trategy 2000
San Jose Greater Downtown
Strategy for Development
Parking Management Plan
Prepared for:
San Jose Redevelopment Agency
Department of Transportation
City of San Jose
Prepared by:
A Corporation
SSOCI TES
OCTOBER 2001
STRATEGY 2000
SAN JOSE GREATER DOWNTOWN STRATEGY FOR DEVELOPMENT
PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
October 2001
Prepared For:
SAN JOSE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
and
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CITY OF SAN JOSE
Prepared By:
KAKU ASSOCIATES, INC.
1453 Third Street, Suite 400
Santa Monica, California 90401
(310) 458-9916
Ref: 1319
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Downtown San Jose is in the midst of a tremendous growth surge. Office buildings,
residential units, government facilities and retail projects are underway and many more
are planned within the next ten years.
These new projects will both generate new
parking demand and remove some of the existing surface parking supply now serving
downtown employees and visitors.
SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Parking Demand
Changes in parking demand in Downtown over the next ten years are likely to come
about as a result of several factors. First, many of the existing surface parking lots in
Downtown San Jose will be lost due to new development. Second, to the extent that
new development may not fully provide for its own parking demand with its own on-site
parking supply, additional burdens will be placed on the overall downtown parking
system. Third, the parking demand generated by public projects such as the Convention
Center, library, theaters and museums are likely to increase with downtown growth.
Because office, theater and hotel land uses do not experience peak-parking demands at
the same time of the day, the parking “shortage” caused by the projects in development
is not necessarily additive.
It is anticipated that in the short-term (2002-2005)
approximately 3,125 new parking spaces are required to meet the short-term downtown
growth.
This figure is comprised of lost parking spaces due to development
(approximately 2,000 spaces) and additional peak demand that will be generated by
downtown growth (approximately 1.125 spaces) that would need to be accommodated
by the public parking system.
An additional 1,500 spaces would be required in off-site peripheral locations to
accommodate future office development growth assuming the proposed parking code
i
revisions are approved.
Therefore, it is anticipated that the long-term (2002-2008)
parking demand would total approximately 4,625 spaces.
As supported by the Greater Downtown Strategy for Development Plan, the replacement
parking spaces are particularly important to the viability of those Historic and Class "B"
office buildings that do not have enough parking on-site to meet their demands. Due to
the vitality of the marketplace, it is very important to begin the effort to replace those
parking spaces lost to recent developments and those that will be lost due to the pipeline
projects.
Parking Plus
“Parking Plus” is a strategy that adds public parking to private projects as they are
developed. Parking Plus is usually accomplished in one of two ways. In the first method
the private development is required to add a certain number of public parking above and
beyond the zoning code parking requirement for the project. Oftentimes the amount of
public parking required is related to the amount of parking on the site prior to the
development. The new project is required to “replace” the existing public parking within
its site plan. Under this scenario, the expense of building the Parking Plus parking
supply would be the responsibility of the new development.
In the second approach, the public sector (i.e. the City or the Redevelopment Agency)
would add parking supply to a private development by financing the additional parking.
Under this scenario, the private development would be required to operate these spaces
as part of the public parking supply – respecting the public parking rate structure and
accepting any public parking validation vouchers. Revenue generated by these spaces
is generally added to the public parking system after deduction of parking operating
expenses (which would be retained by the private development that operated the
spaces).
The Agency Board requested that the concept of Parking Plus be tested for Downtown
San Jose conditions. The 29 projects in the pipeline were reviewed to see if there was
any potential to add Parking Plus spaces to those projects not yet developed.
ii
In
addition, the Agency Board specified five parcels where Parking Plus potential was to be
evaluated.
Parking Plus in downtown San Jose is a strategy that could be used to add to the visitor
parking supply. Of the 29 pipeline projects, approximately 3,300 spaces could have
been developed if a Parking Plus strategy had been in effect. Indeed, approximately
1,050 spaces could still be developed within four of the commercial projects on this list
that are still in the early planning stage. This total includes the retail project Parking Plus
potential.
Two of the five Agency Board sites could be candidates for the provision of up to 425
Parking Plus spaces, yielding a total Parking Plus potential of approximately 1,500
spaces.
It is difficult to predetermine the cost of Parking Plus spaces, however it is recommended
that the cost of these spaces be capped at $40,000 per space.
The Parking Management Plan calls for the construction of 4-5 parking structures over
the next ten years to accommodate the anticipated growth of visitor and off-site
employee parking in downtown San Jose. If the Parking Plus strategy is adopted and
implemented, one of these garages would likely not be needed. The equivalent parking
supply of one municipal parking garage could be added to the downtown parking supply
through Parking Plus. As demonstrated above, approximately 1,500 parking spaces
could be added to the downtown parking supply by adding one floor of parking to each
major commercial project that was located in the right place within the downtown to
serve visitor parking.
Recommended Supply
The Parking Management Plan evaluated a total of 27 potential parking sites within and
peripheral to downtown. Of these, ten sites were selected for detailed evaluation which
led to the selection of seven locations for the construction of the required new parking
iii
supply. Figure S-1 shows the location of the recommended parking supply in relation to
the existing downtown public parking supply.
The following strategy is recommended to meet the parking demand in downtown:
Interim/Immediate Solutions:
SITE
SPACES
Akatiff lot
525
Compaq Center at San Jose
500
TOTAL
1,025
The City has already entered into a five-year lease agreement with the owner of the
Akatiff site to provide approximately 525 peripheral spaces on the existing surface
parking lot. If the need for this service exceeds the capacity of the Akatiff lot or of the
Akatiff lease expires, the surface parking lot at the Compaq Center should be used as a
peripheral parking location. Either of these locations will require DASH shuttle service to
connect the lot(s) to the downtown core.
Long-Term Solutions:
SITE
SPACES
Site “5” - Block N. of De Anza Hotel
965 (net)
Site “H” – Greyhound
1,065
Parking Plus Core
800
Site “N” – SoFA Parking Plus
500
Site “9” - Parkside Hall
800
TOTAL
4,130
Table S-1 provides a summary of the location, priority and cost for the recommended
supply.
iv
TABLE S-1
RECOMMENDED PARKING SUPPLY PLAN
PRIORITY
LOCATION
NET NEW
SPACES
CONSTRUCTION
COST ($million)
0
500
0
0
965
$30.00
1,065
$38.80
Retail Project/Core
Parking Plus
800
$32.00
Estimated at $40,000/sp
4
N SoFA Parking Plus
500
$20.00
Estimated at $40,000/sp
5
9 Parkside Hall
800
$24.50
TOTAL
4,630
$145.30
1,120
$20.43
PERIPHERAL
Immediate
B Akatiff
2
C Compaq Arena Surface
CORE
1
2
3
Long Range
5 North of DeAnza Hotel
H Greyhound Block
C Compaq Arena Structure
vi
COMMENT
500 leased temp spaces
Agreement with Arena
Priority 1 – Site “5” – Block North of De Anza Hotel
The Plan recommends this site as the top priority because it serves the daytime
Downtown employee parking needs, Compaq Center’s evening event needs and it offers
the opportunity to shift employee parking out of the nearby Market Street garage, thus
freeing up visitor parking in the Market Street facility. It would also serve the evening
event parking demand at the Compaq Center. Should this facility be approved, the City
would have the option to transfer Hotel De Anza’s long-term parking commitment from
Market Street garage to this facility, which would be much more convenient for the hotel.
Priority 2 – Site “H” - Greyhound
The development of a parking garage on the Greyhound Terminal site should be
pursued as the second downtown core garage. This will require the relocation of the
Greyhound Terminal to the Diridon Station area, allowing Greyhound to play a larger role
in the regional transportation system. A new garage on the Site H location would serve
downtown employees, retail visitors as well as event center visitors. It is likely that the
visitor parking agreement for The Tech Museum could be moved form the Second Street
garage to this new facility. The walking distance to The Tech would be shortened by the
move and additional spaces in the Second Street garage would be made available to
SoFA visitors.
Priority 3 – Retail Project Parking Plus
The opportunity to construct additional public parking spaces -- Parking Plus -- in the
core for the benefit of the retail customers should be pursued as part of the development
of the retail project. Preliminary analysis indicates that the retail project could provide
approximately 800-1,000 additional parking spaces in a Parking Plus strategy. In terms
of location, Block-3, Fountain Alley and the Zanatto lot are located in strategic locations
that would benefit from additional parking.
Priority 4 – Site “N” – SoFA Parking Plus
The plan recommends pursuing a supply of additional parking in the SoFA district in
conjunction with a future mixed-use development at this block. The Agency should
secure an additional 500 Parking Plus spaces through negotiation as part of the
development of a mixed-use project on this site. The SoFA Strategic Development Plan,
currently under study, would identify specific opportunities and priorities for development
including parking.
Priority 5 – Site “9” - Parkside Hall
Depending on the amount of Parking Plus parking development at the retail project and
SoFA, the Parkside Hall site would be the final site that is constructed to accommodate
the 4,600 parking spaces required to meet Downtown’s parking demand. Given the
assumptions in the recommended program outlined above, the Parkside Hall site would
need to contain 800 spaces. It is recommended as the final parking site to be developed
due to contractual commitments with traveling exhibits that would delay the start of
construction on this site to beyond 2005.
Long-range options for additional parking garage construction should retain the option of
constructing a parking garage on Lot C of the Compaq Center at San Jose (assuming
that the surface lot daytime utilization is successful).
vii
ZONING CODE ADJUSTMENTS
The Plan calls for the revision of the City Parking Zoning Code as it relates to downtown
development. It is the intent of the Plan that these parking code revisions apply to new
development in the downtown core and to the area covered by the Arena/Diridon
Strategic Development Plan.
Supply Requirements
The current zoning code requires a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square
feet of office building in Downtown San Jose. However, the actual parking demand for
Downtown San Jose office buildings is closer to 3.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square
feet of building area.
Thus, if any project only met the minimum zoning code
requirements, it would fall 50% short of actually meeting its parking demand. In reality,
most new office buildings provide on-site parking supplies that significantly exceed the
minimum zoning requirements, constructing on-site supplies to more nearly meet the full
demand of 3.0 sp/1,000 square feet.
The Parking Management Plan recommends that new office space downtown provide a
parking supply of 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Off-Site Parking Supply
The proposed zoning code revision requires that new downtown office developments
provide a portion of their employee parking demand in an off-site location. As transit and
carpool usage increases and as more downtown residents became downtown
employees (and walk or take a shuttle to work), the overall employee-parking
requirement would decrease.
The Parking Management Plan recommends that new office projects (except those
already approved or in the entitlement process by the time this ordinance change takes
viii
effect) provide 2.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet on-site and 0.45 spaces per 1,000
square feet off-site. Over time as transit/walk/carpool modes of travel increase, the need
for on-site employee parking will decrease, and the off-site spaces can be used to
support other development or redeveloped for uses other than parking.
In-Lieu Fees
New office developments in Downtown San Jose would be required to develop 15% of
their parking supply in an off-site location.
The affected development will have the
option of providing these off-site spaces by their own means or by paying an in-lieu fee
to the Parking Fund. The Agency/City would then construct new parking in peripheral
locations using these in-lieu fees to meet that parking demand
It is recommended that the in-lieu fee be set at $20,000 per space. This fee would
increase annually with the Means Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay
Area.
Travel Demand Management
Travel Demand Management (TDM) includes actions aimed at reducing the impact of
traffic by influencing people’s travel behavior. Travel Demand Management is typically
not a single action, but rather a set of actions or strategies. For many developments, the
goal of Travel Demand Management is to encourage employees to travel at times and in
ways that avoid adding vehicles to streets and freeways during the most congested
times of the day. To the extent that employees shift from their automobiles to either
transit or walk as the means to get to work, the amount of parking needed to serve the
new development would be reduced.
As proposed, participation in the TDM program by a new office development would earn
the project a credit of up to a 15% reduction in required parking supply. Hence, a
development could reduce the required parking supply from 3 spaces per 1,000 square
feet to 2.55 spaces per 1000 square feet, which will provide a substantial construction
ix
saving to the developer. TDM measures, strategies and requirements are outlined in the
Downtown Parking Management Plan.
Code Changes Over Time
The goal of Strategy 2000 is to achieve a 25% percent transit mode split for commuters
by the year 2010. In order to accomplish this goal, additional rail and bus transit service
to/from downtown will have to be provided, the travel demand management program
must be effective and downtown residential development must be successful. If all three
of these occurred, automobile commuting would decrease, the mode split goal would
likely be met and the office parking ratio could be reduced from 3.0 to 2.0 spaces per
1000 square feet.
This reduction in office parking supply would have several
advantages for downtown including a reduction in downtown traffic, the reduction of
development costs, increased on-site design flexibility, and the ability to use more
conveniently located parking for retail and visitors.
A series of reduction steps for downtown office parking requirements has been
recommended. The first steps are related to the provision of transit service to downtown
while the later steps are related to actual system performance. The system performance
would be documented through a bi-annual travel survey conducted by the City. If the
travel survey showed that the transit mode split had reached the next plateau, the
parking requirements for new office development could be reduced.
ONGOING ACTIVITIES
Additional Interim Supply
Redevelopment Agency staff, in coordination with the Department of Transportation staff
is proceeding with the use of Agency-owned development parcels as interim surface
parking while awaiting development plans.
Surfacing and striping of presently vacant
parcels will increase downtown parking by 418 parking spaces:
x
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
First & Bassett
First & Julian
San Pedro & Bassett
54 N. Fourth Street
551 Julian Street
TOTAL
190
80
75
(net new spaces)
60
13
418 spaces
These lots will be served with an extension of Downtown DASH shuttle system.
Supply/Demand Monitoring
The staffs of the Department of Transportation and the Redevelopment Agency would
prepare a quarterly report summarizing the projected parking supply and demand status
over the next six-month period. The report, submitted to the Downtown Parking Board,
would allow decisions to be made about the sequence of parking supply changes over
time (e.g., not taking existing parking lots out of service until new supplies are available).
The quarterly report would also summarize projections of downtown construction worker
parking demand, along with plans for off-site parking for these workers.
Other Strategies
Other interim strategies already in process include creation of additional on-street
spaces, increase of valet service at the City’s existing parking facilities and efforts to
reduce parking demand with marketing promotions to expand utilization of EcoPass and
van/car pool formation. The City has entered into a five-year lease with the owner of the
Site B (Akatiff Lot) to provide approximately 525 public spaces in an existing surface lot.
The City is currently utilizing the Akatiff lot to accommodate City’s commitment to the
Arena for evening Arena-employee parking.
As demand for downtown employee
parking shifts due to disappearance of Downtown core surface lots, an extension of
DASH Shuttle will be implemented to serve the peripheral sites.
Additionally, the 4th and San Fernando garage is expected to be ready by the end of
2002 with 750 parking spaces. Department of Transportation staff is also working on a
plan expand the Free Parking Program to include the Market/Balbach surface parking lot
xi
in the SoFA District.
This plan would include additional marketing and a signage
program to promote public parking in the SoFA.
The Parking Management Plan calls for continued diligence in the day-to-day operation
of the downtown public parking system. Increased efficiency, public information, interim
parking facilities and marketing of the parking system are all included.
FINANCING PLAN
The Plan recommends the construction of an approximately $145 million capital cost
program associated with construction of approximately 4,600 parking spaces.
It is
anticipated that the final 1,500 spaces, which are required as a part of the off-site
requirements for the new office developments in Downtown, will be self supporting and
will not require public funding, although the 1,500 spaces and their funding are included
in the figures above.
A list of 14 different funding alternatives was discussed with
downtown stakeholders. Following is the list of the options, which were presented to the
public for their input. :
Assessment District @ $0.20/square feet
BID Increase
Business License Tax Increase
City Parking Fund (Annual Net Rev.
Eliminate Free Parking
Full Price Validation
$2 Increase in Citation Fines
Increased Parking Rates
In Lieu Fees
Parking Deficiency Fee
10% Parking Tax
Premium for Multiple Spaces
Public/Private Partnerships
Redevelopment Agency
xii
Parking Fund revenues, Redevelopment Agency funding, and parking rate increases
were amongst the top three choices in both the general community meeting and the
Downtown Association’s Board of Directors meeting.
These sources provide
approximately 80% of long-term funding. When the recommended in-lieu fee is taken
into account, the entire parking program can be accomplished.
