framework for financing and constructing new parking spaces is presented. Finally, the
conclusions and recommendations suggest a course of action that will lead to a comprehensive, long
term parking solution.
3
PARKING DEMAND AND COLLATERAL IMPACTS
How much parking is enough? If more is needed where should it be located? How do we protect
the surrounding neighborhoods from adverse impacts? What are the likely parking needs in 5, 10 and
20 years? These questions have to be considered in developing a solution.
Theoretical Need
In 1992, the Engineering Department prepared a study for the Parking Commission detailing present
and future parking needs for the Downtown (Appendix C). While a number of assumptions are
included, the chart indicates a 1992 shortage of 1082 spaces based on the square footage
requirements of retail and office space compared to the total on -street and off-street parking spaces.
Assuming complete buildout in Downtown, a shortage of 1772 spaces was predicted. Neither the
potential shortage of 1772 spaces, nor the current shortage of 1082 spaces, reflect actual parking
need. The need for additional parking may exist, however, these numbers overstate the actual
problem. The Downtown functions is pedestrian in nature and its compact physical orientation
creates more linkage of trips than would otherwise be expected. The typical visitor to the Downtown
is likely to park once and visit multiple shops. This linkage reduces parking needs. Also, when
calculating parking requirements, on -street spaces are normally not included so as not to exaggerate
the theoretical parking need.
Occupancy
Occupancy is the percentage of spaces occupied at various times of the day at a given location. In
spring of 1994, AMPCO System Parking submitted a survey of parking occupancy (Appendix A).
Staff also conducted a backup survey and the results were consistent with the findings of the AMPCO
report. The greatest peak Downtown parking demand is found at Lots 2 and 13. If parking demand
were laid out in a linear fashion along Santa Cruz Avenue, the greatest demand would be found at
the northern and southern extremes. The construction of Lot 4 has improved parking availability in
the mid -section of this continuum. It should be noted that lots are heavily used from noon to early
evening and the months surveyed are not generally considered as "peak" season. Increasing parking
spaces at Lots 1 or 2 and Lots 13 or 9 would provide the most strategic relief in parking, based on
the AMPCO Occupancy Survey. Staff suggests a phased construction strategy leading to the
development of 350-500 "net new" spaces. The phased approach would allow for adjustments to the
program if parking needs change over time.
Neighborhood Impacts
The Town Council and Parking Commission receive numerous concerns from residents in the areas
surrounding the downtown related to impacts from parking. The Town has established a number of
preferential parking districts to mitigate parking shortages.
This is not an ideal solution because residents must pay for the parking permits and acquiring and
displaying the permit is a nuisance. Conversely, non-residents get upset that a public street is
restricted to residents only. The Town has recognized that the surrounding residential areas are
impacted by the limited parking Downtown. The established preferential parking districts are an
4
attempt to protect the ability of residents to find on -street parking. This is important because of
limited off-street parking in the Historic Districts and because of the numerous secondary units in the
area. Residents also complain that when people return to their cars late at night they are noisy and
create a disturbance. Clearly, it would be better to have the patrons park in municipal lots than in the
residential neighborhoods.
5
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
The Challenge
The Town enacted a utility users tax to make up for State raids on local revenues. This tax is subject
to a five year sunset provision. The community stressed the importance of economic development
and new revenue sources to meet the on going funding needs of the Town. Economic development
in Downtown depends on acquiring more parking. While the limited number of Downtown parking
spaces is a physical problem, a similar problem exists for downtown businesses which are not able
to intensify their "use" because of the number of parking spaces credited to the parcel. Creating the
Downtown Parking Assessment District" (DPAD) in 1987 established the number of parking credits
for each parcel in the district. The fee was based on a formula and the number of spaces (credits) a
property owner purchased, and from that point in time on, was unchangeable. These credits did not
translate into a dedicated space and exclusive ownership, but a right to use space from the "pool" of
spaces created by the DPAD. Owners in 1987 did not always predict the future building/property use
correctly, and as human nature would predict, they tended to choose the least cost option. Many
owners claim they simply did not understand the parking credit concept and long term implications.
