HomeMy Public PortalAbout02) Downtown Parking Stategic Plan - 2012-08-09
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 - INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
2 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................... 1
Downtown Specific Plan ............................................................................................ 1
Bicycle Master Plan ................................................................................................... 2
Rosemead Boulevard Beautification Project .............................................................. 3
Recent Parking Studies ............................................................................................. 3
3 - EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS .......................................................................... 4
Downtown Land Use and Street Layout ..................................................................... 4
Parking Capacity ........................................................................................................ 7
Parking Utilization .................................................................................................... 10
Parking Occupancy .................................................................................................. 12
Pedestrian Infrastructure .......................................................................................... 13
Transit Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 13
Community Input & Public Workshop ....................................................................... 14
Observations ............................................................................................................ 18
4 – PARKING NEEDS & OPPORTUNITIES ................................................................. 19
Parking Needs ......................................................................................................... 19
Future Parking Demand ........................................................................................... 20
Parking Opportunities .............................................................................................. 22
5 – PARKING STRATEGIES ........................................................................................ 24
Parking Program Scenarios ..................................................................................... 24
Shared Parking Expanded ....................................................................................... 27
Transportation Demand Management ..................................................................... 28
Bicycle Parking ........................................................................................................ 29
Parking Pricing Benefits ........................................................................................... 31
Parking Pricing Phasing ........................................................................................... 32
Parking Pricing Technology ..................................................................................... 33
Las Tunas Drive as a Main Street ............................................................................ 34
6 – FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 38
Parking Pricing Financial Review ............................................................................. 38
Parking Structure Financial Review ......................................................................... 40
In-Lieu Parking Fee Review ..................................................................................... 42
7 – STRATEGIC PARKING RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................... 46
Parking Recommendations ...................................................................................... 46
8 – FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES .................................................................................. 48
Funding Opportunities & Mechanisms ..................................................................... 48
APPENDIX A BACKGROUND INFORMATION
APPENDIX B PARKING COUNTS
APPENDIX C PUBLIC WORKSHOP SUMMARY
APPENDIX D PARKING OCCUPANCY EXHIBITS
APPENDIX E FINANCIAL ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Parking Study Area Supply .......................................................................................... 7
Table 2 Off-Street Parking Supply Limitations .......................................................................... 8
Table 3 On-Street Parking Supply Limitations .......................................................................... 9
Table 4 Observed Tuesday Parking Utilization ....................................................................... 10
Table 5 Observed Saturday Parking Utilization ...................................................................... 11
Table 6 Parking Occupancy Ranges ...................................................................................... 12
Table 7 Parking Management Scenarios ................................................................................ 26
Table 8 Bicycle Parking Ratios at Public Parking Lots ........................................................... 30
Table 9 Downtown Roadways Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................................. 36
Table 10 Parking Gain from Angle Parking ............................................................................. 37
Table 11 Parking Pricing Financial Analysis ........................................................................... 40
Table 12 Parking Structure Yield Analysis .............................................................................. 41
Table 13 Parking Structure Cost Analysis .............................................................................. 42
Table 14 Cost Per Net New Parking Space ............................................................................ 42
Table 15 Example In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis .................................................................... 43
Table 16 In-Lieu Parking Fee Schedule .................................................................................. 44
Table 17 In-Lieu Parking Fee Calculation ............................................................................... 45
Table 18 Short-Term Strategic Parking Recommendations ................................................... 46
Table 19 Near-Term Strategic Parking Recommendations .................................................... 47
Table 20 Long-Term Strategic Parking Recommendations .................................................... 48
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Regional Project Location
Exhibit 2 Downtown Study Area
Exhibit 3 Downtown Study Area Parking Capacity
Exhibit 4 Downtown Study Area Parking Restrictions
Exhibit 5 Downtown Study Area – Tuesday Parking Utilization by Hour
Exhibit 6 Downtown Study Area – Saturday Parking Utilization by Hour
Exhibit 7 Downtown Study Area – Tuesday & Saturday Parking Utilization by Hour
Exhibit 8 Area 1/2 Tuesday 2:00 PM Public Parking Occupancy
Exhibit 9 Area 2/2 Tuesday 2:00 PM Public Parking Occupancy
Exhibit 10 Area 1/2 Saturday 1:00 PM Public Parking Occupancy
Exhibit 11 Area 2/2 Saturday 1:00 PM Public Parking Occupancy
Exhibit 12 Downtown Study Area Pedestrian Circulation
Exhibit 13 Las Tunas Angled Parking Study - Cross Sections
Exhibit 14 Las Tunas Angled Parking Study
Exhibit 15 Downtown Study Area – Draft Parking Pricing Zone
1
1 - INTRODUCTION
In response to business, resident, and visitor concerns regarding public parking downtown, the
City of Temple City has initiated a study and strategic plan to evaluate parking conditions within
the Downtown. This report focuses on existing conditions, and summarizes the current parking
supply, utilization, and occupancy within the study area. Current observations and comments
provided by the public during a November 2011 workshop are included. This existing conditions
analysis will later be incorporated into a master plan that accounts for future growth and
summarizes recommendations for accommodating needs for current and future demands within
the Downtown.
Exhibit 1 shows the regional location of Downtown
Temple City. The exhibits have been compiled and
provided at the end of the report for ease in reading the
document.
2 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Parallel studies and planning efforts are either underway or have recently been completed that
are relevant to the Downtown parking operations. Studies includes the Temple City Downtown
Specific Plan (2002), the City of Temple City Bicycle Master Plan (ALTA Planning + Design,
March 2011), the Rosemead Boulevard Beautification Project, and recent parking studies
focused on intensification of Downtown businesses. The following includes brief discussion of
each planning or design effort and the relevance to the Downtown parking operations.
Downtown Specific Plan
The Temple City Downtown Specific Plan
(2002) is a policy and regulatory document that
guides community development within the
Downtown. The Downtown Specific Plan (DSP)
creates detailed action programs and
implementation strategies for land use, building
form, site design, streetscape, and economic
development. The comprehensive planning
process used to create the DSP provided
customized techniques to integrate community
goals and policies for useful and effective revitalization of the Downtown. The DSP established
six distinct districts within the Downtown, and provided development regulations customized for
each district. From a parking regulation perspective, this differentiation allows parking
requirements to be matched to district conditions, although it may be appropriate to group
districts for parking requirements to avoid complexity. See Appendix A for the DSP Districts.
2
Parking is affected by the following components of the DSP:
• Established an In-Lieu Parking Fee where businesses that require a zone
variance for parking and require additional parking to satisfy Section 9291 of
the City Municipal Code requirements may contribute financially into a City-
managed program for development and maintenance of public parking. The
in-lieu parking fee was established at $750 per deficient parking space
annually due at the time of business license renewal. However, the City
Attorney has recently determined the In-Lieu Parking Fee is inadequate to
fully account for the development and maintenance of public parking and has
suspended use of the In-Lieu Parking Fee program for businesses.
• Businesses within the City Center District are not required to provide parking
for additional ground floor square footage or intensification of first floor uses,
or for subdivision of ground floor or upper floor of an existing building. This is
intended as incentive for economic development, assuming that additional
parking activity associated with these changes can be accommodated in the
pool of Downtown supply.
• All or some parking is eliminated for the following use or design element
incentives:
Sidewalk Cafés;
Designs that include pedestrian oriented spaces;
Designs that include pedestrian passageways at mid-block locations
along Las Tunas Drive;
Designs that consolidate lots;
Quality restaurants with banquet facilities; and
Designs that share parking between adjacent developments.
Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Temple City Bicycle Master Plan (ALTA Planning + Design,
March 2011) provides a broad vision, strategies and actions to improve
conditions for bicycling in Temple City. The Plan recommends
improvements and policies to increase the number of cyclists,
frequency and distance of bicycle trips, as well as improving safety and
public awareness. The Bicycle Master Plan was prepared for the entire
City and includes recommendations for bicycle routes on the following
streets that overlap with the Downtown Parking study area:
• Las Tunas Drive: Class II – On-Street Bike Lane;
• Temple City Boulevard: Class II – On-Street Bike Lane;
• Encinita Avenue: Class III – On-Street Bike Route; and
• Golden West Avenue: Class III – On-Street Bike Route.
3
The recommendation for an on-street bike lane on Las Tunas Drive identified in the Bicycle
Master Plan maintains on-street parallel parking and accommodates a bike lane through
narrowing of motorist travel lanes. Implementation of bike facilities on Downtown roadways is
subject to further engineering study by the City for feasibility and constructability.
Additionally, the Bicycle Master Plan recommends provision of bike racks and bike lockers at
multiple locations within the Downtown at City Hall and along Las Tunas Drive. Specific
locations are not identified, and are subject to further review with City staff and property owners.
See Appendix A for the bicycle routes and bicycle parking recommendations included in the
Bicycle Master Plan.
Rosemead Boulevard Beautification Project
The City of Temple City is underway with preparation of engineering plans to beautify
Rosemead Boulevard using regional and state funds. The improvement of Rosemead
Boulevard will update the street design to provide a pedestrian friendly corridor with
landscaping, sidewalks, protected bike lanes (on-street Class II designation), and public art.
On-street parking may be modified or eliminated through implementation of the Rosemead
Boulevard Beautification project, however, the parking modifications are not expected to affect
Downtown parking conditions due to the distance to the Downtown core area.
Recent Parking Studies
Starting in 2007, five commercial properties intensified from retail uses to restaurant uses, and
during the process of City approvals, parking studies were prepared to consider the adequacy of
parking within vicinity of the properties. Specialized parking studies were prepared for the
following businesses, which have since been approved and opened for use:
• Green Island (9556 Las Tunas Drive);
• Tea Station (9578 Las Tunas Drive);
• A Golden House (9608-9610 ½ Las Tunas Drive);
• Kang Kang Food Court (9616-9618 Las Tunas Drive); and
• Golden Deli Express (9664 Las Tunas Drive).
The parking studies conducted for each of the properties identified above considered parking
utilization and supply in the vicinity of the proposed business, but did not evaluate long-term
parking strategies, and did not consider the entire Downtown.
The Gateway Project was recently evaluated for environmental impacts and was approved by
the City Council. The development project is located at the northeast corner of the Rosemead
Boulevard/Las Tunas Drive intersection, and is not yet constructed. When built the project may
have up to 75,000 square feet of retail uses with on-site parking provided. Therefore, the
Gateway Project is expected to be self-sufficient in regards to parking supply and will not
notably increase parking burdens on Downtown streets.
4
3 - EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS
Downtown Land Use and Street Layout
The pre-World War II layout of the streets and blocks within the Downtown study area follow a
grid pattern with Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard serving as the major cross streets.
Blocks within the Downtown measure 400-feet facing Las Tunas Boulevard, and 600-feet facing
Temple City Boulevard. Woodruff Avenue and Workman Avenue parallel Las Tunas Drive. The
grid pattern aligns in a true north-south direction west of Encinita Avenue.
Properties facing Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard are generally commercial in
nature, with some second-story and “back-unit” residential properties. The Downtown
commercial uses generally include office, retail, service-oriented uses, as well as sit-down and
high-turnover restaurants. Commercial properties facing Las Tunas Drive are oriented towards
the roadway with storefronts at the back of sidewalk for most properties between Cloverly
Avenue and Kauffman Avenue. Behind the Las Tunas Drive commercial properties are
generally parking lots or residential properties. The residential parcels on streets intersecting
Las Tunas Drive are oriented east-west. Residential properties within the study area include a
mix of single-family residences and multi-family courtyard or 2-story properties.
Some institutional uses exist in the Downtown with a mix of religious properties generally
clustered near the Civic Center which almost encompasses an entire block north of Las Tunas
Drive between Kauffman Avenue and Golden West Avenue. The Civic Center block is the
original site of a park laid out by Walter Temple, and was the site of a Pacific Electric Railway
Company (PE) depot.
Image 1: Downtown Temple City roadway grid (Source: Eagle Aerial 2011)
5
Historic photographs provided on the City website show the PE railway and a bustling
Downtown circa the 1940’s. Parking shown in the historical photographs reflect a busy
downtown where on-street angle parking is allowed since the vehicular traffic requires only two
travel lanes.
Image 2: PE Red Car Station at northeast corner of Kauffman Avenue/Las Tunas Drive
(Source: City of Temple City)
Image 3: Temple City Street Scene (Source: City of Temple City)
6
Parking Study Area
The Downtown Parking Study area is consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan (2002) which
is generally defined as the first block north and south of Las Tunas Drive from Sultana Avenue
to Baldwin Avenue. The study area is bound by the following streets:
• Sultana Avenue on the west;
• Hermosa Drive and Woodruff Avenue on the north;
• Baldwin Avenue on the east; and
• Workman Avenue and Bidwell Street on the South.
Exhibit 2 shows the project study area. The study area is roughly a 0.25-mile wide and 1.25-
miles long along Las Tunas Drive. There is currently no revenue generation from Downtown
parking supply provided for and maintained by the City of Temple City.
Image 4: Downtown Parking Study Area (Source: RBF Consulting)
Parking supply within the Downtown is provided by both the City (Municipal lots and on-street
parking areas) and by private property owners such as Century Square and Grand Plaza. The
parking study area primarily focused on public (City-managed) parking areas and some private
off-street parking areas that are generally available to the public. Therefore, not every parking
space within the Downtown was evaluated, as some private off-street parking lots are outside of
the authority of the City to manage.
In order to establish a baseline of current parking activity, the study area was evaluated hourly
for two separate days during daytime/evening conditions:
• Weekday (Tuesday, October 25, 2011) from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and
• Weekend (Saturday, October 29, 2011) from 12:00 p.m. (noon) to 7:00 p.m.
7
Parking counts were collected prior to the beginning of the recent Residential Permit Program
on Primrose Avenue south of Las Tunas Drive. The parking counts did not record the duration
that each vehicle was parked within the Downtown.
