HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Transit Center Studies-Carlsbad, Oside, Escon; Transit Center Studies-Carlsbad, Oside, Escon; 2007-06-01• ti sk^i iCj SI
REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
OCEANSIDE, CARLSBAD & ESCONDIDO
TRANSIT CENTERS
Prepared for:
D
Prepared:
June 2007
Carlsbad
• Village
Station
REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
OCEANSIDE, CARLSBAD & ESCONDIDO TRANSIT
CENTERS
The North County IVansit District (NTCTD) launched Station Develop-
ment Studies to explore opportunities at three of its transit stations:
Carlshad Village Station, Oceanside Transit Center and Escondido
IVansit Center. These transit stations serve the JVCTD Coaster com-
muter train, the Breeze hus network and (coming soon) the Sprinter
commuter train as well as other hus and train services provided hy
other operators.
Development concepts considered as part of this study have heen for-
mulated to achieve specilic ohjectives:
• To improve the efficiency of transit operations;
• To increase transit ridership;
• To help accomplish local redevelopment and community goals;
• To he economically viahle and in synch with market trends; and
• To result in economic henefits for the community and for NCTD.
DRAFT CONCEPTUAL REPORT
The primary purpose of this submittal is to test the feasibility of a
variety of potential land uses and site plans. Feasibility is determined
by the ability of the site to provide for a reasonable level of surface
and structured parking and a financial return on investment that is
adequate to cover the costs of construction and development efforts.
These concepts are not meant to supersede or bypass NCTD or city
staff input on concepts for this plan. They have been prepared in or-
der to set parameters on site development types and densities that
may be needed to make the redevelopment of these sites feasible.
None of the plans can be implemented without review, input, adjust-
ments and negotiations with the local city or redevelopment staff.
Carlsbad Village
Station
REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
OCEANSIDE, CARLSBAD & ESCONDIDO
TRANSIT CENTERS
CARLSBAD CONCEPT
DESCRIPTION (see Figures 1-4)
la) The bus platform area is relocated from the west side
of the tracks to the east side. Thc relocation centralizes the
facility and avoids the requirement of transit riders needing
to cross the tracks to make connections.
lb) A transit station office would bc located in the ground
floor of the new parking structure.
lc & d) A drop-off and taxi zone for passengers.
2) A new track would be added to the east side of the
tracks. A portion of the existing platform would need to
be removed. A min. of 15' has been kept between all new
improvements and this new location of the track.
3) To accommodate the double tracking, a new platform
would be added to the west side of the tracks. Amenities
such as benches, shade & trash cans would be added.
4) The existing station building could be kept in place with
the public restrooms and commercial transit retail.
5a and b) The current bus platform area could be con-
verted to on-street parking spaces. These spaces would
consist of diagonal parking (where the roadway is wide
enough to accommodate) or parallel parking.
6) A 20,000 sf retail space with high ceilings could be
added such as a specialty grocery store or gourmet / health
foods store. Docks would be placed at thc west side of the
facility, within a high-bay section of the parking garage.
7) Additional retail shops could be added at the ground
floor within the parking structure. The architectural form
would allow for individual storefront identity and scale,
while still being mostly under the parking garage.
8 a & b) The 5 story parking structure would accom-
modate most all transit users and retail customers. Late
aftemoon and weekend parking use would shift to cus-
tomers of the grocery store and potentially other retail /
restaurant uses in the Village. A pedestrian bridge would
take advantage of the parking structure elevators & provide
an elevated crossing for thc community and transit users
accessing southbound Coaster access.
9) A surface parking lot supports retail functions and pro-
vides for separate building masses.
10) A second parking structure would be placed inside a
residential building "wrap" to support thc residential uses
& provide additional retail & Village parking.
11) The 4 story residential structure would wrap and hide
the parking structure and connect to it with exterior hall-
ways and "cat-walk" bridge connections.
12) A parcel is recommended for acquisition to increase
the visibility of the retail & parking structure, to provide
better bus circulation, parking and physical pedestrian
connection that is consistent wilh the block length.