Some properties have been sold and new owners invariably have a different vision of the properties
best uses. This is exemplified by parking limitations at the former Wolf Computer site on Victory
Lane and Crow Coffee Shop on Elm Street. Mr. Al Block's property was considered as a print
shop/warehouse with an absolute minimum in parking credits, and the Crow Coffee Shop wanted
additional outdoor seating. Both were stymied in their desire to intensify the use due to parking
limitations. The crux of the problem is that the 1987 DPAD is inflexible in amending or adding
credits.
The Opportunity
One solution would be an in -lieu parking credit fee in connection with a program to construct new
parking spaces. This could allow for increases in the parking associated with a property without
effecting the current DPAD. This is essential to create an improved business climate in the
Downtown. The number of spaces available in the in -lieu program should be limited to the number
of new spaces scheduled for construction and be offered at a cost of about $10,000 per parking space
credit. Staff is aware of several business owners that have expressed support for this concept and do
not find it cost prohibitive. The $10,000 per space/credit figure is roughly the cost of per space
construction based on Lot 4 (see introduction) or half the "net new" cost of a bi-level lot. The City
of Palo Alto reports that establishing an aggressive parking revenue program has not adversely
affected sales tax revenue.
6
FINANCING NEW CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION COSTS
The Downtown property owners and the general fund have funded and continue to fund the municipal
parking lot construction and ongoing maintenance. If a parking revenue source is established, new
spaces on existing municipal lots could be constructed which would improve the economic vitality
of the Downtown.
Meter vs. Central Pay
Computer technology is coming of age in the parking industry. Automated parking control systems
can issue pass stubs and collect fees from central stations (Appendix D). The initial cost is on a par
with individual coin only meters, however the difference in on -going operation and maintenance is
dramatic. Imagine the time to remove coins from 800 meters compared to eight to ten central
locations. Accountability and security are enhanced by handling less cash due to non -cash payment
options. Cash is collected into a security box separately keyed so the collection attendant does not
have access to bills or coins. Additional accountability is provided by remote posting of revenue
totals.
No More Parking Tickets
With gated entry control, and pay as you leave, the need to enforce parking time limits is eliminated.
This would also reduce the work load of parking enforcement staff and allow those resources to be
used to patrol the lots for increased security and preservation of peace and quiet. Parking revenues
could be used to offset losses in parking ticket receipts. Parking tickets generated $148,000 in
1993-94. About 15% of all parking tickets are issued in the municipal lots. Around $30,000 should
offset the fiscal loss of ticket revenue. With the computerized central pay concept, there would be
no parking tickets issued and angry letters of protest because of a few minutes overstay. The concept
is simple and fair; you only pay for the time you actually use. This is even better than meters, where
sometimes you leave early and lose "time on the meter." The central pay station can accept coins,
bills, credit cards, and debit cards. Merchants can provide special debit cards which could be given
to preferred customers. Specific areas (not in the prime customer locations) could be designated for
monthly passes tailored to the needs of employees and business owners. Using the computerized
central pay concept, the fee schedule could allow the first half hour of parking at no charge. This
would benefit deliveries and very short term errands. Also, it would allow the motorist to exit the
lot at no charge if all the spaces were occupied. With the first half hour free, a fee of $.35 per each
half hour is recommended. This is a program by which the user pays based on the actual time used
with a half hour grace period. San Jose Arena event parking is $10.00 whether Mike Tyson knocks
his opponent out in the 1st or 15th round. In Los Gatos, under this proposal, a dinner and a movie
(for four) might cost you $150.00, but the four hours of parking would only cost $2.45 and the
Brewing Company may be inclined to pay for your parking.
Revenue Potential
Assuming 14 hours of peak parking between 8 AM and 10 PM with 3 turnovers (i.e. 1.5 hours free)
equals. 12.5 hours subject to fee with 8 hours at 80 percent occupancy (6.4 hours) and 6 hours at
50 percent occupancy (3 hours) this equals 9.4 hours of fee parking which generates over $6.54 per
space per day. Dedicating 160 spaces (for monthly pass only)- out of the 800 spaces under
consideration leaves 640 at the $6.54 rate for a daily revenue of $4,185 or $1,306,000 annually
assuming Sunday parking is free. (Add $221,800 annually if Sundays are not free and the same
parking occupancy and fee rate are assumed). If 160 spaces were offered at $75 per month, $144,000
annually, this brings the total estimated gross annual revenue to $1,450,000.