Parking Capacity
Parking supply or capacity is the term used to describe actual parking stalls within the
downtown. Parking capacity within the study area is determined through visual observations
and counts. Field observations to count the parking study area capacity occurred in October
2011. Exhibit 3 shows the study area parking capacity for on-street and off-street areas
evaluated within this report.
The parking study area generally consists of publicly-owned parking areas, such as on-street
parking and City-owned off-street parking lots. Table 1 summarizes the parking spaces
provided for two categories; off-street parking and on-street parking.
Table 1
Parking Study Area Supply
Parking Area Type Spaces Provided
Off-Street Parking Areas 704
On-Street Parking Areas 1,670
Total Study Area 2,374
As shown in Table 1, the total capacity for the Downtown study area is 2,374 parking spaces. It
is worth noting the parking study area includes Woodruff Avenue and Workman Avenue, which
provide approximately 520 parking spaces over 600-feet from the commercial core lining Las
Tunas Drive.
Roadways such as Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard include striping to identify each
parking stall. Where roadways do not have striping on the ground to identify each stall, the on-
street parking capacity was estimated based on available space along the block, accounting for
driveways and assuming a typical parking stall length of twenty-five feet. Off-street parking lots
have adequate pavement striping to record the number of parking spaces provided. It is worth
noting, no obstructions were noted that limited parking supply, such as semi-permanent parking
of equipments, boats, storage units, etc.
The parking study area includes some off-street parking areas which are restricted to certain
uses, such as the Civic Center, some businesses, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Temple
City Unified School District (TCUSD). These civic or private parking areas were included in the
study area since they accommodate public use, and their restricted use may not be clear to all
Downtown visitors, employees, and residents. Therefore, the effective parking capacity for retail
patrons is less than the total supply as identified above.
Table 2 summarizes the off-street parking capacity and associated use restrictions.
8
Table 2
Off-Street Parking Supply Limitations
Parking Area & Restriction Type General Use
Spaces
Accessible
Spaces
Total
Spaces
City-Owned Parking Lots:
Unlimited (All Day Allowed) Parking
2-hour Limited Parking
Chamber of Commerce Parking Lot
162
225
41
0
19
2
162
244
43
City-Owned Parking Lots Subtotal 428 21 449
Civic Center Parking Lots:
West of Kauffman – Monday-Friday Limited to Staff
Adjacent Council Chambers – Limited to Staff (24/7)
Adjacent Library – Unlimited (All Day Allowed) Parking
16
27
27
1
2
3
17
29
30
Civic Center Parking Lots Subtotal 70 6 76
Bank of America Parking Area 22 0 22
Wells Fargo Parking Area 12 2 14
Chase Bank Parking Area 19 0 19
Temple City Unified School District (TCUSD) Parking Area 119 5 124
Total Off-Street Parking Areas 670 34 704
Note: Accessible spaces are recorded separately for potential evaluation of Americans with Disability
Act regulations.
As shown in Table 2, of the 704 off-street parking spaces evaluated, a total of 449 (64%)
spaces are provided in City-Owned Parking Lots that are dedicated to serving the Downtown.
The City-Owned parking supply slightly increases on evenings and weekends when 17 stalls
restricted to City staff become available for Downtown visitors.
Graphic 1: Study Area Off-Street Parking Supply Limitations by Restriction Type.
9
Table 3 summarizes the on-street parking and associated limitations in use.
Table 3
On-Street Parking Supply Limitations
Restriction Type General Use
Spaces
Accessible
Spaces Total Spaces
Unlimited (All Day Allowed) 1,402 0 1,402
2-Hour Limited 208 0 208
1-Hour Limit 7 0 7
Green Curb Zone 10 0 10
White Curb Zone 10 0 10
Yellow Curb Zone 1 0 1
Primrose Ave Residential Parking Permit Program 32 0 32
Total On-Street Parking Areas 1,670 0 1,670
Note: Accessible spaces are recorded separately for potential evaluation of Americans with Disability
Act regulations.
As shown in Table 3, of the 1,670 on-street parking spaces surveyed, a total of 1,402 (84%)
spaces have no restrictions during the day. The remaining 268 on-street parking spaces
surveyed within the Downtown are restricted in use through time limits, loading limits, and
permit limits. It should be noted, on-street overnight parking is not allowed in Temple City
without the issuance of an overnight parking permit.
Graphic 2: Study Area On-Street Parking Supply by Limitation.
Exhibit 4 shows the Downtown study area by parking restrictions.
10
Parking Utilization
Parking utilization is the term used to describe observed vehicles parked within the downtown.
As noted, the study area was evaluated hourly for two separate days during daytime/evening
conditions to capture peak activity levels:
• Weekday (Tuesday, October 25, 2011) from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and
• Weekend (Saturday, October 28, 2011) from noon to 7:00 p.m.
The last hour of data collection occurred from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on the Tuesday counts,
and from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on the Saturday counts. The parking utilization counts reflect
two key aspects: 1) the number of visitors coming to downtown Temple City and parking, and 2)
the duration of their parking. While some spaces may serve 5-10 parkers per day, if they are
near high turnover uses, while others may serve one parker per day, if they are used for
employee parking.
Table 4 summarizes existing parking utilization for the Downtown study area; detailed parking
count data is contained in Appendix B.
Table 4
Observed Tuesday Parking Utilization
Parking Type 10-11
a.m.
11-12
p.m.
12-1
p.m.
1-2
p.m.
2-3
p.m.
3-4
p.m.
4-5
p.m.
5-6
p.m.
Off-Street Total Utilization 333 363 368 355 429 346 334 305
On-Street Total Utilization 402 463 501 515 498 478 491 429
Total Tuesday Utilization 735 826 869 870 927 824 825 734
Percent of Supply 31% 35% 37% 37% 39% 35% 35% 31%
As shown in Table 4, the Tuesday peak hour of parking utilization occurs between 2:00 p.m.
and 3:00 p.m. with a peak utilization of 927 vehicles parked within the Downtown study area.
The observed Tuesday utilization varies by 20-percent from the peak during the eight (8) hours
of data collected.
Exhibit 5 provides a summary of the Tuesday parking utilization by hour for the on-street and
off-street parking areas.
Table 5 summarizes existing parking utilization for the Downtown study area; detailed parking
count data is contained in Appendix B.
11
Table 5
Observed Saturday Parking Utilization
Parking Type 12-1
p.m.
1-2
p.m.
2-3
p.m.
3-4
p.m.
4-5
p.m.
5-6
p.m.
6-7
p.m.
7-8
p.m.
Off-Street Total Utilization 487 490 427 364 354 295 290 288
On-Street Total Utilization 750 751 648 576 550 512 528 520
Total Tuesday Utilization 1,237 1,241 1,075 940 904 807 818 808
Percent of Supply 52% 52% 45% 40% 38% 34% 34% 34%
As shown in Table 5, the Saturday peak hour of parking utilization occurs between 1:00 p.m.
and 2:00 p.m. with a peak utilization of 1,241 vehicles parked within the Downtown study area.
The observed Saturday utilization varies by 35-percent from the peak during the eight (8) hours
of data collected.
Image 5: Downtown Municipal Parking Lots Signage (Source: RBF Consulting)
Exhibit 6 provides a summary of the Saturday parking utilization by hour for the on-street and
off-street parking areas.
Exhibit 7 shows the Tuesday and Saturday total parking utilization for comparison between
days. As shown in Exhibit 7, the Saturday peak parking utilization (1,241) exceeds the Tuesday
peak parking utilization (927).
12
Parking Occupancy
Parking occupancy is the term used to describe the percentage of total supply occupied by a car
during the study period. Parking occupancy is determined on an hourly basis by dividing the
number of parked vehicles (utilization) by the available number of parking spaces (capacity).
Reviewing parking occupancy can help identify areas of “congestion” where 85-percent of
parking supply is in use. The upper limit of 85-percent is typical within the industry to determine
where parking availability is limited to only a few parking spaces, often requiring motorists to
“cruise” or circle an area to find convenient parking. The 85-percent limit is reflective of a block
face with only 1 or 2 available parking spaces, or a 40-space parking lot with 6 or less empty
parking spaces. Parking occupancy is determined including all parking spaces such as time
restricted spaces, accessible spaces, and loading restricted areas. In recent years, the use of
parking availability guidance systems and pricing schemes allows for higher utilization rates to
be achieved, but without them 85-percent is a good rule of thumb for a retail area.
For ease in viewing the parking study area, occupancy exhibits have been prepared for each
hour to illustrate using color-coding where heavy and light parking activity occurs. Table 6
summarizes ratios used for the parking occupancy exhibits.
Table 6
Parking Occupancy Ranges
Occupancy Range Color
0% – 55% of Parking Spaces Occupied Green
56% – 70% of Parking Spaces Occupied Yellow
71% – 85% of Parking Spaces Occupied Orange
86% – 100% of Parking Spaces Occupied Red
As shown in Table 6, the least occupied (utilized) parking areas are shown in green, and the
most occupied (utilized) parking areas are shown in red.
Since parking counts occurred for eight (8) hours on both the Tuesday and Saturday conditions,
parking occupancy data is available for a total of sixteen (16) hours. For ease in presentation,
the peak hour of parking activity is shown within the body of the report, and all sixteen (16)
hours of data is provided within the appendix. Detailed parking occupancy exhibits are provided
in Appendix D.
Land uses within the Downtown study area include a mix of sit-down and hight-turnover
restaurants, specialty retail, banks, office uses, service-oriented uses such as salons, and
wedding-oriented businesses such as dress shops and photography services.
Exhibits 8 and 9 show the Tuesday peak hour (2:00 p.m.) of parking occupancy for the
Downtown study area. As shown in Exhibits 8 and 9, typical weekday parking supply is most
utilized in the following localized areas:
• On-street parking at 9151 Las Tunas Drive blockface and on Loma Avenue;
• Off-street parking at 9500 Las Tunas Drive municipal lots; and
13
• Off-street parking clustered at 3 blocks at 9601, 9650, and 9651 Las Tunas
Drive municipal lots.
Exhibits 10 and 11 show the Saturday peak hour (1:00 p.m.) of parking occupancy for the
Downtown study area. As shown in Exhibits 10 and 11, typical Saturday parking supply is most
utilized in the following localized areas:
• On-street parking at 9151 Las Tunas Drive blockface, Hart Avenue, Hermosa
Drive, and Loma Avenue;
• On-street parking at 9400 Las Tunas Drive blockface; and
• Generally, all on-Street and off-street parking provided in a cluster of 4 blocks
on either side of Las Tunas Drive from Cloverly Avenue to Kauffman Avenue.
Pedestrian Infrastructure
Pedestrian infrastructure is a critical part of a district parking approach because it influences
customers’ willingness to walk from a parking space to their destination. Issues such as poor
lighting, fear of crime, poor sidewalk conditions, blank walls facing the street, or lack of street
trees can lead certain parking areas to be underutilized.
Pedestrian connectivity between parking lots and business storefronts is achieved using
sidewalks on Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard. Additionally, some parking lots
include sidewalks at the rear of the storefronts that allow customers to directly access a
business using a back entrance. No passageways are provided for patrons or visitors to travel
mid-block between buildings and access Las Tunas Drive. Mid-block passageways are
incentivized in the Downtown Specific Plan (2002) to provide convenient through access to Las
Tunas Drive.
Sidewalks are generally provided on the streets intersecting Las
Tunas Drive, however, some gaps in sidewalks exist within the
Downtown study area.
Exhibit 12 shows the pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks) within
the Downtown study area. As shown in Exhibit 8, not all
municipal parking lots have dedicated walkways at the back of
commercial storefronts, and some gaps exist on streets
intersecting both Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard.
Transit Infrastructure
Transit services in the City of Temple City are facilitated by the
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(Metro). Metro provides local and express bus service in the
area using Rosemead Boulevard, Temple City Boulevard,
Baldwin Avenue, and Las Tunas Drive. The Metro buses serving the City include local lines 78,
266, 267, 268, 378, and express line 489.
Bus stops within the Downtown typically include a bench, shelter, and trash receptacle, with
stops located on both Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard within the Downtown study
area.
14
Community Input & Public Workshop
Concerted effort has been made to involve the community in understanding the existing parking
conditions, issues and opportunities in the Downtown. A project website has been developed for
the Parking Strategic Plan project that provides an opportunity for public comment and serves
as a source for background documents, draft concepts and promotion for public workshops and
activities. Face-to-face opportunities for input were provided during a meeting with the Chamber
of Commerce and an interactive public workshop.
During the Chamber of Commerce meeting on October 26, 2011, business owners and staff
provided input on Downtown parking. An estimated ten to fifteen representatives from the area
attended the meeting and provided input on the topics described below.
Issues associated with time restrictions were a common concern expressed by participants.
Issues included:
• Employees parking all day in spaces limit use by patrons
• Towing cars of business patrons who exceeded time limits
• Two-hour parking limiting the ability to visit multiple stores
• Sentiment that code enforcement occurs after a business makes a request
for parking changes
Participants also identified concerns specific to dedicated parking areas, shared parking, and
parking lots in the downtown, including the following:
• Dedicated City Council parking spaces are infrequently used and reduce
additional patron parking opportunities
• Resident parking in municipal lots limit the potential use by business patrons
• Lack of clarity between private and public parking lots,
• Sense of remoteness of Primrose parking lot (north of Las Tunas Boulevard)
• Businesses with dedicated parking are directing their staff to park in City-
managed parking areas
• Reluctance due to liability concerns to share parking availability with other
businesses
• Preference to park at TCUSD
parking lot
• Lack of parking for tour buses
15
Participants spent a considerable amount of time discussing issues in the Downtown that relate
both to parking and overall economic development and vitality. Specific items included:
• Increased restaurants aggravating parking demand and causing closure of
other businesses Downtown businesses offer daytime focus with no activity
during the evening
• Patrons prefer to park in close proximity to their destination since few visit
multiple stores/businesses
• A need for the City to assist in developing and implementing a vision for
Downtown
• Downtown provides few youth-oriented stores
• Desire for a more walkable Downtown
• Anticipation of future growth should be reflected in any parking strategie
• Current business-owners focus to survive and prosper in this difficult
economic climate
• Cautious interest in a Business Association or Business Improvement District
• Involvement of businesses in recommended strategies to ensure success
• Special event parking is difficult (e.g. Concert in the Park)
More widespread community input was solicited during a focused Downtown parking workshop
held on Thursday, November 17, 2011 from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Historical Society Hall in
Temple City. An estimated fifty to sixty community members attended the public workshop
representing business owners, employees, residents, and shoppers. Additionally, City staff,
members of the City Council (Mayor Tom Chavez, and Mayor Pro Tem Vince Yu, Carl Blum,
and Cynthia Sternquist), and members of the Public Safety Commission were in attendance.