Table S-2 shows the financing plan for the recommended parking supply increase. The
financing of the required new parking facilities would be accomplished through use of
Parking Fund reserves and the sale of parking revenue bonds. The bonds would be
repaid through allocation of the following funding sources: the Parking Fund net annual
operating revenues, Redevelopment Agency guaranteed payments, an increase in
parking fees (including a premium payment for the purchase of multiple leases) and inlieu fees.
SUMMARY
The Parking Management Plan for Downtown San Jose provides enough parking to
support existing development and to encourage near-term proposed development. It
also provides enough flexibility to allow San Jose the ability to realize its full
development potential without being burdened by an oversupply of downtown parking.
The Plan balances short-term needs with long-term vision to permit existing land uses to
flourish while reserving transportation and parking flexibility and capacity for future
development.
xiii
TABLE S-2
RECOMMENDED FINANCING PLAN
PRIORITY
SITE LOCATION
TOTAL COST
Down Payment BOND PAYMENT
($ million)
($ million)
PERIPHERAL
Immediate
B Akatiff Lease
2
C Compaq Arena
Surface Lot
CORE
1
5 North of DeAnza
2
H Greyhound Block
3
ANNUAL BOND
PAYMENT
($ million)
ANNUAL AMOUNT
RAISED
($ million)
0
0
0
0
0
0
FINANCING STRATEGY
Parking Fund -- Shuttle
Parking Fund -- Shuttle
$8.30
Retail Project
Parking Plus
$30.00
$2.45
$2.00
$0.45
Parking Enterprise Fund
Redevelopment Agency
0
$30.50
0
$2.50
0
$2.12
$0.90
Increased Rates
Premium for Multiple Spaces
$32.00
$2.64
$2.64
Redevelopment Agency
4
N SoFA Parking Plus
$20.00
$1.60
$0.65
$0.95
Redevelopment Agency
In-Lieu Fees
5
9 Parkside Hall
$24.50
$2.00
$1.50
In-Lieu Fees
$137.00
$11.19
$11.21
TOTAL
$8.30
xiv
I.
INTRODUCTION
STRATEGY 2000
San Jose Greater Downtown Strategy for Development is an action guide for
development and redevelopment of Greater Downtown San Jose through the year 2010.
The "Strategy" is the results of a broad, multi-disciplinary consideration of the issues of
economics, transportation, urban design, urban landscape, historic resources, cultural
resources and events as they apply to the Greater Downtown. The Redevelopment
Agency Board will use the "Strategy" as a guide to make policy, planning, and budgetary
decisions concerning development for the next ten years.
The above quote is from the final report of Strategy 2000 -- a comprehensive planning
effort undertaken by a 33-member Community Task Force comprised of residents,
university, cultural community, and business representatives from the downtown area
and from the community at large. The Strategy 2000 plan was formulated by the Task
Force with the assistance of a consultant team and a technical advisory committee made
up of staff representatives from the City and related agencies.
Strategy 2000 was presented to the San Jose Redevelopment Agency Board for their
consideration in February 2001.
The plan developed recommendations centered on six categories of urban issues:
a.
Public Realm
b.
Urban Form and Buildings
c.
Transportation and Access
d.
Historic Resources
e.
Economic Considerations
f.
Human Services
The Strategy 2000 plan called for the development of a Parking Management Plan as
one of the key strategies in the Transportation and Access category. The Task Force
placed a high priority on the development of the Parking Management Plan.
1
This document summarizes the Parking Management plan called for in Strategy 2000.
The various elements of the Parking Management plan are described in the following
chapters of this report:
1.
Parking Supply and Demand
2.
Parking Code and Off-site Parking
3.
Code Changes Over Time
4.
Travel Demand Management
5.
Implementation Phasing
6.
Parking Operations
7.
Parking Financing
Figure 1 shows the downtown street pattern in the study area and Figure 2 shows the
location of the major public parking supplies in downtown.
EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS
In the 1996-98 time period, Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) completed a detailed study
of parking conditions in Downtown San Jose. Parking inventories, occupancy counts
and duration studies summarized the then-current parking conditions in downtown. The
study also projected land use growth over a ten-year period and projected parking needs
for a five- and ten-year horizon.
1996-97 Parking Study
The study inventoried and measured the usage patterns of the approximately 25,000
parking spaces in Downtown San Jose. The breakdown of existing spaces in 1996 was
as follows:
OFF-STREET
City/Redevelopment Agency Owned
Open to Public (Privately Owned)
Private/Reserved
Subtotal Off-Street
2
8,540
12.069
1,429
22,038
Figure 2
Location of Downtown Public Parking
ON-STREET
Metered Spaces
1,510
Non-metered Spaces
1,319
Subtotal On-Street
2,829
TOTAL
24,867
The public off-street supply controlled by the City represents approximately 40% of the
total off-street supply – a high percentage of public parking for the downtown area of a
Western U.S. city.
The 1996 parking occupancy counts showed that midday conditions on a weekday and
evening conditions on a weekend represented the peak parking demand conditions in
Downtown San Jose. Under weekday midday conditions, the parking supply was 68%
filled while weekend evening conditions saw the parking supply 44% occupied. These
overall numbers tend to mask the fact that individual blocks within the downtown
experienced parking demands in excess of 90% of the available supply.
The 90% occupancy level is normally considered to be the maximum effective parking
supply available to the public. Parking facilities that experience demands in excess of
90% are often categorized as "full" by users -- especially visitors to downtown -- as they
are forced to search for the few remaining spaces in the parking lot/structure.
In 1996, the midday weekday parking counts showed that 11 blocks exceeded the 90%
percent occupancy level. These blocks were primarily centered on the historic office
building area (Santa Clara Street and Second Street), Cesar Chavez Park and the
Convention Center.
Despite the much lower overall usage patterns on a weekend
evening, there were 14 blocks that exceeded the 90% occupancy level. These blocks
were related to events at the San Jose Arena and the Convention Center.
The conclusions of the 1996-97 study suggested that by the Year 2007 the downtown
area would experience a parking demand equal to 87% of its projected 32,420-space
capacity – up from the existing 68% overall occupancy level. The 32,420-space supply
assumed that new development would add new parking as part of their project.
5
The WSA study called for the construction of two parking garages within the five-year
timeframe (2002) and a third garage within the subsequent five-year timeframe (i.e., by
the year 2007).
1998 Study Update
In 1998, WSA updated its 1996 report based on a number of changed conditions within
downtown:
a.
The relocation of City Hall to the area north of the northwest corner of the
San Jose State University campus,
b.
Revised projections of land use growth and major project developments
within downtown,
c.
The City's Downtown Retail Strategy, and
d.
A general increase in parking demand patterns due to increased market
activity.
A series of parking occupancy counts sampled the parking demand patterns at
approximately 5,000 spaces and found a weekday midday parking demand increase of
approximately 9% when compared to the 1996 study results. In addition, increased
activity at the San Jose Arena, the Convention Center and the Tech Museum indicated
increased weekend and the nighttime parking demand levels.
Even assuming that all new development provided an on-site parking supply equal to the
minimum required by zoning, by the year 2007, downtown parking demand was
expected to reach 89% of the supply -- a point very close to the "practical capacity" of
the entire system.
Based on this projected demand, the 1998 report recommended that 2,400 to 3,000
spaces be built in at least two parking structures within downtown. The report also
recommended that peripheral parking in proximity to the San Jose Arena should be
considered.
6
Year 2001 Parking Conditions
While detailed parking occupancy counts comparable to the above two studies were not
conducted as part of the Strategy 2000 planning process, it is clear that parking demand
pressures in Downtown San Jose have increased over the last 2-3 years. Waiting lists
to get monthly parking at both public and private off-street lots/structures were common
in late 2000. The Task Force heard numerous concerns regarding excessive walking
distances between parking and the office/retail/event destinations caused by the lack of
parking near the ultimate destination.
Anecdotal information suggested that the lack of parking was indeed stifling the growth
of existing downtown businesses. Existing businesses indicated that portions of their
workforce were now housed in non-downtown locations. Because downtown parking
was not available, these businesses did not feel that they were able to move their
outlying staff downtown in order to consolidate their operations. Commercial brokers
told of building areas sitting unleased because parking was not available within a
reasonable walking distance.
The Task Force clearly saw parking in Downtown San Jose as one of the key
development issues.
GROWTH FORECASTS
Table 1 shows a summary of the existing, pipeline and future land use projections for
Downtown San Jose. As can be seen, retail space in downtown is expected to double
over the next 10 years, while office space and hotel rooms will triple and residential units
will quadruple. In addition, plans call for the expansion of the downtown library, the
relocation of the Civic Center to the downtown core, the construction of a new federal
office building, the renovation of the 1,200-seat Fox Theater, and the expansion of the
San Jose Convention Center.
These land use projections have a two-fold effect on the parking in Downtown San Jose.
First, obviously the parking demand increases as land use in downtown intensifies.
7
Table 1
Land Use Growth Projections
Downtown San Jose Parking Management Plan
LAND USE
OFFICE
RESIDENTIAL
RETAIL
HOTEL
EXISTING
6,200,000 sf
2,600 du
1,100,000 sf
1,500 rooms
PROJECTS
UNDERWAY
3,000,000 sf
1,000 du
10,000 sf
1,000 rooms
2001-2010
GROWTH
8-10,000,000 sf
8-10,000 du
900-1,200,000 sf
2-2,500 rooms
8
TOTAL
17-19,200,000 sf
11-13,600 du
2-3,300,000 sf
4-5,000 du
Second, many of these new projects will be constructed on land than is now used as
surface parking in downtown. Thus, these new projects result in an increase in the
parking demand and a decrease in the existing parking supply.
PARKING AS PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The Task Force was clear that parking must be investigated in context as an integral
part of the entire transportation system. If Downtown San Jose is to reach the potential
development levels described above, it must be supported by an integrated
transportation system that balances automobile, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Parking is the single most influential factor in stabilizing or disrupting the overall balance
in the transportation system. An abundance of cheap, all-day employee parking will
doom any effort to increase transit ridership, thus resulting in traffic congestion.
Likewise, a severe shortage of downtown parking will discourage downtown visitors and
cause new commercial developments to seek suburban alternatives.
The Parking Management Plan described in this report is consistent with the Strategy
2000 Task Force’s desire to provide and support a balanced transportation system.
Innovations such as off-site parking, parking code changes over time and the inclusion
of a travel demand management program as part of the Parking Management Program
emphasize the uniqueness of this downtown parking plan.
9
II.
PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND
The new development forecast for downtown would add 45-50,000 employees and
approximately 22-27,000 residents to downtown. The new hotel space would support
the planned expansions of the Convention Center and the Tech Museum while the
retail/dining/entertainment spaces would support downtown residents, employees and
visitors alike.
PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS
Changes in parking demand over the next ten years are likely to come about as a result
of two factors. First, many of the existing surface parking lots in Downtown San Jose will
be lost as new development occurs on land now used for surface parking. Second, to
the extent that new development does not fully provide for its own parking demand with
its own on-site parking supply, additional burdens will be placed on the overall downtown
parking system. Each of these factors is discussed below.
Surface Parking Loss
Table 2 shows that a number of surface parking lots will be lost as a result of the recent
developments and those already in the pipeline. In total, approximately 3,100 spaces
will be lost as the pipeline projects are constructed. Taking into account the additional
parking demand generated by the new projects and the public parking structures that are
being built as part of the near-term development changes, there will be a net loss to the
downtown parking system of approximately 2,900 parking spaces.
The 1998 parking occupancy surveys by Wilbur Smith Associates found 77% of the
spaces occupied in the weekday peak afternoon hours within the overall downtown area.
Within the core area of downtown (i.e. excluding the Diridon Station/Arena area, the area
10
TABLE 2
DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE STRATEGIC PLAN
RECENT AND PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
3/22/2001
Project/Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
101 San Fernando
City Hall
4th Street Garage
Joint Library
Block 3
Century Center
Zanotto Block
AboveNet Building
Fountain Alley
Fairmont Annex
Market/San Carlos
Mitchell Properties
Opus
Convention Center (Hilton Hotel)
Convention Center Expansion
Boston Properties
Montgomery Hotel
Divcowest Office Tower
Marriott Courtyard
Mission Villas
Oasis
Sobrato North Campus
New Federal Office
Sobrato Tower
Adobe Phase II Tower II
Fire Station #1
Convention Center Marriott
Fox California Theater
Conv. Center St. Claire Hotel
Land Use & Size
Parking Demand
Parking Supply
Existing Supply
Lost
Net
Change
323 Apartments & Retail
Office
Parking Garage
Library
Residential, Office & Retail
89 Residential Units & Retail
Residential, Office & Retail
329ksf Office
Office & Retail
260 Rooms
463
1,650
165
1,200
117
260
700
280
87
1,350
805
1,216
310
1,300
28
1,319
74
1,500
1,100
404
0
282
400
106
564
1,650
750
0
1,200
117
110
700
550
0
50
1,350
805
1,216
310
1,300
0
1,319
0
1,500
1,100
404
0
78
0
0
165
0
0
0
320
0
111
154
149
0
280
439
248
220
0
365
0
0
0
126
138
0
0
0
0
112
204
80
0
-64
0
750
-165
-320
0
-261
-154
121
-87
-230
-439
-248
-220
0
-365
-28
0
-74
-126
-138
0
0
0
0
-112
-204
-480
-106
15,116
15,073
3,111
-2,950
Residential & Retail
320ksf Office
Hotel
Convention Center
860ksf Office
83 Room Hotel
516ksf Office
223 Room Hotel
Residential
800ksf Office
Office
380ksf Office
270ksf Office
Fire Station
Hotel
Theater
Hotel
Total
11
north of SJSU and area south of the Convention Center), the occupancy rates were
higher and certainly there were individual facilities that were completely full. Accounting
for the “effective” maximum occupancy level of 90%, the 1998 parking demand levels
indicate that the core areas of downtown had only 2,000 empty spaces available to
serve the vehicles parked in the lots that will be lost to the new development. Given the
fact that the WSA occupancy studies are three years old and that activity has increased
in the past three years, a more conservative estimate of existing parking availability
would be 1,000 spaces. Comparing the 2,900-space reduction to the 1,000 spaces
available today yields a parking shortage of approximately 2,000 spaces, once the
existing surface parking lots are lost to new development.
Thus, even taking into account the available empty parking supply, the downtown
parking supply would need to be increased by 2,000 spaces to meet target occupancy
levels.
These 2,000 replacement parking spaces are particularly important to those Historic and
Class "B" office buildings that do not have enough parking on-site to meet their
demands. It has certainly been one of the goals of the Greater Downtown Strategic Plan
to maintain the viability, and indeed to strengthen, these existing downtown land use
components.
Thus, replacing the lost parking is important to the continued viability of a number of
downtown buildings. Because of the vitality of the marketplace and the speed with
which the pipeline projects are progressing, it is very important to begin the effort to
replace these lost spaces immediately.
Pipeline Projects
The pipeline projects described in Table 2 are already in some stage of the entitlement
process, and therefore some development information is known about many of the
projects. Most of the office developments, for example, are providing on-site parking
supplies between 2.0 and 3.0 spaces per 1,000 gross sf – rather than the 1.5 sp/1,000 sf
minimum rate required by the Zoning Code.
12
It appears that the pipeline office projects will be supplying on-site spaces to
accommodate approximately 90-95% of their opening day parking demand.
With
approximately 3.0 million square feet of pipeline office development in process, the
parking demand in downtown will increase by approximately 9,000 vehicles. Judging by
the amount of on-site parking proposed as a part of the new developments, the office
portion of the pipeline projects could fall short of meeting their entire parking demand onsite by between 500-1,000 spaces. In addition, the parking demand generated by the
theater and the hotel developments are likely to exceed their on-site parking supply.
Because office, theater and hotel land uses do not experience peak parking demands at
the same time of the day, the parking “shortage” caused by the pipeline projects is not
necessarily additive. Table 3 shows that the pipeline projects (10% of the 3,000,000
square feet of office, 50% of the hotel rooms and the theater space) would generate a
peak demand of 1,125 spaces that would have to be accommodated by the general
downtown parking supply.
These 1,125 spaces would be additive to the 2,000
replacement spaces described above, for a total of 3,125 spaces.
On-site vs. Off-site Parking Supply
The current zoning code in Downtown San Jose calls for new office buildings to provide
a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross building area. This
means that a 100,000 square foot office building would be required by the zoning code
to provide minimum of on-site parking supply of 150 parking spaces. In reality, however,
the actual parking demand for Downtown San Jose office buildings is closer to 3.0
parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area. Thus, if the project only met the
minimum zoning code requirements, it would fall 50% short of actually meeting its
parking demand.