Initial installation costs for the central pay equipment would run about $900,000. The purchase price
of this equipment (like most other computerized equipment) is currently coming down in cost and
increasing in power and flexibility. The actual purchase price may be less in the near future. Using
the conservative figure of $900,000, if the equipment was acquired by a 10 year lease/purchase
agreement, annual payments would be about $100,000 per year.
A preliminary estimate of annualized revenues and expenses for central pay:
Gross Annual Revenue: $1,450,000
Estimated Expense:
1. Loss in Parking Citation
2. Operation and Maintenance (general)
3. Operation and Maintenance (Central Pay)
4. Lease Payment Central Pay
5. Downtown Business Promotion
6. Downtown Capital and Beautification Projects
7. New lot Construction - Debt Service ($8 million)
8. Loss of revenue during construction (115 spaces maximum)
$30,000
60,000
50,000
100,000
75,000
100,000
800,000
235.000
$1,450,000
It should noted that Item 2 is currently funded in the Town Operating Budget. Items 5 and 6 are
optional and could be reduced or increased as appropriate. With phased construction, Item 7 Debt
Service would more likely be $400,000 or less in first few years creating a reserve. Item 8 Revenue
Loss would be only during the time a lot was out of service and would increase revenues due to
existing and newly created spaces coming online once the lot is completed.
While no parking solution can come without some cost, staff offers the opinion that a modest fee with
convenient payment is a small price compared to negative impacts of insufficient parking space and
issuance of parking citations.
Funding Via In -Lieu Fees
In the Economic Development section of this report, it was suggested that a in -lieu fee program be
established to improve Downtown business activity.
This would also provide a partial funding source for parking lot construction. It was recommended
that $10,000 per space/credit was appropriate, however a pre -construction price of $8,000 and a
8
post -construction price of$12,000 might motivate early participation. A $100,000 investment would
buy 12.5 spaces/credit at $8,000 each. If 50 other pre -construction spaces where sold, a total of 75
space/credits would generate $600,000 to off -set construction costs. A $600,000 reduction in
construction costs would reduce debt service by about $60,000 per year. The "market potential" for
advanced purchase of in -lieu parking space/credits is currently unknown. This potential revenue
source seems worthy of further investigation. If sufficient interest exists, then the concept could be
developed with standards and guidelines as to how space/credits would be allotted and possible PID
financing.
Other Funding Options
Staff has considered other funding options which would provide additional parking. Assessment
Districts have been used in the past. They are expensive to create and require detailed engineering
analysis. Further, they are already a burden on Downtown property owners. To achieve a parking
solution would require about a four fold increase over current assessments.
The Town could provide a long term lease (or sale) of the municipal lots to a private firm which
would collect fees, operate existing lots, and construct new spaces as per an agreement. Private firms
are in business to make a profit and pay dividends to their shareholders. This option would be less
likely to be sensitive to the needs of the "user" and business community resulting in "market" parking
rates similar to those found in San Jose.
Doubling the business license tax in the Downtown would raise about $256,000 per year. To equal
the central pay revenue estimates would require a increase equal to 5.7 times the current fee. This
would shift the burden of payments to the merchant (unless the space is owner occupied.)
Parcel taxes or utility user taxes are a funding alternative. However, widespread support for theses
options is not likely because they are borne by many that would claim no benefit or interest in a
Downtown parking solution. For the reasons above, staff recommends consideration of a program
that looks to the "user" for a contribution to the parking solution.
Increasing the business license tax, parcel tax, or utility user tax specifically for parking purposes
would require a two-thirds approval by the electorate.
Financing
Once the funding source is identified, a financing plan can be developed. Staff met with Ms. Emily
Wagner, the Town's Financial Advisor to explore options related to a parking solution. If the central
pay (or other revenue generating source) concept is adopted, the issuance of Revenue Bonds could
be crafted to fund phased construction of multiple lots. Revenue Bonds would not obligate the
general fund but would commit the central pay revenues toward Bond repayment.