13) Various ground floor retail spaces would be added
with second floor office space.
14) A new surface parking lot would be added on the west
side of thc tracks, south of Grand. This would require the
removal of the gazebo & a portion of Rotary Park.
15) The adjacent Academy recreational field could be
reconfigured for underground parking and new fields devel-
oped on the roof structure.
Revised Draft Conceptual Study, june 2007
RELATIONSHIP TO
PUBLIC INPUT
CARLSBAD VILLAGE STATION WORKSHOP INPUT
(Wednesday, September 13, 2006)
• Suggestions included having street fairs, provide good
restaurants and nighttime entertainment with music
(street performers), art and theatre, and retail establish-
ments, (see concept items 6, 7 8f 13 to the left).
• Set up outdoor/sidewalk cafes, (see concept items 6, 7
& 13 to the left).
• Provide signage and access to the beach, (can be
included, but not currently idenrified at a concept plan
level).
• Supply more parking, (see concept 8, 9, 10. 14 and 15).
• Restore the theater across the street and consider a
shared parking structure with theater, (parking added in
8, 9, 10 . 14 and 15 could support this use).
• Redevelop land west of State Street with residential,
retail and office uses and encourage State Street to be
pedestrian-friendly, (see concept 6, 7 11. 12 & 13).
• Include civic uses, a museum, plaza, and fountains at
the south end of the site, (this concept would be real-
ized through the City owned parcel in the southeast
corner).
• Provide residential uses at mixed densities (sec 11).
• Incorporate mixed use at the northwest corner of
Grand and State Streets (this concept would be realized
through the City owned parcel in the southeast corner
and see 13).
• Serve commuters and the adjacent residential uses with
convenience uses such as restaurants, petcare, day-
care, grocery store (i.e., TYader Joe's), dry cleaning or
auto-detailing shops near the station, (see concept 6, 7
11, 12 & 13).
• Consider including a hotel. (Not recommended).
• Use the vacant portions of thc site for parking in the
interim and develop residential uses In the long-term,
(see concept 8.10, 11, 12 8f 14).
• Keep and restore the historic depot, (plan allows reloca-
tion).
• Provide informational kiosks with maps and/or a visi-
tor's bureau, (would be added but nol noted at this
conceptual level).
• Encourage use of bikes, motorcycles, and scooters
by providing parking for them in the front, (would be
added bul not noted at this conceptual level).
Page 4
IMPORTANT DECISIONS FOR
THE CARLSBAD PLAN
A) Is the centralized location of the bus platform next lo
the rail platform a benefit and is there enough circulation
space to concentrate these uses in one area?
B) Building heights optimize costs, but the four floor resi-
dential units (approximately 50') and the five floor park-
ing structure (approximately 55*) may not be acceptable
to the City of Carlsbad since they exceed the proposed 45'
limit. Lower heights will reduce parking capacity, spread
development, or reduce feasibility. Should the height of
these facilities be decreased?
C) Would the "PUC approved" at-grade crossing for pe-
destrians be kept or be replaced by the pedestrian bridge
and Grand Avenue crossing?
D) The old depot's rent or relocation to some other prop-
erty provides space for transit parking or development.
E) Should transit parking or development options on thc
parcels south of Grand be explored at this time?
F) Right-of-Way adjustments may bc needed at the cul-
de-sac road end by the proposed residential units?
G) Should a parcel of land between State Street and thc
alley be acquired to improve visual, pedestrian and ve-
hicular access to the site? The site is currently hidden by
properties on State Street, and is impacted by detrimental
back-of-house views and activities.. Benefits would also
include easier bus maneuvering into the transit platform
area, additional parking and configuring the urban form
of the block to match the existing street grid system. Is
this a potential redevelopment agency incentive to ac-
quire and finance?
H) Should NCTD use land to provide capacity of up
to 225 additional parking spaces on-site, for the benefit
of Carisbad Village commercial or residential district?
What financial contributions for land, construction, and
maintenance could come from adjacent development, the
redevelopment agency or cily?
