HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-19; City Council; Info; Carlsbad Redevelopment Area10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2400
Economics Research Associates Los Angeles, California 90024
Los Angeles • San Francisco • Seattle • Chicago • Boston • Washington, D.C. • Ft. Lauderdale (213) 477-9585
Telex: 857661
CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA
ECONOMIC, CIRCULATION AND DESIGN STUDY
TOWN MEETING PRESENTATION
MAY 19,1986
ECONOMICS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
POD, INC.
KAKU ASSOCIATES
EXHIBIT 1-3
xjftx n*LMf AI* pt|cu' ;TO F°f "• *|EW ifSE* .I [%• ] I
CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS
Economics Research Associates
1-3
;search Associates LANDSCAPEEH*. - ta. - nur-n- DC • -. i-«- AflCMrrecTUR
MARKET ANALYSIS SUMMARY
HOTEL DEVELOPMENT
1300 rooms planned, potential glut approaching.
-- 400 room surplus projected by 1989.
-- Hotels desirable in long-run, risky in near term.
RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
Carlsbad outpacing countywide retail growth.
Stiff competition from regional centers.
Emphasize specialty and neighborhood retail.
Special appeal to tourists.
Restaurants, food stores, & entertainment should be encouraged.
-- Help existing specialty stores develop & expand first.
OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
Regional office glut.
Village most competitive for small professional office users.
Limited office development should be encouraged.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Big demand for affordable apartments; some demand for condos.
-- Target young adults, new families, and the elderly.
Potential second home market.
Multi-family housing should be encouraged.
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Village uncompetitive with new industrial areas.
-- Land prices too high for industrial development.
Industrial uses incompatible with "village" theme.
New industrial development should not be encouraged.
LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS
TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS
-- Do not expand Travel Services Commercial Area.
Accept hotel projects if developer takes all risk.
Until 1990s, concentrate on urban design & beach access in
Travel Services Commercial Area.-
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Existing supply of 250,000 square feet should increase by
3% per year.
Restaurant space should expand by 5% per year.
Grocery store & pharmacy may be developed.
-- 30,000 square foot office building in 3 to 4 years.
Encourage more entertainment; renovate Latino Theater for
broader audience.
Do not expand Commercial Area.
Expand Special Treatment Area north of Grand between Madison
and RR tracks.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
-- 90 to 100 multi-family units could be built.
More housing could be built if density were increased.
Higher density in Redevelopment Area desirable to increase
customer base for retailers.
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL USES
-- Most industrial areas should evolve into commercial areas.
Study development of a "crafts district" on State Street.
CREATION OF A NEW REDEVELOPMENT AREA
A new redevelopment area south of the Village is not
re commended.
Time share, small inns, and bed & breakfasts should be
permitted south of the Village on a conditional use permit
basis.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
While demand is catching up with the existing and planned supply
of hotel, office, and retail space in coastal North County over
the next 3 years, the Redevelopment Agency should now
CONCENTRATE ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, in order to compete
effectively with other areas and position itself to capture
the significant private development expected in
the future, when the market outlook is stronger.
Figure 1-3
State 8tr*«t
Carlsbad Redevelopment Area
Design Study
I-1B
Figure 1-1
Elm Av«. Corridor
Carlsbad Redevelopment Area
Design Study
1-8
Flgurt 1-2
Carl»bad Blvd. at Elm Avt.
Carlsbad Redevelopment Area
Design Study
1-14
CITY OF CARLSBAD
REDEVELOPMENr AREA
REDEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY
Supply 111 I
Demand 59 I
Surplus 52 I
Demand 103
Surplus 159
AHBUCULl
Supply 625
Demand 393
Surplus 232
f LMAVt. \
Supply 60
Demand 2
Surplus 36
-* — rr~ i • • •
^4-Demand 39
PARKING ZONE BOUNDARY
PARKING ZONE NUMBER
EXISTING PEAK PUBLIC PARKING OCCUPANCY
Figure 1-5
Grand Av«. at Carlabad Blvd.
Carlsbad Redevelopment Area
Design Study
1-25
CITY OF CARLSBAD
REDE VELOPMEN7 AREA
Supply
Demand 75 I
Surplus 15 |
Supply 90
Demand 110
(Shortfall) (20)
Supply 610
Demand 685
(Shortfall) (75)
2000
Supply 610
Demand 1500
(Shortfall) (890)
± J
tf\f\f\ • I
Supply 60 I
Demand 45 I
Surplus 15
Supply 60
Demand 55
.Surplus 5
PARKING ZONE BOUNDARY
PARKING ZONE NUMBER
PROJECTED PEAK PARKING DEMAND, YEARS 1990 AND 2000
CITY OF CARLSBAD
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
— REDEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY
N
LEGEND:
1,000 - TWO-WAV DAILY VOLUME
SOURCES CITY Of CAfiSSADSAN Oil CO ASSOCIA T1ON Of GOVCRNMCNTSCALIfOKNIA DIPAHTMCNT Of THANSfORTATION
EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SUMMARY OF CIRCULATION AND PARKING RECOMMENDATIONS
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS
o Elm Avenue - Eliminate on-street parking and restripe the
existing pavement to provide four travel lanes between
Harding Street and Carlsbad Boulevard. Along the same
section, construct a raised median island with median
openings provided at State and Madison Streets only.
Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Elm Avenue
and Madison Street. (1987)
o Elm Avenue/I-5 Northbound Ramps Intersection - Restripe the
eastbound Elm Avenue approach to provide a second left-turn
lane (1987). Widen the northbound off-ramp by one lane to
provide dual left-turn lanes and a shared through and right-
turn lane (1991).
o Elm Avenue/Harding Street Intersection - Restripe the
Harding Street approaches to provide an exclusive left-turn
lane and a shared through and right-turn lane (1987). Widen
the westbound Elm and northbound Harding approaches to
accommodate exclusive right-turn lanes (by 2000).
PARKING RECOMMENDATIONS
o Appropriate, easily visible signs should be placed to direct
traffic to the existing public lots in the village area
(1986).
o The existing public parking lot along the alley south of
Grand Avenue between State and Roosevelt Streets should be
restriped and resigned to better delineate the public
parking spaces (1986).
o Existing on-street parking ares along Carlsbad Boulevard
should be clearly delineated (1988).
o Existing two-hour parking zones should be enforced.
o A new public lot, containing approximately 170 spaces,
should be constructed along the east side of the railroad
right-of-way south of Oak Avenue (1990).
o A new public lot, containing approximately 400 spaces,
should be constructed along the east side of the railroad
right-of-way north of Grand Avenue (1992).
CITY OF CARLSBAD
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
—REDEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY
N
2000 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SUMMARY OF CIRCULATION AND PARKING RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
PARKING RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
o Approximately 30 to 35 percent of the total parking require-
ments for future development in the commercial/village core
and limited industrial areas will have to be provided
privately. In lieu fees should be collected for whatever
portion of each development's parking requirements is not
provided on-site, with the fee revenues used to develop
public parking facilities.
o Lodging and residential developments should be required to
provide adequate parking on-site to meet the City parking
ordinance requirements.
o Parking characteristics in the beach area should be moni-
tored during peak summer months.
o If monitoring of beach parking indicates a need, a new
public lot containing 75 to 100 spaces could be constructed
within the Garfield Street right-of-way between Beech and
Cedar Avenues.
o If monitoring of beach parking indicates a need, the
possibility of using the recommended surface parking lots
east of the railroad, with shuttle service connecting the
parking lots with the beach area, may be investigated.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
REDE VEL OPMENTAREA
—REDEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY
CLEARLY DELINEATE
ON-STREET PARKING
ALONG CARLSBAD BLVD.
(1988)
HOT TO SCALf
\aHANO A V
CONSTRUCT PUBLIC
PARKING LOT IN
GARFIELDST. ROW
(1988)
/ CONSTRUCT NEW400-SPACE
/ SURFACE PARKING LOT (1992)
RESTRIPE AND RESIGN
EXISTING PUBLIC PARKING
LOT SOUTH OF GRAND (1986)
ELM AVE./HARDING ST.:
RESTRIPE HARDING (1987);
RIGHT - TURN LANES (BY 2000)
/^
/ '
ELM AVE./1-5 NB RAMPS:
RESTRIPE EB ELM (1987);
WIDEN NB OFF-RAMP (1991)
CONSTRUCT NEW 170 - SPACE
SURFACE PARKING LOT (1990)
ELM AVE.: ELIMINATE PARKING AND
RESTRIPE TO PROVIDE FOUR TRAVEL
LANES; CONSTRUCT MEDIAN ISLAND;
INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT MADISON
ST. (1987)
RECOMMENDED PARKING AND CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
PHASING
COMPLETION
YEAR
URBAN DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS
Elm Avenue Corridor 1987
Carlsbad Boulevard Corridor 1988
State Street 1989
Interstate 5/Elm Avenue Interchange 1989
Grand Avenue 1990
PARKING/CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
Public Parking Lot Location Signage 1986
Public Parking Lot Restriping . 1986
Elm Avenue Restriping & Signalization 1987
Elm Avenue/I-5 Restriping 1987
Elm Avenue/Harding Street Restriping 1987
Carlsbad Blvd. On-Street Parking Delineation 1988
Parking in Garfield Street Right-of-Way 1988
New 170 Space Surface Lot 1990
Elm Avenue/I-5 Ramp Widening 1991
New 400 Space Surface Lot 1992
FINANCING SOURCES
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS EXPENSE -- $4.175,000 .