9
The lack of a revenue history is a potential concern. A six month period of operation and fee history
is likely to be sufficient and would approximate Environmental and design schedules. Given the other
positive factors in the Town's favor, such as excellent bond ratings and that the projects are within
the Redevelopment Area, the Town's Financial Advisor is optimistic that excellent term and
conditions regarding financing can be obtained.
10
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report is not intended to achieve every answer to every possible question related to a Downtown
parking solution. It is intended to perhaps set in motion, a course of further study, leading to a
parking solution. The task is formidable but the potential rewards are great. The Town of Los Gatos
is extremely fortunate to have a thriving and active Downtown when so many downtowns are in
decay. A parking solution is necessary to improve the economic health of the Downtown.
Staff would recommend that for lots on Station Way between Main Street and Highway 9 that Lot 4
should be the design model i.e. at grade parking with sublevel(s). Parking Lots 13 and 9 could be
considered for multi -level above and below grade and substantially below current Zoning height
limitations.
Staff makes the following observations:
• The Los Gatos Downtown is in need of a parking solution
• Parking demand exceeds parking availability
• Increased parking is the key to improving the economic viability of the Downtown
• Issuance of parking citations are counter to Downtown economic growth
• A funding source that is sustainable and on -going is desirable
• The concept of user fees and central pay is reasonable
Staff makes the following recommendations:
• Form several small work groups to actively pursue and investigate various issues raised herein
and set a date to receive the reports:
Survey other cities with pay parking
In -lieu fees for parking space/credit
Central pay logistics
Merchant/customer incentive plans and economic development
Financing Plans
Lot construction sequence
Adopt a 2.5 year goal to have new parking on-line in the Downtown
N:/B&EISCOTTPARKING I.RPT
11
APPENDIX A
OCCUPANCY SURVEY
•
What price, parking?
early everybody agrees that parking, or,
rather, the lack of it, is one of downtown
Los Gatos' most serious and abiding
problems. Survey after survey has
underscored the point.
Merchants say that the viability of their businesses
is directly linked to the volume of walk-in trade they
can attract. Given the sorry state of public
transportation here, the volume of walk-in trade will
always be limited by the number of available
parking spaces.
No mystery about that —motorists can't become
customers until they can
+EDITORIALS+
out of their cars.
I� �1 l '� ,S+ The big, unanswerec'
question is: Does the L
Gatos Town Council really think there's a problem?
Even in times such as these when municipal
budgets are being ravaged by state government, the
council could be moving faster to provide more
parking. The council doesn't need more money in
town coffers; it needs the political courage to admit
that just as there is no free lunch, there is no free
parking. -
As Rex Morton, chairman of the Parking
Commission, pointed out to the council last week,
there are private investors willing to finance parking
garages if they can be sure of a return on their
investment. He cited, as an example, Dillingham
Construction Inc., the prime contractor for the
town's 311-stall parking structure at 20 Grays Lane.
Dillingham might be willing to participate in
financing an above -ground parking structure behind
the La Canada Building, Morton reported.
The counciLwas not greatly moved, possibly
because such a public -private partnership would call
for a revenue stream to finance it. In practical terms,
that means parking meters or some other form of
paid parking on existing public lots. And parking
.meters in Los Gatos are about as popular as rain at
picnic.
So, what else is new?
The question the council must answer, for itself
and for the community, is: Do we need more parking
badly enough, and soon enough, to be willing to pay
for it?
AFaMPco
PARKING
April 6, 1994
Scott Baker, CBO
Director of Building
and Engineering Services
Civic Center
110 E. Main St.
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Dear Scott:
500 Howard Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 247-9500
Fax: (415) 247-9599
Julie De Gregorlo
Director of Business Development
Enclosed is the survey that we did at your lots. Please call me if
you need further information.
Sincerely,
DeGMP mid
J.lie Decg
re orio
a subsidiary of /ABM American Building Maintenance Industries, Inc.
