High Costs Upend Village Entry Again
By WILLIAM HAGLE

The City Council on Tuesday agreed to press ahead with a plan for a village entrance park and parking structure whose cost has soared to $57 million even though a new staff report estimates the city cannot pay off the project as envisioned in 20 years.

Two years ago, the council took the first major step towards pursuing the long-awaited project that would replace existing public and employee parking lots on both sides of a creek channel north of City Hall. Even that initial environmental impact report was stopped last August when the council approved a revised design for the proposed parking garage, excluding a sewer pump station but still exceeding a target of 580 parking spaces.

In the most recent staff report, City Development Director John Montgomery said the proposed structure would result in a net gain of 212 new parking slots at a cost of $140,000 per space. The current supply of spaces in three combined lots is 393, according to the report. The new garage would house 605 spots altogether.

Last August, city staff was directed to incorporate the new design into the project's environmental impact report, assess parking usage downtown, prepare a preliminary construction staging plan, study traffic patterns and provide an updated cost estimate.

Costs, now estimated at $57 million, have skyrocketed since an initial estimate of $20 million, made a decade ago. Project elements and descriptions, which can be viewed at City Hall or on the city website, include the parking structure, officebuilding, historic tower renovation, an urban park, site improvements and a pedestrian bridge. $13 million is budgeted for so-called soft costs, which include design, engineering, inspections and contingencies.

The report suggests several ways to finance the project over 20 years, based on a projected $5 million surplus in the city's parking fund as of June 2009, and annual $1.2 million infusions from meter collections.

Altogether, the report estimates the city's borrowing capacity for the project at about $32 million, a $25 million shortfall.

Other possible revenue sources were also suggested, including a Measure M sales-tax reserve and a Federal grant.

The report recommended four possible options. One was to stop all work. No. 2 advances the project as is. Three was change the plan to make it cheaper. Four postpones all action for 12 months to see if current parking suffices.

City Manager Ken Frank suggested a fifth, allowing the council to give the go-ahead to the EIR. "…If we get it certified, the council could then possibly approve a lesser plan…and the EIR would still apply." Frank said he could findthe $75,000 needed for the EIR.

The council voted 4-0 to postpone for a year and also took Frank's suggestion 3-1 to go forward with the EIR based on a lesser plan.

The council will consider in June other short term actions to suggested by the report to increase utilization of existing parking, such as two-tier metered pricing, where more convenient street parking comes with a higher cost, while more remote spaces are priced more reasonably. Restriping the parking lot is also an option.

Councilmember Toni Iseman said an overall redesign might be in order, such as converting the city-owned OCTA bus station between Ocean and Broadway avenues into a parking area, and relocating a new bus station near the proposed village entrance area.

She also advocated for an understated design. "Laguna sells itself," she said. "We don't need to advertize it at the entrance."

The $140,000 per space price overstates the cost, Iseman said. She pointed out that Laguna's citizens will gain more value from the project than just parking. "They'll get a park and a cleaned up stream" as part of the package, she said.

The park actually refers to two strips of greenery alongside Laguna Canyon Road between City Hall and Art-A-Fair for use by the Saturday farmer's market.