FUNDS -- Tax Increment Bonds $3,630,000
General Revenues 270,000
Quimby Fees/Public Facility Fees 275,000
$4,175,000
PARKING/CIRCULATION EXPENSES -- $4,000,000
FUNDS -- Parking Authority Bonds $3,500,000
Tax Increment Bonds 500.OOP
$4,000,000
IH
O
fcHo^1
Hi
PO
&
o,;og
^ 2e •> 8
W *
Q^H aKS
Q g
^ EPQ ^
COJ
05<J
O
COCDo
oCO
COcm
(D
*>(O
&fl
CD
9
\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\
K\\xxxxxxx
rvv
•in.in i _i '^-1cxx
I I I I I T I 1 T T 1111
in
O
ITI
CM
CM
•to-
M
3
(0
c
m
m
ooo
*0000
Oo
Economics Research Associates
Los Angeies, California
San Francisco. California
Seattle, Washington
Chicago, Illinois
Boston. Massachusetts
Washington, D.C.
Ft. Lauderdale. Florida
VOLUME I
SUMMARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA
ECONOMIC, CIRCULATION AND DESIGN STUDY
PREPARED FOR
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
MARCH 1986
PREPARED BY
ECONOMICS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
POD, INC.
KAKU ASSOCIATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
VOLUME I - INTRODUCTION
I MARKET ANALYSIS SUMMARY I- 1
Market Analysis I- 1
Potential for Hotel Development I- 1
Potential for Retail Development 1-2
Potential for Office Development 1-3
Potential for Residential Development ... I- A
Potential for Industrial Development. ... 1-4
Village Merchant Survey Findings 1-5
II PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY II- 1
Urban Design II- 1
Land Use II- 6
Circulation and Parking II- 8
Implementation and Costs 11-12
Fiscal Impact 11-15
ii
VOLUME I
INTRODUCTION
This volume presents the study's principle findings and recommenda-
tions. More detailed data and analysis, and more specific conclusions and
recommendations are found in Volumes II and III. Volume II - Market
Analysis, presents the market findings regarding hotel, retail, office,
residential, and industrial development potential in the redevelopment
area, and also presents the results of the downtown merchants survey.
Volume III - Public Improvements and Land Use Analysis and
Recommendations, presents the urban design analysis, land use recommenda-
tions, the circulation and parking analysis, implementation recommenda-
tions, and the fiscal impact analysis. Volumes II and III should be read
to fully understand the findings and recommendations contained herein.
Section I
MARKET ANALYSIS SUMMARY
MARKET ANALYSIS
The following briefly summarizes ERA's findings regarding the
potentials for various land uses in the Village Redevelopment Area. We
have examined the markets for further development of hotel space, residen-
tial units, industrial area, retail space, and office buildings. In
addition, a downtown merchants survey was conducted.
POTENTIAL FOR HOTEL DEVELOPMENT
o The City of Carlsbad, which is defined as the primary market
area, has an existing inventory of 1,482 rooms, with 263 more
under construction. Another 1,301 are planned.
o Occupancies for 1984 averaged 68 percent among primary market
area hotel and motel facilities. Highest occupancies over the
last two years have been recorded by budget motels, and small
older beachfront resort hotels.
o The following summarizes the four groups dominating primary
market area demand, and the percentage of total room-nights
they demand annually: tourists - 45 percent; individual corpo-
rate guests - 37 percent; conference/meeting attendees - 13
percent; military-related guests - 5 percent.
o Projected growth in hotel room-nights translates into market
support for 1,730 rooms by 1989, and 1,900 rooms by 1993.
o Given planned room additions, we expect an oversupply of 395
rooms by 1989.
1-1
o Recommendation is made for development of moderate-size
tourist-oriented inns, and small bed-and-breakfast hotels over
the longer term future.
POTENTIAL FOR RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
o Taxable retail sales for the City have increased 67 percent
over the period 1980 through 1984. This compares to a 48 '
percent increase countywide.
o The market areas of the Village retail community are distinct
from the fast growing, high income, traditional family house-
holds that typify the rest of the City.
o Retail market support from Village residents is estimated at
$18 million. Support from a 1.5-mile-radius ring is calculated
at $9 million, and at $8 million for residents of a 3-mile-
radius ring.
o Largest portions of captured dollars go to food and liquor
stores, general merchandise stores, restaurants and bars, and
specialty stores.
o Village merchants are estimated to capture $15 million in
annual purchases by tourist and business visitors. About $6
million is calculated to go to lodging facilities, and $9
million to food and retail establishments.
o The location of a satellite branch of SDSU in the North County
area would be invaluable for sales in the village. Purchases
by students, staff, faculty, and visitors would contribute to
downtown sales, and city sales tax revenues. The school would
also create some incremental business for Village lodging
facilities.
1-2
o The following summarizes retail categories and market
indicators for future development.
Category Market Indicator
Apparel No further development
General Merchandise Drugstore okay; mall intrudes
Specialty No further development
Food and Liquor Development possibility
Home Furnishings/ No further development
Appliance
Restaurants/Bars Development as area grows
Lumber/Hardware/ No further development
Auto Supply
POTENTIAL FOR OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
o The Carlsbad-Oceanside office market contains an inventory of
1.2 million square feet, or 6 percent of the county total.
o Vacancy rates for the two-city area are approximately 27 per-
cent, although differences in product type and age make this
figure less important than in other markets.
o Downtown vacancy rates are less than in other submarkets
throughout the county, where rates are extremely high. How-
ever, absorption is exceptionally slow, indicating stable
occupancy but little growth.
o Rapid development, high vacancy rates, and tenant concessions
in the newer office nodes of the market area will preclude
immediate development of downtown product.
o Demand for downtown space over the next five to seven years can
be met by construction of a 20,000- to 30,000-square-foot,
relatively high-quality building.
1-3
POTENTIAL FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
o Over the past several years, construction of rental units has
come in line with the construction rates for condominium units
in the City.
o The City has a very low vacancy rate for North County, suggest-
ing a growing and healthy market.
o Seasonal rentals are a minor subsector of activity in the
central market area.
o There is a limited market for condominiums in the Village due
to the historical dominance of other types of units, recent
downzoning legislation, a paucity of ocean view lots, and the
competitive advantages enjoyed by developments in other areas
of the City.
o Greatest demand will be for rental multi-family units. Pro-
spective tenants are expected to be moderate-income households,
and to include young adults, new families, and the elderly.
POTENTIAL FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
o No substantial industrial market is indicated for the Village
for the following reasons:
The study area cannot compete with established and growing
industrial areas within the county.
- Land prices are too high for industrial development.
- Existing demand in the area is low, as indicated by lower
rent schedules than elsewhere.
- Industrial uses are incompatible with residential and
retail development.
1-4
VILLAGE MERCHANT SURVEY FINDINGS
o 20 percent of the businesses which responded have been in their
location one year or less; 42 percent have been in their loca-
tion three years or less.
o Downtown merchants are generally very small, typically renting
less than 3,000 square feet, with few employees. 90 percent of
the businesses surveyed had three or less full-time employees.
73 percent had only 0-1 part-time employee.
o When asked which conditions affect business performance most,
most respondents stated access, followed by parking, visibil-
ity, image, appearance of public property, and compatibility of
land uses. Lack of parking was a major concern; 66 percent
felt parking was not sufficient.
o When asked what image concepts of downtown they preferred, most
merchants preferred the Village concept that was pedestrian
oriented and European in flavor.
o Heavy pedestrian traffic was ranked as the most important
favorable business condition. Nearby neighborhoods were also
considered important.
o 46 percent of the merchants wanted increased night activity,
while 32 percent did not.
o 68 percent of the merchants stated their customers come from
within 1 to 5 miles; 42 percent reported that they have cus-
tomers coming from 5 or more miles away. Thus, downtown mer-
chants are mostly locally based.
o 71 percent said trends in customers and trends in sales were
up. Only 49 percent, however, said profits were up.
1-5
63 percent said their current location meets their needs, and
27 percent said their location does not meet their needs,
including a majority of restaurants. A majority of businesses
are considering expansion, particularly restaurants and bars.
46 percent said they were limited by their current lot size.
Few businesses indicated that they might move.
1-6
Section II
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
URBAN DESIGN
The urban design goals place emphasis on creating a diverse village
environment which is pedestrian oriented in the European tradition.
Five specific zones within the Redevelopment Area were selected for design
improvements to achieve this environment. These zones are described
below, in order of recommended priority.
Elm Avenue Corridor
Existing Conditions:
o The existing streetscape does not do justice to the important
function of this major thoroughfare as a gateway to the
Redevelopment Area.
Opportunities and Constraints:
o Elm Avenue is a strong visual corridor which has enormous
potential to promote a strong image and physical coherence for
the Redevelopment Area. Elm Avenue acts to draw the eye
towards the sea and excite anticipation.