I) Concurrence is needed on the amount of parking the
proposed development will be credited for transit orienta-
tion, mixed-use, and shared-use parking programs (com-
pared to non-transit center parking rates)? Parking rates
can effect development potential and transit orientation?
I) Should the Academy's recreation field to thc west of the
site be considered for joint-use parking? Should the sliver
of NCTD land on the Academy's side be made available
for a nursery growing grounds lease, for other commercial
leases or should it be leased to the Army / Navy Acad-
emy?
K) What site plan or changes in lot layouts would be
required to provide for better visibility and viability of
the commercial and residential areas of the site and also
address the site's back-of-the-house impacts from busi-
nesses along State Streel?
Revised Draft Conceptual Study, june 2007 Page 5
Carlsbad Preliminary
Site Plans
REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
OCEANSIDE, CARLSBAD & ESCONDIDO
TRANSIT CENTERS
30. PARKING STRUCTURE ]
220" X 250'
(•1-1/2 leveis .a 29,875 s.t.)
n-l.-lB? total square teet
32-? St/car -US CARS
RECREATIONAL
f-ACILrriES 2
13,500 total s.r.
9. NEW SURFACE
PARKING LOT C
HoCARS;
OLD DEPOT
I To be f docateC or mcorporatcc
into connefaal devetopntfit
at narkel tale;
:3b. RETAIL I SHOPS
(level: 'a- 5,495 s.f.)
OFRCE SPACE 2
(Ievels2&3!i': 0,990 s.i.;
:5,-l85tola square reet
:3a. RETAIL 3 - SHOPS
level: >a> 6,300 s.i.;
OFFICE SPACE :
(levels 2 & 3 .a :2,600 i.f.;
: 8,900 total square tt-et
CARLSBAD
Transit Center
Development Scenario
5/25/07
i.
S.
CO
LEGEND
Bus Primary Circulation
^-^^ Vehicular Primary Circulation
^ Parking Structure Access
• Pedestrian / Bilce Access
Improved Crosswalks
llllllllll Stairway / Escalator
^ Station bypass route for Coastal Rail Trail
inmi Rail Line
General location for Boarding Platforms
Pedestrian Bridge
\
CARLSBAD
TRANSIT CENTER
DEVELOPMENT
SCENARIO
Pedestrian &
Traffic Circulation
5/25/07
LEGEND
CARLSBAD
TRANSIT CENTER
DEVELOPMENT
SCENARIO
Setbacks
5/25/07
I
CARLSBAD
TRANSIT CENTER
DEVELOPMENT
SCENARIO
Aerial Isometric
4/25/07
Transit & Development
Parking Requirements for
Carlsbad Village Station
REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
OCEANSIDE, CARLSBAD & ESCONDIDO
TRANSIT CENTERS
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS
CITY OF CARLSBAD
LANO USE SlZE|a] CURRENT ADOPTED PARKING RATIO [a] NUMBER OF PARKING
SPACES
-Re!a:l 23 206 ».f. 1 OC ssacepe' 200 s.f 116
2 Gxcery S:cre '9,200 ».f. I.OC space pe' 260 S.f. 77
3 "9 605 S.f.