In the example above, approximately 150 project-related vehicles
would be searching for off-site parking spaces – thus placing a burden on the downtown
parking supply.
As described above, the pipeline office buildings are proposing on-site parking supplies
that will come very close to meeting their opening day parking demand. In other words,
13
Kaku Associates, Inc.
6/6/2002
****************
TABLE 3
SAN JOSE PIPELINE PROJECTS --UNMET PARKING DEMAND
PROJECT:
SHARED PARKING ESTIMATION-INPUT ASSUMPTIONS
PROJECT #:
PROJECT :
LAND USE
OFFICE
RETAIL
RESTAURANT
THEATER
NCBD-RESID.
CBD-RESID.
HOTEL-ROOM
HOTEL-REST.
HOTEL-CONF.
HOTEL-CONV.
SAN JOSE DOWNTOWN STRATEGY
PIPELINE UNMET SITE PARKING DEMAND
SIZE
300
0
0
1200
0
0
1000
0
0
0
DEMAND RATIO
Weekday Saturday
3.00
3.80
20.00
0.30
1.00
1.00
0.50
10.00
0.50
30.00
0.50
4.00
20.00
0.33
1.00
1.00
0.50
10.00
0.50
30.00
Month :
JUN
MONTH ADJMT
%AUTO PERS/AUTO% CAPTIVE Weekday Saturday
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A
80%
100%
100%
100%
14
1.2
1.8
2.0
2.0
N/A
N/A
1.4
2.0
2.0
2.0
N/A
0%
0%
0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
0%
0%
0%
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
Kaku Associates, Inc.
6/6/2002
(CONTINUED)
TABLE 3
SAN JOSE PIPELINE PROJECTS --UNMET PARKING DEMAND
PARKING ACCUMULATION SUMMARY
PROJECT #:
PROJECT :
SAN JOSE DOWNTOWN STRATEGY
PIPELINE UNMET SITE PARKING DEMAND
Month : JUN
WEEKDAY
TIME
6 a.m.
7 a.m.
8 a.m.
9 a.m.
10 a.m.
11 a.m.
12 noon
1 p.m.
2 p.m.
3 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
6 p.m.
7 p.m.
8 p.m.
9 p.m.
10 p.m.
11 p.m.
12 mid.
Office
27
180
567
837
900
900
810
810
873
837
693
423
207
63
63
27
27
0
0
Retail
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rest.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Theater
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
119
126
360
360
292
281
256
0
Non
CBD
Res
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CBD
Res
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Room
500
425
325
275
225
175
150
150
175
175
225
300
350
375
450
475
500
500
500
Rest
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hotel
Conf.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Conv.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
527
605
892
1112
1125 *
1075
960
960
1048
1012
918
842
683
798
873
794
808
756
500
Theater
0
0
0
0
0
164
276
276
340
324
200
132
140
400
400
324
312
284
0
Non
CBD
Res
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CBD
Res
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Room
405
315
270
225
180
158
135
135
158
180
225
270
315
360
405
428
450
450
450
Rest
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hotel
Conf.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Conv.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
405
345
360
345
300
472
561
531
588
564
485
432
485
790
835 *
752
762
734
450
SATURDAY
TIME
6 a.m.
7 a.m.
8 a.m.
9 a.m.
10 a.m.
11 a.m.
12 noon
1 p.m.
2 p.m.
3 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
6 p.m.
7 p.m.
8 p.m.
9 p.m.
10 p.m.
11 p.m.
12 mid.
Office
0
30
90
120
120
150
150
120
90
60
60
30
30
30
30
0
0
0
0
Retail
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rest.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note:
* Denotes peak shared parking demand.
15
most office buildings are significantly exceeding the minimum zoning requirements (1.5
sp/1,000 sf) and providing on-site supplies to meet (or nearly meet) full demand (3.0
sp/1,000 sf). The only disadvantage of this approach is that there will always be a
parking supply under the building (or in an on-site structure or lot) that will be sufficient to
accommodate a travel pattern that allows the office employees to travel to the site
without much use of transit or much carpooling. This means that these buildings will
always be predominantly served by automobile traffic – thus placing extra pressure on
the capacity of the street system. This practice may end up limiting the growth potential
of downtown.
The Strategic Plan Task Force expressed interest in exploring a revised Zoning Code
provision that requires the new downtown land uses to provide a portion of their
employee parking demand in an off-site location. In addition, businesses would have the
opportunity to reduce their actual parking demand through management techniques.
The proportion of the supply to be provided off-site would depend on the actual travel
patterns in downtown. As transit and carpool usage increased and as more downtown
residents became downtown employees (and walked or took a shuttle to work), the total
employee parking supply needs would decrease and the off-site parking requirements
would decrease.
The concept of off-site parking is discussed in more detail in the following chapter, but
the Parking Management Plan recommends that a portion of the employee parking
demand be located in an off-site facility. Office space, for example, generates a parking
demand at a rate of 3.0 spaces per 1,000 sf of development. The Parking Management
Plan recommends that 2.55 spaces per 1,000 sf be provided on-site while the remaining
0.45
spaces
per
1,000
sf
be
located
off-site.
As
time
progresses
and
transit/walk/carpool modes of travel increase, the need for employee parking will
decrease.
The level of office off-site parking being considered in the short-range is 0.45 spaces per
1,000 square feet of development. In the example above, the 100,000 sf office building
would be required to provide 255 spaces on-site and 45 spaces off-site. As transit and
carpool activity increases, the office employee demand for the 45 off-site spaces would
decrease.
16
The parking demand for the projects already in the pipeline has been addressed earlier
in this chapter. The next wave of office development, however, would be subject to the
new “rules” regarding downtown parking. If the next wave of development occurs over a
4-8 time span in the future, the 0.45 spaces per 1,000 sf off-site parking requirements
might already be reduced to 0.3 spaces per 1,000 sf (due to increased transit and walk
modes). If this is the case, conditions would result in an off-site program of:
Years
Office Development
(sf)
1-4 (pipeline) 3,000,000
4-8
5,000,000
8-10
3,000,000
Off-site Parking Rate
(sp/1,000 sf)
Off-site Spaces Needed
(number of spaces)
0
0.3
0.3
0
1,500
900*
*The long-range off-site parking requirement could be zero if the transit, walk and
shared ride (carpool, vanpool) modes increase to their full potential.
If the “middle” portion of the office development program were affected by the off-site
parking requirement, a total of 1,500 new parking spaces in the downtown would be
needed. The final 3,000,000 square feet of office development could need an additional
900 spaces, or transit/carpool/walk-in travel may increase to the level that no additional
off-site parking is needed.
Summary of Future Demand
The existing “shortage” that will occur as a result of the loss of the surface parking
spaces to new development is approximately 2,000 spaces.
The pipeline projects are likely to almost meet their full parking demand with on-site
supplies. The current parking proposals indicate that the pipeline projects could add
1,125 spaces to the off-site demand for additional parking in downtown.
The proposed Zoning Code revisions calls for a portion of the parking supply to be
provided off-site. This would mean that approximately 1,500 additional off-site spaces
should be constructed to accommodate employee demand.
17
The total parking that needs to be provided over and above the on-site parking supply
built by new development would be 4,625 spaces (2,000 + 1,125 + 1,500 = 4,625).
PARKING LOCATIONS
The Strategic Plan Task Force reviewed the projected parking needs over the near term
(0-5 years) and mid-term (5-10 years) and attempted to match those needs with
potential parking supply locations.
There are two strategies available to add new parking supply to Downtown San Jose.
First, the City/Agency could build new parking lots/garages on land it now owns or on
land that it would purchase for the purpose of developing parking. The second strategy
is one entitled “Parking Plus”.
Under the “Parking Plus” approach, the City/Agency
would look for opportunities to add public spaces to new private development projects.
These spaces would be open to the public and any spaces so developed would reduce
the number of spaces that the City would have to develop in free-standing parking
facilities. Both of these strategies are discussed below.
Candidate Locations For New Parking Development
The process to evaluate locations within and adjacent to downtown San Jose was
conducted in three stages. First, parking locations were investigated as a part of the
development of the Strategic Plan process.
Secondly, the Redevelopment Agency
Board asked that a wider range of candidate locations be investigated and evaluated.
As a result of this screening, ten locations were selected for detailed evaluation as part
of the third stage of analysis. Each of these steps is described below.
Stage 1 – Downtown Strategic Plan Task Force Review
The Downtown Strategic Plan looked at 14 locations within downtown, adjacent to the
core and remote from the downtown. The Development Strategy Task Force evaluated
and rejected the concept of remote parking as being unworkable in the 5-10 year time
18
frame under investigation as part of the Strategic Plan. The Task Force felt that the
most appropriate location for remote parking would be at the outlying rail stations along
those lines directly serving downtown.
However, they felt that this strategy was
premature and that new parking supply should be constructed closer to downtown first.
The Task Force investigated locations within downtown and they looked at peripheral
locations in the Diridon Station/Compaq Arena area as well as locations to the north and
south of the core.
Of the original 14 sites, the Task Force recommended further review of six locations
within the downtown area and two peripheral locations. The sites are:
1.
St. James Park
2.
Mitchell Block
3.
Greyhound Bus Station Block
4.
Redevelopment Block 3
5.
Cesar Chavez Park
6.
SoFA
7.
Compaq Center at San Jose
8.
North Gateway
The six sites within downtown fall into three categories. First, the two park sites could
accommodate underground parking. Second, the Mitchell Block and the Redevelopment
Block 3 are both part of the downtown retail strategy that is now under detailed planning.
Third, the Greyhound Bus Station block and the SoFA district represent locations that
are now privately owned. Ultimately, the Greater Downtown Development Strategy Task
Force recommended the following six sites for consideration:
1.
St. James Park
2.
Greyhound Bus Station Block
3.
Cesar Chavez Park
4.
SoFA
5.
Compaq Center at San Jose
6.
North Gateway
19
Stage 2 – Expanded Search
The six choices developed by the Strategic Plan Task Force were presented to the
Redevelopment Agency Board in a work session and the Agency Board asked that the
list be expanded to cover more sites. The Agency Board added another 13 sites to the
list of candidates. The resulting list of 27 candidate locations is shown in Table 4 and
the site locations are shown in Figure 3.
The evaluation criteria used to screen the 27 sites included:
1. Location – Each site was ranked according to its proximity to visitorgenerating areas of downtown, the historic core and the Class B office
buildings that need all-day parking, and to the institutions that draw significant
number of downtown event visitors.
2. Land Availability – The cost of land and the cost of relocating existing
businesses or resident was considered as was the amount of time that it
might take to procure each property. Finally, the “lost opportunity” to develop
a project on the parcel was evaluated.
3. Accessibility – The ability to deliver cars to/from each site was evaluated in
terms of its location relative to the freeway and arterial street system.
Possible interference with/by the LRT lines was evaluated as was the need
for a shuttle bus to serve the people who parked in each location.
4. Impact – An attempt was made to rank the possible public disruption that
would be cause by the construction of parking on each site.
5. Site Size – To build efficient parking, a site has to have certain physical
dimensions. Some of the sites were small enough that an efficient design
would be very difficult to achieve and therefore the cost of the parking would
increase.
6. City Goal – Each site was compared to the goals and the targets of the
Strategic Plan.
7. Comments – General comments that did not fit into any of the above
categories were added for Agency Board consideration.
As a result of this analysis, ten sites were selected for detailed investigation.
20
TABLE 4
POTENTIAL PARKING GARAGE SITES
ID
LOCATION
A
B
C
D
GDSD Peripheral Locations
North Gateway (UPRR)
Akatiff Lot
Compaq Center Lot
Water Company lot
E
F
G
H
I
GDSD Core Locations
Mitchell Block
Vintage Tower/FUMC
St James Park
Greyhound Site
Fountain Alley
J
K
L
M
N
Zanatto Lot
Block 3 Lot
Cesar Chavez Park
Block 8 Lot
SoFA Site
1
2
3
4
5
Sites Added by Council
N of Superior Court
S of Superior Court
N of St James Park
N of Fallon House
One Block N of De Anza Hotel
6
7
8
9
10
N of Opus project
Lot next to Pac Bell on Almaden
Lot on SF next to Athletic Club
Behind Old Conv Ctr (inc Sanwa)
Behind Fox Theater on Market
11 SE Corner of 2nd/San Carlos
12 SW Corner of 2nd/San Salvador
13 S of Convention Center
21
GREATER DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
PARKING SITES
*
A
B
*
C
1
4
2
5 6
D
8
E
*
G
F
I J
*
7 H
9
3
K
*M
L
10
13
*
N
11
12
SITES CONSIDERED BY STRATEGY 2000 TASK FORCE
*
RECOMMEDNDED FOR PRIORITY EVALUATION BY STRATEGY 2000 TASK FORCE
ADDITIONAL SITES RECOMMENDED BY COUNCIL
FIGURE 3
May 2001
Stage 3 – Detailed Site Studies
The Agency Board selected ten sites for detailed study. The locations of the 10 site
finalists are shown in Figure 4. The intent of these studies was to prepare a conceptual
parking layout for each site that was detailed enough to permit the accurate
determination of potential parking supply and construction costs. Access points were
located and the traffic and construction impacts of each location were evaluated. In
addition, Keyser Marston Associates and Field Paoli Architects and Planners evaluated
the development potential of each site to determine potential alternate uses of the site.
As requested by the Agency Board, various garage sizes were evaluated for locations
where appropriate. A total of 23 different lot/garage configurations were developed for
the ten site finalists. Table 5 shows the summary of the alternates investigated for the
ten sites. Shown on Table 5 are the location, configuration (number of parking levels
above and below grade) and the construction cost of each alternative. The physical
layout of each alternate is presented in Appendix A of this report.
A series of public workshops was held to give the community and the area stakeholders
the opportunity to review and comment on the parking proposals.
Each parking location is summarized below.
Peripheral Locations
Site A – North Gateway
Site B – Akatiff Site
Site C – Compaq Center at San Jose
Site A - North Gateway -- The North Gateway area (Site A) would be a logical
extension of a peripheral parking program. The North Gateway site that was evaluated
is the parcel located south of Coleman Avenue and west of Route 87. Access to the site
would be from Coleman. The location is close enough to downtown to be easily served
by shuttle bus and it is well enough connected to the regional roadway system to serve
as an intercept parking location. The parking layout shows that a total of approximately
1,093 spaces could be developed on this site.
23
This configuration stipulates proper
GREATER DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
SITE FINALISTS
A
B
C
G
5 6
H
9
L
N
CORE SITES RECOMMENDED IN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
PERIPHERAL SITES RECOMMENDED IN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
*
PP = Parking Plus
FIGURE 4
October 2001
Site/Solution
1234-
Size
Typ. Level
Area
Total Area
Configuration
Spaces/Level
Total Spaces
Net Gained
Spaces
Retail @
Grade
Cost/Space
Land &
Construction relocation Cost
Cost ($million)
($million)
Cost/Space
Inc. Land
($million)
Total Cost Inc.