PERCENTAGE
4
0
4
9
Q 4 tP a-rn J CO
1 1 1
xX
-
\ \
% /
t
0
/ / / / f f / / A.
0
—� \'•''.'•.\\`� \� \\',\\\\\\\\\`.L.t \\\\\\\\\
/ / / f tI
r
O ▪ '\\'\ \ \ \ \ \\\•\\ \ \ \ \ . \\-\\\\ \ \ \\\\\\\1
[,r / / / r / / / / / r r /
r—
\\.\\\_.\
\
r- t\\\.. \\... \\\`\\\, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\71
¢1 / / i / / / / / / / / / I / / a
r .'. . X X X is X r. v.:? :: 'r :C .7( X X ;C :+, : r .:: ;•:`; X X. X X .( c ? :?:? ;{ K, K K1
— \ ' \ • \ \ -\ \ \_.\\ \ \ \ \ \ 's \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \
/ f / / / 1
x;<X XX.X_X x.41 i i X. X.:CXXX;<k.KS. XXX {;<XXX a
O
/ / I / / / I 1 / / / / I / / / / / I
,x
Xx
? :K
<XXXX XXXXXX:<X X;I
4-\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\-\\\\\\\\\\\\\`{
. / I / / / / / I / / / 7 / / / II
-looc C000c
—a cD cm A W N
CA,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OD to c0 0o '4N, -1
co ▪ co co W cot P crt
-i O O O O
O O CD O
N `J CO CD j W N
ao 000-►oo
iC'co P'co cni0Oib-+
Ad zl-LtJV
Ad 9-Adz I.
Ad 6-Ad 9
PERCENTAGE
N
8
0
0
8
0
0
0
m
tJ -
r
0
r
0
t t 0 0 0
0
0 0
•1
♦
•
♦ • , ♦ , ♦ , ♦ \I
AVCISW11H1 — h CIN O k a
}\ONVdfODC d0
rrr CDrrCCrrr-p
000--1007---�000o
CD -4 Fri CD CDca * CZ ND
Dr
r
O
-1
_ _co
_ =m
= _ r
_ 'r
0
z
- —►
r
m
Q)
oo--00000
i7) *co o a) cn -- -co 'co 2
co CO U1 -' U1 VI CA ut CO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2Zio-co 'co ��'co 'co W
CD CD .p CD C3) CD .A A
O O O o 0 0 0 0 0
co coCJCDCaCOCnC3)-"
N 01 C11 O CO-.1 U1 CD -1
Wd n—WV8
Aid 9—Wd Z L
Wd6—Wd9
,WaSHifnH±—)vaNOW
AONVd(1000 dO %
% OF OCCUPANCY
M - W - F - SA
MAY 1994
.. ...•.•.•...-.
.....
.
- •
......
.
1
LOT 1
0.98
0.86
0.79
2
LOT 2
0.94
0.93
0.86
3
LOT 3
0.62
0.63
0.50
4
LOT 4 (UP)
0.92
0.77
0.74
5
LOT 4 (LOW)
0.82
0.86
0.73
6
LOT 6
0.91
0.83
0.87
7
LOT 13
0.96
0.84
0.71
Black Shade: 8 AM - 12 PM; White Shade: 12 PM - 5 PM; Grey Shade: 5 PM - 9 PM
% OF OCCUPANCY
m - w - F - SA
APRIL 1994
:.;:.:•p$A
;**:_. " • ...... •:•:•:•:.
•• •
. i •
..___.,... ,_._,_, _..,,_
•:-..::.::.. • •••••••••••••••• ..........
• '.'..........
______
• .:•:.:•ii.::•:..
...........
.
........
"""" ri.. ...............•
.... ...v. i ..................
1
LOT 1
0.90
0.76
•
0.75
2
LOT 2
0.84
0.82
0.73
.... 3 ...