2 Beo.'corr l2CDU[cl 2.0C soaces pe-UP!; w in Sivc 0' Tcre DCQ'CCTS 240
G-e$: 120 DU '.CC soaces ?e-4 jri K 31
C^ce 23 590 sf '.OC space pe' 300 s.f. 79
T-a'^si: Re:a i/Se'v ces siessf 1 OC space pe" 3C0 s.f [dl 17
Total Spaces Required 560
NIo'.es
[a] Sod'oe;KTU*A
[b] Sojrce: C :y o' Ca''sbaa Zciog Cooo
[cj 1.000 s.f per 2 Ded'oc.x j"": AOS oss..fred
[dl Vsi'.cs tc "."e vais: rota wore ass-rred '.o oe •.ra-'s ". users. T^JS. cn y oarK ng soaces 'or e-"0 oyccs wcc caicuiateo oosed cn ger-cai
ofice" oa''< ng reqj reTent rate
,'o-nd ng ^acM'
TABLE 2
SHARED PARKINQ DEMAND SUMMARY
CARLSBAD VILLAGE TRANSIT CENTER
P£AK MONTH: - PEAK PtRlOO; 2 PM. '/rtEKDAY
Weekday Weekend Weekday iVockond
Non-Non-Peak Mo Ettmotoc Peak Hr Peak Mo Esiimaica
Pro]CCI 0..\.i BasR Mode Captve Pmject Banc Mode CapUve Project Adi Parking Adj AOJ Parking
Qu«n'.l^/ Unk Rate Ad) R;.l .^ Rate Unit Rale ACH Ratio Rata Un; Oecambar Drm,-ir,l 7PM December Domanc
;ofrrri,n:;y SlCBpng (<*C0 ksfl 42,406^a'G-A J,94 •M i3i ..-.'Gjk 3.20 aeo 100 250 /ofGLA 'j>6 100 96 C>5 1,00 62
ETCcyco 0,70 oao 1.00 C56 ^ /xafGLA 3.80 oao 1,C0 OM /«»fGLA -co 1.00 24 O80 • CO 22
^oBCJon-.a' Re-.ff, scared Scacoa 12C bVj CSC 1,00 1.00 CSC ' AM 1,00 dsd 'un*. 0,70 i,W 42 O07 - -co ' a Rsaomoa 1 asfuiit 1 1,00 1.00 1 IM 1 1.00 1,00 1 ,1.-' •. '.00 100 120 1.00 r 1.00 12C
Ces; 12C 0 IflO 1.00 " hint _0 1 1.00 1,00 0 • i.": 0.20 1.00 ^ -CO ' 1,00 30
bfcc «25 ki' 23,580 0.30 -.00 0.27 .•jr 1 0,03 ax 1,00 oo:i '. -.00 100 • C CO 1" 1,00 0
ULI Soso dau novo DCCT mixWod from defaul vali m. Cua'xmer 110 Cja'£"ier 112
Errptoyeo 132 Erroloyee ao
NfiUL Reae-vod 120 Ress'veo 120
|a] 23,205 »f of r»a.i jee p ua '9,200 s' c' Brocery slo-e T0!8! 3«2 Tc-.a 312
' See thc a",acncd irema
Shareo Par«i->8 Redustici 23%
TABLE 3
TRANSIT RIDERSHIP FORECAST
CARLSBAD VILLAGE TRANSIT CENTER
2020 2030
Breeze 258 168 523
Coaster am 366 389
Subtotal 521^ 523 912
BRT N/A 1847 1771
Total 6/8 2.370 2,683
CHART 1
RIDERSHIP FORECAST
CARLSBAD VILLAGE TRANSIT CENTER
Note:
Ridership forecast ig oata is prov oefl oy NCTD anfl SANDAG
(January 4 2007)
Revised Draft Conceptual Study, june 2007 Page 12
TABLE 4
PARKINQ DEMAND BY TRANSIT RIDERSHIP
CARLSBAD VILLAGE TRANSIT CENTER
Daily Riders^
in 2020 [al
Drop-olf
Arrived by Bus,
Shuttle. Walk.
Bike. etc. [b]
tncomins Vehicle
Parked ft)]
Average Vehicle
Occupancy
(AVO) [bl
OEBly Parking
Demand by
Transit Uaerc
<2020)
Peak Hour
Adjustment
Factor [c]
Peak Hour
Parking Demand
by Transit Users
(2020)
COASTCR 366 7% 19% 74% 1.2 225 0.8 180
BREEZE 158 10% 80% 10% 1.5 11 0.8 8
BRT 1.M7 50% 5% 45% 1.2 6S3 0.8 554
TotH SpKM Required by T>«ra)t U 743
Notes:
[a] Transit boafding projeciton provkted by NCTD aod SANDAG (January 4.2007)
lb] Modal Split and AVO were assufTied based on the empiricai data arrtpraviouB studies by Ka^^
rc] Peak Hoiir Adlustrr^ent Factor ibr the transit center »»8 applied based on prevkn-s studies done by Kaku Associates in order to convert daily parking demand to
peak hour parking aemana.