Urban Design Recommendations:
o The intersection of Elm Avenue and Harding Street should be
improved with enriched paving in the crosswalks. Along Elm
Avenue, palm trees should be planted at regular intervals;
sidewalks should be upgraded; street furniture and pedestrian
decorative lighting should be installed to announce the gateway
to the Village, emphasize the corridor, focus attention
II-1
seaward, and develop design uniformity. A landscaped median
should be installed in the left turn lane the length of Elm
Avenue between Harding Street and Carlsbad Boulevard, and
should be extended through certain intersections. Special
treatment should be given the railroad crossing area to create
a pedestrian node. Consideration should be given to designing
and constructing an ocean overlook at the terminus of Elm
Avenue.
Carlsbad Boulevard Corridor
Existing Conditions:
o The corridor is heavily vehicular-oriented and evokes an
irregular visual impression. Sidewalks and pedestrian cross-
ings do little to encourage pedestrian movement into the
Village. Pedestrian movement to the sea also is limited. The
mature landscape and open space, however, act to impart an
informal, spacious and somewhat rural quality.
Opportunities and Constraints:
o Excellent opportunities exist to enhance the boulevard's func-
tion as a major scenic corridor. At both northern and southern
entries, existing physical characteristics afford opportunities
to create a strong element of surprise and arrival. The his-
torical park and the beaches are elements that should promote
pedestrian activity.
Urban Design Recommendations:
o Creative entry statements announcing Carlsbad and the Village
should be designed. The intersections of Carlsbad Boulevard
and Elm and Grand Avenues should substantially be upgraded.
Landscaped medians should be constructed on Carlsbad Boulevard
II-2
from Grand to Elm. Sidewalks should be made continuous the
length of Carlsbad Boulevard on both sides of the street.
Pedestrian scale street trees should be planted and decorative
lighting fixtures should be installed in the section between
Grand and Elm. Signage should be uniform, complement Village
signage, and be held to a minimum. Bike paths should be main-
tained. A bluff top pedestrian promenade should be developed
along the ocean frontage. Pedestrian linkages should connect
Carlsbad Boulevard north of Grand Avenue to the beach, lagoon,
park at the end of State Street and the Village.
State Street North of Grand Avenue
Existing Conditions:
o State Street conveys variety and interest, but also a sense of
disorder and confusion, magnified by overhead utility lines,
heavy vehicular traffic and parked cars. Little landscaping
softens the appearance. Although sidewalks are mostly con-
tinuous, the types of business for the most part discourage
pedestrian activity.
Opportunities and Constraints:
o Recent public improvements at the pedestrian node at the Grand
Avenue intersection, a park offering a view of the lagoon, and
diverse land uses are significant urban design assets along
State Street.
Urban Design Recommendations:
o Eliminate on-street parking along certain sections of the west
side of State Street in order to expand the pedestrian
environment. Landscaping, street furniture and decorative
lighting fixtures at particular stretches should be put in
II-3
place. Engineering and urban design improvements, including
plans to place overhead utilities underground, should be
coordinated to save costs. Existing trees and shrubs along the
Buena Vista Lagoon in the park should be thinned out to open up
views of the lagoon. Parking along the west edge of the park
should be eliminated.
Interstate 5/Elm Avenue Interchange
Existing Conditions:
o This eastern gateway to the Village is indistinguishable from
many other interchanges; there is no clear sense of having
arrived somewhere distinct. With a strong vehicular orienta-
tion, and cluttered signage, the overall visual character is
one of disharmony.
Opportunities and Constraints:
o From an urban design perspective, the primary opportunity of
this interchange is its function as the east gateway into the
Village Centre.
Urban Design Recommendations:
o The City should construct an entry monument on the city-owned
property west of 1-5 on the south side of the Buena Vista
Lagoon. A specially designed entry gate, which physically
complements and reflects the overall design style of the
Village Centre, should be erected on Elm Avenue just west of
1-5. The planting of palms in masses and rows of flowering
shrubs throughout the Caltrans right-of-way would dramatically
herald the Village Centre gateway. Property owners should be
encouraged to plant large shrubs or build decorative walls to
screen parking lots. Street lighting standards should match or
II-4
complement those in the Village. To establish a stronger
relationship between the Village and the Civic Center, the
streetscape improvements proposed should extend east of 1-5 to
Pio Pica Dr. Consideration should be given to beautifying the
Elm Avenue/I-5 underpass.
Grand Avenue - Carlsbad Boulevard to Harding Street
Existing Conditions:
o The special design treatments along this corridor have estab-
lished this area as the heart of the Village and created an
overall theme. However, the area between the alleyway west of
State Street and Carlsbad Boulevard, and the area between the
east side of Madison Street and Harding Street, have not
received special treatment. In addition, neither Jefferson
Street nor Harding Street between Grand and Elm Avenues have
received special attention, although they are visually
pleasant.
Opportunities and Constraints:
o The major opportunity to be realized by extending streetscape
improvements is to establish a continuous pedestrian link along
Grand Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard and Harding Street,
attracting tourists and residents to the Village core, and
unifying Grand Avenue as a strong pedestrian-oriented visual
corridor.
Urban Design Recommendations:
o A landscaped median should be constructed on Grand Avenue
between Carlsbad Boulevard and the railroad crossing to soften
and lend a human scale to this expanse of asphalt. Enriched
paving should be installed on the sidewalks to tie Carlsbad
Boulevard to the Village. Landscaping, pedestrian-scale
11-5
decorative lighting, street furniture, and directional signage
should be strategically placed. The special treatment area
proposed in the area of the Elm Avenue railroad crossing should
be extended to the south side of Grand Avenue.
LAND USE
o The market analysis, presented in Volume II, did not indicate a
strong short-term market for new office, industrial, hotel, and
retail uses in the Redevelopment Area, mostly due to short-term
overbuilding in the regional market. The long-term outlook for
development, however, is good.
Tourist Accommodations:
o The Travel Services Commercial Area should not be expanded at
this time. Hotel and time-share projects should be accepted by
the city as long as the private developer absorbs all the
risks. Development of a moderate size tourist-oriented inn of
approximately 100 rooms should be encouraged after the next
three years in the Travel Services Commercial Area. Until the
early 1990s, the Agency should concentrate its efforts on
design and beach access improvements in the Travel Services
Commercial area in anticipation of more hotel development in
the next decade.
Commercial Development:
o The existing supply of 252,000 square feet of commercial space
should expand at 3 percent per year. Restaurant space should
increase by 5 percent per year. In addition, 30,000 square
feet of grocery space and 20,000 square feet of pharmacy space
may be developed. A 20,000- to 30,000-square-foot office
project should be built after the next three to four years.
The Commercial Area should not expand at this time, but the
II-6
Special Treatment Village Core Area should be expanded north of
Grand Avenue to include parcels within the Commercial Area
between Madison Street and the railroad tracks. More
entertainment activity is required to attract residents and
tourists at night. The Latino theater should be renovated to
service a broader audience. Entertainment projects should be
sought.
Residential Development and the Combination District:
o Approximately 90 to 100 multi-family housing units should be
built in the Redevelopment Area, or more if density is
increased beyond 25 units per acre. The market could support
90 to 100 units per year until the desired density is reached.
Moderate to high density residential development in the
redevelopment area and the surrounding neighborhoods should be
encouraged to increase the resident consumer base of downtown.
Residential development is preferred over office development in
the Combination District.
Industrial/Commercial Uses:
o Most limited industrial uses within the Redevelopment Area
should be encouraged to relocate elsewhere in the City, outside
the Village project area. Some relocation will naturally occur
due to changing land values. Relocation will gradually occur
over five years or more. A possible program that might replace
the current industrial uses is a special crafts district where
goods may be manufactured visibly to the public, and sold
wholesale and retail to the general public as well as to com-
mercial customers. The semi-industrial area west of Tyler
Street and south of Elm Avenue should eventually convert into a
general neighborhood-serving commercial area.
II-7
Time-Share, Accommodations, and a New Redevelopment Project Area:
o A new redevelopment project area south of the existing redevel-
opment project area is not recommended at this time, because
the existing area still has room to develop and accommodate
growth, and the area under consideration is not obviously
blighted. It is recommended that, instead, time-share
projects, small inns, and bed and breakfast accommodations be
permitted in the proposed area south of the existing redevelop-
ment project area on a conditional use permit basis.
CIRCULATION AND PARKING
o 1-5 carries 104,000 to 107,000 vehicles per day (vpd). The
arterials which carry the highest volumes are Elm Avenue and
Carlsbad Boulevard. The six major intersections that were
analyzed all currently provide good to excellent levels of
service during evening peak hours.
Traffic and Circulation Projections:
o Based on assumptions regarding potential development within the
redevelopment project area by the years 1990 and 2000, approxi-
mately 21,400 daily and 2,140 evening peak hour vehicular trips
would be added to the redevelopment area by 1990. In total,
39,600 daily and 3,850 evening peak hour trips would be added
by the year 2000. Based on the downtown development
assumptions for the next 15 years, the intersections of Elm
Avenue at Harding Street and Elm Avenue and 1-5 northbound
ramps would operate at a level of service (LOS) of poor
conditions (LOS E) by 1990. The other major intersections
would continue to operate under very good or excellent
conditions. By the year 2000, the intersections of Elm Avenue
at Harding Street and Elm Avenue at the 1-5 northbound ramps
would be overloaded, operating at LOS F. Conditions at the
II-8
intersections of Elm Avenue at Carlsbad Boulevard and Elm
Avenue at the 1-5 southbound ramps would deteriorate from very
good (LOS B) to fair (LOS D) conditions, still considered
acceptable for an urban street. Future volumes along Elm
Avenue will begin to exceed the carrying capacity of the
street.