The workshop began with a background and informational presentation focused on the basis for
the study and the scope and schedule of the overall project. A group exercise followed that
invited participants to identify three to four key challenges and three to four ideas related to
parking in downtown. Each individual challenge and issue was written on a Post-it Note, placed
on the wall, and then grouped into common themes for discussion.
The initial group exercise yielded the following categories of parking challenges:
• Inadequate business parking – comments noting existing parking not
sufficient to meet needs of patron, park, parking infringing in neighborhoods,
parking limits ability to attract new business, and new restaurants are
consuming available spaces
• Time restrictions limit business – comments focused on issue that two hour
timeframe is too short
• Employee parking – comments noting that employees take away patron
parking and are also parking on residential streets (restaurant and post office
employees in particular) and that not enough employee parking is provided
16
• Safety – comments included speeding issues, personal safety, and running of
stop signs
• Enforcement – lack of enforcement cited
• Location of parking lots – comments included difficulty getting from rear
parking spaces to front of stores, people not knowing where lots are located,
and distribution of lots not matching business needs
• Innovation – comments noting that “old school thinking” is an issue and
innovative parking is needed, bike parking is missing from downtown
• Downtown stores – comments suggesting parking is not the issue, but that
improved shopping options are needed
The categories that were developed during the identification of ideas included:
• Parking structure – comments suggesting a multi-story parking structure,
particularly on the “ABC” lot
• New parking lots – suggestions focused on developing new lots on vacant
lots or purchasing property to develop new lots.
• Shared parking – comments suggesting that existing private/church parking
lots should be available for public use when appropriate
• Time restrictions – suggestions included changing two hour spaces to three
or four hour, adding more green curb spaces, and adding time limits to lots
• Enforcement – comment to increase enforcement
• Diagonal parking – comments focused on exploring more opportunities for
diagonal parking, particularly on Las Tunas
• Employee parking – suggestions to create dedicated employee lots, make
lots safer, institute permits, increase employer responsibility, and limit
employee parking in residential areas
• City Council spaces – suggestions to change use of Council parking spaces
to general use
• Signage and Striping – comments to improve parking directional signage and
on-street striping of spaces to enhance driver recognition
• Mobility – suggestions to improve walking, biking and transit options
• Paid/permit parking – comments included adding metered parking, business
permits parking, and resident permits (paid and no charge options)
After the initial group exercise, parking data
collected to-date and preliminary observations
were shared with the group, as well as potential
parking management strategies for consideration
within the strategic plan. Participants were then
asked to join a “breakout” group to discuss and
explore ideas for addressing a specific theme
identified in the Post-it Note exercise. The four
17
group breakout themes and related comments included:
New Parking Opportunities
• Church lot should be shared with public on weekdays. Use for City employee
parking; City could rent or lease the lot from church
• Vacant lot on Temple City Boulevard between Woodruff and Las Tunas
should be used for parking lot (buy or lease)
• More signage needed for shared parking at school district during Farmer’s
Market because people don’t know it is available
Employee Parking
• Use funeral home on Temple City Boulevard for staff parking
• Evaluate the number of employees, type of business, and hours of operation
• Paid or permit parking for employees
• Safety for employees (improve safety in lots and paths to lots)
• Dedicated stalls in all lots for employees
Timing of Parking Space Restrictions
• Ticket forgiveness for employers
• Institute a drop off spot in front of Women’s Club on Woodruff
• 1:00 p.m. time is busiest timeframe downtown
• Look at one-hour time limits on Las Tunas
• Allow three hour parking in lots – maybe longer on weekends
• Share spaces with businesses
• Provide 20 to 30 minute spaces
at the supermarket
• Provide green curb parking for
some businesses (e.g.Posta)
• More 2-hour parking needed
behind Golden House since all
day parking is allowed
• Use of all-day parking areas by
JAD staff is issue
• Improve lighting and security for remote all-day lots
• Provide business parking and twenty minute parking/loading
• Eliminate staff moving cars every two hours
• Dedicate some parking to businesses or parking permits for the owner
18
General Comments & Ideas on Parking
• Eliminate 5 council spaces
• No more restaurants without in-lieu parking charges
• Metered parking (as needed use)
• Encourage use of bikes – add bike racks
• Public education (alternatives)
• Three story parking structure: two for customers, one for employees
• Parking vouchers
• Shuttle
• Consider parking requirements for new businesses (ex. Pet store)
• 2 hour limit restriction not needed all day (only 11:30 to 2:00 and 5:00 to 8:00
p.m.)
• Parallel parking – some users can’t park within the lines!
• Inadequate lighting in some public lots
• Inadequate bike parking = less bicyclists
• Business owners need to enforce employee parking
• Emergency parking needed
• Add 20 to 30 minute parking
• Parking for business owners
should be unlimited (time)
The public input received during the Chamber of
Commerce meeting and the community parking
workshop highlighted important concerns and
ideas from the community. The public outreach
process will directly complement technical
analysis and ensure the recommendations in the
forthcoming Strategic Plan are rooted in
community knowledge and input.
Observations
Based on the parking inventory, data review, field observations, research, and public input the
following observations for existing parking conditions are noted:
• The overall study area parking supply exceeds the peak parking demand,
indicating adequate supply is provided to serve the Downtown. However, the
high occupancy (percent of parking stalls occupied by cars) at some parking
areas indicates clustering of parking activity and parking spaces may not be
the preferred location to serve the needs of the public.
19
• Public input received during the existing conditions inventory and public
workshop consistently matches a perception that there isn’t enough parking
and parkers are not satisfied with the status quo.
• Certain uses within the downtown have notable periods of intense parking
activity, but then are quiet at other times. The concentration of activity occurs
with office uses during the day, restaurants during lunch and dinner, and
daytime only retail/service businesses.
• Saturday parking utilization is higher than weekday conditions.
• Peak parking utilization occurs around 1:00 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. for both
Saturday and weekday conditions. Evening parking utilization on weekdays
is roughly 20-percent less than the mid-day peak parking utilization. Evening
parking utilization on Saturdays is roughly 35-percent less than the mid-day
peak parking utilization. The peak activity occurring during the day indicates
there is capacity for growth in the evenings.
• Overflow parking on residential streets occur when off-street parking lots are
full. Notable parking activity overflows onto Cloverly Avenue, Primrose
Avenue, Camelia Avenue, and Kauffman Avenue; the roadways within the
Commercial Core.
• The full inventory of parking spaces within the Downtown is not available for
public use since some off-street parking areas are private controlled. This
situation presents opportunities for shared parking if these spaces can be
made available.
• The current time limits and regulations need to be reviewed, so that
businesses are not unnecessarily impacted by time limits.
• The current free parking policy does not provide any revenue for community
improvements such as sidewalk cleaning, landscaping, parking lighting
improvements, etc.
4 – PARKING NEEDS & OPPORTUNITIES
Since the Downtown is a civic and commercial district with neighboring residential uses, the
customers and shoppers are the highest priority users to consider. However, the needs of civic,
cultural, employment and residential uses are also important to success in finding harmonious
solutions within Downtown Temple City.
A review of parking needs and opportunities is provided to establish the baseline of key issues
within Downtown Temple City. With the context provided by needs and opportunities, potential
parking strategies can be evaluated.
Parking Needs
Based on the community input and analytical observations, the following needs related to
Downtown parking have been identified:
1. At the peak parking demand period, more customer parking availability is
required within the City Center Commercial District (Cloverly Avenue to
Kauffman Avenue). Occupancy levels are high (parking areas at or near 85-
20
percent use); even with current market conditions and approximately 24,000-
35,000 square feet of vacant commercial properties. This need primarily
affects customers.
2. Business owners have stated a need for additional all-day parking areas for
employees. This need primarily affects business owners and Downtown
workers.
3. Business owners and Downtown visitors have noted concerns about safety of
“remote” parking areas. This need primarily affects customers.
4. Based on direct feedback at the public workshop and stakeholder interviews,
business owners desire additional parking spaces with time restrictions
between 2-hour and all-day parking (such as 3-hour or 4-hour parking). This
need primarily affects customers.
5. Drop-off and short-term parking is lacking for concentrated parking activity
such as childrens martial arts, tutoring, pick-up/drop-off at bridal shops, etc.
Management of parking spaces to accommodate varying needs of time
restrictions is needed. This need primarily affects customers.
6. Operations and management associated with the current public parking
supply within Downtown is a burden placed upon the City with no revenue
generation to off-set the costs. Costs include infrastructure upkeep,
landscaping, signage, and parking enforcement staff. (Bryan – can you
provide some accounting of City costs to maintain parking within downtown –
aggregated or per parking space?) This need primarily affects the City of
Temple City.
7. During peak demand, more parking availability is required in the West
Gateway area (west of Alessandro), where public off-street parking is limited
to the Chamber of Commerce lot. This need primarily affects customers.
8. Between 2007 and 2009, five commercial properties converted to restaurant
uses, but no additional changes to restaurant uses have occurred since then.
Mechanisms are needed to help property owners with vacant or underutilized
properties to intensify or change use while still complying with parking
requirements. Additional mechanisms are especially needed outside the City
Center (core area) where conventional parking codes apply. This need
primarily affects business owners.
The needs identified through community input and analysis of existing data reflect both technical
and policy issues. The desire for additional parking during peak periods is reflected in the high
levels of occupancy within the City Center area, while concerns about parking remotely at the
north lot on Primrose Avenue indicate a need to improve the pedestrian environment and sense
of safety.
Future Parking Demand
Advance identification of concentrations of activity can help avoid surprises between the
availability of parking and increasing demand. In October 2011, City staff provided a list of
vacant properties within the Downtown where re-initiation of a commercial business might
increase parking demand. The vacant commercial properties list provided by City staff was
narrowed to approximately 25,000 square feet that when occupied would contribute to parking
21
needs on the City streets and parking lots. Other vacant properties were noted to have some
on-site parking available, and were not expected to increase public parking demands.
When assuming a generalized parking rate of 1 space per 250 square feet, the 25,000 square
feet of commercial properties within the Downtown would increase parking demand by 100
parked vehicles if all the new businesses activity levels peak within the same hour. It should be
noted that the potential demand of 100 vehicles would be spread throughout the downtown.
Sites where parcel dimensions could accommodate surface parking or a multi-story parking
structure are limited within the Downtown. The following list identifies potential vacant
businesses where additional public parking supply could be
achieved through purchase of private real estate:
• The vacant mortuary business at 5800
Temple City Boulevard; and
• The former Alpha Beta parcel (now
demolished and vacant) north of 5919-5925
Temple City Boulevard.
The two parcels identified above satisfy the criteria of large
parcel dimensions and a vacant business. However,
construction of additional public parking supply at the two locations listed above would provide
limited parking supply for Downtown patrons visiting on the western or eastern edges of
Downtown. Consideration of purchase of private property for additional public parking supply
should include the following considerations:
• The need for additional parking supply within a 2-block radius;
• The walking distance to key destinations in distance and time;
• The costs for acquisition, improvements, and maintenance and operations;
• The potential affect on walkability and interruption of storefronts along the key
commercial roadways;
• The financial and commercial impacts associated with removing an existing
business and/or constructed building.
Parcels with adequate dimensions to provide surface parking or multi-story parking are limited
within the Downtown, especially in the 3-block stretch between Sultana Avenue and Encinita
Avenue, where public off-street parking is limited to the Chamber of Commerce parking lot. No
public off-street parking supply is provided between Encinita Avenue and Cloverly Avenue,
however many businesses within this 3-block stretch provide on-site parking supply.
It should be noted that the cost for creation of new public parking includes acquisition of real
estate, construction of physical improvements, potentially including a multi-story parking
structure, and ongoing maintenance costs.
The current urban fabric in the downtown exemplifies the unintended consequence of surface
parking lots that can interrupt the pedestrian experience. As a pedestrian, walking west along
Las Tunas Drive is attractive where the buildings are at the back of sidewalk until Cloverly
Avenue, where surface parking lots deter walking further west to the businesses west of Oak
Avenue.
22
While it is easy to focus on the number of parking spaces within the Downtown, a key question
is how do the parking spaces relate to the Downtown. Perceptions about availability of parking
are influenced by many factors such as the following:
• Signage – How easily can patrons and employees find parking spaces?
• Connectivity – How accessible are the parking areas?
• Location – Is parking located within safe places?
• Walkability – How direct is the pedestrian path to reach the parking?
• Design and Aesthetics – Is parking a pleasant experience?
Consideration of these factors are important to evaluating current parking supply and
overcoming concerns, real or perceived about the adequacy of the parking provided for the
Downtown. Additionally, a parking “problem” is reflective of a vibrant and robust Downtown
where the destinations and experience are drawing visitors.
Parking Opportunities
Based on review of existing infrastructure, current public policy, and technical review of
collected data, a preliminary list of potential opportunities has been identified. The list of
opportunities that may be employed is much longer, provided below are a sampling of general
and Temple City-specific opportunities related to Downtown parking:
1. Opportunity exists to more efficiently use existing parking spaces outside the
core efficiently throughout the day and week gaining higher parking usage
throughout.
o Employ parking pricing to more efficiently use parking spaces, by
achieving higher turnover in the most convenient spaces, and to generate
revenue for parking and district improvements.
o Modify time restrictions to match user patterns.
o Move some parking demand to underutilized parking areas such as City
Hall, TCUSD Lot, Ralphs Lot, and Las Tunas on-street areas outside the
core.