TABLES
PARKING SUPPLY SUMMARY
CARLSBAD VILLAGE TRANSIT CENTER
|Sbwture1 Struchjre2 Surfece Lot
Ground B8 80 149
Level 2 98 124 NA
Levtf 3 98 203 NA
Level 4 98 203 NA
Level 5 49 203 NA
Level 6 NA
Subtotal 431 813 149
Adjustment
Factof* 0.95 0.95 1.00 Grand
Total
1 Total 409 772 149 1.330
It was assumed that 5% ofthe total strucbire spaces were spared
TABLES
PARKING SUMMARY
CARLSBAD VILLAGE TRANSIT CENTER
Year 2020 Demand Year 2020 Supply
Surplus of
Emptoyees
Development
50 [a]
362 [b]
743 tcl
Stnjctures
Surface Lot
1,181 [d]
149 fdl Surplus of
Total 1,155 Total 1.330 175
Notes:
[a] Proieded parking demand generated by employees of NCTD at the station and
tfte proposed Greyhound office.
[b] See Table 2: 'Weekday Totar
[c] See Table 4.
[d] See Table 5.
Table 7: DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO FOR CARLSBAD VILLAGE TRANSn* CENTER
TimitPWbnm SfacwIPtKaa
aOpMho JUn4wa|»d TwaitSaniOM
AM MMMtyi R«iM
VttiaSm
CaoiMon SurtmPMirg
Paridng
Studua SM RaMadRMidMjil OMnadRMidMiil
Ground Floor
Second Floor
ThM Floor
Fourth Ftoor
Fifth Floor
Sixth Floor
Total DevetopmMit(sl}
% Footprint it or LM Size
25,000 10,000 15,000 5.165 25,000 19.500 55,875 Z3^; 19.200 24.160 0
77,770 11.795 25.460 0
87.995 11,796 25.460 0
87,995 2S.460 0
73.058 19.065 0
1 1 0
25,000
5.29%
10.000
2.12%
15,000
3.17%
5,165
1.09%
25,000
5.29%
10.500
4.13% 11.62% 451% 0.00% 5.11% 4.06%
GRAND TOTAL DEVELOPMENT (sO
TOTAL LOT SIZE (sf)
TOTAL LOT SIZE (acres)
FLOOR AREA RATIO w/o Parkmg Structures
FLOOR AREA RATIO wtth Parkkig Stiuctures
SITE COVERAGE OF BUILDINGS (%)
BUILOING SETBACK (REAR)
MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK (TRACK EDGE)
MAXIMUM BUILDING SETBACK (GRMOD)
BUILDING SETBACK (ALLEY)
0.00%
190.76S
472.626
10.85
0.40
1.20
25.9%
10
10
15
10
Developnmrt Parking Requirements for the Carisbad Village Tranait Center
AMunad
RMilfQnniyabNt
RaM(TMiaitOnli4
OSca
HWadlliJdintiillpirlJOOgtoiiiir
(tMMniil QuHl (p« 1 MUsnM H)*
ToURiqurad
SF
Mpar 1.000
pKOiyd
Anunad
ReduOianlmii
SvtHoMSpMK ShMvttPMIng
RM snaoN
Aaaunad
Aaduaontain
PvtoigDifliMd
Pin
RaducMMlmn
CtMnngi
IWKIMVI
Tontii
AdjuaMPntM
RM|M>I.W)
HMPMUng
RWuM
A4«M(>ming
23,205 S.U 116.03 ».00% 0.00% 25.00% 2iS 52.21 45.00%
19.200 4.00 76.80 25.00% 0.00% S.00% 2J0 53.76 70.00%
5.165 3.33 17.20 25.00% 25.00% mm 0.83 4.30 25X10%
23,590 3J3 78.55 0.00% 10.00% 25.00% 2.16 51.06 6100%
119.605 2.00 239.21 10.00% 5.00% S.00% 1.60 191J7 8om