LOT 3
0.63
0.60
0.52
... 4
LOT 4 (UP)
0.72
0.72
0.72
5
LOT 4 (LOW)
0.78
0.81
0.70
6
LOT 6
0.90
0.90
0.79
7
LOT 13
0.93
0.89
0.75
Black Shade: 8 AM - 12 PM; White Shade: 12 PM - 5 PM; Grey Shade: 5 PM - 9 PM
1.00 -
0.90
0.80 -
0.70 -
0.60
0.50 -
0.40 -
0.30 -
0.20
0.10 -
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
APPENDIX B
MEMORANDUM - PARKING ISSUES
OFFICE OF THE TOWN MANAGER
TO: PARKING COMMISSION
FROM: MARK LINDER, ASSISTANT TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: PARKING FINANCIAL INFORMATION
DATE: August 31, 1994
You requested the following:
1. PARKING TICKET REVENUE VS. EXPENSES
1993-94 Parking Ticket Revenue
1993-94 Parking Program Expense
= $147,867.63
= $155,821.25
2. SALES TAX REVENUE VS. COST OF PARKING SPACE CONSTRUCTION
A parking space costs between $10,000 to $30,000 per space depending on the cost of
land.
A parking space is worth approximately $12,000 per year in sales which translates to $120
in sales tax revenue.
3. HOW MUCH REVENUE WOULD BE RAISED IF BUSINESS LICENSE DOUBLED
FOR RETAIL?
$255,916.51 based on 1994 revenues.
4. WHAT IS DEBT SERVICE ON $3 MILLION?
Based on the current $2,960,000 COPS for Parking Lot #4, the total cost with interest over
the 20 year period is $4,937,050. This is based on a 5.9% interest rate with annual
payments of $253,960.
ML:pm
MGRO74 A:1MEM0S\PARKING
APPENDIX C
PARKING NEEDS
TOWN OF LOS GATOS • ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
a C7 8 Y
, 2 '.
TyU
N
a
=
Y
8I N
- G
3 P
ry 2
Y?
A rn
O
m v.
F.'O�
49
3
N
2 �^
wQ
o�
a a
,
x =
H 1
PROPOSED
ADDITIONAL
PUBUC
PARKING (4)
r
ITO BE COMPLETED11/1/921
G
CURRENT
PARKING
SHORTAGE
W
ry
M
N K
n
- n
t7 a
O-
N N
SY. rn
-- w
N
CURRENT
RECUIRED
PARKING
162 -_
78
452
328
265
214
E
TOTAL
CURRENT
AVAILABLE
PARKING
s
}
c`
m
n h^
N
137
74
p. N
2
N y
o
142
192
N^
3
a N
k a
0
PUBUC
PARKING
LOT
SPACES
U
0
N a
a2ie`y2,7,R2
:'-'SF.0.248ivnnt--::
2�
Ltg
wd
Om
88
47
Y
a 8O
-r..,.
mnma�:
--
--
- _magi
`�YQnn
O
♦
a
(NO.) INDICATES
NOTE NUMBER
BELOW
' y
F
O
n
0
9
88
64
ePax
BROADWAy
18
70
12
DO WNTO WN LOS GATOS
PARKING SHORT GES
z
0ACH.\
U
�i 56
38
L)
U
SQUIRED PARKING AND ON-S1TE
IRKING DATA OBTAINED FROM
13.71 PLANNING DEPT.
INDICATES A SURPLUS OF PARKING FOR THIS
.00K. SURPLUS CAN BE APPLIED TO ADJACENT
,OCKS.
RICH )T NUMBER 4 IS ASSUMED COMPLETED
'E ATTACHED SPREADSHEET FOR DEFINITIONS
'D MORE DETAILED DATA PER BLOCK.
TA ACCURATE AS OF 2/28/92
ORTAGES BASED ON TOTAL PRIVATE PLUS
BLIC PARKING FOR EACH BLOCK.
'2 FL. CADO_: PKCCOMMI
ROYCE
GRAYS
PACE 1 OF 3
Jv
LEGEND
��.BLOCK NUMBER
_"FUTURE PARICNC SHORTACE—COLUMN 'K'
AT MAX BUILDOUT. (60% BUILDING COVER)
��— CURRENT SHORTAGE OF PARKING FOR THE BLOCK
25
■
"B"
TOWN OF LOS GATOS - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DEFINITIONS
ON -SITE PARKING:
The number of parking spaces available on private property per block. From Planning
Department records.