Circulation Recommendations:
o Provide an additional travel lane in each direction along Elm
Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard and Harding Street, for a
total of four through lanes, by 1990. A raised median island
should be installed along Elm Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard
and Harding Street, and the intersection of Elm and Madison
should be signalized, to facilitate traffic flow and safety.
At the northbound 1-5 ramps, Elm Avenue should be restriped to
provide a second left-turn lane on the east-bound approach by
the year 1990. By the year 2000, the northbound 1-5 off-ramp
should be widened by one lane. By the year 1990, the
northbound and southbound approaches on Harding Street at Elm
Avenue should be restriped to provide one exclusive left-turn
lane and one shared through and right-turn lane on each
approach. By the year 2000, the westbound Elm and northbound
Harding approaches should be widened to accommodate an
exclusive right-turn lane each.
Alternative Circulation Plan:
o An alternative to providing four travel lanes on Elm and
improving the Elm Avenue/Harding Street intersection is to
convert Elm Avenue and Grand Avenue into a one-way couplet
between Harding Street and Carlsbad Boulevard. Elm Avenue
would provide two lanes for eastbound traffic and Grand Avenue
two lanes for westbound traffic. Advantages to this
II-9
alternative include the directing of traffic past commercial
shops in the village core along Grand and traffic flow in the
Village area, which would be facilitated.
Existing Parking Conditions:
o The Redevelopment Area was divided into seven parking zones for
analysis. There are approximately 625 public parking spaces in
the Commercial/Village Core area, 170 on-street spaces in the
two limited industrial areas, and 403 on-street spaces in the
two residential/combination districts. Although blocks closer
to activity centers are occupied at a much higher rate than
blocks further away, the peak parking occupancy rate, in
general, was below existing capacity in all zones, ranging from
28 percent to 63 percent. Thus, although there is often a
perceived shortage of parking spaces in the immediate vicinity
of particular stores, ample supply of parking exists within a
short walking distance of no further than one or two blocks.
Parking Impacts:
o Development in the Commercial/Special Village Core Area will
generate demand for 790 new parking spaces by 1990, and 1,905
new spaces by 2000, including 100 new spaces needed to support
the theater renovation and 265 spaces required for the proposed
Vons complex. The actual number of additional spaces required
for continued redevelopment of the Commercial/Village Core area
is 295 spaces by 1990 and 1,110 spaces by 2000. New hotel, inn
and time-share developments would generate demand for an
estimated 285 and 495 parking spaces by years 1990 and 2000,
respectively. New multi-family development would generate
demand for 265 spaces by 1990 and 615 spaces by 2000.
Approximately 75 new spaces will be needed by 1990 and 890
spaces by 2000 in the Commercial/Special Village Core
area.
11-10
Recommendations:
o The City has three options for supplying parking: 1) require
all future commercial development to provide parking on-site,
2) develop centralized parking through a parking assessment
district, 3) require some on-site parking and develop central-
ized parking through an assessment district. Lodging and
residential development should be required to provide adequate
on-site parking. Existing public parking lots are currently
underutilized. Appropriate signs should be placed to direct
traffic to these lots. The existing public lots along the
alley south of Grand between State and Roosevelt should be
restriped and resigned. Existing two-hour parking zones should
be enforced. A new surface lot should be constructed along the
east side of the railroad south of Oak Avenue, providing 170
more spaces, by 1990. An additional new parking lot should be
constructed along the east side of the railroad north of Grand,
providing 400 spaces, between 1990 and 2000.
o The above recommendations would provide 60 to 65 percent of the
parking needed by the year 2000. The balance should be pro-
vided by private on-site parking requirements. An in-lieu fee
may be charged to those projects which do not provide enough
on-site parking, with fee revenues used to develop public
parking.
Beach Parking:
o Beach parking may be provided by clearly delineating on-street
parking on Carlsbad Boulevard, constructing a new surface lot
within the undeveloped Garfield Street right-of-way between
Beach and Cedar avenues, and using the surface lots recommended
for the Commercial/Village Core area, particularly the railroad
right-of-way lots. This would help attract beach-goers to the
Village Core area.
11-11
IMPLEMENTATION AND COSTS
Given limitations in the market for new commercial development in
the short term, as demand catches up with the abundant new supply of
commercial space in the region, the Agency should concentrate its efforts
on public improvements in the near term so that the downtown may position
itself to capture quality commercial development in the near future when
demand has met existing supply of space and new development is needed.
Urban Design Implementation
Costs:
Elm Avenue Corridor - Harding Street to the Sea $1,230,000
The Carlsbad Boulevard Corridor 1,155,000
State Street - North at Grand Avenue 764,000
Interstate 5/Elm Avenue Interchange 202,000
Grand Avenue - Carlsbad Boulevard to Harding Street 822,000
Total $4,173,000
Priority:
o The above areas should be treated in the order presented above,
with the Elm Avenue Corridor receiving the first attention, and
Grand Avenue receiving the last treatment.
Circulation and Parking Implementation
Traffic and Circulation:
o The following street system improvements are recommended for
implementation by the year 1990:
11-12
Elm Avenue Widening $ 4,000
Elm Avenue Signalization 70,000
Elm Avenue/I-5 Northbound Ramps 13,000
Elm Avenue/Harding Street Intersection 1,000
Total $ 88,000
o The following street system improvements are recommended for
implementation by the year 2000:
Elm Avenue/I-5 Northbound Ramps Wideningl $ 64,000
Elm Avenue/Harding Street Intersection 13,000
(excluding right-of-way acquisition)
Total $ 77,000
Parking:
o The following measure is recommended for implementation by
1990:
A New 170-Space Surface Parking Lot_l/ $1,446,000
o The following measure is recommended for implementation by
2000:
A New 400-Space Surface Parking LotjV $2,332,000
I/ Includes land acquisition costs.
11-13
Financing
o The following financing scenario is suggested:
Public Improvements Expense — $4,175,000
Funds - Tax Increment Bonds $3,630,000
General Revenues 270,000
Quimby Fees/Public Facility Fees 275,000
$4,175,000
Parking/Circulation Expenses - $4,000,000
Funds - Parking Authority Bonds $3,500,000
Tax Increment Bonds 500,000
$4,000,000
Negotiated developer agreements may offset some of these costs
and funding requirements.
Other Projects
Latino Theater:
o The Agency should seek a theater operator to convert and reno-
vate the theater for a broader audience. The City should
commission a study to determine the feasibility of converting
the theater into a joint use movie and performing arts theater.
The City should consider placing the theater on the historic
register. CDBG funds could be used for the recommended
studies.
11-14
The Crafts District:
o The Agency should develop the crafts district concept in more
detail and should consider developing a Specific Plan for the
State Street area north of Grand Avenue to ease this area's
transition from semi-industrial to commercial uses. CDBG funds
may be used for this purpose.
Attractions Management Program
o It is recommended the the Agency, in cooperation with the
Downtown Merchants Association and the Chamber of Commerce,
develop an attractions management program for downtown Carlsbad
that concentrates on seasonal special events to attract
tourists and North County residents to the Village.
FISCAL IMPACT
City Costs
This abbreviated table demonstrates incremental city service costs
attributable to new construction and uses in the Redevelopment Area for
the years 1990 and 2000. Note that a reduction in the amount of space
dedicated to industrial uses results in a savings in service costs.
Year Residential Commercial Hotel Industrial Total
1990
2000
$32,200
20,000
$13,600
18,400
$ 9,200
16,200
($1,600)
(3,400)
$53,400
51,200
11-15
Agency Costs
Anticipated Agency costs are summarized below. The Agency's
administration costs are annual; costs for the improvement programs are
total.
Redevelopment Agency
Administration $ 262,000 annually
Public Improvement Program 4,176,800 total
Traffic Improvements Program 4,015,750 total
City Revenues
Projected City revenues are substantially higher than municipal
costs. By the end of 1990, annual revenues are expected to total
approximately $558,200. By the end of the succeeding decade, incremental
revenues should be approximately $714,800 annually. Not only do revenues
more than outweigh costs, but revenues continue to increase while the
incremental growth in municipal costs decreases.
Agency Revenues
The following shows "snapshot" views of aging revenues for 1985,
1990, 1995, and 2000.
1985 1990 1995 2000
Tax Increment $550,000 $1,241,900 $2,070,200 $2,898,600
Bond I Proceeds 0 880,000 0 0
Bond II Proceeds 0 0 380,000 380,000
Total $550,000 $2,121,900 $2,450,200 $3,278,600
11-16
Recommendations
Based on the analysis demonstrating revenues to both the City and
the Agency to be greater than costs, we recommend that the intensified
development of the downtown area be pursued. Land acquisition and
construction of the 170-space parking lot should be deferred until after
1990, unless financed by a parking assessment district, in order to avoid
severe negative cash flows during the early years of the project when
public improvements are being funded.
Summary and Fiscal Impact
City Costs
City Revenues
Agency Costs
Agency Revenues
1990 2000
? 53,400
557,400
1,521,000
2,121,900
$51,200
715,000
1,567,000
3,278,600
11-17
Economics Research Associates
Los Angeles. California
San Francisco, California
Seattle. Washington
Chicago, Illinois
Boston. Massachusetts
Washington, D.C.