Land ($million)
A-2
irregular surface park
365,973
surface park
na
1,093
1,093
0
2,050
2.20
19.20
19,580
21.40
B-2
irregular surface park
214,500
surface park
na
580
N/A
0
1,070
0.64
4.80
9,380
5.44
Remarks
TABLE 5
PARKING SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES
C-1
C-2
230 x 396
230 x 396
91,080
91,080
328,200
419,280
G+3
G+4
310
310
1,094
1,404
809
1,119
0
0
14,200
14,600
15.50
20.43
0.00
0.00
14,200
14,600
15.50
20.43
G-1
G-2
395 x 178
395 x 178
70,310
70,310
130,200
200,520
2 below
3 below
200
200
800
1,220
800
1,220
0
0
50,000
43,564
40.00
53.20
0.00
0.00
50,000
43,564
40.00
53.20
H-2
H-3
180 x 275
180 x 275
49,500
49,500
233,800
389,803
G + 4S
2B, G, 5S
160
160
604
1,064
604
1,064
13,800
9,329
22,200
24,100
13.40
25.60
13.20
13.20
44,000
36,466
26.60
38.80
L-1
180 x 520
93,600
374,400
4 below
300
1,120
1,120
0
43,250
48.40
0.00
43,250
48.40
2
N-1
N-2
N-3
128 x 275
128 x 360
L shape
35,200
46,100
62,720
237,900
311,700
360,000
2B, G, 4S
2B, G, 4S
1B, G, 4S
116
148
204
734
927
1,050
584
760
828
15,500
15,800
29,520
26,250
23,900
24,400
19.26
22.11
25.60
5.63
7.38
10.00
33,910
31,812
33,900
24.89
29.49
35.60
3
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
224 x 315
224 x 315
195 x315
195 x315
70,560
70,560
61,110
61,110
261,680
332,240
162,552
223,660
G+3
G+4
G+3
G+4
236
236
195
195
840
1,050
525
700
754
964
439
614
0
0
0
0
15,400
15,750
15,250
15,600
12.90
16.50
8.00
10.90
13.50
13.50
13.50
13.50
31,429
31,500
40,952
34,857
26.40
30.00
21.50
34.40
6-1
6-2
6-3
128 x 306
128 x 306
128 x 306
39,168
39,168
39,168
184,704
223,872
302,208
G+4
G + 5S
2B, G, +5S
132
132
132
607
739
980
522
654
895
11,100
11,100
11,100
16,150
16,400
22,900
9.80
12.10
22.40
10.00
10.00
10.00
32,619
29,905
33,061
19.80
22.10
32.40
9 -6
9-7
9-8
9-9
240 x 350
180 x 465
240 x 465
180 x 465
81,550
83,700
111,600
83,700
309,600
329,000
446,400
327,800
4 below
4 below
4 below
2B, G, +3S
276
288
363
151
1,005
979
1,245
1,010
1,005
979
1,245
1,010
0
0
0
0
32,500
35,800
36,500
27,650
32.65
35.00
45.40
27.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32,500
35,700
36,500
27,650
32.65
35.00
45.40
27.90
Includes: $3,500,000 for tree removal, replacement and landscape allowance (cost is for both sections of the park)
Includes: $100,000 for utility relocation, $4,000,000 fountain replacement, $2,500,000 tree removal, replacement & landscape allowance
Land cost for @ scheme is only for the footprint of parking garage and not the entire parcel
Includes: $750,000 for utility relocation
San Jose Parking Structure Site Selection
IPD Job No. 01-163
September 11, 2001
G:\SVR\JOBS\01-jobs\01-163\siteselsur.xls
25
1
1
3
3
4
4
setback requirements along the Guadalupe River.
When land costs are taken into
account, this location could be developed for a cost of $19,580 per space.
The residential community located north and east of the site expressed concern
regarding the potential traffic impact of a large parking lot at this location.
Further
analysis of this site availability showed that much of the site has been earmarked for the
Guadalupe River Flood Control Project, and therefore this site should be dropped from
further consideration.
Analysis of other development opportunity:
This site has the potential for a major office or housing project. Since the proposed
public parking for this site is a surface parking lot, and not a garage, the real estate
development opportunity may be postponed, but not lost
Site B - Akatiff Site is located on N. Autumn Street and to the West of Guadalupe River.
It is the site of an existing parking lot, much of which is now under a five-year lease to
the City whereby the City can use this site for peripheral parking with a shuttle bus
connection to downtown. It is the intent of the City to begin use of this site as soon as
the downtown demand requires it. Under the present configuration, the lot could be
restriped to provide 580 parking spaces. This configuration stipulates proper setback
requirements along the Guadalupe River. If the City were to purchase the land, the
parking lot would cost approximately $9,380 per space although the land owner has
expressed concern over the land value assumption used in the analysis.
This site
appears to be a better candidate for short and intermediate leased parking than for
ultimate purchase.
Analysis of other development opportunity:
This site is currently an older industrial area to the west of Guadalupe River and
Highway 87, and to the north of the Arena. For the foreseeable future, the development
opportunities are limited. Furthermore, since the proposed public parking is for a surface
lot and not a garage, the future real estate development opportunity may be postponed
and not lost.
26
Site C - Compaq Center at San Jose -- The use of Arena parking would serve a dual
purpose in that peripheral parking for downtown employees would be available on
weekdays and Arena patron parking would be available on nights and weekends. By
adding the element of daytime parking to the Arena area, the impacts of these trips on
the downtown street system would be reduced. The analysis also looked longer range
at the possibility of developing a parking garage on Lot C of the Arena.
A parking
structure of grade plus three or four levels would yield a net new parking supply of
approximately 800 to 1,120 spaces respectively. The cost of these spaces would be
$14,200 to $14,600 per net new space.
The Arena staff has reviewed these plans and they believe that it offers an opportunity
for the sharing of parking between downtown daytime and Arena nighttime parking
needs. More detail on loading/unloading operations and revenue sharing would need to
be developed, but the basic idea seems possible.
The Arena Management has
expressed interest in allowing daytime parking on the existing surface lots (with the City
providing shuttle bus service to downtown) in the near term as a test to learn how best to
operate the shared parking. The result of this test will decide whether or not the Arena
Management will support a structured parking on this site.
Analysis of other development opportunity:
This site is currently the surface parking serving the Arena. There is limited opportunity
lost, as the land use at this location is limited to parking.
Parking Under the Parks
Site G – St. James Park
Site L – Cesar Chavez Park
There is the potential to develop underground parking facilities under both St. James
Park and Cesar Chavez Park. The St. James Park could accommodate up to 600
spaces under each the east and west portions of the Park, for a total potential parking
supply of 1,200 spaces.
27
Cesar Chavez Park could accommodate approximately 1,100 parking spaces in 4 below
levels. Both of these estimates are based on a configuration that would minimize the
loss of mature trees within the Parks. Landscape architects and tree removal experts
have indicated that the trees located on the footprint of the proposed site can be
removed, boxed and maintained, and transplanted on the top of the garage after
construction.
The biggest advantages of these two sites are location and ownership. Each park is
very well located in relation to the parking demand projections. St. James Park is well
located to serve the Historic and Class B office space demand. It could also easily serve
the employees of the Mitchell Block retail project and it can provide retail customer
overflow parking.
Cesar Chavez Park is located in the heart of the downtown visitor demand.
An
underground parking structure at Cesar Chavez Park could serve Convention Center,
hotel and retail visitors as well as the needs of the San Jose Museum of Art and the
Tech Museum. Indeed, the Tech Museum has talked about expanding which would add
to the parking demand that could be served by the Cesar Chavez Park parking structure.
New and existing hotels in the area could use this garage for event parking and for
overnight guest parking (via valet service).
The site would also be convenient to
customers of the downtown retail projects.
Both sites are publicly owned and therefore could be developed without the delays
associated with land acquisition.
Underground parking is expensive to construct, and Table 5 indicates that the costs of
these locations are among the most expensive options. The Cesar Chavez site would
cost $43,250 per space while the St. James Park development would cost $43-50,000
per space. These cost estimates include allowance for tree removal and replacement,
landscape, civil utility relocation, and fountain replacement.
Although the application for the historic designations of St. James Park stipulates
underground parking, the development of underground parking under the parks does
have some disadvantages. The St. James Park is a historic park and any changes to its
28
configuration would have to respect the historic nature of the park. Cesar Chavez Park
is heavily used for festivals and events and the construction of parking would disrupt
these activities during the construction period. The most vocal opposition to the parking
options presented at the community workshops centered on these two locations. The
community was concerned about the disruption to the parks, the feel of the parks when
the project was completed and the ongoing impacts of continuous traffic using the
underground parking.
Because of community opposition and the high cost of parking development, it is
recommended that these two locations be dropped from further consideration.
Analysis of other development opportunity:
The proposed parking for these sites is below grade. If public parking is not constructed,
the existing parks would remain as is. There are no other development opportunities for
these sites.
North Core Sites
Site 5 – Block North of DeAnza Hotel
Site 6 – Block North of Opus Tower
These two sites were developed as free-standing parking garages, primarily as below
and above-grade structures.
Site 5 - Block North of DeAnza Hotel -- Site 5 could be developed with approximately
440 to 965 net new spaces depending on which of the four design alternatives were
selected.
The construction cost of the alternative, including land cost, would range
between $31,500 and $40,952 per space for the largest and smallest garages
respectively.
A parking garage on Site 5 has several advantages. It is well located with respect to the
Highway 87 and arterial street system. It is located within 1/3rd of mile walking distance
of the Compaq Center at San Jose. Therefore this site would serve daytime downtown
demand and nighttime event parking demand. The fact that this site is within 1/3rd mile
29
of the Compaq Center means that it would count toward the City’s commitment to the
Arena Management for maintaining specific numbers of parking spaces within a 1/3rd
mile radius. It also offers the opportunity to transfer the monthly parkers out of the
Market Street garage and use the Market Street garage for short-term visitor parking.
The Market Street garage is well located to serve the proposed downtown retail project
and thus the development of Site 5 as a monthly parking garage would directly benefit
the retail district.
This site is recommended as one of the top priorities due to its location, cost of
development and multi-purpose use potential.
Analysis of other development opportunity:
This site is approximately 70,000 sq. ft. in size with exposure from Highway 87. Its
characteristics and size make it attractive for a highway-exposed commercial
development, most likely an office building. The development opportunity is a future one
given that there are a number of competing available sites to develop office throughout
Downtown in the near term.
The potential development program could be in the range
of 100,000-150,000 sq. ft. of building area.
Site 6 - Block North of Opus Tower -- Site 6 offers the same Market Street garage
transfer potential, but it does fall outside of the one-third mile radius from the Arena and
therefore this location would not help the City in their commitment to maintain a specific
number of public parking spaces within one-third mile of the Arena.
Site 6 is a more difficult site configuration from a parking perspective. Because of its
irregular shape, the parking supply that can be developed is limited to 525-650 net new
spaces.
By going two levels underground, the parking supply can be increased to
approximately 900 spaces, but at a significant cost increase. The cost of this facility
would range between $30-33,000 per space. The site does have the opportunity to
provide 11,000 sf of ground level commercial space
There was no public opposition to either of these sites, although there would be
business relocation involved in both locations. The public felt that the larger parking
options should be pursued for both locations.
30
Given the proximity to the Compaq Center at San Jose and the lower cost per space for
the largest option on each site ($28,100 for Site 5 vs. $33,060 for Site 6), it is
recommended that Site 5 be selected for further consideration.
Analysis of other development opportunity:
The site is not as visible or attractive for highway-exposed commercial development due
to its smaller size (approximately 55,000 sq. ft., or 1.3 acres) distance from Highway 87.
The site is also near historic buildings such as the Fallon House and Peralta Adobe.
Ultimately, the development opportunity for this site is most likely a mixed use, in-fill
project with office or possibly residential. However, the development opportunity is a
future one given the number of competing sites in the near term.
The potential
development program could be in the range of 50,000 sq. ft. building area.
South and Central Core Sites
Site H -- Greyhound Bus Station Block
Site 9 – Parkside Hall Site
Site N – SoFA Site
Site H - Greyhound Bus Station -- The Greyhound Bus Station Block, Site H, is under
consideration for parking because of its potential service to both downtown employees
and retail customers. The site is well located to serve the employee parking demand
generated in the Historic core as well as many of the Class B office buildings. It is close
enough to serve the retail project demand on peak days. It could also serve visitors to
the Tech Museum, Convention Center, hotels, and Cesar Chavez Park events.
Two different design options were developed for Site H. One provided 600 new spaces
and 13,800 sf of ground-level commercial space.
The second option tested two
underground levels plus five above grade levels to yield 1,065 parking spaces with 9,300
sf of commercial space. The cost range for these options is $36,450 and $44,000 per
space respectively.
31
A parking garage at Site H would require that the Greyhound Terminal be relocated.
The Diridon Station Specific Plan, now underway, includes the development of a location
for the Greyhound Terminal so that the multimodal aspects of the Diridon Station area
can be strengthened. As an alternate consideration, the Greyhound staff has mentioned
the possibility of remaining in the present location, occupying the ground level of the
proposed garage. From the standpoint of the overall goals of the Strategic Plan, it would
be better to relocate the Greyhound Terminal to a location in proximity to the Diridon
Station so that more elements of the transportation system could be tied together.
There was a great deal of support for parking in this location and specifically for the
larger of the two options.
Analysis of other development opportunity:
The development opportunity for this site is to assemble the entire block from west San
Fernando Street, to Post Street, and from Almaden Avenue to San Pedro Street. This
property would be considered a major site assembly and would be appropriate for a
significant office project with ground floor retail. The block is approximately 2.3 acres in
size. Therefore, the scope of the development could be in the range of approximately
200-250,000 sq. ft. of building area.
Site 9 – Parkside Hall -- Parkside Hall is the site for the future expansion of the Tech
Museum. The agreement between the City and the Tech allows the Tech to expand into
the site until year 2010, as long as a substitute location has been identified for use by
the Convention Center. Four underground parking options were developed for Site 9,
Parkside Hall. The design options covered larger and smaller portions of the Parkside
Hall/Promenade area yielding 980 to 1,245 net new spaces. The intent of the designs is
to leave the Tech Museum with a building platform upon which their expansion could be
constructed. The cost of developing the site ranges from $27,650 to $36,500 per space.
Land cost was assumed to be zero because this site is owned by the city.
Although this location was endorsed by the Tech Museum as being preferable to
developing parking under Cesar Chavez Park, the availability of the site is problematic.
Parkside Hall is an integral part of the Convention Center space planning and until the
Convention Center expansion is completed, this venue has to remain in place for
32
Convention Center events unless an alternate location is identified. In addition, the Tech
Museum has made commitments to bring major exhibits to the Parkside Hall in the
summers of 2004 and 2005. Thus, this site is not available for the development of
additional parking until the end of the Strategic Plan planning horizon.
Analysis of other development opportunity:
This is the best site for potential Tech Museum expansion. There is opportunity for a
mixed-use development with Tech Museum expansion, including hotel, office and
conference facilities.
Also, the opportunity exists to develop site 9 in concert with
commercial properties along Almaden Boulevard. If mixed-use development were to
occur, there is still the opportunity to include public parking as part of a future
development.
Site N – SoFA -- The SoFA site, Site N, was the subject of three alternate designs. The
alternates studied different configurations so as to minimize impacts on the land parcel
and leave residual parcels for development. The alternates studied yielded a range of
580-830 net new spaces at a cost ranging between $31,800 and $33,900 per space,
although the land owner has disputed the land value assumption used in the analysis.
The site is now privately owned and is under the ownership of one individual. From a
location perspective, the SoFA site could serve SoFA visitors and employees,
convention center visitor overflow demand, the Tech visitors, Fox Theater patrons and
visitors and employees of future development on Block 8.
This site received strong public support as being a much-needed facility. The site offers
potential for joint private/public development, or parking plus opportunities.
Analysis of other development opportunity:
The multiple street frontages allow for varying development opportunities. The frontage
along South First Street can be used for mixed-use development consistent in scale and
character with the SoFA District. Types of land use along South First would be retail and
entertainment on the ground floor with office or residential on the upper floors. The
frontage along East San Carlos Street also has opportunity for mixed-use development
with higher density that could include office and/or residential with ground floor retail.
33
The balance of the site could be an infill mixed-use project with the primary land use
being most likely residential with ground floor retail.
Parking Plus
“Parking Plus” is a strategy that adds public parking to private projects as they are
developed. Parking Plus is usually accomplished in one of two ways. In the first method
the private development is required to add a certain number of public parking above and
beyond the zoning code parking requirement for the project. Oftentimes the amount of
public parking required is related to the amount of parking on the site prior to the
development. The new project is required to “replace” the existing public parking within
its site plan. Under this scenario, the expense of building the Parking Plus parking
supply would be the responsibility of the new development.
In the second approach, the public sector (i.e. the City or the Redevelopment Agency)
would add parking supply to a private development by financing the additional parking.
Under this scenario, the private development would be required to operate these spaces
as part of the public parking supply – respecting the public parking rate structure and
accepting any public parking validation vouchers. Revenue generated by these spaces
is generally added to the public parking system after deduction of parking operating
expenses (which would be retained by the private development that operated the
spaces).
The Parking Plus strategy has a number of advantages. The addition of public parking
can be accomplished without the purchase of additional downtown land. The amount of
land dedicated to parking downtown is reduced, thus increasing the number of
development sites. Public parking is spread out through downtown as a small amount of
new public parking is added to a number of new developments rather than just to one
public parking garage.
Disadvantages, however, are also inherent in the Parking Plus concept. If the public
sector finances the additional spaces, the additional spaces are generally the most
expensive ones (i.e. the lowest level of an underground garage).
34
In the case of
downtown San Jose, these spaces are likely to be located on the parking garage floor
below the level of the water table – making them very expensive indeed. With the
effects of the water table below and the aviation-imposed height restrictions above, the
addition of more parking on site could have the effect of limiting development potential
on some key sites.