23
o Use valet operations at underutilized private off-street lots (i.e. Ralphs)
during peak times when restaurants are busy.
Image 6: Post Office Drop-Off Box & Elimination of Six Parking Spaces (Source: RBF
Consulting)
2. Improve efficiency of existing parking through re-striping and revisions to
layout of parking areas. Remove items that conflict with parking such as the
Post Office Drop-off Box at the north off-street parking lot on Primrose
Avenue.
3. Opportunity exists to construct additional parking in a multi-level structure
using land already owned by the City or in conjunction with private
development activities, provided adequate revenue can be assembled for
implementation. This would be consistent with a “Park Once” approach
where vehicles are parked at one location while patrons visit multiple
destinations within the Downtown.
4. Revise parking standards to better cater to unique characteristics of
commercial uses in Downtown Temple City.
o Allow on-street parking areas directly adjacent commercial property to
satisfy code for proposed uses where on-street capacity is available.
o Update parking code requirements to promote and support desired land
uses within the Downtown.
o Revise and employ in-lieu fee program to facilitate development where
on-site parking provision is difficult.
24
5. In concert with parking pricing, employ a parking permit program to
accommodate parking for residents, business owners and staff, and patrons.
A parking permit program would allow motorists to avoid paying a meter
directly through posting of a pre-purchased sticker.
6. Reduce vehicular parking demand through increased arrivals using active
transportation modes (bike, shuttle, bus, and walking). Provision of
enhanced transit facilities, a Downtown shuttle, and desirable bicycle parking
can contribute to increased mode splits by arriving patrons and staff.
7. Expand the range of parking facilities serving the Downtown through
improved walkability for pedestrians through amenities such as
security/wayfinding, universal design, additional pedestrian shortcuts,
provision of arts & murals, etc. Nonmotorized travel is affected by the quality
of walking and cycling facilities, the distance between parking and
destinations, and adjacent traffic speeds and noise levels.
Laguna Beach Case Study: The City of Laguna Beach employs a Parking Permit Program
where permits can be purchased for Residents, Shoppers, and Business Owners/Employees
allowing parking in certain areas of the community. The permits vary in cost between $40 and
$300 and time and location for use is restricted based on permit type permit. A non-transferable
sticker is posted onto the car. Resident parking permits allow 24-hour parking within a block of
the permit holders residence, and 3 hours within any 12 hour period within the downtown
business district. Shopper parking permits allow parking within the maximum time indicated on
the parking meter at approved locations downtown, and are only city residents, non-resident
seniors, and non-residents within the local school district. Business parking permits allow
parking for a maximum of 12 hours at approved locations downtown, and are only available to
owners and employees of business in the downtown.
5 – PARKING STRATEGIES
This section provides an analysis of parking program scenarios, a financial analysis, and a
benefits review. The result of the analysis is to determine a set of strategic parking
recommendations that will guide planning efforts for near-term and long-term implementation.
Long-term parking solutions that require large financial contributions may require 2-4 years of
programming, so a comprehensive review of capital intensive measures by City staff can begin
implementation of strategic recommendations.
Parking Program Scenarios
Provision of vehicular parking is an essential element of the success of Downtown Temple City.
Parking facilities are a major cost to society, yet they provide easy and convenient access to
destinations in support of local businesses. In many downtowns, parking complaints are among
the most common issues facing developers, planners and local businesses. Parking problems
can typically be defined either in terms of supply (e.g., the perception of too few spaces,
legitimate parking undersupply, or excess spaces and wasted resources) or in terms of
management (achieving more efficient use of existing facilities, underuse of certain facilities are
not fully utilized, etc.).
25
This analysis has compiled community input, identified needs, and identified potential
opportunities to develop three scenarios for strategic parking recommendations. These
scenarios represent three points along a continuum of approaches that have been judged to fit
Downtown Temple City’s situation, offered here to help compare and contrast the mechanisms
for managing parking. Table 1 shows those parking management scenarios, a parking
management-only approach, an approach that combines parking management and pricing, and
an approach that include parking management, pricing, and new parking construction. These
scenarios can be used to help decision makers identify the preferred approach, and they can
also be seen as a short-term, medium-term, and long-term approach.
Images 7 & 8: Parking Restricted to One Business, and Shared Parking Example (Source: RBF
Consulting)
26
Table 7
Parking Management Scenarios
Topic Scenario 1 – Parking
Management, No Pricing
Scenario 2- Parking
Management + Pricing
Scenario 3 – Parking
Management + Pricing +
Additional Parking Supply
Parking
Supply
No additional parking lots or multi-level parking structure,
unless privately provided under code.
Increase parking supply core
using infill structures.
Increase supply of existing on- and off-street parking through restriping, efficiencies.
No change to parking code
requirements.
Modifications to parking code, such as allowing on-
street parking to satisfy code, expanding application of
Specific Plan parking provisions.
Parking
Pricing and
Time Limits
Increase 20-minute parking supply within the City Center
Commercial District directly adjacent to specific
concentrated demand uses.
Provide free parking for first
20-minutes.
Increase the designation of free 2-hour parking supply in
public off-street lots.
Parking charges in high
demand on-street and off-
street parking areas.
Eliminate time limits, use
scaled rates (low cost for 2
hours, higher thereafter).
Free parking in lower
demand locations.
Add a 4-hour parking category to select on-street and off-
street parking areas (deters employee parking and support
service commercial).
No time limits where
graduated parking fee exist.
Parking
Management
Redirect employee parking to remote lots through
cooperative programs with businesses (City Hall, TCUSD,
etc.).
Redirect employee parking
to remote lots with low or
free parking in those
locations.
Improve wayfinding/signage/lighting/pedestrian environment to support walking.
Establish Business Improvement District to lease private parking and make available to
public. Require public access and shared use of parking when private parking facilities
are constructed. Promote parking Downtown as easy and accessible.
Utilize individual valet operations for restaurants during
peak times.
Develop shared valet
program for peak times
Respond to commercial
spillover problems on side
streets by coordinating with
businesses and directing
staff/customers to park
throughout Downtown.
Employ Residential Permit
Program (RPP), with
minimal costs to residents
to pay for sticker &
program administration.
Employ priced Residential
Permit Program (RPP), with
revenue return for
neighborhood improvement.
27
As shown in Table 1, scenarios for strategic parking recommendations are provided for
consideration by the community, City staff, and elected officials. The scenarios identified above
provide the opportunity to compare and contrast the mechanisms for managing Downtown
parking. As shown in the scenario testing, a key policy issue for consideration is
implementation of parking pricing (parking meters) within the Downtown. The benefits of
parking pricing and financial analysis of implementing pay stations versus construction of a
multi-level parking structure are provided below.
Shared Parking Expanded
Shared parking allows for better usage of parking spaces between complimentary uses. Natural
shared parking opportunities exist within the Downtown where private parking lots are restricted
in use to a specific business. Different businesses have varying times of peak parking demand,
such as office uses which peak during the day, while restaurants may peak in the evening.
Residential parking demand is typically highest in the evening and on weekends. When a
business or residence is built, it is required to park for the single use based on city code,
ignoring any fluctuations in time and day. Shared parking moderates the peaks in parking
demand.
Public parking lots within the Downtown were created decades ago when businesses agreed to
joint or shared use without exclusive use of a parking space. Some notable exceptions
occurred where banks agreed to participate in the shared parking pool, but have exclusive
parking spaces. Today this means that the public parking spaces are maintained by the City,
but are used only by the business, and may be vacant even when the business is closed and
does not require the parking space.
Shared parking can be expanded within the Downtown where private off-street parking areas
neighbor each other. Consolidation of private parking lots into one larger parking lot for public
use eliminates time restrictions and underutilized parking spaces.
Through shared parking, the supply of parking within the Downtown is increased without costly
financial resources. Achieving agreement on liability and division of potential for revenue
requires the City or Chamber of Commerce to facilitate shared parking activity. A Business
Improvement District (BID) can provide the means to facilitate shared parking, maximizing the
efficiency of the parking system already within the Downtown. Locations where expansion of
shared parking is most applicable are found where private off-street lots adjoin each other and
include the following locations Downtown:
• 9001 block of Las Tunas Drive;
• 9101 block of Las Tunas Drive;
• 9200 block of Las Tunas Drive;
• 9451 block of Las Tunas Drive;
• 9700 block of Las Tunas Drive;
• 5800 block of Temple City Boulevard;
• 5801 block of Temple City Boulevard;
• 5900 block of Temple City Boulevard; and
• 5901 block of Temple City Boulevard.
28
Transportation Demand Management
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a general term for strategies that increase
transportation system efficiency by changing travel behavior. TDM may affect travel frequency,
mode, destination or timing (shifting of trips from peak to off-peak). TDM is supportive and
complimentary to parking management, as TDM often reduces parking demand, and many
parking management strategies help reduce vehicle traffic. The use of TDM measures can help
reduce both parking demand and traffic congestion by more than 15-percent.
The following is a list of TDM measures that are most applicable to Downtown Temple City:
1. Establish framework for TDM program through an ordinance and community
involvement. The relationship with the business community and acceptance
of TDM measures is critical to success. Cooperation and participation in the
TDM measures within Downtown Temple City would rely on the employers
and employees. Highlight the cost savings to reducing parking demand and
traffic congestion to businesses, the ability to attract and retain employees,
and the potential tax incentives associated with some TDM measures.
2. Establish a Business Improvement District (BID) or Transportation
Management Association (TMA) to administer and enforce TDM.
Participation in the TMA would need to include the majority of businesses
within the Downtown for success, with payment into the TMA for implantation
resources. The fees would need to sustain the TMA, and provide a trained
coordinator to facilitate TDM measures. As the TDM strategies are
implemented, regular evaluation is needed to identify lessons learned, areas
for improvement and to document successes.
3. Use of eco-pass, discounted transit passes, for substitution of automobile
usage. Sometimes referred to as universal transit passes, these programs
allow for unlimited rides on local or regional transit providers for low monthly
fees, which are provided for by employers, schools, or developers. The
program helps increase transit ridership, reduce automobile trips, emissions,
and traffic congestion. The use of an eco-pass or transit pass within the
Downtown may be most attractive to employers, reducing the need for
serving parking needs of staff.
4. Require parking cash-out, where employers are required to offer equal
transportation fringe benefit to employees who use modes other than driving
alone to get to work. This approach works well when businesses lease
parking for their employees; in instances where business owners own the
parking, it may create a cost burden. The employer provides an equitable
financial contribution to employees that use active transportation (bike, walk)
or transit to travel to work instead of parking a vehicle at the business.
5. Improve the Bicycle Infrastructure through bike lanes, bicycle storage,
showers, and lockers. Promotion of bicycle facilities can increase the usage
of bicycling to the Downtown by both employees and patrons, complimented
well with the gridded street design surrounding Downtown Temple City. The
recent Bicycle Master Plan identified routes for implementation of bicycle
lanes, and suggested both bike racks, and storage facilities at seven
locations within the Downtown parking study area.
29
6. Establish a Transportation Resource Center (TRC) to educate and provide
ongoing outreach to employers, employees, and patrons of the Downtown.
The TRC is typically provided through a highly visible storefront where
personalized, comprehensive travel information can be provided, with transit
routes and schedules, transit passes, and bicycling information is provided.
A TRC within Temple City might be provided by the Chamber of Commerce,
at City Hall, or through a TMA as discussed above. The TRC would provide
one-stop information to help provide information on transportation choices,
thereby reducing parking demand, improving transit usage, and improving
access to the Downtown.
Bicycle Parking
Bicyclists compose a strong contingent of
employees and visitors to the Downtown.
Potentially more importantly, cyclists reflect
existing and potential shoppers within the
Downtown, especially when considering the
regional nature of key through roadways such as
Temple City Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive.
The ability to attract and provide an easy
stopping location within the Downtown can help
capture increased commercial opportunities.
During visits to the Downtown, bicycles have
been observed locked to patio fencing or other
permanent structures.
Bicycle parking is currently provided along
commercial corridors at two locations Downtown
using older-style bike racks. Below is a listing of
bicycle racks provided Downtown:
• North side of 9100 block of Las
Tunas Drive; and
• North side of 9600 block of Las
Tunas Drive.
Some commercial properties provide bicycle
racks on private property for their business, but
the locations provided are sporadic. As indicated
within the Bicycle Master Plan, bicycle racks and
storage facilities are recommended at seven
locations within the Downtown. Since limited
bicycle racks are provided Downtown, it is
recommended that parking racks be provided in
public rights-of-way where a locked bicycle would
not impede pedestrians walking along storefronts, accessing transit, and accessing on-street
parking. Often, bicycle racks can be provided on sidewalks between lighting and/or tree wells
within the “amenity zone”. Additionally, sidewalk areas adjacent to red-curb where parking is
30
prohibited provide opportunities for bicycle racks. Placement of bicycle racks should be in
highly visible locations, and locations that are convenient and attractive for cyclists.
The provision of bicycle parking is recommended at each City municipal parking lot, as well as
every block within the Downtown, on each side of Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard.
Bicycle storage is recommended to link with employment and civic uses, as well as heavily used
transit stops. The number of bicycle parking spaces at public parking lots are recommended
based on the ratios provided in Table 8.
Table 8
Bicycle Parking Ratios at Public Parking Lots
Number of Automobile Spaces Required Minimum Number
of Bicycle Parking Spaces
4-20 2
21-40 4
Over 41 1 per every 10 spaces or fraction thereof
Additionally, provision of a “bike corral” may prove attractive to businesses within Temple City to
increase the frequency of turnover by patrons that “park” in front of a business while also
improving the visibility of the storefront. A bike corral is typically a large bike rack that replaces
one on-street parking space and is physically located within the roadway. In cities where bike
corrals have been provided, initial hesitation has been replaced by commercial demands for
more bike corrals as the realized benefits have outweighed the effect of losing one on-street
parking space for one parked car. We recommend the City look for a Downtown business
partner willing to be the first location where a bike corral is placed. In most cities, the first
location has often been demonstrated in front of a high turnover use such as a coffee shop/café,
or a related store such as a bicycle store.