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
VOLUME II
MARKET ANALYSIS
CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA
ECONOMIC, CIRCULATION AND DESIGN STUDY
PREPARED FOR
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
MARCH 1986
PREPARED BY
ECONOMICS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
POD, INC.
KAKU ASSOCIATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
VOLUME II - INTRODUCTION
VOLUME II - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Potential for Hotel Development 1
Potential for Retail Development 2
Potential for Office Development 3
Potential for Residential Development. ... 4
Potential for Industrial Development .... 4
Village Merchant Survey Findings 5
I HOTEL MARKET ANALYSIS I- 1
Introduction 1-1
Market Area Definition I- 1
Inventory/Occupancies. ..... 1-2
Resort-Type Competitive Properties:
Nonownership Based 1-7
Resort-Type Competitive Properties:
Ownership Based 1-23
Pending Hotel/Motel Establishments 1-28
Hotel Demand 1-30
Market Support for a New Hotel 1-37
II RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS II- 1
Retail Market Areas of Residential Support. . II- 1
Historic Retail Trends 11-10
Resident Retail Support 11-17
Tourist Retail Support 11-20
North County State University Branch 11-24
Retail Competition 11-26
Summary and Recommendations .... 11-31
III OFFICE MARKET ANALYSIS Ill- 1
Office Space Analysis — San Diego County
Market Area Ill- 2
Office Space Analysis — Carlsbad-Oceanside
Market Area 111-10
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Section Page
IV RESIDENTIAL MARKET POTENTIAL IV- 1
Introduction. IV- 1
Market Area IV- 2
Multi-Family Market Overview IV- 2
Historical Building Activity IV- 5
Competitive Survey of Existing Projects . . . IV- 7
Pending Projects IV-14
Existing Residential Market Conditions and
Trends IV-19
Projected Housing Demand IV-19
Conclusions and Recommendations IV-21
V INDUSTRIAL POTENTIAL V- 1
The San Diego Regional Industrial Market. . . V- 1
Land Prices and Industrial Lease Rates. ... V- 6
The "Village" Industrial Market V- 8
Property Prices V- 9
Rental Rates V- 9
Industrial Development Potential in Village
Market Area V-10
VI VILLAGE MERCHANT SURVEY VI- 1
Business Identification VI- 1
Quality of Business Area VI- 5
Physical Structure VI-10
Parking VI-12
Business Conditions VI-12
Future Plans VI-15
Proposed Hotel Projects VI-17
Summary VI-17
APPENDIX A A- 1
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
I- 1 CARLSBAD PRIMARY MARKET AREA, INVENTORY OF
COMPETITIVE HOTELS/MOTELS 1-3
I- 2 SAN DIEGO, HOTEL MARKET TRENDS, 1983, 1984 AND
1985 1-6
I- 3 SELECTED RESORT-TYPE COMPETITIVE HOTELS,
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY MARKET AREAS, HISTORICAL
RACK RATES 1-8
I- 4 SELECTED COMPETITIVE HOTELS, CARLSBAD PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY MARKET AREAS 1-11
I- 5 SELECTED COMPETITIVE HOTELS, GUEST OCCUPANCY
AND SOURCE OF DEMAND, CARLSBAD SECONDARY MARKET
AREA 1-14
I- 6 PLANNED, PROPOSED, UNDER-CONSTRUCTION, SELECTED
COMPETITIVE HOTEL PROJECTS, CARLSBAD AND
SECONDARY MARKET AREAS 1-24
I- 7 CARLSBAD PRIMARY MARKET AREA, PROJECTED ROOM-
NIGHTS FOR QUALITY HOTEL/MOTEL PROPERTIES BY
SOURCE OF DEMAND 1-34
II- 1 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS FOR
THE VILLAGE, 1.5-MILE, AND 3-MILE MARKET AREAS
AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, 1980 II- 3
II- 2 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHANGE FOR THE VILLAGE,
1.5-MILE AND 3-MILE MARKET AREAS, AND THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, 1970-1980 II- 4
II- 3 POPULATION AGE DISTRIBUTION FOR THE VILLAGE,
1.5-MILE AND 3-MILE MARKET AREAS, AND THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, 1980 II- 5
II- 4 HOUSEHOLD INCOME CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE
VILLAGE, 1.5-MILE AND 3-MILE MARKET AREAS, AND
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, 1985 ESTIMATES II- 6
iv
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Number Page
II- 5 INCOME CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE VILLAGE, 1.5-MILE
AND 3-MILE MARKET AREAS, AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
1980 II- 7
II- 6 CARLSBAD TAXABLE RETAIL SALES TRENDS 11-11
II- 7 CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA, TAXABLE SALES BY
TYPE OF BUSINESS, 1983, 1984, AND TWO QUARTERS
OF 1985 11-12
II- 8 CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA, COMPARATIVE
TAXABLE SALES, SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND CARLSBAD
REDEVELOPMENT AREA, 1984 11-14
II- 9 CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA, COMPARATIVE
CHANGE IN SALES, CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA
AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY, 1983-1984 11-15
11-10 SUPPORTABLE RETAIL SPACE, THREE MARKET AREAS. . 11-18
11-11 TOTAL ESTIMATED SALES CAPTURE AND TOTAL
SUPPORTABLE RETAIL SPACE, RESIDENTIAL AND
TOURIST MARKETS 11-23
11-12 EXISTING AND ESTIMATED SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FEET. 11-32
III- 1 OFFICE SUPPLY IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUBMARKETS,
1985 Ill- 8
III- 2 CARLSBAD-OCEANSIDE MARKET AREA, EXISTING
OFFICE BUILDINGS 111-12
III- 3 MARKET AND SUBMARKET VACANCY RATES, 1985. . . . 111-15
III- 4 CARLSBAD-OCEANSIDE MARKET AREA, BUILDINGS
PLANNED AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION Ill-17
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Number Page
IV- 1 HISTORICAL MULTI-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY,
CARLSBAD OVERALL MARKET AREA IV- 6
IV- 2 SURVEY OF SELECTED COMPETITIVE APARTMENT
DEVELOPMENTS, CENTRAL CARLSBAD IV- 9
IV- 3 SURVEY OF SELECTED COMPETITIVE RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENTS, CARLSBAD OVERALL MARKET AREA. . . IV-15
IV- 4 PENDING MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, CARLSBAD MARKET
IV- 5
IV- 6
AREA OCTOBER 1985. .......
POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS
HISTORICAL BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY, CITY OF
CARLSBAD
• IV-17
IV-20
IV-22
IV- 7 PROJECTED NEW HOUSING UNITS, THE VILLAGE
PRIMARY MARKET AREA IV-23
V- 1 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ABSORPTION AND OCCUPANCY
RATES OF INDUSTRIAL SPECULATIVE SPACE, 1984 . . V- 4
V- 2 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ABSORPTION OF INDUSTRIAL
V-
VI-
VI-
VI-
VI-
3
1
2
3
4
SAN DIEGO COUNTY INDUSTRIAL LEASE RATES, 1985 .
TYPES OF BUSINESSES THAT RESPONDED TO THE SURVEY
YEARS OF PRESENT LOCATION AND YEARS IN BUSINESS
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
PREFERRED IMAGE OF DOWNTOWN CARLSBAD
V-
V-
VI-
VI-
VI-
VI-
5
7
2
3
4
6
vi
LIST OF TABLES
(Concluded)
Number Page
VI- 5
VI- 6
VI- 7
VI- 8
VI- 9
VI-10
VI- 11
FAVORABLE BUSINESS CONDITIONS
DETRIMENTAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS
USES OF DOWNTOWN BY RESIDENT MERCHANTS
PARKING
LOCATION OF CUSTOMERS
BUSINESS PERFORMANCE TRENDS
DESIRED BUSINESS SERVICES AND CONDITIONS. . . .
VI- 7
VI- 9
vi-n
VI- 13
VI- 14
VI- 16
VI- 18
vii
VOLUME II
INTRODUCTION
This volume presents ERA's market findings regarding hotel (includ-
ing a discussion of time-share units), retail, office, residential, and
industrial development potential in the Redevelopment Area, based on
analysis conducted in the Fall of 1985. In addition, the results of the
downtown merchant survey conducted in October 1985 are presented in the
last section. The land use, urban design, and circulation recommenda-
tions, which, in part, are derived from the market findings in this
volume, are presented in Volume III.
VOLUME II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following briefly summarizes ERA's findings regarding the
potentials for various land uses in the Village Redevelopment Area. We
have examined the markets for further development of hotel space, residen-
tial units, industrial area, retail space, and office buildings. In
addition, a downtown merchants survey was conducted.
POTENTIAL FOR HOTEL DEVELOPMENT
o The City of Carlsbad, which is defined as the primary market
area, has an existing inventory of 1,482 rooms, with 263 more
under construction. Another 1,301 are planned.
o Occupancies for 1984 averaged 68 percent among primary market
area hotel and motel facilities. Highest occupancies over the
last two years have been recorded by budget motels, and small
older beachfront resort hotels.
o The following summarizes the four groups dominating primary
market area demand, and the percentage of total room-nights
they demand annually: tourists - 45 percent; individual corpo-
rate guests - 37 percent; conference/meeting attendees - 13
percent; military-related guests - 5 percent.
o Projected growth in hotel room-nights translates into market
support for 1,730 rooms by 1989, and 1,900 rooms by 1993.
o Given planned room additions, we expect an oversupply of 395
rooms by 1989.
o Recommendation is made for development of moderate-size
tourist-oriented inns, and small bed-and-breakfast hotels over
the longer term future.