The operation of the Parking Plus spaces is oftentimes
administratively difficult. If the parking revenue generated by the public spaces is to be
remitted to the City, the bookkeeping is tedious and sometimes contentious. Monitoring
the spaces to assure their availability to the public is necessary.
The location and
operation of the public spaces needs to be clearly spelled out prior to project opening.
The Agency Board requested that the concept of Parking Plus be tested for Downtown
San Jose conditions. The 29 projects in the pipeline were reviewed to see if there was
any potential to add Parking Plus spaces to those projects not yet developed.
In
addition, the Agency Board specified five parcels where Parking Plus potential was to be
evaluated.
Pipeline Projects Parking Plus
As a measure of the potential of the Parking Plus strategy in downtown San Jose, the 29
major projects evaluated as short-range projects in the Downtown Strategic Plan were
evaluated. Each project was evaluated to determine if it was physically possible to add
public parking to the site plan.
This analysis did not take incremental cost
considerations into account but rather just looked at whether or not additional parking
would fit on the site. Some of the projects have already been approved and some are
under construction so it would be impossible to add “Parking Plus” spaces at this time.
However, it was felt that these projects were representative of the type of projects likely
to be constructed in downtown San Jose over the next ten-year time frame. Therefore
an investigation of the potential addition of parking to these projects would be indicative
of the potential of the strategy.
Table 6 shows that 15 of the 29 projects had no potential for the addition of more on-site
parking. In other words, about 50% of the projects were candidates for Parking Plus
considerations. It was assumed that if one additional floor of parking would be added to
the 14 projects that appeared to be candidates for Parking Plus (except the Convention
35
TABLE 6
DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE STRATEGIC PLAN
SHORT-RANGE PROJECTS
PARKING PLUS POTENTIAL
PROJECTS ALREADY BUILT OR DESIGNED
PARKING PLUS
POTENTIAL PERIPHERAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL LIBRARY
Project/Location
Land Use & Size
1 101 San Fernando
323 Apartments & Retail
Office
Parking Garage
YES
NO
NO
Library
Residential, Office & Retai
Residential & Retail
Residential, Office & Retai
329ksf Office
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
2 City Hall
3 4th Street Garage
4 Joint Library
5 Block 3
6 Century Center
7 Zanotto Block
8 Above Net Building
9
10
11
12
Fountain Alley
Fairmont Annex
Market/San Carlos
Mitchell Properties
Office & Retail
260 Rooms
Unknown
Residential & Retail
NO
YES
YES
YES
13
14
15
16
Opus
Convention Center (Hilton Hote
Convention Center Expansion
Boston Properties*
320ksf Office
Hotel
Convention Center
860ksf Office
YES
NO
YES
NO
17
18
19
20
Montgomery Hotel
Divcowest Office Tower
Marriott Courtyard
Mission Villas
83 Room Hotel
516ksf Office
200 Room Hotel
Residential
NO
NO
NO
YES
21
22
23
24
25
Oasis
Sobrato North Campus
New Federal Office
Sobrato Tower
Adobe Phase III
Unknown
800ksf Office
Office
380ksf Office
Office
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
26 Fire Station #1
27 Convention Center Marriott
28 Fox California Theater
Fire Station
Hotel
Theater
NO
YES
NO
Hotel
NO
29 Conv. Center St. Claire Hotel
Total
125
SUBTOTAL
PROJECTS STILL PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES SUBTOTAL
COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
CONV CTR
125
600
100
125
600
600
300
300
300
100
100
100
100
150
500
150
500
150
500
100
230
200
200
200
200
200
450
140
450
450
140
200
140
200
75
75
140
140
140
200
75
200
* From a project standpoint parking plus is possible, however, from a location standpoint it is not recommended.
365
505
600
36
TOTAL
1,670
1,050
140
450
1,640
3,310
Center expansion where two floors of additional parking were assumed), a total of 3,170
Parking Plus spaces could develop within these 29 projects if a Parking Plus
policy/ordinance was in effect. It is important to note that only approximately one-half of
that total would have been within commercial projects.
Of the remaining spaces,
approximately 800 spaces would have been developed within peripheral or residential
projects – both less desirable than well-located downtown commercial projects. The
final 450 spaces would be located within the Convention Center expansion (a project
that the City could choose to add Parking Plus spaces, but which would likely end up
simply serving Convention Center visitors).
Thus the real potential for Parking Plus spaces that would serve visitors to downtown is
approximately 1,500 spaces – 70% of which could still be developed.
Retail Project Parking Plus
The Mitchell Block and Redevelopment Block 3 are both sites that have been mentioned
as possible Parking Plus locations. Both of these blocks are part of the Downtown Retail
Strategy and, as such, are scheduled to provide on-site parking to accommodate the
parking demands of the proposed retail project. According to the ULI Retail Strategy
Study, the Mitchell Block would develop both residential and retail land uses and would
include a parking supply of 1,350 spaces in order to meet the parking demand of that
development. Likewise, Redevelopment Block 3 as a mixed-use residential, office and
retail project which would include a total of 1,200 parking spaces to meet its demand.
The Mitchell Block currently contains surface parking for approximately 440 cars.
Redevelopment Block 3 currently exists as a surface parking lot of 320 parking spaces.
Therefore, the Downtown Retail Strategy calls for each of these blocks to be intensely
developed -- including the provision of 3-4 times as much parking as now exists on the
surface of these two sites.
These two retail sites are now under design review by the development team selected
by the Agency. Discussions with the developer indicated a strong interest on his part to
participate in a Parking Plus program. Preliminary parking designs for the retail project
suggest that the two parcels could be studied to add an additional level of underground
37
parking to the project as Parking Plus spaces.
There appears to be the potential to
develop 800 additional Parking Plus spaces as part of the retail project (these 800
spaces are incorporated in Table 6).
It is difficult to predetermine the cost of Parking
Plus spaces, however it is recommended that the cost of these spaces be capped at
$40,000 per space. If the long-term employee parking is shifted from the Market Street
Garage to a new garage at Site 5 or 6, the additional short-term visitor parking supply
would be increased adjacent to the Mitchell Block portion of the retail project.
Under
this case, the other blocks of the retail project (Fountain Alley and/or the Zanatto lot)
should be reviewed as Parking plus sites.
Agency Board Parking Plus Investigation Sites
Absent a specific site plan proposal, it is difficult to evaluate the Parking Plus potential of
a particular land parcel. Depending on the size of the building proposed, it may or may
not be feasible (physically or financially) to add more parking to the site.
The Agency Board suggested that the following sites be investigated for Parking Plus
potential (See Figure 5):
Site 4 – Club Extreme Block
Site 7 – Lot next to PacBell on Almaden
Site 8 – Lot on San Fernando next to Athletic Club
Site 9 – Sanwa Bank and Crowne Plaza
Lot north of 101 San Fernando Apartments
Given the size and shape of the parcel and the constraints of the adjacent existing
development, both Site 7 and the lot north of 101 San Fernando Apartments do not
appear to have the potential to do anything more than replace the existing on-site
parking and develop enough parking to support any new development on their site.
If an additional level of parking was possible under the Club Extreme Block and if the
entire block was developed at one time as an integrated project, a total of approximately
225 Parking Plus spaces might be possible.
38
GREATER DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
POTENTIAL PARKING PLUS SITES ANALYZED
4
8
7
*
9
SITES INVESTIGATED FOR PARKING PLUS OPPORTUNITY
* LOT NORTH OF 101 SAN FERNANDO APTS.
FIGURE 5
October 2001
Adding more Parking Plus supply to the Site 8 location is not advisable because of the
existing parking supply immediately adjacent to Site 8. There is already a 1,400 space
parking structure here and more parking would place a burden on the street system.
Site 9 has the potential to add Parking Plus spaces in any reasonable amount only if the
Sanwa Bank site and the Crowne Plaza garage were to redevelop simultaneously.
Under this scenario, approximately 200 Parking Plus spaces could be added to the
public parking supply.
Parking Plus Conclusion
Parking Plus in downtown San Jose is a strategy that could be used to add to the visitor
parking supply. Of the 29 pipeline projects, approximately 3,300 spaces could have
been developed if a Parking Plus strategy had been in effect. Indeed, approximately
1,050 spaces could still be developed within four of the commercial projects on this list
that are still in the early planning stage. This total includes the retail project Parking Plus
potential.
Two of the five Agency Board sites could be candidates for the provision of up to 425
Parking Plus spaces, yielding a total Parking Plus potential of approximately 1,500
spaces.
The Parking Management Plan calls for the construction of 3-4 parking structures over
the next ten years to accommodate the anticipated growth of visitor and off-site
employee parking in downtown San Jose. If the Parking Plus strategy is adopted and
implemented, one of these garages would likely not be needed. The equivalent parking
supply of one municipal parking garage could be added to the downtown parking supply
through Parking Plus. As demonstrated above, approximately 1,500 parking spaces
could be added to the downtown parking supply by adding one floor of parking to each
major commercial project that was located in the right place within the downtown to
serve visitor parking.
If the concept of Parking Plus is adopted, it should be recognized that the parking supply
generated by this strategy is a long-range supply. By adding parking supply 200-250
40
spaces at a time, it would take a number of years to generate the equivalent of a single
municipal parking structure. Therefore, the Parking Plus strategy may eliminate the
need for the third or fourth parking structure, but the first two or three structures must be
developed while the Parking Plus spaces are being pursued.
RECOMMENDED PARKING PLAN
There will be a significant shortage of parking in Downtown San Jose as new
development takes place. The new development will displace existing surface parking
lots that are now very highly utilized by both employee and visitor parking. In addition,
the existing Zoning Code in San Jose does not require that new development provide
enough parking on-site to meet its current parking demand. While most projects provide
on-site parking in excess of the Zoning Code minimums, there is the chance that some
overflow demand may result from the development of new projects in downtown.
The above impacts of the new developments will result in a parking need of
approximately 3,100 new spaces when considerations such as shared parking are taken
into account. At the pace at which new development is occurring in Downtown San
Jose, every effort should be made to develop parking to address these shortages now.
It will take time to plan, finance and construct new parking supply and time is of the
essence if the existing downtown buildings are to remain viable.
If the City chooses to modify the existing Zoning Code to require a portion of the
downtown parking demand to be met off-site, then an additional 1,000-1,500 spaces
would be required to meet the off-site demand.
The Downtown Strategic Plan Task Force supported a combination of new parking
within downtown and peripheral to downtown. Based on the three-stage evaluation of
parking sites in and adjacent to downtown, the following strategy should be considered
for meeting parking demand in downtown (see Table 7 and Figure 6):
41
TABLE 7
RECOMMENDED PARKING SUPPLY PLAN
PRIORITY
LOCATION
PERIPHERAL
Immediate
B Akatiff
2
C Compaq Arena Surface
CORE
1
5 North of DeAnza Hotel
NET NEW
SPACES
CONSTRUCTION
COST ($million)
0
500
0
0
965
$30.00
COMMENT
500 leased temp spaces
Agreement with Arena
2
H Greyhound Block
1,065
$38.80
3
Retail Project
Parking Plus
800
$32.00
Estimated at $40,000/sp
Estimated at $40,000/sp
4
N SoFA Lot Pkg Plus
500
$20.00
5
9 Parkside Hall
800
$24.50
TOTAL
4,630
$145.30
1,120
$20.43
Long Range
C Compaq Arena Structure
42
GREATER DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
RECOMMENDED PARKING SITES
B
C
5
PP
H
PP
9
PP
CORE SITES RECOMMENDED IN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
PERIPHERAL SITES RECOMMENDED IN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
*
PP = Parking Plus
FIGURE 6
October 2001
PERIPHERAL PARKING STRATEGY
Immediate Action – Site B – Akatiff Lot
The City already has this site under lease and as soon as downtown demand
warrants the need for this lot, the shuttle service should start and this peripheral
lot should be activated.
Site C -- Compaq Center at San Jose
As soon as the retail project development commences and closes the 1,050
surface spaces in the core to begin construction, the option to utilize a portion of
the existing surface spaces at the Compaq Center at San Jose should be
pursued.
The timing of this would depend on the utilization of the Akatiff
peripheral parking lot.
LONG TERM STRATEGY
Priority 1 – Site 5 Garage – North of DeAnza Hotel
This site should be the top priority because it serves both daytime and nighttime
parking demand. It allows the Market Street garage to be redeployed as a visitor
garage. The design option that provides 965 net new spaces should be pursued.
Priority 2 – Site H Garage -- Greyhound
The Greyhound Terminal Block should be built as the second garage. This will
require the relocation of the Greyhound Terminal, most likely to the Diridon
Station area where its role in the regional transportation system will be
strengthened.
Priority 3 – Retail Project Parking Plus
Parking Plus opportunities at the retail project should be pursued. The potential
to add up to 800 spaces should be explored with the developer of the retail
project.
44
Priority 4 – Site N -- SoFA
The SoFA garage should be pursued in conjunction with a future mixed-use
development for this block.
The Agency, through negotiation for the
development of a mixed-use project at this site, should secure a minimum of 500
public parking spaces in that development.
Priority 5 – Parkside Hall
Depending on the amount of Parking Plus parking development, the Parkside
Hall site should be constructed at the size needed to make up the 4,600 spaces
supply increase. Given the assumptions in the Recommended Program outlined
above, the Parkside Hall site would need to contain 800 spaces.
Long-range options for additional parking garage construction should retain the option of
constructing a parking garage on Lot C of the Compaq Center at San Jose (assuming
that the surface lot daytime utilization is successful).
The above program provides the potential for a continuous development of additional
parking supply in the areas where it is most needed. The financing program for this
recommended plan is discussed in Chapter VIII.
45
III.
PARKING CODE AND OFF-SITE PARKING
The existing zoning code for Downtown San Jose calls for new commercial office space
to provide a minimum parking supply equal to 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet (sf) of
floor area. This means that a proposed 100,000 sf office building would have to provide
150 parking spaces to meet the requirements of the code.
PARKING DEMAND
In a parallel effort to the development of the Parking Management Plan, the preparation
of an overall downtown traffic plan is now underway. One of the early efforts of the
traffic plan was to develop a trip generation rate for Downtown San Jose office space so
that this rate could be used to predict traffic levels to be generated by proposed projects.
Traffic counts at parking garage driveways and parking accumulation counts were
conducted and parking inventories were compared to building square footages.
The results of the trip generation studies showed that the existing parking demand rate
of Downtown San Jose offices falls between 2.8 and 3.0 spaces per 1,000 sf of building
area – about double the minimum rate required by the zoning code.
PARKING CODE RECOMMENDATIONS
The parking zoning code should be revised to require an overall parking supply that
more closely matches the actual parking demand generated by new office space. In
today’s market, this means that new office space should supply 3.0 spaces per 1,000
gross sf of building area.
The recommended ratio of 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet should be treated as a
maximum allowable parking supply for downtown office development. Parking supplies
46
in excess of this amount will result in campus-type building arrangements more suitable
for suburban developments.
Under campus-style development patterns, the density
outlined in Strategy 2000 will never be achieved.
Three adjustments to this recommended parking zoning code rate would be appropriate:
1.
The rate could be reduced by 15% to 2.55 spaces/1,000 sf with the
building’s participation in a travel demand management program (outlined
in Chapter 5 of this report)
2.
The rate would be reduced over time to reflect the increasing role of
transit, carpool/vanpool, and walking as mode of arrival to downtown
office buildings (discussed in Chapter 4)
3.
A portion of the total parking requirements would be provided in an offsite location (discussed below).
OFF-SITE PARKING
The zoning code revision should include a provision that a portion of the required supply
be located in an off-site facility. This "off-site" recommendation is made for two reasons.
First, the geographic distribution of parking in Downtown San Jose will spread out the
traffic and reduce congestion impacts associated with large concentrations of parking in
the downtown core.
Second, and more importantly, when the transportation system develops as planned, the
amount of parking needed to support today's travel patterns represents an oversupply of
parking under future conditions. The recommended office parking ratio of 3.0 spaces
per 1,000 square feet reflects today's travel patterns to/from Downtown San Jose. For
example, today's mode of arrival for downtown office buildings is as follows:
70%
10%
10%
10%
100%
Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV)
Shared Ride (Carpool, Vanpool)
Absent (In Field, Out-of-Office
Vacation)
Transit and Walk
Total
47
Meeting,
Ill,
Program Rationale
The overall Transportation Plan for Strategy 2000 calls for an increase in transit service
to/from downtown. The increase in land use intensity, the improvement of the downtown
pedestrian system and the increased mix of land uses within downtown (especially the
addition of more residential units) will all work together to increase the importance of the
walk mode. Finally, the Travel Demand Management program will emphasize shared
rides to/from downtown. Thus, the mode split patterns in the future should look very
different than today’s mode split which results in the parking demand ratio of 3.0 spaces
per 1,000 square feet.