Images 9 & 10: Bike Corrals in Santa Monica used in place of 1 Car-Parking Space (Source: RBF Consulting)
Provision of bicycle racks may be something implemented slowly over time, through an
organized program by City staff, and supplemented by business interests. Some cities have
used bike racks that are linked with the adjacent business such as a coffee shop, ice cream
31
shop, music studio/business, sports business, etc. Additionally, the City may consider use of
bike valet operations at major civic events, using volunteers from a local bicycle coalition such
as the Bike San Gabriel Valley (Bike SGV) or the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition
(LACBC). Bicycle Coalition groups typically email their distribution lists for volunteers, helping
naturally promote events to a larger audience of the community. Additionally, bike coalitions
typically carry insurance for the care of bikes during bike valet operations.
Parking Pricing Benefits
Implementation of parking pricing provides some key benefits that will help minimize challenges
to parking management and supply within Downtown Temple City:
1. Eliminates Parking Time Limits: Time restrictions at public parking areas
can be eliminated, as the scaled cost
for parking will increase the longer a
vehicle is parked at the same spot.
Areas with currently middle levels of
parking use can be priced nominally to
encourage efficient use, and limiting
pricing to a designated area
encourages parking outside the peak
area of concentration. Elimination of
time restrictions simplifies parking
management in the Downtown.
2. Increases Available Parking Supply:
Parking pricing at public parking areas
has two effects. First it increases
parking turnover in the most desirable
spaces, thereby increasing the number
of customers who use the best
spaces. Rapid turnover in high-
demand areas can be incentivized by
providing free parking for the first 20-
minutes or 1-hour, etc. Second,
32
pricing provides an incentive for private property owners to make restricted
off-street parking areas available for public use. This turns each parking
space Downtown into a commodity. In the absence of parking pricing, private
owners threaten to tow cars parked illegally on their property due to liability
concerns. With parking pricing implemented, private owners may then
charge at or below City rates with an opportunity for revenue to offset liability
concerns. Increasing the value of private spaces increases access to
additional parking areas, in turn increasing public supply without costly
financial spending use by the City.
3. Generates Revenue: Sensitivity testing of parking pricing based on current
Downtown parking activity indicates a positive revenue generation of
approximately $300,000 in year 1 after implementation. The revenue
generated through parking pricing can be reinvested within the Downtown to
implement physical and programmatic improvements supportive of economic
growth and cultural activities.
4. Encourages Remote Parking: Parking pricing within a core area promotes
parking by staff at “remote” areas, better using existing parking supply within
the Downtown.
5. Encourages Non-Vehicular Access: Nearby residents who could walk,
bicycle or use a shuttle are encouraged to avoid the parking charge. Parking
pricing is generally the single most effective strategy to encourage people to
use alternatives to automobile use.
Parking Pricing Phasing
Implementation of parking pricing should be considered an
iterative process based on regular monitoring and feedback
from business owners, staff, and nearby residents. The
following phasing and triggers has been developed as a
guide to implementation of parking pricing:
1. Begin the program with parking charges
on Las Tunas Drive, commercial portions
of side streets, and Temple City
Boulevard. The first phase of parking
pricing is between Cloverly Avenue and
Goldenwest Avenue. If parking pricing
produces positive outcomes consistent
with Downtown goals, then potentially
expand to other areas such as West
Gateway area. Strategies for monitoring
implementation include the following:
33
o Begin the program without a residential permit program to avoid
burdening residents in initial implementation.
o Provide periodic review of occupancy data for refining pricing of meters
(such as every six months). Establish procedures that allow parking
pricing changes to be made within defined limits by City staff without
requiring City Council action.
o Monitor spillover of parking onto local streets to determine if changes are
required. The trigger for changes in pricing areas or cost for parking is
occupancy levels (quantifiable) and business/resident satisfaction
(qualitative).
2. Employ a free 2-hour limit on side streets to limit the effect of commercial
parking on resident use. Concurrently implement residential permit program
which allows residents to exceed the 2-hour
limit.
o Monitor if 2-hour parking areas
experience high occupancy (85-percent or
greater) on regular basis for extended
periods of the day. If high occupancy of
2-hour time restricted areas occur then
proceed to step 3 below.
3. Employ parking pricing on entire length of
side streets concurrent with residential permit
program which allows residents to exceed the
2-hour limit at no cost.
Parking Pricing Technology
Implementation of parking pricing should be accompanied with
use of the latest technologies available to provide a user friendly
experience. Parking meters were first developed for use in
Oklahoma City in 1935. This eighty-year old technology has
evolved and now provides a variety of innovations for ease and
convenience by the public, and management by agency staff.
Single-Space parking meters are typically employed when
parking meter poles are already in place. Multi-space parking
meters allow for a consolidated system for collection of parking
fees, freeing up valuable space along the sidewalk. Meter
technology includes the opportunity to pay via credit cards, and
remote payment using a phone number and/or additional
technology such as a Quick Reader (QR) code.
Meters today are available that include solar panels to collect
energy to power the equipment in addition or in lieu of a
conventional battery for nighttime use or when not enough
sunshine is available. Typically, cashless meters use
encryption technology to keep credit card information safe, and
34
if a jam occurs with the meter system, then a message can be sent directly to City staff for rapid
repair.
The City of San Diego allows for purchase of pre-paid parking cards that can be used to pay a
meter, and provide a refund for excess time “purchased”. The pre-paid parking meter card is
available in pre-set increments and can be purchased at City Hall as well as the local Business
Improvement District and other locations such as a university and retail uses.
In-car parking meters allow individual motorists to pay for parking using a pre-paid smartcard
and device kept within the vehicle. The pocket calculator-size electronic device can be
purchased and loaded with time using a smartcard or telephone. The device is then displayed
in the vehicle for parking enforcement review. The device will not charge users for time beyond
the typical enforcement period such as 8:00 p.m. The City of Arlington, Virginia utilizes an in-
car payment device at any Arlington meter. The use of an in-car device may be most useful for
a community where paid parking has been in place for many years, and daily parking in meters
occurs.
Las Tunas Drive as a Main Street
Reviewing the functionality of Las Tunas Drive provides the opportunity to enhance the livability
and accessibility to all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit-users, visitors, businesses,
and shoppers, as well as motorists. The focus on walkability and community design to
strengthen Las Tunas Drive sense of “place” can better support local commercial, civic, and
cultural needs.
As noted in the City of Temple City Bicycle Master Plan (ALTA Planning + Design, March 2011),
provision of a Class II (On-Street Bike Lane) is proposed on Las Tunas Drive to improve
conditions for bicycling in Temple City. The Plan recommends improvements and policies to
increase the number of cyclists, frequency and distance of bicycle trips, as well as improving
safety and public awareness. The addition of bike lanes was prioritized based on community
input and expected ability to satisfy the goals of
the Bicycle Master Plan. Provision of an on-
street bike lane on Las Tunas Drive was
illustrated conceptually within the Bicycle Master
Plan by maintaining on-street parallel parking
and narrowing motorist travel lanes.
Las Tunas Drive currently provides four travel
lanes and a center turn lane (total of five lanes),
with on-street parallel parking. Consideration of
narrowing the roadway from five lanes to three
lanes (two travel lanes with a center turn lane),
could provide additional space for a bike lane, and potentially angle parking. While narrowing
the roadway can better accommodate other modes of transportation, it would also help with
livability and sense of place along the corridor as moving traffic would be further from the
sidewalk and storefronts, allowing for an improved pedestrian environment that is more
supportive toward strengthening commercial activity.
Road Diet The concept to reduce travel lanes without modification of the curb to curb width is
generally referred to as a “Road Diet”. The current roadway configuration is oriented towards
serving motorists passing through the City, and use of a Road Diet could better serve other
35
modes of transportation within the community such as shoppers parking, bicyclists, transit-
users, and pedestrians.
Roadways with excess capacity are recognized to experience higher levels of speeding and cut-
through travel patterns. Implementation of a road diet doesn’t require change to the roadway
cross-section, instead using the currently available paved roadway width to potentially provide
increased lane widths, a center-turn lane, bicycle lanes, enhanced transit stops, and/or more
on-street parking. The road diet concept also falls under the Context Sensitive Solutions and
Complete Streets philosophies. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) is defined as:
• A collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders to
develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves
scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources, while maintaining
safety and mobility;
• An approach that considers the total context within which a transportation
improvement will exist.
CSS mean taking a flexible approach to designing a transportation project, so that the
infrastructure fits into the natural and human environment, its context. The Complete Streets
concept is similar, in that the planning and design of a roadway take into account all users,
pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit-users of all ages and abilities.
As of January 1, 2011, California State Assembly Bill 1358 (AB 1358) requires cities integrate
the Complete Streets policy into the General Plan Circulation Element during updates. The City
of Temple City may consider further CSS review of Las Tunas Drive accounting for safety,
mobility, and the ability to serve all users. Proponents of road diets have shown successful
implementation on roadways with moderate average daily traffic (8-15,000 vehicles per day)
and high average daily traffic (20,000 vehicles per day).
Image 11: Concept for a Road Diet in the City of Duarte (Source: RBF Consulting)
Table 9 summarizes the current daily traffic volumes on Las Tunas Drive and Temple City
Boulevard.
36
Table 9
Downtown Roadways Daily Traffic Volumes
Roadway Downtown Daily Traffic
Volumes Range Applicability for Road Diet
Las Tunas Drive 22,000 – 26,000 Low – More Analysis Needed
Temple City Boulevard 18,000 – 20,000 Moderate – More Analysis Needed
As shown in Table 9, based on daily traffic volumes, consideration of a road diet for re-allocation
of the roadway cross section is recommended for further review on Temple City Boulevard first,
and subsequently for Las Tunas Drive. The following items provide a starting point of
considerations for public review and discussion related to use of road diets on Las Tunas Drive
and Temple City Boulevard in Downtown Temple City:
• Potential for increased cut-through traffic on parallel community serving
roadways;
• Potential for traffic congestion where narrowing of lanes occurs on either side
of road diet;
• Benefits of road diet for various modes of transportation (transit-use, cycling,
walking, commercial truck loading, etc.);
• Specific identification of goals and objectives for road diet implementation;
and
• Ability of road diet to address of stated community goals and objectives.
Image 12: La Jolla Boulevard as a Main Street in San Diego community of Bird Rock (Source: RBF
Consulting)
Exhibit 13 provides an illustration of the current design of Las Tunas Drive with rough
approximation of lane dimensions. As shown on Exhibit 13, three options for configuration of
37
Las Tunas Drive are provided for further review and consideration. The Las Tunas Drive
options have been provided to illustrate how reallocation of the roadway cross section can
better accommodate on-street angle parking and bicycle lanes.
The three options shown in Exhibit 13 provide varying use of the roadway cross section for
further consideration by the community and interested parties modifying motorist lane widths,
bicycle lanes, and on-street parking. Since the preliminary and final design will likely require
additional discussion among stakeholders, further refinement of the recommended design
concept is expected. Multiple iterations of the roadway are possible, with varying widths of bike
lanes, parking lanes, shoulders, and vehicle lanes. Note Option C shown in Exhibit 13
assumes angle parking with a lateral dimension of 18-feet, which may not be adequate to
accommodate angle parking per City Code.
Parking Yield Exhibit 14 shows the net yield of parking provided on Las Tunas Drive if the
parallel parking is changed to angle parking, and travel lanes are reduced by one in each
direction. Table 10 summarizes the generalized benefit achieved from removing a travel lane
from Las Tunas Drive and providing angle parking along one (1) block face.
Table 10
Parking Gain from Angle Parking
Study Segment Parallel Parking
Provided
Angle Parking
Provided Net Parking Gain
Las Tunas Drive Along 1 Block Face 14 Spaces 23 Spaces 9 Spaces
As shown in Table 10, removing a travel lane from Las Tunas Drive and providing angle parking
achieves a net yield of nine (9) parking spaces.
Image 13: Analysis to determine net parking gain with angle parking on Las Tunas Drive (Source: RBF
Consulting)
38
City of Los Angeles Road Diets Case Study: Examples of road diets can be observed by
work completed by the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT). LADOT
regularly reviews roadway cross-sections during roadway resurfacing and improvement projects
through their Capital Improvement Program. Where traffic volumes are relatively low, the
number of vehicular lanes is reviewed to ensure the capacity matches the demand, and to
review the potential to serve other users consistent with the Complete Streets Act (AB 1358).
Three recent examples of roadways reviewed by LADOT and modified to better match traffic
volumes are the following:
Wilbur Avenue: Wilbur Avenue in the Northridge area was a four-lane roadway with a
continuous left-turn lane and on-street parking. Critical speeds observed on Wilbur
Avenue were 45 miles per hour despite the posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour.
LADOT review indicated traffic volumes on Wilbur Avenue could be accommodated by a
two-lane roadway with a continuous left-turn lane.
San Pedro Street: San Pedro Street in the San Pedro was a four-lane roadway with on-street
parking. The posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. LADOT review indicated traffic
volumes on San Pedro Street could be accommodated by a two-lane roadway with a
continuous left-turn lane.
7th Street: 7th Street just west of Downtown Los Angeles was a four-lane roadway with on-street
parking and no turn lane. The road diet has narrowed travel lanes to two-lanes and
added on-street bike lanes while maintaining on-street parking. The bike lanes have
provided a crucial east-west link to Downtown Los Angeles.
Multi-Modal Performance Criteria To further encourage pedestrian activity within a designated
area, many jurisdictions are adopting modified performance criteria to balance the needs
between vehicular and non-vehicular traffic. Consideration of a modified performance criteria
allows for context-based decision making regarding transportation improvements, where certain
modes of transportation may be prioritized such as pedestrian activity.