POTENTIAL FOR RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
o Taxable retail sales for the City have increased 67 percent
over the period 1980 through 1984. This compares to a 48
percent increase countywide.
o The market areas of the Village retail community are distinct
from the fast growing, high income, traditional family house-
holds that typify the rest of the City.
o Retail market support from Village residents is estimated at
$18 million. Support from a 1.5-mile-radius ring is calculated
at $9 million, and at $8 million for residents of a 3-mile-
radius ring.
o Largest portions of captured dollars go to food and liquor
stores, general merchandise stores, restaurants and bars, and
specialty stores.
o Village merchants are estimated to capture $15 million in
annual purchases by tourist and business visitors. About $6
million is calculated to go to lodging facilities, and $9
million to food and retail establishments.
o The location of a satellite branch of SDSU in the North County
area would be invaluable for sales in the village. Purchases
by students, staff, faculty, and visitors would contribute to
downtown sales, and city sales tax revenues. The school would
also create some incremental business for Village lodging
facilities.
o The following summarizes retail categories and market
indicators for future development:
Category Market Indicator
Apparel No further development
General Merchandise Drugstore okay; mall intrudes
Specialty No further development
Food and Liquor Development possibility
Home Furnishings/ No further development
Appliance
Restaurants/Bars Development as area grows
Lumber/Hardware/ No further development
Auto Supply
POTENTIAL FOR OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
o The Carlsbad-Oceanside office market contains an inventory of
1.2 million square feet, or 6 percent of the county total.
o Vacancy rates for the two-city area are approximately 27 per-
cent, although differences in product type and age make this
figure less important than in other markets.
o Downtown vacancy rates are less than in other submarkets
throughout the County, where rates are extremely high. How-
ever, absorption is exceptionally slow, indicating stable
occupancy but little growth.
o Rapid development, high vacancy rates, and tenant concessions
in the newer office nodes of the market area will preclude
immediate development of downtown product.
o Demand for downtown space over the next five to seven years can
be met by construction of a 20,000- to 30,000-square-foot,
relatively high-quality building.
POTENTIAL FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
o Over the past several years, construction of rental units has
come in line with the construction rates for condominium units
in the City.
o The City has a very low vacancy rate for North County, suggest-
ing a growing and healthy market.
o Seasonal rentals are a minor subsector of activity in the
central market area.
o There is a limited market for condominiums in the Village due
to the historical dominance of other types of units, recent
downzoning legislation, a paucity of ocean view lots, and the
competitive advantages enjoyed by developments in other areas
of the City.
o Greatest demand will be for rental multi-family units. Pro-
spective tenants are expected to be moderate-income households,
and to include young adults, new families, and the elderly.
POTENTIAL FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
o No substantial industrial market is indicated for the Village
for the following reasons:
- The study area cannot compete with established and growing
industrial areas countywide.
- Land prices are too high for industrial development.
Existing demand in the area is low, as indicated by lower
rent schedules than elsewhere.
Industrial uses are incompatible with residential, and
retail development.
VILLAGE MERCHANT SURVEY FINDINGS
o 20 percent of the businesses which responded have been in their
location one year or less; 42 percent have been in their loca-
tion three years or less.
o Downtown merchants are generally very small, typically renting
less than 3,000 square feet, with few employees. 90 percent of
the businesses surveyed had three or less full-time employees.
73 percent had only 0-1 part-time employee.
o When asked which conditions affect business performance most,
most respondents stated access, followed by parking, visibil-
ity, image, appearance of public property, and compatibility of
land uses. Lack of parking was a major concern; 66 percent
felt parking was not sufficient.
o When asked what image concepts of downtown they preferred, most
merchants preferred the Village concept that was pedestrian
oriented and European in flavor.
o Heavy pedestrian traffic was ranked as the most important
favorable business condition. Nearby neighborhoods were also
considered important.
o 46 percent of the merchants wanted increased night activity,
while 32 percent did not.
o 68 percent of the merchants stated their customers come from
within 1 to 5 miles; 42 percent reported that they have cus-
tomers coming from 5 or more miles away. Thus, downtown mer-
chants are mostly locally based.
o 71 percent said trends in customers and trends in sales were
up. Only 49 percent, however, said profits were up.
63 percent said their current location meets their needs, and
27 percent said their location does not meet their needs,
including a majority of restaurants. A majority of businesses
are considering expansion, particularly restaurants and bars.
46 percent said they were limited by their current lot size.
Few businesses indicated that they might move.
Section I
HOTEL MARKET ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This section analyzes the potential for an upscale hotel within the
Carlsbad primary market area. An estimate is made of the number of addi-
tional hotel/motel rooms the Carlsbad primary market can support. The
estimate of additional hotel rooms demanded provides a parameter for
aggregate potential new hotel construction in Carlsbad. Given this param-
eter, the specific advantages of the Downtown Carlsbad area were consid-
ered.
In conducting our analysis, we evaluated the downtown area's poten-
tial attributes and access, inspected and surveyed competitive develop-
ments in the primary and secondary market areas, studied various economic
measures, reviewed regional hotel trends, and interviewed developers, land
owners, planners, hotel professionals, tourism agencies, and others.
MARKET AREA DEFINITION
For purposes of this analysis, the City of Carlsbad comprises the
primary market area. The secondary market area is the 2- to 3-mile-wide
waterfront strip lying between the City of Oceanside and the community of
La Jolla, along the Pacific Ocean. This area includes several North San
Diego County beach-oriented communities such as Cardiff by the Sea,
Encinitas and Del Mar. High quality hotels in these nearby areas each
take on a particular personality and capture specialized hotel room de-
mand. The Carlsbad primary market area differs somewhat from these sub-
markets because it is highly "provincial," characterized by a strong
intramarket "friendly" competitive referral system. Hotels in nearby
oceanfront communities therefore are not extremely competitive with the
1-1
higher quality hotels/motels within Carlsbad and thus comprise the second-
ary market area. A general description of these other North County facil-
ities is separately provided.
INVENTORY/OCCUPANCIES
San Diego County in general has a total inventory of over 28,000
hotel rooms, reflecting a 5.8 percent growth rate since 1984. Roughly 20
percent of the rooms added within the last year are found in Carlsbad.
The Carlsbad primary market area currently accounts for roughly 5 percent
of the total San Diego County hotel/motel inventory.
The countywide average occupancy rate increased steadily during the
1970s, from around 65 percent in the early 1970s to a peak of 80 percent
in 1979. The recession and increases in the inventory resulted in
average occupancy declining to 72 percent in 1982, increasing with recov-
ery to around 76 percent in 1983 and 77 percent in 1984.
Primary Market Area
There are approximately 1482 rooms in a variety of hotels and
motels in the Carlsbad primary market area, as shown in Table 1-1. These
do not include older facilities with less than 30 rooms. Roughly 40
percent of these rooms are inexpensive motel-type facilities. Except for
the Ocean Manor Hotel, these facilities were built within the last 20
years. The majority of them offer rooms with fully furnished
kitchenettes. Only a few of the 14 facilities may be considered of first
class quality; these are predominantly larger, higher priced hotels, often
situated on beachfront properties.
1-2
Table 1-1
CARLSBAD PRIMARY MARKET AREA
INVENTORY OF COMPETITIVE HOTELS/MOTELS1
Year Built Number of Rooms
Existing
La Costa 1968 310
Best Western Pea Soup Andersens 1982 152
All Star Inn2 1981 142
Carlsbad/La Costa TraveLodge 1980 128
Economy Inn 1985 127
Lexington Hotel Suites 1985 120
Sixpence Inn 1982 109
Olympic Resort Hotel 1984 80
Carlsbad Lodge 1980 67
Carlsbad Inn 1985 66
Best Western Beach Terrace Inn 1963 49
Ocean Manor Hotel 1939 47
Best Western Beach View Lodge 1975 45
Traveler Inn Motel 1976 40_
Total 1,482
Under Construction
Tamarack Beach Resort 23
La Costa Addition 240
Total 263
Planned/Proposed3
Palomar Place 150
Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Hotel 370
Pacific Rim Country Club 550
Twin Inns 161
California Builders 70_
Total 1,301
n.a. means not available.
^Does not include ownership-based units.
2Formerly the California 6 Motel.
^Includes only projects with high probability of completion.
Source: Economics Research Associates.
The Carlsbad primary market area has shown notable increases in
room inventory, as shown below:
Year Room Inventory
1975 406
1980 686
1985 1,482
This table reveals roughly a 16.7 percent compounded annual growth
rate within the last five years. In 1981 and 1982 alone, there were over
400 good quality rooms added to the primary market area. Since the begin-
ning of this year, 313 rooms have been added to the Carlsbad primary
market inventory.
The following text table shows occupancy tax revenue figures and
subsequent occupancies for the Carlsbad primary market area for the last
four years.
Transient Estimated
Year Occupancy Tax Collections Occupancy
1982 $ 734,344 63%
1983 797,526 64
1984 1,007,268 68
Source: City of Carlsbad Finance Department; and
Economics Research Associates.