119.B05 0.25 29.90 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.06 7.48 25110%
310,370 SSS 360
• MHaw* «i •<MM0i IiM at SXM tiN 1,1.000 li gm pM ml MMfe
Carlsbad Villaae Transit Dally Ridership to Parking Requirement Conversions
Rammng
AMUiMdVMi WdHihip
PKttiMtMr *mm4»M- uTiwiMlhim ANurwdVMf Arrtvtngt Aiaurad
EIHMD^M, RkMnki R^TMar «•«SMIfaMI BIwtraniiMijn AaauiwdDno- PaitngtM Widi
FMHtwr
MMang
OitatWmu
PMwSCar
CamMU
TiMMRtOan 2020 MtWUWKh UM IMimtnilM olPHMngirt Wadt Occuanor fMM RMutton
CCWSTER 300 365 10.00% 2.00% 100% 10.00% 273.75 120 182.50 50.00%
SimUMButSanic* 250 158 30.00% 5.00% 47.00% 10.00% \ZJM IJO 0.80 6.74 4.27%
BM fbpM TIMI*-9MI OiapD aMk|
8M Rtpid TiMMil. 9«t Diaso (lAfMk rnAM^rl
TMRaquMd
0 1.477 10.00% 3.00% 10.00% 30.00% 694.19 120 0-BO 462.79 31.33% BM fbpM TIMI*-9MI OiapD aMk|
8M Rtpid TiMMil. 9«t Diaso (lAfMk rnAM^rl
TMRaquMd
0 369 15.00% 3,00% 15.00% 30.00% 136.62 120 0.80 91.08 24.67% BM fbpM TIMI*-9MI OiapD aMk|
8M Rtpid TiMMil. 9«t Diaso (lAfMk rnAM^rl
TMRaquMd 550 2,389 1.117 743
BM fbpM TIMI*-9MI OiapD aMk|
8M Rtpid TiMMil. 9«t Diaso (lAfMk rnAM^rl
TMRaquMd
TdUiOMMRidertrap 71
PotmUiPinonionSd 18 fbr OAc» J RMSI1 RMdmea 666
ParcwM o( PottnW PwKiW on S«a uting Tnfikt 10.55%
Parking Supply Calculations
SIruetursdPafUng
6aaiin( ShKlufMl Nrtlng
KanSndMdPvHng
GraaaSqvam
Feci
NaiPMtaAg
0 0 1 0
382.B93 324 \ 1.181
TMaiatracamdMingPrMMitf 1,181
CMpwipHiafttnMiiMdfwMne $20,000
Coit fpr HMrSlrueiimd Ming ^.622,994
Parking Summary
-RMAoniM
Rtdiand
AmcuK pm«w3
mSutm
Prtno
AmotM
PmMidin
SIMMM
SpMMPiDwdMin
•Mdt)
360 46 507 192
743 104 674 35
1,103 149 1.181 227
T«ai MUng PrMhtodAMM T>iAilil DM 227
OreiiSqwi
SurtMsPsrting FM SFMrSpKt
EMngMMeNmng 137,000 insxi 365
OMWttoA d 9u>lM* Ptriiii (21 ipMM MM) •129.000 375.00 •344
MM Mfm U c *«t MdHonMrM pMoTM 11.900 400.00 29
NM tialM W h MKMi sn MM WWMcquind pinl 9.500 4Q0Xn 24
NaaruafHt ue ••• Wi ntw gpocMjr wn 18250 400.00 48
Mdv M(M Md: «Mi Ml-M* dOmd 11.200 375,00 30
Revised Draft Conceptual Study, pne 2007
TaMSHrfawPvUniPrMiM 149
TMilPHhkvPtMlM 1,330
Plage 14
Carlsbad Project
Pro-formas
REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
OCEANSIDE, CARLSBAD 8i ESCONDIDO
TRANSIT CENTERS
TABLE A-1
CARLSBAO UlANStT CENTER
MIXEO-USe DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPE - RENTAL
NCTD LAND l»E AND TRANSPORTATKM STUDY
KTU+A
DRAFT
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Protect DescriDtion
Land Area
(Less) Railroad, Street ROW, etc.