Examples of downtowns where the citywide performance criteria is lowered to support walkable
communities include the following:
• Old Town Temecula; and
• Downtown Glendale;
• Downtown Perris.
The reduction of performance criteria works complimentary to the goal of prioritizing non-
motorized traffic, through slower speed roadways and narrow street-crossings for pedestrians.
6 – FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Parking Pricing Financial Review
The use of parking meters within the Downtown was tested to consider the financial feasibility of
the program from a revenue standpoint. While revenue generation is important, the use of
parking pricing is a key policy consideration that should be discussed in the public arena by
elected officials, business owners, commercial patrons, and nearby residents. A parking pricing
assessment was reviewed for a zone on Las Tunas Drive between Cloverly Avenue and
39
Goldenwest Avenue, commercial portions of side streets, and Temple City Boulevard from
Woodruff Avenue and Workman Avenue. Exhibit 15 illustrates the draft parking pricing zone
analyzed for the financial review.
The analysis includes the following assumptions:
1. Approximately 689 parking stalls are included in the parking pricing zone.
2. Enforcement officers employed 6 days a week can typically oversee 225
stalls.
3. Enforcement hours from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
4. Enforcement for 300 days per year.
5. Enforcement officer salary of $30/hour.
6. Carrying Cost on Infrastructure of 5 Years.
7. $1.00 per hour per parking space.
8. Reduced parking demand (leakage) of 30-percent.
The City budget currently includes line items to address annual costs related to enforcement,
maintenance and improvements such as slurry seal, restriping, and repair. The following
summarizes the current costs already included within the City budget related to parking
enforcement and maintenance:
1. One full-time maintenance staff person dedicated to maintenance of the
parking lots with an annual salary of $45,000, not including any additional
benefits provided by the City.
2. One full-time parking enforcement staff person dedicated to parking control
for both on-street and off-street parking areas with an annual salary of
$62,000 not including any additional benefits provided by the City.
3. One part-time parking enforcement staff person dedicated to parking control
for both on-street and off-street parking areas with an annual salary of
$30,000 not including any additional benefits provided by the City.
4. An estimated cost of $5,000-$10,000 annually for slurry seal, restriping, and
repair for each parking lot. This cost is included within the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). The total for this category is estimated at
$80,000 annually.
The current costs already included within the City budget related to parking enforcement and
maintenance aggregate to approximately $217,000 annually. Since current parking
enforcement and maintenance costs are not limited to the Downtown these costs are not
included in the following financial analysis.
Table 11 summarizes the costs and income associated with the parking pricing zone tested for
689 parking spaces within the Downtown. See Appendix E for detailed financial analysis.
40
Table 11
Parking Pricing Financial Analysis
Parking Pricing Item
Cost/Income Per Year
Assuming
$1/hour Meters
Assuming
$0.75/hour Meters
Estimated Enforcement Costs - $216,000 - $216,000
Protective Services, Maintenance, Landscaping, etc. - $92,830 - $92,830
Accounting, Bank Charges - $9,302 - $9,302
Capital Installation & Debt Service; On-Street Facilities - $68,569 - $68,569
Capital Installation & Debt Service; Off-Street Facilities - $32,198 - $32,198
Annual Pay Station Operation/Repair/Depreciation;
On-Street Facilities
- $65,985 - $65,985
Annual Pay Station Operation/Repair/Depreciation;
Off-Street Facilities
- $26,394 - $26,394
Subtotal of Costs - $511,278 - $511,278
Income On-Street Stalls (Weekdays) + $179,390 + $134,542
Income On-Street Stalls (Saturdays) + $50,924 + $38,193
Income Off-Street Stalls (Weekdays) + $436,615 + $327,461
Income Off-Street Stalls (Saturdays) + $117,135 + $87,851
Subtotal of Income + $784,064 + $588,048
Total Parking Pricing Revenue Summary + $272,786 + $76,770
As shown in Table 11, the financial analysis indicates the parking pricing zone would provide a
net income of $272,786 in the first year of implementation when each parking space is priced at
$1 per space, and $76,770 when pricing is $0.75 per space. Since a portion of the current
parking and enforcement costs are likely included in the analysis in Table 11, the estimated
revenue may provide a slightly higher net yield than the $272,786 estimate.
Assuming an escalation of 3-percent per year, and total repayment of the 5-year carrying costs
associated with capital infrastructure costs are repaid, the revenue would increase to $433,051
in year 6. See Appendix E for detailed financial analysis.
The provision of immediate net positive revenue associated with parking pricing for a five-block
zone within the core of Downtown Temple City indicates financial feasibility when pricing is $1
per metered space.
Parking Structure Financial Review
As a comparison, the review of the costs associated with constructing a parking structure within
the Downtown area provided. Since the City already owns multiple parking lots within the
Downtown, acquisition costs would be minimal as long as one of the lots provides acceptable
dimensions for construction of a multi-level parking structure.
41
Evaluation of a parking structure was prepared for the parking lot on the east side of Temple
City Boulevard and south of Las Tunas Drive, which currently provides 56 parking spaces.
The surface area provided at the test lot measures roughly 130-feet by 170-feet for a total of
22,100 square feet. An industry standard of 350 square feet per space is utilized to determine
the quantity of parking spaces can be constructed within a multi-level structure which accounts
for the parking spaces, drive aisle, and ancillary uses. The 22,100 square feet can therefore
provide about 63 parking spaces per level. Table 12 below derives the number of parking
spaces that could be constructed in a potential parking structure on Temple City Boulevard
assuming roughly half the ground floor is utilized for commercial activities the activate the street
edge.
Table 12
Parking Structure Yield Analysis
Allowable Space Parking Supply Yield
Level 1 Allowable Space: 22,100 square feet,
reduced by 50% for ground floor commercial uses
equates to 11,050 square feet of allowable parking
area.
Level 1 Supply: 11,050 square feet divided by 350
square feet/parking space = 32 parking spaces
Level 2 Allowable Space: 22,100 square feet of
allowable parking area.
Level 2 Supply: 22,100 square feet divided by 350
square feet/parking space = 63 parking spaces
Level 3 Allowable Space: 22,100 square feet of
allowable parking area.
Level 3 Supply: 22,100 square feet divided by 350
square feet/parking space = 63 parking spaces
Total Parking Supply Provided 158 Parking Spaces
As shown in Table 12, the parking lot on the east side of Temple City Boulevard and south of
Las Tunas Drive could yield approximately 158 parking spaces when assuming about 11,050
square feet of ground floor commercial uses.
Table 13 summarizes the likely capital cost of constructing a multi-level parking structure
accommodated 158 parking spaces, assuming land costs are nominal since the City already
owns the property.
42
Table 13
Parking Structure Cost Analysis
Parameter Quantity
Structured Parking Hard Costs per Square Feet $68/square feet (ranges between $63-$73/square feet)
Construction Hard Costs per Parking Stall $23,800/stall ($68/square feet x 350 square feet/stall)
Construction Soft Costs per Parking Stall $7,140/stall (30% of Hard Costs)
Land Costs $0/stall (assumes City already owns land)
Construction+Land Costs Subtotal $30,940/stall
Parking Supply 158 Parking Spaces
Parking Structure Cost $4,888,520 ($30,940/space x 158 spaces)
As shown in Table 13, the cost for constructing a 158-space 3-level parking structure on the
east side of Temple City Boulevard and south of Las Tunas Drive would likely cost
approximately $4,888,520 in capital costs.
Since a potential 158-space parking structure would replace an existing parking lot that provides
56 parking spaces, Table 14 summarizes the capital cost of constructing the net new parking
spaces (158 – 56 = 102 spaces).
Table 14
Cost Per Net New Parking Space
Parameter Quantity
Parking Structure Cost $4,888,520
Net New Parking Supply 102 Net New Parking Spaces (158 new - 56 existing)
Net New Parking Space Cost $47,927/Net New Space
As shown in Table 14, the cost for each new parking space would equate to $47,927 if a new
158-space 3-level parking structure is constructed on the east side of Temple City Boulevard
and south of Las Tunas Drive.
In-Lieu Parking Fee Review
Many cities use an In-Lieu Parking Fee as a source for funding public parking facilities. An In-
Lieu Parking Fee is usually an option given to developers to pay the local jurisdiction a fee to
opt-out of providing on-site parking with a new private development (usually the in-lieu fee
option is correlated to minimum parking standards). Payment of an in-lieu fee then provides the
developer certain access entitlements into public parking facilities proximate to the development
site (i.e., in “downtown”), once the new parking facilities are constructed. The additional parking
facilities could be a surface parking lot, or a multi-story parking structure.
The in-lieu fee can range from a fee assessed at less than the actual cost of construction, to the
full cost of parking construction. Additionally, the fee can be assessed one-time, when the
development occurs, or annually subject to a business license. The one-time payment may
seem more costly to business development, but it can be included in the project financing,
43
whereas, annual payment of the in-lieu fee cannot be included in financing and the burden is
shifted to the business in operation that requires use of the in-lieu fee. Generally, cities develop
an annual fee assuming a short-term horizon such as a 5- or 10-year horizon and charge
interest to make the collection of fees comparable to a one-time lump sum fee. Additionally, the
annual payment of the in-lieu fee causes a more volatile and slow accrual of revenues for the
City. If construction of a parking garage is financed by the City, then the volatility of annual
payments may be added risk the City does not want to incur.
Generally, cities have found parking in-lieu fees do not provide sufficient revenue to fully fund a
facility and are combined with other revenue sources to fully “pencil” a project (e.g., parking
charges/rates, on-street meters, etc.). The frequent experience by some cities showing fees-in-
lieu haven’t adequately funded public parking facilities has led to diminished use of this fee.
As noted, the City Attorney has determined the In-Lieu Parking Fee is inadequate to fully
account for the development and maintenance of public parking and its use has been
suspended. The following reasons were provided for the discontinued use of the In-Lieu
Parking Fee:
1. The nexus for the fee needs to be established consistent with the Mitigation
Fee Act to identify the planned improvements and associated costs for the
improvements;
2. The fee amount was administered without specific or published criteria.
Since the establishment and use of the In-Lieu Parking Fee were in question, the program was
discontinued. Any potential future use of In-Lieu Parking Fee would require an adequate survey
consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act, and establishment of published criteria for use.
Table 15 summarizes potential revenues achieved from a parking in-lieu fee program assuming
an in-lieu fee of $10,000 per space (one-time payment at time of development).
Table 15
Example In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
Parameter Quantity
Assumed Commercial Activity added Downtown 25,000 square feet of commercial uses
Parking Ratio Per City Code 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial uses
Parking Required Per City Code 100 spaces
Assumed One-Time In-Lieu Payment $10,000 per parking space
Total In-Lieu Parking Fee Collected $1,000,000 (100 spaces x $10,000/space)
As shown in Table 15, a scenario for achieving $1,000,000 in parking in-lieu fees would require
the addition of 25,000 square feet within the Downtown assuming the business pays $10,000 for
each parking space not provided on site to satisfy minimum parking requirements.
It should be noted the development activity to add 25,000 square feet of commercial uses within
the Downtown would likely take many years. If the additional commercial activity occurred over
8-10 years, then a surface parking lot or parking structure would need to be constructed earlier.
44
Table 16 summarizes the schedule for collection of an in-lieu parking fee in relation to the cost
for construction of additional parking facilities within the Downtown.
Table 16
In-Lieu Parking Fee Schedule
Schedule In-Lieu Fee Collected City Funds Spent for
Parking Supply Surplus/Deficit?
Year 1 $100,000 (10 spaces x
$10,000/space) $0 + $100,000
Year 2 $200,000 $0 + $200,000
Year 3 $300,000 $0 + $300,000
Year 4 $400,000 $1,000,000 - $600,000
Year 5 $500,000 $0 - $500,000
Year 6 $600,000 $0 - $400,000
Year 7 $700,000 $0 - $300,000
Year 8 $800,000 $0 - $200,000
Year 9 $900,000 $0 - $100,000
Year 10 $1,000,000 $0 $0
As shown in Table 16, assuming construction of a $1,000,000 surface parking facility in year 4,
the schedule for revenues illustrates the City would be in a deficit for approximately 6 years.
The calculation above assumes regular growth within the Downtown, and continuous payment
of in-lieu parking fees by developers who desire to opt-out from providing on-site parking at their
development project.
The key question regarding use of in-lieu parking fees is the policy of supporting economic
development and the City assuming the burden of providing additional parking supply where
provision of parking on-site has become a major challenge in economic development within the
Downtown. Many cities use a discounted in-lieu parking fee as a way to attract developers to
(a) build less parking and (b) contribute to a comprehensive system of parking in an area.
Successful in-lieu parking fee programs are generally integrated into a strategic parking
development/systems plan by a City, which requires the City to establish a policy basis for the
in-lieu fee that sets out a clear and distinct role that the City will play in managing the fee and
providing additional parking supply or reducing parking demand through active transportation
and transit solutions.
The methodology for setting the in-lieu parking fees varies by jurisdiction, however, it is
generally correlated to the full cost of constructing a surface or structured parking facility. Most
fees in other jurisdictions are set at rates less than the full cost of construction to attract
developers and incentivize payment into the program. Since the City already owns surface
parking lots within the Downtown, the in-lieu parking fee calculations are provided for two
scenarios; 1) excluding land costs, and 2) including land costs for potential acquisition of
additional properties. If the City desires to utilize the in-lieu parking fee for purchase of
additional properties to address parking supply needs then, the higher in-lieu parking fee would
be applicable. It is recommended that the City utilize one fee or the other, based on a decision
45
in the near-term and avoid alternating which fee is applicable to developers. The surety in the
fee amount will be important to developers to understand how various costs affect the
proformas calculations prepared to determine the feasibility of each project.
Table 17 summarizes the calculation of in-lieu parking fees for the City of Temple City,
assuming costs for construction of a parking structure, and the fee is discounted by 20-percent
to incentivize use by developers and businesses.