According to these figures, in 1984 occupancies averaged 68 percent
among Carlsbad primary market area hotel/motel facilities. Revenue fig-
ures are currently not available for the entire current year 1985. We
estimate that occupancies will be somewhat less than in 1984, according to
local market research. Interesting to note, the Carlsbad primary market
area fared relatively better during 1984 than most Southern California
hotel markets due to nonparticipation on Olympics-based incentive programs
1-4
and/or rate increases. The decline between 1984 and 1985 may be attrib-
uted to these factors: (1) notable increases in the market area inventory
within the last nine months, (2) overstated estimates by local hoteliers
which do not reflect typically lower fall "shoulder" season occupancies,
and (3) ongoing renovation/construction activities at the La Costa Hotel
which has traditionally maintained a strong market position due to its
relatively unique amenity package. In general, those facilities which
have achieved the highest overall occupancies over the last two years are
the budget motel-type projects and small older beachfront "resort" hotels
with established reputations, such as the Best Western Beach Terrace Inn.
Table 1-2 cites comparative historical figures on occupancy rates
and average daily room rates for good quality hotels/motels in North San
Diego County, and other hotel submarkets, for 1983, 1984, and the first
eight months of 1985. Occupancies at the major North County lodging
facilities increased steadily between 1983 and 1984, similar to the other
hotel submarkets. Important to note, all San Diego submarkets showed
occupancy increases over the last two to three years, reflecting
relatively minor Olympics-related occupancy "disappointments" compared to
those experienced by other Southern California hotel/motel markets.
During the 1984-1985 period, North County facilities experienced a notable
occupancy increase — nearly 7 percent — compared to an average 4 percent
increase among the other submarket lodging facilities. The most
significant occupancy change was among South Bay San Diego hotels, which
experienced a 12.1 percentage point increase during the last two years.
Average Room Rates
While occupancies increased notably between 1984 and 1985 in North
County hotel/motel establishments, the average rate per occupied room1
jumped less significantly than in other San Diego County submarkets. For
example, rates increased over $16 per room among downtown hotels and
*Actually received, versus the published, average advertised rate for the
year.
1-5
Table 1-2
SAN DIEGO
HOTEL MARKET TRENDS
1983, 1984 and 1985
NORTH COUNTY
Downtown
Bay Area
Mission Valley
La Jolla
South Bay
Total County
Percent of Occupancy
Average Rate per
Occupied Room
1983
65.9%
68.0
78.4
78.0
74.0
63.2
1984
67.5%
72.8
80.0
78.3
75.5
65.3
19851
73.1%
76.7
84.5
83.9
81.2
77.4
1983
$71.69
50.08
65.85
43.47
57.86
29.88
1984
$77.94
52.67
73.01
45.62
63.58
31.44
1985
$82.64
70.41
86.68
53.88
75.35
34.26
75.2% 77.2% 81.0%$54.04 $58.54 $67.86
1January-August.
Source: Laventhol & Horwath; and Economics Research Associates.
roughly $12 to $13 in markets such as the Bay Area, Mission Valley, and La
Jolla. In fact, the countywide increase between 1984 and 1985 was over
$9.00 compared to an approximate $5.00 figure in the North County area.
This relatively moderate rate increase stems from some inflation, coupled
with discounting associated with market entry promotional packages, and
inabilities to attain higher rates due to competition from increased
inventories. A relatively stronger market dependency on erratic seasonal
visitation among North County (i.e., Carlsbad) facilities may also result
in lower average annual rates per occupied room.
As Table 1-3 shows, average single and double rack rates of
selected primary and secondary area higher priced "resort" type facilities
have increased in an erratic pattern since 1983. Between 1983-1984 and
1984-1985, rates generally increased by 5 to 15 percent among primary and
secondary market area properties, depending on location, quality and
general reputation. For example, between 1984 and 1985 the beachfront
newly renovated Stratford Inn in Del Mar increased double occupancy rates
by nearly 20 percent; during the same period the Best Western Pea Soup
Andersen's dropped double occupancy rates by 10 to 15 percent, largely
(1) to recover losses from Olympics-oriented 1984 unrealized rate in-
creases and (2) as a response to increasingly competitive local market
hotels and motels. In general, however, rack rates increased by a moder-
ate $5 to $10 for single or double occupancy among all good quality facil-
ities throughout the primary and entire secondary market areas. These
North County properties did not derive Olympics-based pricing schedules as
extensively as those in Los Angeles and Orange counties, and therefore
suffered less adversely than these northern submarkets.
RESORT-TYPE COMPETITIVE PROPERTIES; NONOWNERSHIP BASED
Our survey considered seven high quality nonmotel lodging facili-
ties within the Carlsbad primary market area and a sample of nine major
hotels in the secondary market area. Figure 1-1 shows the locations of
these resort-oriented properties. These seven properties are of the best
1-7
oo oCN
O O
1M
0>— (J3
£-4
enJ
Boas
Id>I— 1
H
M
HEdPd
SCJ
wOHeiHas1
Oen
5
a
'J3
3W_]
Eden
Jg
wai<
HEd
*
1
!H
azo0Eden
<
>•
5
j^M
BciOH
CO0)
4J
^ujrto2
1—4enEdH
2S
v:u
2Sj<:o
M
OioH
ooON
1—1
CU€n
3en
0)^j 0
j= ce3 •
Ǥ C
0)
•r^ •
00 CO
•5 een
cnooON
"*
1^
01
3en
o>-H
3 m
Q <o-
0)
bo mn -*
en -co-cn
Ma
4J
OCO
(S
CQc
•HM
^CO-Hi~Hv4>
in -d
ON CD
~*
r- 000 ON
m fnOi Oi
r- ooo oo
ee
M
01u
COUu
OI
H
SIuce
, Ǥ
(Q
3C Cu
^H CUm U
O 000)s ;
id m
CO 0)
3E PQ
OO~d
mtv.
9
CO»c
•ce
e
COc
0)
COM
01•o^
D.
3
3
CB
S
C
^4O)4J
CO
017
4J
CO01
mtn
"*
in
i-d
in
CN
m
CN
CO
4J
CO6
CO_]
oo
00
^
CN
CO
C
CN
•ce
c
eeM
•a
o
4Jce
14
Ucn
^.
r«i.
mv£>
o
^H
\0
ec
M
td
r
-H
01Q
CId
01
4-1COcu
4J
COcu
PQ
<n
v—i
4»4
COol—t
CN
CO
cn
^s»
0100•o3
ce
O)en
co cuoi 8oo-HC uaU 4Jcecu £
O 0)ce a
3 >-i0 0)•O D.
U-i Uo a
CO 4Jcu c
M 01CO *lJ CU
01 U-I
•o§ «
*01 C
C
CO l-ice
0901 01
cu m
CO
01
48
0)co
COo
T-l
O
oow
T:
o
CO
48
JOoI
cCOO
01ytj
oCfl
EXISTING
1. BEST WESTERN BEACH TERRACE INN
2. BEST WESTERN BEACH VIEW LODGE
3. BEST WESTERN PEA SOUP ANDERSEN'S
4. LA COSTA HOTEL
6. LEXINGTON HOTEL SUITES
6. CARLSBAD INN BEACH & TENNIS RESORT
7. OLYMPIC RESORT HOTEL
PENDING (LIKELY TO BE COMPLETED)
8. PALOMAR PLACE HOTEL
9. CARLSBAD INN BEACH & TENNIS RESORT CONDOS
10. TAMARACK BEACH RESORT
11. LA COSTA HOTEL EXPANSION
12. TWIN INNS HOTEL
13. BATIQUITOS LAGOON EDUCATIONAL PARK HOTEL
14. PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB
15. CALIFORNIA BUILDERS
'A I LhU -=- ^
s.
Figure 1
SURVEY OF
PRIMARY MARKET AREA RESORT-TYPE COMPETITIVE HOTELS
quality, possess the strongest demand attraction capability in the city,
and are thus comparable to a potential new hotel in the Downtown Carlsbad
area. At the same time, it is important to consider the relative impor-
tance of a beach-oriented (or freeway close) location characterized by
many of these properties. These hotels are extremely seasonally oriented.
During the principal peak season, commonly between mid-June and Labor Day,
average single occupancy rates are $93; double rates are approximately
$105. Rates are roughly $10 to $15 less during the remaining nine months
at most hotels. Five of the 16 upscale hotels, however, did not change
their rates during this last summer, mostly due to a recent market entry
position. Corporate rates commonly are not increased at the highest
priced hotels during the summer "peak" months.
Due to the resort nature of the coastal-oriented properties, weekly
and/or monthly rates are commonly available. Depending on location and
amenities, summer weekly rates average $250 to $400 in the Carlsbad pri-
mary and secondary market areas; they are slightly higher in La Jolla
versus Oceanside. In general, smaller quality but not upscale beach-
oriented facilities with moderate amenities offer monthly seasonal rates.
A secondary peak season for primary and secondary market area
properties is the three- to four-month period between December and March.
During this time, many pre-retired and elderly couples, known as "snow-
birds," visit North County from Canada, the East Coast, Midwest and
Pacific Northwest United States. Their average length of stay is one
month. Nightly rates during this season are commonly comparable to those
during the summer season. Monthly rates are approximately $50 less during
the winter versus summer "peak" season.