If downtown office buildings continue to provide 3.0 spaces per 1000 square feet under
their buildings (or on their sites), the developers of these buildings would have to
continue to market these spaces. As more and more buildings found themselves with
excess spaces, the price of all-day parking in Downtown San Jose will fall.
As
mentioned earlier in this report, the oversupply of cheap employee parking will
undermine the goals of a balanced transportation plan. From a long-range planning
perspective and from a short-range capital expenditure perspective, it makes more
sense to provide the level of on-site parking that allows development to a) be
successfully completed today and b) be appropriately parked in the future.
Program Participation
New development would have three options for participating in the off-site parking
program. Developers could privately construct their own off-site parking in locations
subject to approval by the City. Under this option, the developer would retain the title to
these parking spaces in perpetuity.
Under a second option, the developer could enter into a joint development agreement
with the City.
By directly financing a portion of a public garage, for example, the
developer will retain exclusive daytime use of these spaces for a set length of time
(e.g.15 or 20 years, depending on the length of the construction bond or, as an alternate,
48
a specified time period related to the expected life span of the structure). This option
would have the developer pay a proportionate share of the actual cost of the parking
structure based on the number of spaces allocated to his/her building. Under this option,
the use of the space would still be subject to payment of the appropriate monthly fee per
space to cover the developer’s proportional operation and maintenance costs of the
structure.
In the third option, the developer would pay an in-lieu fee to the City to be used for the
development of new parking serving the downtown. This in-lieu fee would be equivalent
to the cost of providing above grade parking structures in peripheral locations. Under
this option, the developer would not have any exclusive rights to spaces built by the City
with the in lieu fee, but rather building tenants would pay the market rate for monthly
parking.
The in lieu fee would be set at $20,000 per off-site space. The developer would have
the option of paying this in-lieu fee in a lump sum upon issuance of the building permit or
the fee could be paid over a five-year period at an appropriate interest rate. The amount
of the in-lieu fee would increase annually according to Means Construction Cost Index.
49
IV.
CODE CHANGES OVER TIME
Recognizing that travel patterns to/from San Jose will change over time, the parking
zoning code requirements should also be adjusted over time to keep the transportation
system in balance. While early adjustments of the parking code might be tied to specific
transit service improvements, later changes should be contingent on travel surveys that
prove that mode shifts to transit, shared ride and pedestrian trips have actually occurred.
The goal of Strategy 2000 is to achieve a 25% percent transit mode split for commuters
by the year 2010. In order to accomplish this goal, additional rail and bus transit service
to/from downtown will have to be provided, the travel demand management program
must be effective and downtown residential development must be successful. If all three
of these occurred, automobile commuting would decrease, the mode split goal would
likely be met and the office parking ratio could be reduced from 3.0 to 2.0 spaces per
1000 square feet.
This reduction in office parking supply would have several
advantages for downtown including a reduction in downtown traffic, the reduction of
development costs, increased on-site design flexibility, and the ability to use more closein parking for retail and visitor parking.
Table 8 shows a recommended series of reduction steps for downtown office parking
requirements. As noted above, the first steps are related to the provision of transit
service to downtown while the later steps are related to actual system performance. The
system performance would be documented through a bi-annual travel survey conducted
by the City. If the travel survey showed that the transit mode split had reached the next
plateau, the parking requirements for new office development could be reduced.
50
Table 8
Parking Rate Reductions Over Time
Downtown San Jose Parking Management Plan
RECOMMENDED
OFFICE PARKING RATIO
(spaces/1,000 sf)
On-Site
Off-Site
Total
MILESTONE/MODE SPLIT
Existing Conditions
2.55
0.45
3.00
Opening of Vasona LRT Line
2.35
0.45
2.80
Opening of LRT Line to East
2.30
0.30
2.60
Opening of BART
2.25
0.25
2.50
Acheivement of 20% Commuter Transit
Mode Split to Downtown
2.25
0.00
2.25
Acheivement of 25% Commuer Transit
Mode Split to Downtown
2.00
0.00
2.00
51
V.
TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Travel demand management (TDM) includes actions aimed at reducing the impact of
traffic by influencing people’s travel behavior. Travel demand management is typically
not a single action, but rather a set of actions or strategies. For many developments, the
goal of travel demand management is to encourage residents, employees and other
visitors to travel at times and in ways that avoid adding vehicles to streets and freeways
during the most congested times of the day. On of the goals of the San Jose Strategy
2000 Parking Management Plan is the implementation of a travel demand management
program aimed at reducing the amount of parking demand generated by downtown
development.
The effectiveness of various TDM strategies has been measured in numerous studies
across the nation.
While the range of success varies widely according to local
conditions, the most effective TDM measures include:
Alternative work schedules
Ridesharing promotion
Mixed-used development
Land use densification
Telecommuting programs
Education and information on transportation alternatives
Parking supply management
Parking pricing
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements
Rideshare support facilities
Typically TDM measures are applied to work trips by employer- or work-site-based
programs. Employer based TDM programs have been evaluated and the value of the
trip reduction realized by individual programs varies greatly from a low of about 5
52
percent to a high of about 45 percent. This wide variation in program effectiveness is
explained by the wide variation in the following factors:
a.
Type of development in the area were the employer is located (generally,
in central business districts, the potential for trip reduction is high while in
suburban business parks it is low);
b.
Policies and practices of the employer with regard to parking including
parking cash out (generally, if parking is limited and not free of charge,
the potential for trip reduction is high);
c.
Level of support the employer gives to transit use, carpooling and
vanpooling (generally, if subsidies are available, the potential for trip
reduction is high).
Appendix B of this report presents a summary table that shows the effectiveness of
various elements of employer-based TDM programs.
DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE TDM GOAL
Many of the TDM elements listed above effect travel patterns, travel levels and/or
parking demand levels. The TDM program for Downtown San Jose is aimed at reducing
parking demand. Participation in the TDM program by a new office development should
earn the project the right to reduce the required parking supply from 3.0 to 2.55 spaces
per 1000 square feet. This represents a parking supply reduction of approximately 15%
which, for example, would result in a construction cost savings of at least $625,000 for a
100,000 square foot office building.
Table 9 shows the results of applying different elements of mode split reduction to a
TDM program. As can be seen, it takes a tripling of the carpool activity or the transit
ridership in order to achieve the target parking ratio.
53
Table 9
Travel Demand Management Example
Downtown San Jose Parking Management Plan
EXAMPLE: Travel Patterns for a 100,000 square foot Office Building in Downtown San Jose
MODE
DRIVE ALONE
CARPOOL
ABSENT
TRANSIT
BIKE/WALK
TOTAL
PARKING RATIO
(spaces/1,000 sf)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
MODE
PERSONS PARKING
SPLIT
NEEDED
70%
280
280
10%
40
20
10%
40
0
5%
20
0
5%
20
0
100%
400
300
3.0
CARPOOL EMPHASIS
MODE
PERSONS PARKING
SPLIT
NEEDED
50%
200
200
30%
120
60
10%
40
0
5%
20
0
5%
20
0
100%
400
260
2.6
54
TRANSIT EMPHASIS
MODE
PERSONS PARKING
SPLIT
NEEDED
60%
240
240
10%
40
20
10%
40
0
15%
60
0
5%
20
0
100%
400
260
2.6
COMBINED SHARED RIDE
MODE
PERSONS PARKING
SPLIT
NEEDED
55%
220
220
20%
80
40
10%
40
0
10%
40
0
5%
20
0
100%
400
260
2.6
TDM PROGRAM ELEMENTS
With the goal of reducing parking demand in downtown, a TDM program has been
assembled that allows developers to pick and choose the most appropriate strategy for
their project.
Table 10 outlines the elements of the TDM program and defines the
amount of credit applied to each individual strategy. In order to achieve the full parking
supply reduction, a new building would propose a TDM program whose individual
strategies added up to a total of 15 points according to the credit points shown on Table
10).
Required Elements
Each building participating in the TDM program would appoint an on-site Transportation
Coordinator who would be responsible for the support of the program.
In other
successful building-based TDM programs, the on-site Transportation Coordinator has
been one of the members of the project management or leasing staff. This assignment
is usually undertaken on a part-time basis. The Transportation Coordinator would be
responsible for dissemination of program information to building tenants (both employers
and employees) and for the continuity of the program itself.
Each building participating in the TDM program would have a centralized information
board that disseminates information on transit, carpooling and other TDM program
elements.
The Transportation Coordinator would be responsible for keeping this
information board up-to-date.
The Transportation Coordinator would also be responsible for preparing an annual report
to be submitted to the joint Agency/City staff. The annual report will verify the continuing
participation in the TDM program by describing the TDM strategies undertaken by the
project and comparing those strategies to the point totals shown on Table 6. Staff would
prepare a periodic report to the Downtown Parking Board, keeping them apprised of the
overall participation in the TDM program.
55
Table 10
Travel Demand Management Program
Downtown San Jose Parking Management Plan
CATEGORY
PROGRAM ELEMENT
PROGRAM
CREDIT
BUILDING
Transportation Coordinator
Central Information Board
Annual Report
TRANSIT
SUPPORT
Supply Ecopass to all Building Tenants
Subsidize 50% of Cost of Ecopass for All Tenants who Want One
Subsidize 25% of Cost of Ecopass for All Tenants who Want One
Subsidize 10% of Cost of Ecopass for All Tenants who Want One
15
10
5
2
PARKING
FINANCING
Parking Cash Out or All Employees
Free Parking for all Carpools with > 2 Riders
50% Parking Cost Reduction for All Carpools with > 2 Riders
25% Parking Cost Reduction for All Carpools with > 2 Riders
15
10
5
2
CARPOOL/
VANPOOL
Purchase Vans at Rate of 5 Vans per 100,000 sf of Building
Subsidize 50% of Operating Costs for Building Vanpools to a
Maximum of 5 Vans per 100,000 sf of Building
Reserve Preferred Location for Carpool/Vanpool
15
Provide Bicycle Storage and Employee Lockers/Showers on Site
2
BICYCLE
Required
Required
Required
56
10
3
Optional Elements
Transit Support -- Each building would have the choice of various levels of support for
the transit system. The simplest way to increase ridership on the existing and proposed
transit system in Downtown San Jose is to subsidize the VTA Ecopass for the tenants of
the building. The provision of an Ecopass to every tenant in the building, at no cost to
the tenant, would be worth 15 points and would fulfill the obligations of the TDM
program.
Reduced subsidy levels would allow the Transportation Coordinator to sell an Ecopass
to any building tenant who desired one.
This strategy would be worth fewer TDM
program points, depending on the level of subsidy.
Parking Fees -- Parking cash out would be a strategy that would fulfill the requirements
of the TDM program. In a parking cash out program, each employee is given the same
transportation allowance by the employer, and then it becomes the employee’s decision
as to how he/she wants to spend those transportation dollars. Under this strategy, the
employer would no longer provide free parking nor would the employer purchase a block
of monthly parking permits in the office building garage.
Rather, each individual
employee would be responsible for purchasing his/her own parking permit. Typically,
the transportation allowance is tied to the cost of a monthly parking permit in the
employee’s office building.
Experience has shown that once the employee has the transportation allowance in
his/her hand and the money becomes theirs, the transportation decisions change.
Carpools form and participants pocket the transportation allowance savings. People
decide to take transit to work and save the difference between the monthly transit pass
and the monthly parking permit fee. Parking cash out programs in other cities have
reduced on-site parking demand by 15-20% and resulted in similar increases in shared
ride transportation.
Parking cash out may be more difficult to achieve in a multi-tenant building where the
parking cash out requirements would have to be written into the lease.
57
Short of parking cash out, the building could offer free or subsidized parking to carpools
and vanpools of 3 persons or more. These actions would encourage shared ride and
thus reduce the overall parking demand for the site. As shown in Table 6, the amount of
TDM program credit would be based on the amount of subsidy.
Carpool/Vanpool -- An employer or building developer could purchase vans and
establish a vanpool program for the building. In order to achieve the appropriate parking
supply reduction, vans would have to be purchased at a rate of 5 vans per 100,000
square feet of office development. The establishment of a vanpool program would fully
satisfy the requirements of the TDM program.
As an alternate to purchasing vans, the developer could subsidize (at the rate of 50%)
vanpools operating within his project. Employees within the project could obtain vans
through regional programs.
Vanpools and carpools could be given preferential parking locations within the parking
facility of the project.
Bicycle Support -- To encourage bicycle trips as a mode of travel to/from an office
project; developers could add bicycle racks, lockers and shower facilities to the
development.
TDM PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
In order to be granted a parking supply reduction of up to 15% of the required parking
supply (approximately 0.45 parking spaces per 1000 square feet), a developer must
agree to participate in the travel demand management program. The application to
participate should identify which of the above elements the project intends to implement.
As long as the credits for the individual elements total 15 points, the TDM program
model would be accepted.
As described above, the Transportation Coordinator would prepare an annual report
summarizing the ongoing TDM program at the project. The program elements would be
58
interchangeable on an annual basis, however the total program in effect each year
would have to add to 15 points.
If a project decided to abandon the TDM program, it would be required to pay the
downtown parking fund an amount equivalent to the in-lieu parking fee in effect at the
time. The amount of the in-lieu fee would be based on the number of spaces originally
reduced by the TDM program.
59
VI.
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING
Downtown San Jose will undergo significant physical changes over the next decade.
New buildings will be built, existing parking spaces will be lost and parking demand
patterns will change both during and after the construction of these new buildings.
It is important that staff consistently monitor the ongoing parking supply and demand
patterns in downtown. Redevelopment Agency and Department of Transportation staffs
should prepare a quarterly report summarizing the following information:
a.
The amount of existing parking supply to be lost over the next six month
time period,
b.
The amount of any new public parking supply scheduled to come online
within that same time period, and
c.
The amount of projected construction employee parking demand
scheduled to occur within the period.
To the extent that shortages are projected, the quarterly report would include
recommendations to alleviate the effects of either increased construction worker demand
or the loss of existing parking supply.
The information in the quarterly report would be shared with the Downtown Parking
Board prior to submittal to Council.
Strategies for alleviating short-term shortages could include more extensive use of
peripheral parking locations. For example, the City now leases a surface parking lot
north of the San Jose Arena. This lot is leased for Arena employees, but the employees
use only a small portion of the lot and even then, only at night. This leaves the entire lot
available during the daytime for off-site employee parking. Either construction workers
or downtown employees could utilize this existing facility. Existing shuttle bus routes
would have to be slightly modified to adequately serve this lot.
60
The City has had success in locating interim off-site parking opportunities for
construction workers and this practice had reduced the effects of construction worker
parking in the heart of downtown. This successful program should continue.
61
VII.
PARKING OPERATIONS
Operating and managing the public parking supply correctly is perhaps as important as
having a sufficient supply to begin with. The operation of the public parking supply is the
responsibility of the Department of Transportation, with the assistance of the
Redevelopment Agency staff.
This chapter discusses some of the key operational issues facing the Department of
Transportation.
SHUTTLE SERVICE
Throughout the course of the preparation of Strategy 2000, the Task Force supported
the idea of peripheral parking as a means to relieve congestion within the downtown
core and as a strategy to provide sufficient parking to support downtown growth. The
success of any peripheral parking program depends on the linkage between the
peripheral parking lot and the user’s destination.
In Downtown San Jose, this linkage is provided through a shuttle bus system. The
current shuttle bus operates from early-morning until early evening, connecting the
existing peripheral parking lots with the downtown core. Visitors to events at the San
Jose Arena also use the shuttle bus system. Figures 2 and 7 show the alignment of the
shuttle bus route and the location of stops along the route.
As the peripheral parking system continues to grow, the shuttle bus system model will
have to grow with it. The target service level should be a ten-minute headway during the
morning and afternoon peak commute periods, and a 30-minute headway during the
remainder of the day. The arena shuttle is a prime example of a successful shuttle
system, which efficiently serves the Arena events and can be used as a model .