Table 17
In-Lieu Parking Fee Calculation
Parameter Amount
(No Land Costs)
Amount
(With Land Costs)
Notes
Structured Parking Hard Costs
per Square Feet $68/square feet $68/square feet Ranges between
$63-$73/square feet
Construction Hard Costs per
Parking Stall $23,800/stall $23,800/stall $68/square feet x 350
square feet/stall
Construction Soft Costs per
Parking Stall $7,140/stall $7,140/stall 30% of Hard Costs
Cost of Land per Stall $0/stall $12,660/stall
Assumes Land Cost is
$2M/acre and achieves
158 stalls
In-Lieu Fee Subtotal $30,940/stall $43,600/stall --
In-Lieu Fee at 80% of Total
Cost per Stall $24,752/stall $34,880/stall --
Note: Hard costs for construction parking structure ranges between $63 & $73/square feet, average of $68 utilized.
As shown in Table 17, the total average costs for construction of a parking structure within
Temple City ranges between $30,940 and $43,600 per stall depending on whether land costs
are included. Assuming the fee is discounted by 20-percent, then the actual in-lieu parking fee
is recommended to be initially set at either $24,752 or $34,880 per stall.
Up front collection of the entire in-lieu fee is recommended for the following reasons:
1. The fee is already being discounted by 20-percent, so spreading the fee over
a 5- or 10-year horizon adds unnecessary risk to the City of Temple City.
2. Collection of the fee up front avoids the volatility of payment by businesses
that require the in-lieu fee depending on the ability of the business to keep in
good standing on payments.
3. Up front collection of the in-lieu fee allows developers to wrap that cost into
construction financing and amortize the costs over the life of the project
financing.
46
7 – STRATEGIC PARKING RECOMMENDATIONS
Parking Recommendations
Based on review of the parking needs within the Downtown, consideration of potential
management scenarios, and financial analysis, a range of strategic parking recommendations is
provided. The recommendations are phased or structured into short-term, near-term, and long-
term recommendations that City staff can focus resources on achieving. Recommendations
combine multiple concepts covering policy, program, and physical changes that can be
facilitated by City staff and the local business community with coordination with residents in the
Downtown area. Generalized costs are estimated to provide comparison of costs between
measures; final costs for each measure will be subject to final program details and design.
Based on community input, City priorities, and availability of funding opportunities, the
recommendations may shift into a different time-frame. For example, the City is already
exploring a pilot program to provide a shuttle service connecting residents within the community
to key destinations and Downtown. The pilot shuttle program is under consideration, but the
funding has not yet been secured, so it currently is included in the near-term recommendations.
The short-term strategic parking recommendations are summarized in Table 18:
Table 18
Short-Term Strategic Parking Recommendations
Recommendation Issue Benefit Generalized
Costs
1. Brand each parking lot
uniquely, and update
Downtown Parking Map.
Lack of understanding of
parking lots for use. Improved wayfinding & signage. $
2. Designate employee parking
Areas
Staff parking conflicting
with patrons Greater parking availability. $
3. Implement pedestrian scale
safety measures at all City
Parking Lots.
Real and perceived safety
in using parking lots off
Las Tunas Drive.
Improved comfort in using
“remote” parking lots. Higher
foot traffic by businesses.
$
4. Establish tour bus parking
areas and permit program.
Large vehicles blocking
many parking spaces.
Easy access for tourists and
visitors. Track tourist buses. $
5. Revise parking standards.
Unique Downtown with
uniform Citywide parking
standards.
Updated parking standards
reflecting unique development
pattern of Downtown parcels.
Promote targeted economic
development.
$
6. Empower Business
Improvement District (BID) to
lease private parking, and allow
shared parking between
businesses/properties.
Private parking lots
restricting parking to
business hours only.
Greater parking availability. $
47
Recommendation Issue Benefit Generalized
Costs
7. Revise in-lieu fee program
for business payment into
program.
Suspended program
requires variance if
parking code cannot be
met.
Flexibility in economic
development. Financial
resources for City to invest in
parking management.
$
8. Review striping of existing
parking lots.
Some inefficiency in
current parking lot
layouts.
Greater parking availability. $
9. Test Valet Parking for
Downtown Restaurants.
Constrained parking
during peak restaurant
times.
Convenient parking for patrons.
Greater parking availability. $
10. Install bicycle racks. Lack of bicycle parking. Accommodates and supports
increased bicycling activity.
The near-term strategic parking recommendations are summarized in Table 19:
Table 19
Near-Term Strategic Parking Recommendations
Recommendation Issue Benefit Generalized
Costs
1. Implement demand-
responsive parking pricing for
on- and off-street parking. Use
latest technology system.
Time Restrictions, real &
perceived parking
deficiencies.
Eliminates parking time limits,
increases supply, generates
revenue, encourages remote
parking, and encourages non-
vehicular access.
$$
2. Implement TDM Program.
Reduce travel to
Downtown by single-
occupant vehicles.
Greater availability for public,
improved use of transit, active
transportation systems.
$
3. Coordinate with private
entities for public parking
during peak times at TCUSD
Lot, and Ralphs Lot.
Limited use of private lots
when spaces are
underutilized.
Greater parking availability. $
4. Establish pilot shuttle
program.
Convenient non-auto
based access to
downtown for residents.
Reduced parking demand,
improved service to young/older
patrons.
$$$
5. Implement demonstration
project with Bike Corral.
Lack of highly visible
bicycle parking.
Serves bicycle parking, and
indicates City is supportive of
active transportation.
$
6. Employ a Residential
Parking Permit Program.
Overflow parking (current
and future) as needed.
Limit Downtown parking
affecting residential quality of
life.
$
7. Use efficient license plate
reading technology.
Ongoing costs for parking
enforcement staff, and
need for continuous
parking demand data
Innovative technologies improve
enforcement efficiency and
provide ongoing parking data.
$$
48
Recommendation Issue Benefit Generalized
Costs
8. Support Downtown arts
program at City lots.
Minimal arts and culture
at City parking lots.
Improved arts and culture
identification at City land
(parking lots)
$
The long-term strategic parking recommendations are summarized in Table 20:
Table 20
Long-Term Strategic Parking Recommendations
Recommendation Issue Benefit Generalized
Costs
1. Consider constructing
additional parking in Gateway
area of Downtown.
Real and perceived
adequacy of parking
supply.
Better accommodate parking
needs for Gateway area
businesses.
$$$
2. Acquire vacant properties for
additional parking supply (e.g.
Mortuary, former Alpha Beta
site).
Real and perceived
adequacy of parking
supply.
Eliminate of vacant/blighted
parcels, accommodation of
parking needs.
$$$
3. Consider constructing
parking structure in Downtown.
Real and perceived
adequacy of parking
supply.
Park Once approach to
consolidate parking and
accommodate growth.
$$$
4. Increase pedestrian
walkways between parking lots
and Las Tunas.
Lack of direct pedestrian
connection to City parking
lots.
Improve walkability and visibility
of existing parking lots behind
businesses. Improved
safety/security.
$$
5. Utilize technology to convey
parking availability and special
events guidance.
Immediate information
about parking congestion
and circulation impacts
during events and peak
times.
Dynamic signs and mobile
applications provide rapid
information to Downtown
visitors.
$$
6. Evaluate optimal use of
pavement on Las Tunas Drive
and Temple City Boulevard.
Functionality and livability
of key roadways
Downtown.
Potential for additional parking,
improved bicycle facilities,
increased park space and
outdoor dining.
$$$
8 – FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Funding Opportunities & Mechanisms
This strategic report includes an evaluation of potential funding sources that could be used to
support development of new parking supply in the future. Consideration of creative and new
funding mechanisms is prudent given the notable costs for provision of additional parking using
traditional means which rely solely on user revenues covering operations and debt service.
Therefore, a variety of funding opportunities and mechanisms are identified for consideration by
City elected officials, City staff, and the community. This listing of potential sources is not
49
necessarily exhaustive, as other communities have used yet additional sources – which may or
may not be applicable to current conditions in the City of Temple City. Nor are these sources
intended to be mutually exclusive. As stated above, funding for parking facilities often requires
application of multiple sources – for what might be considered as layered financing.
It should be noted the use of fees continues to evolve as various State Laws or Propositions are
signed or authorized through voter input. Consideration of implementation of fees should be
reviewed by the City Attorney to determine if a nexus study is required and to determine steps
for compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act, Proposition 26, and or Proposition 218, among other
applicable laws.
The funding options provided below assume a more detailed discussion of the role of the City in
future funding of parking and public discussion regarding the desire to use public funds to build
and operate parking. Additionally, it is clear from experiences in other cities that more than one
source of funding will be necessary to finance facilities (lots and/or garages) with public
resources, particularly in the near-term or until market conditions, density and constraints on the
supply drive parking rates upward.
Options Affecting Customers
Off-street User Revenues – These revenues represent the foundation of any parking facility’s
revenue structure. Fees would need to be imposed in Temple City off-street facilities in
the form of hourly, daily and monthly charges. Such revenues could be collected
through attended facilities, with automated revenue collection technology, or a
combination of both.
Event Surcharges – If allowed by California public facilities district legislation, this would impose
parking charges in conjunction with local and regional center facilities (e.g., performing
arts, sports and concert arenas). Fees are generally buried in the cost of event ticketing.
On-Street Parking Fees – Many cities elect to collect on-street revenues through parking meters
and/or sale of permits and direct net revenues to parking development enterprise funds.
Potential permits might include resident permits, business permits, or shopper permits.
Additionally, commuters may be able to purchase permits to park in residential areas
where parking supply during daytime hours is available. Such funds can then be used to
construct/bond for additional off-street parking facility development, to support a
Business Improvement District, and/or to support Transportation Demand Management
strategies.
Parking Fine Revenues – Collected for violations related to overtime and improper parking, and
illegal parking in handicapped spaces, with a portion of such revenue directed to parking
development enterprise funds.
Options Affecting Businesses
Parking & Business Improvement Area (BIA) – An assessment of businesses rather than
property owners. The assessment formula can be based on a number of measurable
factors such as assessed values, gross sales, square footage, number of employees, or
other factors established by the local legislative authority. In most states, a BIA requires
60% -70% of merchants to agree to the assessment.
50
Options Affecting Property Owners
Local Improvement District (LID) – A well-established mechanism whereby benefiting property
owners are assessed to pay the cost of a major public improvement (including parking).
An LID is a property tax assessment that requires "buy-in" by property owners within a
specifically identified boundary. LIDs usually result as a consequence of a petition
process requiring a majority of owners to agree to an assessment for a specific purpose.
The amount paid by specific buildings can also be calibrated by proximity to an
improvement (in this case a garage), thereby structuring rates to reflect direct benefit to
an assessed property.
Options Affecting Developers
Fee-in-Lieu – Usually an option given to developers to pay the local jurisdiction an "in-lieu" fee
as a way to opt-out of providing parking with a new private development (usually the fee-
in-lieu option is associated with minimum parking standards). Payment of a fee-in-lieu
then provides the developer certain access entitlements into public parking facilities
proximate to the development site (i.e., in “downtown”).
Fees-in-lieu can range from a fee assessed at less than the actual cost of construction,
to the full cost of parking construction. Many cities use fees-in-lieu as a source for
funding public parking facilities. Generally, fees-in-lieu do not provide sufficient revenue
to fully fund a facility and are combined with other revenue sources to fully “pencil” a
project (e.g., parking charges/rates, on-street meters, etc.). The frequent experience by
some cities showing fees-in-lieu haven’t adequately funded public parking facilities has
led to diminished use of this fee.
As noted, the City Attorney has determined the In-Lieu Parking Fee is inadequate to fully
account for the development and maintenance of public parking and its use has been
suspended. The following reasons were provided for the discontinued use of the In-Lieu
Parking Fee:
1. The nexus for the fee needs to be established consistent with the Mitigation
Fee Act to identify the planned improvements and associated costs for the
improvements;
2. The fee amount was administered without specific or published criteria.
Since the establishment and use of the In-Lieu Parking Fee were in question, the
program was discontinued. Any potential future use of In-Lieu Parking Fee would
require an adequate survey consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act, and establishment of
published criteria for use.
Public / Private Development Partnerships – Public parking can be an effective tool to facilitate
downtown development. Development partnerships are most likely found with mixed-use
projects where parking is used to reduce the costs of jointly developed private office;
retail or residential use(s) and/or the private development can serve to defray some of
the public cost in developing parking.
Public / private development can occur through a variety of arrangements including:
3. Public acquisition of land and sale or lease of land/air rights not needed for
parking to accommodate supporting private use;
51
4. Private development of integrated mixed-use development with sale or lease-
back of the public parking portion upon completion – as a turn-key project;
and
5. Responsibility for public sector involvement directly by the City, through a
public development authority (PDA), or other special purpose entity such as a
public facility district created for the project or downtown area.
Options Affecting the General Public
General Obligation (GO) Bonds – Involving use of local jurisdiction issued non-voted or voted
bonds to develop parking facilities, subject to overall debt limit requirements. With GO
bonding, the municipality pledges its full faith and credit to repayment of the debt from
general fund resources. In effect, general fund revenues would be reserved to repay
debt that could not be supported by parking revenues alone. Again, there may be
imposed limits on the municipality for voter approved or non-voted debt. Whether this
would be an option for Temple City would be a factor of current debt.
Refinancing GO Bonds – Involves refinancing existing debt at lower rates and pushing the
savings from the general fund to debt coverage for a new parking facility.
Revenue Bonds – Pledging parking fee and other designated revenue sources to the repayment
of bonds but without the need to pledge full faith and credit of the issuing authority.
Revenue bonding is not appropriate in situations where a local jurisdiction’s overall debt
limit is a factor and projected revenues are inadequate or not deemed of sufficient
certainty to cover required debt service (plus a debt coverage factor). A cursory review
of Temple City indicates that parking pricing is not a standard practice and, therefore,
parking rates alone would likely not be sufficient to fully support revenue bonds. Interest
rates also are typically higher for revenue than GO bond financing.