Total Net Land Area
Notes
10.9 Gross Acres
f4.13l Acres
6.72 Nat Acres
292,723 SF
Gross Building Area (GBA) - Resklential 119,605 SF
Gross Building Area (GBA) - Retail 23,205 SF
Gross Building Area (GBA) - Tranait Retail 5,165 SF
Groas BuHding Area (GBA) - LiveWork Lofts 0 SF
Gross BuHdHig Area (GBA) - Grocery Store 19,200 SF
Gross Building Area (GBA) - Offica 23.590 SF
Total Gross Buikling Area 190.766 SF
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.35 Based on 10.9 Gross Acres
Densiiy - Units/Net Acre 17 Units/Net Acre
Nutnber of Storias 1 -5 Stories
Estimated Number of Dwelling Units • Mutti-family 112 Dwelling Units
Average Unit Size • Multi-family 900 SF
Estimated Number ot Units - Live/Work 0 Dwelling Units
Average Unit Size - Uve/Work 1.500 SF
Constructton Type Type V
Structured Spaces 674 Spaces
Suriace Spaces 104 Spaces
Total Transit 778 Spaces
OawBtoonienf
Structured Spaces 507 Spaces
Suriace Spaces Spaces
Totf^ Devetopment 553 Spaces
Total Parktog Space 1.331 Spaces
Devetooment Coata (21 rai
Land $0 ISF $0
Off-Site Improvements $3 /SFLand $1,416,000
On-Site In^Hwements/Amenities $5 /SFLand $2.363.000
SubUtai Site knpnsvements $6 /SFUnd $3,781,000
Parking • Structured - Transit S60 Spaces € t $20,000 /Space $11,200,000 1
Parking - Surface • Transit 104 Spaces i£ ) $5,000 €pace $520,000
Parking • Structured • Devek^ment 394 Spaces <! i $20,000 /space $7,880,000
Parking - Surface - Devetopment Spaces <i t SS.OOO 8230.000
Subtotal Parking 1.104 Spaces IS i $14,899 /Space $19,830,000
Stiell Construdton - Resklential $130 ISF GBA $15,549,000
Shell Constructton - Commercial - Retail SlOO ISFQBA $2,321,000
ShaH Consmiciton - Commercial - Transit Retail $100 /SFG8A $517,000
ShaH Constructton - Commercial - Grocery Store $100 ISFQBA $1,920,000
SheU Cortstructton - Commercial - Uve/Woffc $0 ISF GBA $0
SheU Construction - Commercial - Offtoe $100 JSF GBA $2,358,000
Tenant Improvements / FFAE - Retail/TransH Ratail $35 ISF GBA $993,000
Tenant Improvements / FFAE - Grocery Store $30 ISF GBA $576,000
Tenant Improvements / FFftE - Offlce $30 /SF GBA $708,000
Subtotal. Direct Costs $2SS /SF GBA $48,554,000
Add: Indirects^inandng (4) 35% of Directs $16,994,000
Tolal Devetopment Costa $344 /SFGBA $65,548,000
Notea
Excludes 114 spaces to be paid for by Agency
Excludes 113 spaces to be paid for by Agency
Based on KMA's experience with similar product
(1) fmtrrm tn 85% aMMncy facMr {ndudMCucuWion, common WM*. •M.)
(2) Ml rumbn twm bMn roundwj to tho nMTTCt tWMiMnd.
t3) M AgurM in 2007 doHara.