62
RYLAND PARK
DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE
PARKING
ST
ST
EN
NZ E
LE AV
ST
AVE
AD
AL M
R
ND
YL A
EN
TT
SSE
BA
N
BL
SA
R
ED
NP
E
ST
JU
LIA
LEGEND
N
ST
O
PUBLIC PARKING (PRIVATE
TE R
AND CITY OWNED)
MA
INE
N
RA
ST
ET
RK
BA
ST
ST
ST
S
T
HTS
1S
ON
T
N
ST
DE
RT E
E
RO
MA
MA
D
LIG
ET
RK
ED
NP
AL
ST
ST
SA
ST
ST
R-
LE Y
MA
S
D
BLV
CA
AL
S
E
ST
EN
L
LYS
2N
ST
AD
ER
LM
ST
NA
LVD
NB
RIV
ST
W
ST
ST
D
N
OH
3R
J
ST
S
E
AD
LM
N
63
HN
S
ST
ME
NA
W
ST
JO
RA
LA
AC
NT
SA
E
TUN
FO AIN
L EY
AL
DA
GUADALUPE
TRE
NO
T
AS
OY
AB
CH
4 TH
ST
ST
ST
ST
LD
N
T UM
AU
CT
N
OH
5TH
N
J
ST
E
S
ES
S
N
W
O
AM
ST
W
J
ST
ST
M
LIA
EXISTING STOP
E
T
AN
TU
JU
EXISTING DASH ROUTE
ST
D
AM
S
AS
AU
AR
VIN
PLE
N
W
ST
J
ST
ST
DE
HO
E
TT
SSE
ES
N
SA
FE R
NA
ND
S
O
S
E
N
SA
NIO
TO
AN
ST
L
ST
S
ATE
(ST
ST
PO
RO
N
DE
E
AV
MA
AL
ST
ST PAUL ST
UTE
82
SM
S
)
AR
KE
E
AV
T
TS
STOVER
S
E
AV
S
AS
WHITE
LM
DE
W SANTA CLARA
E
ST
S
ST
ST
S
CAHILL ST
CRANDALL
ST
S
N
SA
CA
RLO
S
ST
S
R
PA
S
O
ND
E
N
SA
D
LVA
SA
OR
SE VE
A
ST
Z
OU
EH
AL
N
SO
ST
EN
A
RD
E
AV
D
MA
OM
O
GIFF
ST
ST
Figure 7
ST
L AK
WO
ST
OTTERSON
N
SA
R
DO
LVA
A
S
ST
D
NA
W
BLV
ST
W
ER
NF
SA
K
O
VI
LA
E
WIL
LIA
M
PARKING GUIDANCE SYSTEM
The City of San Jose is in the process of implementing an electronic-based parking
information system. Through a series of changeable message signs, motorists entering
downtown will be advised as to the precise location of available parking.
information will be helpful in a number of ways.
This
First, employees and visitors to
downtown will not have to be frustrated searching for a parking space. Secondly, traffic
congestion in downtown should be reduced because the need to wander around the
downtown streets looking for a parking space would be minimized. Air quality and noise
reduction benefits will accompany the reduced congestion.
Privately owned parking garages that offer parking availability to the public should be
encouraged to join the system. This expanded coverage will increase the value of the
information to downtown employees and visitors.
The parking guidance system being implemented is state-of-the-art technology.
No
other Western United States City currently employs such a system, and its use is sure to
keep Downtown San Jose the focus of national attention.
INCREASED PARKING EFFICIENCY
Increased Valet Service
The Department of Transportation is currently evaluating the possibility of increased
valet service within the public parking lots and garages. The advantage of valet service
is that some of the floors in garages or some areas of parking lots can be restriped to
provide tandem parking, thus increasing the number of parking spaces per square foot
of area. This increase in efficiency effectively “builds” more parking spaces in downtown
at a minimum of cost.
The provision of valet parking results in an increase in the operating costs of the parking
facility. To make valet parking acceptable to the user, sufficient valet personnel must be
on hand to deliver the user's vehicle in a timely manner. Therefore, the Department of
64
Transportation must continually monitor the use of the valet service to balance the
disadvantage of increased operating costs against the advantage of increased supply.
The City expects to be able to add approximately 250 spaces to the existing lots and
garages as a result of the expanded valet service.
Parking Configuration
The Transportation Department evaluates each parking structure and parking lot to
determine if an alternate configuration of the parking facility would result in any increase
in the parking supply.
INTERIM SUPPLY
The City has entered into a five-year lease with the owner of the Akatiff Lot (Site B) to
provide approximately 525 peripheral spaces in the existing surface lot. As soon as the
demand for these spaces is warranted, a shuttle bus route will be extended to the site
and peripheral parking operations will begin.
In coordination with the Redevelopment Agency staff, the Department is proceeding with
the use of Agency parcels as interim parking areas. Figure 8 shows the location of three
parcels located in the northern portion of the study area. These parcels are all controlled
by the Agency and all are scheduled for redevelopment. However, redevelopment on
most of these parcels is at least two-three years away, and thus the opportunity exists to
provide interim parking.
Reconfiguration of existing parking areas on these lots and/or surfacing and striping of
presently unused areas will yield a total increase of 418 parking spaces added to the
downtown supply.
In addition, two other parcels are being developed as interim parking lots. The location
and proposed supply is as follows:
65
RYLAND PARK
DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE
ST
ST
EN
N Z VE
A
ST
AVE
A
RYL
ALM
LE
PROPOSED DASH ROUTE
ND
AD
TT
SSE
BA
EN
N
BL
S
N
SA
E
LIA
LEGEND
N
S
ST
PE
ST
JU
DR
O
EXISTING DASH ROUTE
TER
MA
INE
N
RA
RK
ET
BA
ST
ST
ST
ST
2N
D
S
HTS
1S
N
TO
T
RK
ET
ED
E
S
N
ST
DE
RO
MA
SA
ER
NF
NA
ND
S
O
S
SA
E
ST
A
N
N
NTO
IO
ST
7
ST
S
(ST
ATE
DE
N
RO
E
AV
MA
AL
ST
PO
ST
5
T EL
ST PAUL ST
LEY
S
NP
AL
R
RA
SA
ST
MA
LEY
MA
S
D
BLV
ST
EN
W
ST
AL
S
AD
E
6
LA
LIG
LM
ST
NA
D
BLV
L
LYS
TUN
FO AIN
AL
ST
ST
R-
ST
AC
NT
S
EN
R
CA
E
4
S
SA
D
N
OH
ST
AD
E
RIV
ST
HN
1
3R
J
ST
5TH
S
T
AS
OY
ME
LM
W
ST
JO
2
ST
DA
NA
N
66
N
TUM
AU
T
C
J
ST
S
C
B
HA
3
N
OH
E
S
JA
ST
TRE
NO
GUADALUPE
ST
WAITING LIST
4TH
T
W
O
LD
PROPOSED STOP
3
S
N
S
ST
W
ST
S
ME
ST
LIA
TS
N
M
JU
PROPOSED DASH ROUTE
ST
D
M
S
E
AN
TU
AR
VIN
AS
AU
W
JA
ES
ST
PLE
N
HO
ST
ST
E
TT
SSE
DE
EXISTING STOP
S
ST
UTE
)
82
TS
KE
E
AV
AR
SM
S
T
DE
W SANTA CLARA
AS
LM
WHITE
STOVER
S
E
AV
S
ST
S
ST
ST
S
CAHILL ST
CRANDALL
ST
S
E
N
SA
CA
RLO
S
ST
S
ND
O
N
SA
R
DO
LVA
SA ST
E
SA
AD
ALV
NS
OR
OU
SE VE
A
ST
Z
EH
WO
EN
E
AV
D
MA
ORD
MA
NO
AL
LAK
SO
GIFF
ST
ST
ST
Figure 8
ST
OTTERSON
W
D
SA
NA
S
BLV
ST
W
ER
NF
RK
PA
VI
O
LA
ST
E
WI
LLI
AM
a.
First & Bassett
b.
First & Julian
80
c.
San Pedro & Bassett
75
d.
54 N. Fourth Street
60
e.
551 Julian Street
13
TOTAL
190
(net new spaces)
418 spaces
Figure 8 also shows the alignment of a supplemental shuttle bus route that will be added
to the system in order to serve these new lots.
PARKING INFORMATION CENTER
The City is now acting as the clearinghouse for information on parking availability in
downtown. New employers/developers that need monthly parking can call the City and
they will be given information on parking availability in City lots/garages as well as in
many of the private garages in the downtown. The owners/operators of the private
parking supply downtown are using the City as an information center by keeping the City
informed as to availability in their private facilities.
MARKETING STRATEGIES
Marketing of the downtown public parking supply has two primary target audiences. The
downtown employee must be made aware of the peripheral parking options available,
including the shuttle bus system serving that parking.
The second target audience involves visitors to the downtown. To the extent that visitor
parking in downtown is today perceived as scarce and/or expensive, that perception
must be countered with actual statistics through a concerted marketing effort.
The
availability of abundant, free visitor parking on nights and weekends must be broadcast
to the community.
The Parking Management Plan recommends expansion of the
Downtown Free Parking Program to include the Market/Balbach surface lot in the SoFA
67
District to provide free parking to the patrons and visitors of the SoFA District
businesses.
Brochures have been printed showing the location of public parking in downtown. A
more extensive distribution system for this printed material should be sought.
This
distribution system could include all government buildings, the libraries (both within and
outside the downtown), the Downtown Information Center, the Chamber of Commerce,
the Arena, and the Convention Center.
Newspaper ads and flyers announcing special events in downtown (concerts, parades,
holiday shows, etc.) should repeat the message of free visitor parking on nights and
weekends. This information is disseminated to a much larger geographic audience and
it reaches people who may not be current downtown visitors. The future downtown retail
project will also benefit if residents citywide become more comfortable with the idea of
coming downtown to shop or recreate.
68
VIII.
PARKING FINANCE
This report recommends the addition of 3,100-4,600 new public parking spaces to the
downtown supply. It recommends shuttle bus enhancements and new routes, and it
discusses operational improvements to the existing facilities.
None of these
recommendations will come cheap. In order to realize the full potential of Strategy 2000,
significant money will have to be spent on the parking infrastructure in the near term.
The construction of new parking garages in Downtown San Jose is most likely going to
be financed through the issuance of revenue bonds. These bonds would be retired
through annual repayments generated by parking revenues and redevelopment tax
increment.
The recommended parking supply program outlined in Chapter II would begin with one
garage that would cost approximately $30 million. To finance this garage, annual bond
payments of approximately $2.45 million would have to be committed by the
City/Agency. To complete the entire $145.3 million program, these payments would
have to increase to approximately $11 million per year.
This level of financial
commitment is beyond the capacity of the existing Parking Enterprise Fund and
therefore additional revenue sources must be identified.
ALTERNATE REVENUE STRATEGIES
Fourteen potential revenue sources were investigated as a part of this analysis. Table
11 lists the fourteen revenue strategies and shows the amount of money that could be
raised on an annual basis from each source. Each strategy is explained below.
69
Table 11
PARKING FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE
STRATEGY
ANNUAL
REVENUE
A
Assess. District @ $0.20/sf
$2.06M
B
BID Increase
$0.50M
C
Business License Tax Increase
$0.14M
D
City Parking Fund
(Annual Net Revenue)
$2.00M
E
Eliminate Free Parking
$1.50M
F
Full Price Validation
$0.25M
G
$2 Increase in Citation Fines
$0.09M
H
Increased Parking Rates
$2.12M
I
In Lieu Fees
$1.60M
J
Parking Deficiency Fee
$1.30M
K
10% Parking Tax
$1.50M
L
Premium for Multiple Spaces
$0.90M
M
Public/Private Partnerships
$0.90M
N
Redevelopment Agency
$3.75M
70
City Parking Enterprise Fund
The 1997 and 1998 Downtown Parking Study called for a number of improvements/
changes to the operation of the Downtown Parking Fund. The goal of these changes
was to generate an annual cash flow of $2 million into the Parking Enterprise Fund
Reserve. These funds would be used to develop new downtown parking facilities. In
addition to dedicating the savings realized with the retirement of the 1970 parking bonds,
the 1998 report recommended:
a.
discontinuing the annual transfer of parking funds to the General Fund in
order to finance parking enforcement,
b.
elimination of the subsidy for City employee parking,
c.
change in General Fund staff charges from a percentage to direct
staffing costs,
d.
reduction in overhead allocated to parking,
e.
additional parking meters,
f.
increased parking rates,
g.
increased enforcement, and
h.
Redevelopment Agency contributions.
Most of the recommendations of the above list have been implemented.
The only
remaining items deal with the accounting methods applied to parking (Items c and d) and
the issue of keeping parking rates up to market levels (Item f).
At present time, the balance in the Parking Enterprise Fund Reserve is $12 million, with
$7 million of this total allocated to a future parking garage. In addition, there are $2.2
million in unallocated funds that could be used for the development of additional parking
supply downtown. Thus, a total of $9.2 million is available from the Parking Fund.
To support new bond financing, it is necessary to maintain a certain coverage ratio in the
Parking Fund. Therefore, it would not be prudent, from a financing standpoint, to simply
spend all of these earmarked and unallocated funds for new construction. However, the
Parking Fund is now generating approximately $2.0 million per year in net revenues and
71
these funds could be used to support a parking bond. An annual cash flow of $2.0
million would support a $24.5 million parking bond.
The use of these funds to support a new parking bond would require a vote of the City
Council.
Redevelopment Agency Funds
The Redevelopment Agency has budgeted $50 million over the next two years to
construct new parking downtown. This $50 million is the equivalent of approximately
$3.75 million in annual bond payments.
The likely scenario for the use of this money is similar to that used to finance the Fourth
and San Fernando Street Garage. The Redevelopment Agency would guarantee the
bond payments. All user revenue generated by the garage would be allocated to the
bond repayment and any shortfall would be made up by a payment from the Agency
each year.
The allocation of Redevelopment Agency funds to parking would require a vote of the
Redevelopment Agency Board.
Parking User Rates
The issue of parking rates for downtown users needs to be continuously monitored to
keep the public sector fees in line with market rates in downtown. Adjustments to the
public parking rates are discussed below.
Off-Street Rates
Table 12 shows a survey of the parking rates at the public parking facilities in Downtown
San Jose. Also shown for each facility is an estimate of the appropriate market rate in
72
Table 12
Public Parking Off-Street Rates
Facility
Market Street Garage
3rd Street Garage
2nd/San Carlos Garage
Monthly Rate
Transient Rate
Maximum Daily Rate
Multiple Space Rate
Evening Rate
Residential Rate
2nd/Santa Clara Lot
Monthly Rate
Transient Rate
Maximum Daily Rate
Evening Rate
Block 2 Lot (1st/San Fernando)
Block 3 Lot (2nd/San Fernando)
Monthly Rate
Transient Rate
Maximum Daily Rate
Evening Rate
Block 8 Lot (Market/San Carlos)
Monthly Rate
Transient Rate
Maximum Daily Rate
Evening Rate
Existing Rates
Recommended Rates
$75, $100 premium
$0.75/0.50 per 30 minutes
$9.00-9.50
na
Free
$50
$100, $150 premium
$0.75 per 20 minutes
$15
$125
Free
$50
$80
$0.75/0.50 per 30 minutes
$9.50
$3
$100
$1 per 20 minutes
$18
$5
$75
$0.75 per 20 minutes
$12
Free
$100
$1 per 20 minutes
$18
Free
$80
$1 per 20 minutes
$12.50
$5
$100
$1 per 20 minutes
$18
$5
$100
$10
$20
$4
$100
$10
$20
$4 ($5 event)
$75
$5-7
$3
$75
$5-7
Free ($5 event)
$30
$2-7
$30
$3-7
$30
$2
$30
$3-7
$30
$30
$50
$3 < 2 hours
$5 = 2-5 hours
$7 > 5 hours
$75
$3 < 2 hours
$5 = 2-5 hours
$7 > 5 hours
Convention Center Garage
Monthly Rate
Transient Rate
Exhibitor All-Day Pass
Evening Rate
Market/Balbach Lot
Monthly Rate
Transient Rate
Evening Rate
Woz Way Lot
Monthly Rate
Transient Rate
Auzerais Lot
Monthly Rate
Transient Rate
San Pedro/Bassett Lot
Monthly Rate
Oasis Lot (1st/Saint James)
Monthly Rate
Transient Rate
73
the immediate vicinity of the parking facility. In most cases, the rates are 20-30% below
the market rates in the area.
It is recommended that the monthly off-street rates in public lots and structures be raised
to:
o
$150/month for premium reserved spaces within the core
o
$100/month for regular spaces in the core
o
$75/month for regular spaces adjacent to the core, and
o
$30/month for regular spaces in peripheral lots
Visitor/transient parking rates should be raised to $0.75 per 20 minutes with a maximum
daily fee of $15.