63-20 Financing – Identified as a potential alternative to traditional GO, revenue bond and LID
bond financing. 63-20 financing (after the IRS Revenue Ruling 63-20) which allows a
qualified non-profit corporation to issue tax-exempt bonds on behalf of a government.
Financed assets must be “capital” and must be turned over free and clear to the
government by the time that bonded indebtedness is retired. When a municipality uses
this technique to finance a public facility, it can contract for the services of a non-profit
corporation (as the “issuer”) and a builder. The issuer acts on behalf of the municipality,
but has no real business interest in the asset being acquired.
Community or Urban Renewal (Tax Increment Financing) – Though originally created for the
limited purpose of financing the redevelopment of blighted communities, tax increment
financing (TIF) has developed into an integral part of the revenue structure of many local
governments across California and the nation. The rapid growth of TIF as an economic
development technique of choice to finance land acquisition, site development and
property rehabilitation/revitalization began in the early 1980’s. Tax increment financing
can provide an on-going source of local property tax revenue that can be used to finance
economic development projects, and other physical infrastructure projects, without
having to raise property tax rates. Moreover, TIF can leverage future general fund
revenues to support the repayment of property- tax backed debt, without having to go
directly to voters for approval, and without violating debt limitations. The recent
elimination of Redevelopment Agencies within the State of California has limited the use
52
of tax increment financing. However, TIF may still be utilized if the status of RDA’s were
reconsidered.
State & Federal Grants – In the past, a variety of state and federal grant programs have been
applied to funding downtown parking structures. In the current environment of more
limited state/federal funding, there are no longer any readily identifiable programs as
suitable for parking facility development.
General Fund Contribution – Local jurisdictions may make either one-time capital or on-going
operating contributions to a downtown-parking program.
Not to ScaleExhibit 1Regional Project LocationH:\pdata\10108178\Traffic\Exhibits\Exh01.aiDEC/2011SAN BERNARDINO COLOS ANGELES COORANGE CORIVERSIDE CO
ORANGE COSAN BERNARDINO COORANGE COLOS ANGELES COVENTURA COLOS ANGELES CO4054051011011023118271349023187110421059111072131031121051702211010710726019605605210193922142909055557210716083210210663960159191155735524126124113340557415101540557PROJECTLOCATION*REDONDOBEACHRANCHOPALOSVERDESLONGBEACHNEWPORTBEACHHUNTINGTONBEACHANAHEIMIRVINESANTAANACORONARIVERSIDESIMIVALLEYBURBANKSANTAMONICALOSANGELESBEVERLYHILLSAGOURA HILLSMAILBUGLENDALEINGLEWOODHAWTHORNECARSONSANPEDROSOUTHGATECYPRESSFULLERTONPASADENAALHAMBRAWHITTIERYORBALINDACHINOPOMONAONTARIOAZUSATEMPLECITYSANDIMASPACIFIC OCEANANGELES NATIONAL FORESTCLEVELANDNATIONALFORESTMISSIONVIEJOLAGUNABEACHSAN JUANCAPISTRANOCOSTAMESAORANGEWEST COVINAWALNUTMONTEBELLOPARAMOUNTNORCOLAGUNANIGUELFONTANARANCHO CUCAMONGAWEST HOLLYWOODSAN FERNANDOCALABASSASMOORPARKTHOUSANDOAKS
E LAS TUNAS BLVDOak AveSULTANA AVEWORKMAN AVEHART AVELOMA AVEENCINITA AVEALESSANDRO AVEOAK AVECLOVERLY AVEPRIMROSE AVETEMPLE CITY BLVDCAMELLIA AVEKAUFFMAN AVEGOLDEN WEST AVEAGNES AVEROWLAND AVEGARIBALDI AVE
LIVE OAK AVE
BIDWELL ST
HERMOSA
D
R
WOODRUFF AVE
BALDWIN AVEDowntown Study Area
DOWNTOWN PARKING STRATEGIC PLAN°0 200 400100
Feet1/6/11 JN10-108178 Downtown_Study_Area_Ex_2_11x17.mxd DJSource: Eagle Aerial 2011
On Street Parking
Off Street Parking
Parking Study Area Boundary
Exhibit 2
E LAS TUNAS BLVDOak AveSULTANA AVEWORKMAN AVEHART AVELOMA AVEENCINITA AVEALESSANDRO AVEOAK AVECLOVERLY AVEPRIMROSE AVETEMPLE CITY BLVDCAMELLIA AVEKAUFFMAN AVEGOLDEN WEST AVEAGNES AVEROWLAND AVEGARIBALDI AVE
LIVE OAK AVE
BIDWELL ST
HERMOSA
D
R
WOODRUFF AVE
BALDWIN AVEUV30
UV17
UV13
UV27
UV32
UV31
UV37
UV38
UV33UV26
UV35
UV16
UV6UV11
UV20
UV28
UV12
UV24
UV7
UV22
UV9UV5UV8UV10UV15
UV14 UV4
UV18
UV30
UV7
UV26
UV5
UV18
UV8
UV24UV24 UV26
UV30UV17UV10
UV13
UV26
UV10
UV22
UV12 UV11
UV31
UV20
UV32
UV5
UV27
UV26
UV20
UV20UV22
UV33
UV20
UV26UV26UV24 UV24
UV8
UV6
UV38 UV36UV32UV32 UV32
UV31
UV31 UV30
UV28
UV22
UV20
UV15
UV14UV13UV13
UV13 UV11UV11
UV11
UV105
UV43
UV54 UV24
UV35
UV26UV30
UV30UV28
UV26
UV22UV29
UV24
UV19
UV19UV14UV14UV14
UV17 UV13
UV13UV17
UV15
UV14
UV14
UV12UV12
UV8
UV13
Downtown Study Area Parking Capacity
DOWNTOWN PARKING STRATEGIC PLAN
°0 200 400100
Feet12/15/11 JN10-108178 Downtown_Parking_Capacity_Ex_3_11x17.mxd DJSource: Eagle Aerial 2011
On Street Parking Capacity
Off Street Parking Capacity
Parking Study Area Boundary
Exhibit 3
#
#
E LAS TUNAS BLVD
SULTANA AVEWORKMAN AVEHART AVELOMA AVEENCINITA AVEALESSANDRO AVEOAK AVECLOVERLY AVEPRIMROSE AVETEMPLE CITY BLVDCAMELLIA AVEKAUFFMAN AVEGOLDEN WEST AVEAGNES AVEROWLAND AVEGARIBALDI AVE
LIVE OAK AVE
BIDWELL ST
HERMOSA
D
R
WOODRUFF AVE
BALDWIN AVEDowntown Study Area Parking Restrictions
DOWNTOWN PARKING STRATEGIC PLAN
°0 200 400100
Feet3/28/12 JN10-108178 Downtown_Parking_Restrictions_Ex_4_11x17.mxd DJSource: Eagle Aerial 2011
On Street Parking
All Day Parking
Restricted Parking
Off Street Parking
Time Restricted Parking Lot
All Day Parking Lot
City Hall Parking Lot
Private Parking Lot
Parking Study Area Boundary
Exhibit 4
Not to Scale735 826 869 870 927 824 825 734 402 463 501 515 498 478 491 429 333 363 368 355 429 346 334 305 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM Parking Utilization Time Downtown Study Area - Tuesday Parking Utilization by HourExhibit 5H:\pdata\10108178\Traffic\Exhibits\Exh5.aiDEC/2011TOTAL PARKING UTILIZATIONON-STREET PARKING UTILIZATIONOFF-STREET PARKING UTILIZATION
Not to ScaleH:\pdata\10108178\Traffic\Exhibits\Exh6.aiDEC/2011Downtown Study Area - Saturday Parking Utilization by HourExhibit 61237 1241 1075 940 904 807 818 808 750 751 648 576 550 512 528 520 487 490 427 364 354 295 290 288 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Parking Utilization Time TOTAL PARKING UTILIZATIONON-STREET PARKING UTILIZATIONOFF-STREET PARKING UTILIZATION
Not to Scale1237 1241 1075 940 904 807 818 808 735 826 869 870 927 824 825 734 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Parking Utilization Time Downtown Study Area - Tuesday & Saturday Parking Utilization by HourExhibit 7DEC/2011H:\pdata\10108178\Traffic\Exhibits\Exh7.aiTOTAL SATURDAY PARKING UTILIZATIONTOTAL TUESDAY PARKING UTILIZATION
E LAS TUNAS BLVD
SULTANA AVEWOODRUFF AVE
HART AVELOMA AVEENCINITA AVEALESSANDRO AVEOAK AVECLOVERLY AVEPRIMROSE AVEBIDWELL S
T
HERMOSA
D
R
WORKMAN AVE
Area 1/2 Tuesday 2:00 PM Public Parking Occupancy
DOWNTOWN PARKING STRATEGIC PLAN°0 200 400100
Feet11/11/11 JN10-108178 Temple_City_Parking_Tuesday_1A_11x17.mxd DJSource: Eagle Aerial 2011 Exhibit 8
Legend
0% - 55% Occupied
56% - 70% Occupied
71% - 85% Occupied
86% - 100% Occupied
E LAS TUNAS BLVD
WORKMAN AVEPRIMROSE AVETEMPLE CITY BLVDCAMELLIA AVEKAUFFMAN AVEGOLDEN WEST AVEAGNES AVEROWLAND AVEWOODRUFF AVE
BALDWIN AVECivic Center
Area 2/2 Tuesday 2:00 PM Public Parking Occupancy
DOWNTOWN PARKING STRATEGIC PLAN°0 200 400100
Feet11/11/11 JN10-108178 Temple_City_Parking_Tuesday_1B_11x17.mxd DJSource: Eagle Aerial 2011 Exhibit 9
Legend
0% - 55% Occupied
56% - 70% Occupied
71% - 85% Occupied
86% - 100% Occupied
E LAS TUNAS BLVD
SULTANA AVEWOODRUFF AVE
HART AVELOMA AVEENCINITA AVEALESSANDRO AVEOAK AVECLOVERLY AVEPRIMROSE AVEBIDWELL S
T
HERMOSA
D
R
WORKMAN AVE
Area 1/2 Saturday 1:00 PM Public Parking Occupancy
DOWNTOWN PARKING STRATEGIC PLAN°0 200 400100
Feet11/14/11 JN10-108178 Temple_City_Parking_Tuesday_1A_11x17.mxd DJSource: Eagle Aerial 2011 Exhibit 10
Legend
0% - 55% Occupied
56% - 70% Occupied
71% - 85% Occupied
86% - 100% Occupied
E LAS TUNAS BLVD
WORKMAN AVEPRIMROSE AVETEMPLE CITY BLVDCAMELLIA AVEKAUFFMAN AVEGOLDEN WEST AVEAGNES AVEROWLAND AVEWOODRUFF AVE
BALDWIN AVECivic Center
Area 2/2 Saturday 1:00 PM Public Parking Occupancy
DOWNTOWN PARKING STRATEGIC PLAN°0 200 400100
Feet11/14/11 JN10-108178 Temple_City_Parking_Tuesday_1B_11x17.mxd DJSource: Eagle Aerial 2011 Exhibit 11
Legend
0% - 55% Occupied
56% - 70% Occupied
71% - 85% Occupied
86% - 100% Occupied
E LAS TUNAS BLVDOak AveSULTANA AVEWORKMAN AVEHART AVELOMA AVEENCINITA AVEALESSANDRO AVEOAK AVECLOVERLY AVEPRIMROSE AVETEMPLE CITY BLVDCAMELLIA AVEKAUFFMAN AVEGOLDEN WEST AVEAGNES AVEROWLAND AVEGARIBALDI AVE
LIVE OAK AVE
BIDWELL ST
HERMOSA
D
R
WOODRUFF AVE
BALDWIN AVEDowntown Study Area Pedestrian Circulation
DOWNTOWN PARKING STRATEGIC PLAN°0 200 400100
Feet3/28/12 JN10-108178 Pedestrian_Walkways_Ex_12_11x17.mxd DJSource: Eagle Aerial 2011
Pedestrian Walkways
Off Street Parking Area
Parking Study Area Boundary
Exhibit 12
Current Conditions
Road Diet Option B:
Angled Parking on One Side with Bike Lanes
Road Diet Option A:
Angled Parking on Both Sides with Sharrows
Road Diet Option C:
Angled Parking on Both Sides with Bike Lanes
76’
100’
76’
100’
76’
100’
76’
100’
Las Tunas Angled Parking Study - Cross Sections
North
05/21/2012 JN 10-108178
Source: RBF Consulting (2012)
Temple City Parking Study
Exhibit 13
45 Degree
Back-In Angled
23 Spaces
45 Degree
Back-In Angled
23 Spaces
LAS TUNAS DR
CAMELLIA AVEKAUFFMAN AVEANGLED PARKING
Parallel
14 Spaces
Parallel
14 Spaces
LAS TUNAS DR
CURRENT CONDITIONS
CAMELLIA AVEKAUFFMAN AVELas Tunas Angled Parking Study
North
05/31/2012 JN 10-108178
Source: Google Earth (2012)
Temple City Parking Study
Exhibit 14
E LAS TUNAS BLVD
SULTANA AVEWORKMAN AVEHART AVELOMA AVEENCINITA AVEALESSANDRO AVEOAK AVECLOVERLY AVEPRIMROSE AVETEMPLE CITY BLVDCAMELLIA AVEKAUFFMAN AVEGOLDEN WEST AVEAGNES AVEROWLAND AVEGARIBALDI AVE
LIVE OAK AVE
BIDWELL ST
HERMOSA
D
R
WOODRUFF AVE
BALDWIN AVEDowntown Study Area - Draft Parking Pricing Zone
DOWNTOWN PARKING STRATEGIC PLAN
°0 200 400100
Feet3/28/12 JN10-108178 Downtown_Parking_Restrictions_and_Pricing_Ex_x_11x17.mxd DJSource: Eagle Aerial 2011 Exhibit 15
Parking Pricing Zone
This Page Intentionally Left Blank