(4) lndudoswetMSCtmanglneenng.tneo,muranc«.(n^^
Revised Draft Conceptual Study, June 2007
TABLE A-2
CARLSBAO TRANSIT CENTER
MIXEO-USE DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPE - RENTAL
NCTD LANO USE AND TRANSPORTATION STUDY
KTU+A
DRAFT
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Annual Nt OoeratlnQ Income ti i ta
Rent Per Unit - Multi-Family Residential
Rent Per Untt - Uve/Work Residential
Add: Other Income
Annual Gross Scheduled Income (GSI) - Resklential
(Less) Vacancy • All Residential
Annual Eftective Gross income (EGI) - Residentiai
(Less) Operating Eiqsenses - All Restoential (3)
/^nual Net (grating Irwome • Resklential
Commardal
Rent per SF - Retail
Rent per SF - Transit Ret^l
Rent per SF - Grocery Store
Rent per SF - Offlce
Annual Gross Scheduled Income (GSI) - Commercial
(Less) Vacancy - Retail
(Less) Vacancy - Transit Retail
(Less) Vacancy - Grocery Store
Annual Effective Gross Income (EGI) - CommerciiM
(Less) Expenses - Retail
(Less) Expenaea - Transit Retaii
(Less) Expenses - Grocery Store
(Leas) Unreimbursed Expenses - Office (S)
Annual Net Operating Income
Parking
Effective Paridng Revenue - NCTD Parking
Effective Parking Revenue - OfRce
Total Parking Revenue
Total Annual Nat Operating income
Notea
$1,850 /Unit/Month
$0 /Unit/Month
$30 /Unit/Month
5.0% of GSI
$3,700 /Unitnrear
$17,429 /UnitATear
$2.75 /SF/Month NNN (4)
$2,75 /SF/Month NNN (4)
$2.00 /SF/Month NNN <4)
$2.50 /SF/Monlh FSG (4)
5.0% of Retail GSI
5.0% of Retail GSI
0.0% of QroceiyGSi
5.0% of Retail EQI
5.0% of Retail EGi
5.0% of Grocery EGI
$9.00 /SF Office
$0 /Spaoe/Month
$35 ^pace/Month (S)
$35 ^pace/Month
Based on 120 dwelling units
Inciudes laundry, vending, etc.
$2,486,000
$0
$40.000
$2,526,000
f$i89.(?W)
$2,400,000
($44S,0QQ) Based onl20 dwelling units
$1,952,000
$766,000
$170,000
$461,000
gToaooQ
$2,105,000
($38,000)
($9,000)
$2,058,000
($36,000)
($8,000)
($23,000)
$1,779,000
$0
$28,000
$1,807,000
Based on 23,205 SF of retail
Based on 5,165 SF of transit retail
Based on 19,200 SF grocery store
Based on 23.590 SF ol office
Based on 23.590 SF of offtoe
Based on 23.590 SF @ 2.8 spaoes/1,000 SF
Httttftitf Lmrt Vittw"™
Annual Net OperaUng Income - Restoential
Target Retum on Investment (ROI) (7)
WanwMed Investment • Residential
Annual Net Operating Income - Commercial
Target ftotum on Investment (RCX) (7)
Warranted Invesmieni - Commercial
Total Warranted Investment
(Less) Devetopment Costs
Residual Land Value
Per SFLand
$1,952,000
7.5%
$26,027,000
$1,807,000
8.5%
$21,259,000
$47,286,000
tt6S-54a.00Ql
($18,262,000)
(»39)
ResMial Land Value Before Tranait Raquired PvWng
Par SFLand
($2,440,000) <8)
($S)
(1} M numbon IMM boon roundod to tho rwarMiihMiHnd.
(2) AH (<gum« in SDDTdatara.
O) mdudM MXM, manae^r'M'il <••*. fowrvM. mainMnanco, otc.
(4) TTtplo m (NNN): FuU Sarvioa QroM (FSQ)
(5} ndudoo laxM. inMrwioo. maMananco. roaonos. marMOOmani faes. etc.
(6) Baaad on KUA't oMportane* In auDulMn eSlOB.
(7) Targatraiuma ara baaad on currant nwkai financial ramm roquiroiiwnu in aunviaptiUiaUan rale Una perbd and n not incHcam
(5) Baaad <xi trariari p«idng coala (811 .TmxnO], plua indracU and financing COM
Revised Draft Conceptual Study. June 2007 Page 17