On-Street Rates
On-street parking rates (collected through parking meters) are $0.75 per hour in the
downtown core and $0.50 in the remainder of the study area. Both of these rates are
$0.25 per hour lower than the recommendation made in 1997/98.
Therefore it is
recommended that meter rates be increased to $1.00 per hour.
If the public parking rates were increased as outlined above, the rates would generate
the following increased revenues:
Monthly
$ 830,000
Transient
$1,118,000
On-street
$ 275,000
TOTAL
$2,123,000
Any increase in public parking rates would require a vote of the City Council.
74
Public/Private Partnership
This strategy would sell parking spaces in public parking structures to individuals. The
funds raised from this strategy would be added to the Parking Fund to support the
development of new parking supply. Individuals who purchase parking would not pay
the monthly fee for access to the garage, but they would participate in the operating and
maintenance cost of the structure.
This strategy would be possible in any parking
structure where the City has already paid off the bonds.
If the City sold 500 spaces at $25,000 per space, the strategy would raise $12.5 million.
This would be the equivalent of $0.9 million per year in bond payments.
Since this strategy involves the sale of City property, it would require a vote of the City
Council.
Parking Assessment District
Downtown now has approximately 7.3 million sf of retail and office space. In the near
future, this total will increase to 10.3 million square feet.
If a parking assessment district were approved by more than 50% of the downtown
property owners, money would be raised for the Parking Fund. At an assessment of
$0.20 pre square foot, $2,060,000/year would be raised. A $0.30/sf assessment would
raise $3,090,000 per year.
Business License Increase
The businesses in downtown presently pay an annual total of approximately $576,000
for business licenses.
If the fees for licenses were increased by 25%, a total of
$144,000 per year would be raised.
75
Because this strategy would be considered a tax increase, it must be approved by a 2/3
majority of the voters in a citywide election.
Parking Deficiency Fee
Parking Benefit Assessment District
At present time there are a substantial number of buildings in Downtown San Jose that
have little or no off-street parking available to their tenants. These buildings now depend
on the public parking supply (or on nearby privately owned parking lots) to meet the
needs of their tenants. As Downtown San Jose continues to grow, existing surface
parking lots in downtown (both public and private) will begin to disappear. Therefore, the
off-site parking supply now available to these buildings will become more and more
scarce. These buildings, more than any others, will be dependent on the new public
parking supply for their economic survival.
Under this strategy, each commercial office building in Downtown San Jose would pay
an annual Parking Deficiency Fee of $35 per space for every space that the building is
short of meeting Zoning Code parking requirements. Reviewing a hypothetical 100,000
square foot office building, an annual Parking Deficiency Fee of $10,500 would be
assessed if the building had absolutely no off-street parking under its ownership. This
represents a monthly rent assessment of less than $0.01 per square foot -- a relatively
small assessment in an office market that now charges monthly rents between $4.00
and $5.00 per square foot.
It is estimated that this strategy would raise $1,300,000 annually.
The advantage of this Parking Deficiency Fee is that it represents an annual contribution
to the Parking Fund that would be used to help retire the bonds sold to construct the new
parking. This Parking Deficiency Fee is an equitable fee in that it would be allocated to
the buildings that need the new parking the most.
If this strategy was developed as a parking deficiency fee, it would be considered a
parking tax on the affected businesses and thus it would require a 2/3 majority approval
76
in a citywide election.
This strategy could also be configured as a parking benefit
assessment because only the businesses that benefit from the increased parking would
be assessed.
This variation would require a majority vote of the effected property
owners.
Free Weekend and Evening Visitor Parking
The City now offers free parking at its parking lots and garages on weekday after 6:00
P.M. and on weekends and holidays. This policy is intended to encourage patrons to
visit downtown businesses.
If the policy were changed to charge for parking, the
following amounts could be raised:
Time
@$3
@$4
Weekend
$ 516,000
$ 688,000
Weekday Eve.
$ 981,500
$1,309,000
$1,497,000
$1,997,000
TOTAL
The discontinuation of the free weekend and evening parking program would require a
vote of the City Council.
Visitor Parking Validation
Merchants and businesses downtown can now buy validation stickers that provide
customers/visitors with two hours of free parking. A book that validates 50 hours of
parking can be purchased for $5-$10 depending on the number of books purchased –
essentially purchasing $37.50 worth of parking for $5-$10. Although one of the goals of
Strategy 2000 is to encourage visitors to downtown, this level of subsidy should be
reviewed. The format and cost of the downtown validation system should be reviewed
after the final configuration of the downtown retail project is set so that the existing
businesses and the new retail project can be treated similarly in terms of parking
validation.
77
The discontinuation of the subsidized retail parking validation would raise an additional
$254,000 per year.
This strategy would require a vote of the City Council.
Increased Parking Citation Fines
The City currently collects on approximately 45,000 parking citations. The parking fine
for overtime parking at a meter is now $23, although the City does not get to keep all of
this fine amount. Court costs and collection fees are deducted form the total. The
revenue from these tickets goes into the City’s General Fund. This scheme suggests
that any additional revenues generated by an increase in parking citation to go to the
Parking Fund
If the parking fines were raised by $2, an additional $90,000 per year would be raised. It
would require a vote of the City Council to increase the parking fines.
Parking Tax
Approximately $15 million is spent per year on downtown parking by employees and
visitors (private and public facilities). This scheme proposes a parking tax – similar to a
sales tax- which would be added to both the public and private parking spaces in the
downtown.
A 5% tax would raise $750,000 per year while a 10% tax would raise $1,500,000 per
year.
Again, because this is a tax increase, it would have to be approved by a 2/3 majority
vote of the citizens in a citywide election.
78
In-lieu Fees
As described in Chapter III, new developments in Downtown San Jose would be
required to develop a portion of their parking supply in an off-site location. One of their
options for developing this parking would be to pay an in-lieu fee to the downtown
Parking Fund.
The Parking Fund would then construct new parking in downtown
(including peripheral locations) using these in-lieu fees as part of its "down payment" on
the construction cost.
The in-lieu fee would be set at $20,000 per space, and this amount would increase
annually with the Means Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area. If all
1,500 spaces in the off-site program were paid with an in-lieu fee, a total of $30 million
would be raised. This is equivalent to generating $2,450,000 per year toward the bond
payments.
This program requires approval by a vote of the City Council.
Business Improvement District
By adding $0.05 per square foot to the current Downtown Business Improvement District
(BID), an additional $500,000 per year could be raised. This strategy would require a
majority vote of the property owners in the BID.
Premium for Multiple Monthly Parking Leases
At the current time, many property owner/managers and businesses in downtown
purchase multiple number of monthly parking space every month. This practice takes
place whether the businesses actually use these spaces or not.
Some downtown
buildings, for example, purchase a large number of monthly parking spaces even if the
office spaces within their building is empty. While this may be a good source of revenue
for the Parking Fund, it does not allow new employees to obtain monthly parking in
downtown.
79
This strategy would charge a premium of $25/space/month for all multiple monthly
parking purchased at one time. A business with 20 employees, for example would have
the choice of giving its 20 employees $100 each per month to buy their own parking
leases. Or the business could pay $2,600 per month to buy the 20 monthly leases in a
block.
The advantage of the premium strategy is that it encourages the business
community to implement “Parking Cash-out” – a policy where the individual employee is
directly given the money to purchase the parking, and then the employee is allowed to
make his/her transportation mode decision. In other cities where Parking Cash-out has
been implemented, it is not uncommon to see approximately 20% of the employees
switch to carpools, vanpools or transit.
The strategy would raise $900,000 per year if the current multiple purchases continued.
This strategy requires approval by a vote of the City Council.
PUBLIC REVIEW
The 14 strategies outlined above were presented in two public community workshops.
In each workshop, the attendees were asked to rank the strategies and indicate which
strategies they believed should be pursued.
Table 13 shows the results of the public workshop ranking activity.
RECOMMENDED PARKING FINANCING PLAN
Table 14 shows the recommended financing plan for the parking supply program
recommended in Chapter II. The $2 million net revenue from the Parking Fund, an
increase in parking rates and an allocation of $8.3 million from the Parking Fund reserve
would finance the first two parking structures.
80
Table 13
Ranking of Alternate Financing Strategies
Ranking
Strategy
Public Meeting
San Jose Redevelopment Agency
Parking Fund
Increased Parking Rate
Public/Private Partnership
Eliminate Fee Parking
Deficiency Fee
$2 Increase in Citations
In Lieu Fees
Parking Tax
Premium for Multiple Spaces
Full Cost Validation
BID Increase
Assessment District
Business License Increase
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
81
San Jose
Downtown
Association Board
2
1
3
5
12
9
6
4
11
7
14
8
10
13
TABLE 14
RECOMMENDED FINANCING PLAN
PRIORITY
PERIPHERAL
Immediate
2
SITE LOCATION
ANNUAL BOND
PAYMENT
($ million)
ANNUAL AMOUNT
RAISED
($ million)
B Akatiff Lease
0
0
0
C Compaq Arena
Surface Lot
0
0
0
CORE
1
5 North of DeAnza
2
H Greyhound Block
3
TOTAL COST
Down Payment
Bond Payment
($ million)
($ million)
FINANCING STRATEGY
Parking Fund -- Shuttle
Parking Fund -- Shuttle
$8.30
Retail Project
Parking Plus
$30.00
$2.45
$2.00
$0.45
Parking Enterprise Fund
Redevelopment Agency
0
$30.50
0
$2.50
0
$2.12
$0.90
Increased Rates
Premium for Multiple Spaces
$32.00
$2.64
$2.64
Redevelopment Agency
4
N SoFA Parking Plus
$20.00
$1.60
$0.65
$0.95
Redevelopment Agency
In-Lieu Fees
5
9 Parkside Hall
$24.50
$2.00
$1.50
In-Lieu Fees
$137.00
$11.19
$11.21
TOTAL
$8.30
82
The $50 million budgeted by the Redevelopment Agency would be used to partially fund
the early garage alternates and for parking plus opportunities. The in-lieu fees and the
premium for multiple leases and assessment district would be allocated to the Parking
Fund to complete the downtown parking program. These revenues would be used to
implement new parking facilities consistent with the increased parking supply
recommendations described in Chapter II.
83
DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX A
DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Site/Solution
1234-
Size
Typ. Level
Area
Total Area
Configuration
Spaces/Level
Total Spaces
Net Gained
Spaces
Retail @
Grade
Cost/Space
Land &
Construction relocation Cost
Cost ($million)
($million)
Cost/Space
Inc. Land
($million)
Total Cost Inc.
Land ($million)
A-2
irregular surface park
365,973
surface park
na
1,093
1,093
0
2,050
2.20
19.20
19,580
21.40
B-2
irregular surface park
214,500
surface park
na
580
N/A
0
1,070
0.64
4.80
9,380
5.44
Remarks
APPENDIX TABLE 1
DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE SITE ANALYSIS MATRIX
C-1
C-2
230 x 396
230 x 396
91,080
91,080
328,200
419,280
G+3
G+4
310
310
1,094
1,404
809
1,119
0
0
14,200
14,600
15.50
20.43
0.00
0.00
14,200
14,600
15.50
20.43
G-1
G-2
395 x 178
395 x 178
70,310
70,310
130,200
200,520
2 below
3 below
200
200
800
1,220
800
1,220
0
0
50,000
43,564
40.00
53.20
0.00
0.00
50,000
43,564
40.00
53.20
H-2
H-3
180 x 275
180 x 275
49,500
49,500
233,800
389,803
G + 4S
2B, G, 5S
160
160
604
1,064
604
1,064
13,800
9,329
22,200
24,100
13.40
25.60
13.20
13.20
44,000
36,466
26.60
38.80
L-1
180 x 520
93,600
374,400
4 below
300
1,120
1,120
0
43,250
48.40
0.00
43,250
48.40
2
N-1
N-2
N-3
128 x 275
128 x 360
L shape
35,200
46,100
62,720
237,900
311,700
360,000
2B, G, 4S
2B, G, 4S
1B, G, 4S
116
148
204
734
927
1,050
584
760
828
15,500
15,800
29,520
26,250
23,900
24,400
19.26
22.11
25.60
5.63
7.38
10.00
33,910
31,812
33,900
24.89
29.49
35.60
3
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
224 x 315
224 x 315
195 x315
195 x315
70,560
70,560
61,110
61,110
261,680
332,240
162,552
223,660
G+3
G+4
G+3
G+4
236
236
195
195
840
1,050
525
700
754
964
439
614
0
0
0
0
15,400
15,750
15,250
15,600
12.90
16.50
8.00
10.90
13.50
13.50
13.50
13.50
31,429
31,500
40,952
34,857
26.40
30.00
21.50
34.40
6-1
6-2
6-3
128 x 306
128 x 306
128 x 306
39,168
39,168
39,168
184,704
223,872
302,208
G+4
G + 5S
2B, G, +5S
132
132
132
607
739
980
522
654
895
11,100
11,100
11,100
16,150
16,400
22,900
9.80
12.10
22.40
10.00
10.00
10.00
32,619
29,905
33,061
19.80
22.10
32.40
9 -6
9-7
9-8
9-9
240 x 350
180 x 465
240 x 465
180 x 465
81,550
83,700
111,600
83,700
309,600
329,000
446,400
327,800
4 below
4 below
4 below
2B, G, +3S
276
288
363
151
1,005
979
1,245
1,010
1,005
979
1,245
1,010
0
0
0
0
32,500
35,800
36,500
27,650
32.65
35.00
45.40
27.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32,500
35,700
36,500
27,650
32.65
35.00
45.40
27.90
Includes: $3,500,000 for tree removal, replacement and landscape allowance (cost is for both sections of the park)
Includes: $100,000 for utility relocation, $4,000,000 fountain replacement, $2,500,000 tree removal, replacement & landscape allowance
Land cost for @ scheme is only for the footprint of parking garage and not the entire parcel
Includes: $750,000 for utility relocation
San Jose Parking Structure Site Selection
IPD Job No. 01-163
September 11, 2001
G:\SVR\JOBS\01-jobs\01-163\siteselsur.xls
1
1
3
3
4
4
CARLYLE STREET
DN.
NOTRE DAME
NORTH ALMADEN BLVD.
CARLYLE STREET
NOTRE DAME
NORTH ALMADEN BLVD.
NOTRE DAME
NORTH ALMADEN BLVD.
ST. JOHN STEET
CARLYLE STREET
CARLYLE STREET
ALMADEN
RETAIL
NOTRE DAME
ST. JOHN STEET
CARLYLE STREET
ALMADEN
RETAIL BELOW
NOTRE DAME
ST. JOHN STEET
CARLYLE STREET
ALMADEN
RETAIL
NOTRE DAME
ST. JOHN STEET
ALMADEN BLVD.
MARKET ST.
PARK AVE.
SAN CARLOS ST.
ALMADEN BLVD.
MARKET ST.
PARK AVE.
SAN CARLOS ST.
H I G H W A Y 87
G U
A D
A L
U P
E
R I
V E
R
CINNABAR
S. C. V. W. D.
GUADALU
PE RIVER
N
AUTUM
N
. JULIA
OLD W
WEST JULIAN
PAQ
COM ER
T
CEN
U M N
A U T
R Y
M E
O
N T G
M O
A N
L I
J U
ALMADEN AVE.
DN.
UP
SAN FERNANDO
SAN PEDRO STREET
RETAIL
RETAIL
POST STREET
RETAIL
POST STREET
DN.
UP
SAN FERNANDO
SAN PEDRO STREET
ALMADEN AVE.
RETAIL BELOW
MARKET STREET
PARK AVE.
MARKET STREET
DN.
UP
SAN FERNANDO
DN.
UP
SAN PEDRO STREET
ALMADEN AVE.
POST STREET
SAN CARLOS STEET
1st S T R E E T
SECOND STREET
PASEO
SAN SALVADOR ST.
SAN CARLOS STEET
1st S T R E E T
RETAIL BELOW
SAN SALVADOR ST.
SECOND STREET
PASEO
SAN CARLOS STEET
1st S T R E E T
SECOND STREET
PASEO
SAN SALVADOR ST.
SAN CARLOS STEET
1st S T R E E T
SECOND STREET
PASEO
SAN SALVADOR ST.
SAN CARLOS STEET
1st S T R E E T
SECOND STREET
PASEO
SAN SALVADOR ST.
SAN CARLOS STEET
1st S T R E E T
RETAIL BELOW
SAN SALVADOR ST.
SECOND STREET
PASEO