"C" STREET PARKING:
The number of public curbside parking spaces per block.
"D" PUBLIC PARKING LOT SPACES:
The number of public parking lot spaces per block.
"E" TOTAL CURRENT AVAILABLE PARKING:
The sum of on -site parking, street parking, and public parking lot spaces per block.
"F„
"G"
"H"
"K"
"L"
C18\MISC\OEFINIT
CURRENT REQUIRED PARKING:
The sum per block of the parking required for each business based on the square footage
and usage of each business. From Planning Department records.
CURRENT PARKING SHORTAGE:
The difference of current required parking minus total current available parking. (Negative
number indicate a parking surplus).
FUTURE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PARKING:
Approximate additional public parking from future construction of parking garages on
existing public Tots.
FUTURE MAXIMUM REQUIRED PARKING:
The sum per block of the future parking required for each business based on the future
maximum square footage (60% buildout). From Planning Department records.
FUTURE PARKING SHORTAGE:
The difference of future maximum required parking and total current available parking.
(Negative numbers indicate a parking surplus.)
FUTURE PARKING SHORTAGE AFTER ADDED PUBLIC PARKING:
Column "K" (Future Maximum Require Parking) minus is the future parking shortage targeted
for elimination after deducting column "H", (proposed additional public parking).
APPENDIX D
AUTOMATED PARKING CONTROL
AMAN U
FULLY AUTOMATIC
PAY STATIONS FOR
COMPLETE PARKING
FACILITY AUTOMATION
AMANO'S INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS YOU TO
COMPLETELY AUTOMATE YOUR PARKING FACILITY.
We accomplish this easily and effectively through the installation of
either our mag stripe or punch -hole fully automatic pay station.
Amano's fully automatic pay stations operate completely unattended 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
They are able to compute parking fees, accept payment, issue change and provide receipts.
Amano offers two proven -reliable systems. Choose either our on-line mag-stripe ticket system (Model
TF-7500) or our stand-alone punch -hole ticket system (Model TF-7000 CPS) to meet your precise needs.
General "earhres Serve+ :s
• Fully automated operation 24 hours a day,
365 days a year ' Increases total revenue
• Fully automatic non -attendant system • Reduces labor & total operation cost
a Automatic fee calculation 7 Eliminates human errors; prevents theft
• Coin/bill acceptor & recycling of coins for
from cash handling
change • Easy payment procedures by customers
and less handling of cash
• Voice announcement kit for operation a Gives instructions on how to use pay
• Well secured construction with alarm
station
monitoring • Tamper -free operation
a Rugged, all weather construction ' Always maintains proper operation
• Can be installed anywhere
(inside/outside)
• Journal/ receipt printer • Records all transaction activities
• Issues receipts
• Management report generation:
a) Daily/Weekly/Monthly * Easy analysis of activities and revenues
• Two series available:
a) Central Pay System ' Eliminates congestion at exit
4 Expedites & simplifies exit payment
procedures
• Simple, convenient, immediate exit
after payment
b) Exit Pay System
MAG-STRIPE ON-LINE FULLY AUTOMATIC PAY STATION
Our model TF-7500 Fully Automatic Pay Station can be networked with the Amano Ticket Dispenser
(TF-2590), Lag Time Reader (TF-6500), and Card Reader (TF-3500P), through the use of a System
Controller (TF-8600). This enables us to offer you various types of systems and equipment controls
including:
• Parking ticket tracking to prevent illegal use
of backout or stolen tickets
• Ability to process a variety of transactions:
1) Transient paper ticket
2) Monthly plastic card
3) Special event/hotel guest paper tickets
4) PREPAID cards for frequent users
5) Service/discount tickets
6) Store validation cards
• ON-LINE communications for real-time
monitoring & control of the Pay Station:
1) In operation/out of service control
2) Monitoring:
a) Door open with buzzer alarm
b) No change
c) Coin or bill box full
d) Out of journal (receipt) tape
e) Malfunctions (error messages)
3) Downloading program data through
the system controller
4) Time synchronization
5) Remote management report generation
by the system controller (TF-8600)
A multitude of revenue reports generated
through the use of a host computer interface
Stand-alone system operation
• Large scale hospital/medical center
• Airport
i 24 hour operated parking lot/garage
• Downtown shopping mall with store
validations
• PREPAID cards for frequent parkers
Spec::: c
• Power: AC 120V 60Hz., 60W (Max. 1100W)
• Ambient temperature: 14°-104°F
-15°-104°F (with heater)
i Humidity: 10 % —90% (No water condensation)
• Clock: Quartz -oscillated
+/— 3 seconds per week at 68°F-86°F
(20°C — 30°C)
• Perpetual calendar for automatic daylight saving
time adjustment
Power Reserve: 72 hr. Ni-Cd rechargeable battery
backup for clock and program data
• Dimensions: 20.6" (530mm) (D) x 19.9" (510mm) (W
x 44.3" (1135mm) (H) without pedestal or
64.2" (1645mm) (H) with pedestal.
• Weight: 396 lbs (180 kg)
• Interface: RS-422
PUNCH -HOLE STAND-ALONE FULLY AUTOMATIC PAY STATION
The Model TF-7000 CPS is a market -proven reliable PUNCH -HOLE machine readable system offering:
Low-priced investment for equipment
-i Inexpensive paper tickets to keep running
costs low
• Upgradeable and works with our existing
punch -hole machine readable APS-107
system
• Output signals for alarms & monitoring:
a) Door opened
b) No change
c) Note reader jammed
d) Out of journal (receipt) tape
Small hospital/medical centers who need
parking lot control
Small airports who want tight revenue
control without a cashier
• 24 hour operated small parking lot/garage
Downtown customer service parking lot
• Power: AC 120V 60Hz., 150W (Max. 1000W)
• Ambient temperature: 14°-104°F
-15°-104°F (with heater)
i Humidity: 10% —90% (No water condensation)
▪ Clock: Quartz -oscillated
+/— 3 seconds per week at 68°-86°F
• Perpetual calendar for automatic daylight saving
time adjustment
• Power Reserve: 72 hours Ni-Cd rechargeable
battery backup for clock and program data
Dimensions: 30.0" (770mm) (D) x 31.2" (800mm) (W
x 53.2" (1365mm) (H) - Exit Pay or 75.5" (1937mm) (H
- Central Pay
• Weight: 726 lbs (330 kg)
CENTRAL PAY SYSTEM
MAG-STRIPE
TICKET DISPENSER
TF-2590
(OR PUNCH -HOLE
TICKET DISPENSER
TF 2130)
EXIT PAY SYSTEM
ENTRANCE
MAC -STRIPE
TICKET DISPENSER
Tf-2590
(OR PUNCH -HOLE
TICKET DISPENSER
TF-2130)
MAC -STRIPE
AUTOMATIC
PAY STATION
TF 7500
(OR PUNCH -HOLE
AUTOMATIC
PAY STATION
TF 7000 CPS)
MAG-STRIPE
LAG TIME READER
TF-6500
(OR PUNCH -HOLE
LAG TIME READER
TF-6600)
EXIT
MAC -STRIPE
AUTOMATIC
PAY STATION
TF-7500
(OR PUNCH -HOLE
PAY STATION
TF-7000 CPS)
NETWORKING (real-time monitoring/management reports)
HOST COMPUTER
SYSTEM
CONTROLLER
TF-8600
For more Information call:
1-800-84 AMANO
TF-2590
TF-7500
VIA RS 422
TF-6500
PASS CARD
READER TF-3500P
S 4f` `i_ -
In Canada, call: 1-800-387-3388
Manufactured by:
AMANO ELECTRONICS OF AMERICA, INC.
1485 N. Manassero St.. Anaheim, CA
Represented by:
DATA WRITER
AND READER
TF-3550
r
sr°srenes 7j/
AMANO Branch Offices
New York New Jersey
Washington. D.C.
Atlanta
Chicago Dallas Los Angeles Seattle Toronto
Printed in the U.S.A. 30M-1: 90.GR
U