Table 1-4 presents the characteristics of selected competitive re-
sort-type hotels in the primary and secondary market areas and Table 1-5
cites their sources of demand and occupancy rates. Particularly signifi-
cant facilities are described below.
I-10
sist P12
C S.s g»|•° s a °# 85g
1
•a-
Ifi
- ffa
I
E
z
V « -u W V3. u -H c t*
t: o. S *B S 8 x--
£s
§1
83
-•«
si
* «is
511! I-8 jI--"' .;« I
8|jf. £S 8
1 .S g | fr . 8U 09 *•< 2 b « C•3 S B"3 uS 2
S-Sil III _r
s
2s
s
i
* u •
* C M?
53 ST:
II"3--
i^1
sal*
irlUS rsJ
•c -S -S ji.SiSo >. 1 9 x u X >, » c laxB)*J Cmu u «j ^Fv &CUMkl^rf Oklwl X*^ tlQUklCttw^«U U«U laU UQ1>OI*IB'U*•» - *•' K I & S8.'SS-gA2.ASS fiS 8 S 8.8 S5
J, i
O\co mm cMrsi •<2^oo inm •& -9 IB
^Q-3 3Q mo mO<ro cooo aoQS oo
J&^aB Ol^ ^^ ^
esi^rcM mo PQ m
«>• «>«-«-
goo mo om oao tsj oo ^<iO r*>>m -*
^m<r* rxuo r«»ffi
-si i se §*1 §1s i*waa. S u S 2 C -< *J B -t
^e Ji Wt E •4jwm *jyo w O*5
Facilitiesp
s -s a e s,« i •e 5 , o. So I S
I* I M • i
•It i'.i
Hi
B B
s
1 I-
~ Wi
il
£ 8il
I-gS
w U5j w -da 1
5alHss
LS S:
2S" !•Si « !
BS
Ji
n
•& 9*
« 0) C
i
i
I
BB
taenitles/Comnents11b •*•*<
W iH11
ffn
6 ° in
13
I
d!
2
j|
.
Q «— J
|
1
m
"5 "Namara" Section 33 — older, lessexpensive rooms; kitchenettes,bridal suite, 2 pools, spa,executive rooms (weekly guests);lower rates are for the old roomi|im
s
a
>n o
|j,
**
as
!*ss
</>
iim-
SS3
!?A»""
22 Afternoon tea In Library,I
1
§
g
z
2
£
S
<*>
<•>
tn
E*
m continental breakfast, pool, spaone-half rooms have kitchenettes8.
1
In
5
90
^
S
£
»
fr
1
Vw
Pool. 2 restaurants, lounge;"Golfer's Holiday** packages;discount for Scrlpps and corporabusiness.•3"
88til
^e
S
Krx
^
S
5
v>
m
</y
«•
s
«•
«->
U siSSi
& SJL *"*
X M•3 I•-*) B.
3*».
S i
2^
ll!
S±J
1
I
g
m
1
m
1
|
<l>
i
*•>
S<t*
«.
•*
§ Is0 M X
ISsis
m
i•*
1§
i
o
I
&
R
Was a residential hotel until 19full breakfast, ocean view,restaurant, bar; renovated 1983;•«
*
•n
s
«
S
i
<*»
•
s
<•>i«>
$
I
2
OB
V
S3
II
S
*
*l
•?•>
*
i
2
50
= " •?)28|*J u-S -a•B *
s S88.8 ^
*« SiJ-T
E!| c5
-1 *»
U-I-S- »°i•^ XM i•fi-S*
§X
S. S
z-
^
I
i
s;
£
~
•S. fcn
'I
s
J!UO
U§
l
z 8 S
ss
9
IW
|
I
S
».
c£
9) UM 00s-aoi a
I
cX 01•
£
i SP
•a•a
Jl
CD•c
'§5
W fJ
Is
K
8
g
S oz
s
CO
i
800
u
!
sin
1 Ooi u o o±5 o ^T3 O * O-oO inp-i «•
tl »«in1 m^ oo
8
e s"01 U, C
a>
0)-H•a
K
»< MS •"
o • «fr ^.S _
3 S
S
R
s
•o
i
B
~3
S
W ns s s a - ^g
O T<
- c
2- 2a S|£ . jp5 i
O w -H -HtcO B> K-* UI>a)uS <4Q qjiTi <?CL co JO J r-> G
a E c £ 5 g| ^.25 1 3
ES— <O
C00g
I S
J8UC
K
s00
II
v
O*J
0)-Hi
41—I W.38.•O•o 3.8, &
t 4J
i s
g g
M U0) 0)
<e »ii 3 S-a-
K »•*
in PS
-s
Hu
|
Ss
8
•£
*w«-t
g?£
-I OS£a/Torrey PinesN g S
fl 3
^o §
09 •
0901 01 •09 u a•H <S 01p e uC <H COoi u •njc n u
« S 8
03 S 509 l->41 tO £—I -rJ USO ki9 9
" 801 ^
01§5
Best Western Beach Terrace Inn
This 49-unit facility exemplifies the typical Carlsbad "resort"
type hotel. Built over 20 years ago as an apartment hotel, this facility
was renovated into a regular lodging establishment in 1981. It is reputed
to be the only actual San Diego County "oceanfront" hotel facility con-
structed at the water's edge, versus across the street or 1 block from the
beach. Occupancies average 85 percent year-round, with weekends typified
by 100 percent rates. Rack rates have increased by over 50 percent since
1981,1 also reflecting strong tourist demand. During the summer the
facility is dominated more and more by families from Phoenix, New York,
and East Coast states, rather than previously dominant Los Angeles fami-
lies. Snowbirds from the northeastern United States dominate the property
during the winter "peak season." Independent corporate travelers associ-
ated with companies having local market area branches (i.e., Hughes) are a
secondary market segment. The one meeting room typically accommodates
local area based firms' business seminars and residents' needs for enter-
tainment space. Important to note, wealthier tourists have become more
apparent to hotel management over the past two to three years. The major-
ity of suites have kitchenettes and balconies with extensive ocean views;
other amenities include a pool and spa.
Best Western Pea Soup Andersen's
One of the better known Carlsbad facilities, the Best Western Pea
Soup Andersen's was built in 1982 and added 74+ rooms in summer of 1984.
The majority of guests are independent corporate travelers from Arizona,
Orange County, San Diego County, and most recently businesspersons
'•Based on quoted daily rates for a family of four during the summer
season.
1-16
associated with the Palomar Airport Business Park. In fact, the hotel is
located quite near this industrial/R&D property on Palomar Airport Road.
Conference/meeting guests and military, Camp Pendleton related, clients
comprise nearly half of the hotel's yearly guest demand. For example, a
U.S. Department of Defense group rents 10 to 20 guest rooms for one week,
five to six times each year. The six meeting/banquet rooms, one of which
accommodates over 300 persons, are highly utilized by the corporate/asso-
ciation group guests as well as local residents. Increasing weekend
occupancies, atypical for a corporate-oriented hotel, are apparent at
Andersen's. This fact suggests a trend toward changing work patterns and
an increasing propensity toward recreation-oriented business trips.
Important to note, prior to 1984, occupancies were consistently in
the high nineties according to management, but have fallen to an average
of 55 to 60 percent over the last two years. An increase in rooms coinci-
dental with additional hotels entering the primary market area, unmet high
demand expectations associated with the Los Angeles Summer Olympics (and
consequential increased rates), and the general entrance of new, lower
priced facilities close by have all contributed to such notable occupancy
decreases. In addition, the national trend of polarized demand for dis-
tinct lodging facilities — low budget, quality or luxury-upscale facili-
ties — may also be accountable given the midrange prices and moderate
level amenities found at Andersen's. Amenities include a pool, spa and
garden courtyard, in addition to the famous restaurant and meeting/banquet
rooms cited above.
La Costa Hotel
The largest and most extensive resort-type hotel in the primary
market area, La Costa was originally constructed as a multi-amenity fit-
ness resort about 20 years ago. The hotel currently commands the highest
primary market area rates: $140 to $185 single or double occupancy. The
310-room hotel is only one fraction of the total resort property and has
maintained fairly good, but not excellent, occupancies over the past few
1-17
years. Middle-age tourists from California, the East Coast, and Midwest
dominate the guest mix. Golf and tennis amenities are the biggest draw to
the resort. Only 15 percent of the total guests lodge at La Costa for
access to the weight-loss spa program. The average length of stay is two
to seven days.
The second largest hotel demand segment is comprised of large group
meeting related guests who commonly stay two to five days, often including
weekends. These groups range from 25 to 200 persons and are predominantly
from Southern California and Los Angeles in particular. To further at-
tract this market segment, a new 40,000-square-foot modern Conference
Center, including a high tech 200-seat theater and media center, ballroom,
and several divisible meeting rooms, will be completed in March of 1986.
Other new features will include 240 new guest rooms and suites, six addi-
tional tennis courts, and a new La Costa Lifestyle and Longevity Center
which will offer an educational and behavioral program that integrates
the fitness spa and other recreational facilities.
Lexington Hotel Suites
One of the newest hotel facilities in the primary market area is
the 120-unit Lexington Hotel, the only all-suite facility in San Diego
County. Guests are predominantly independent corporate travelers from
Southern California, particularly North County areas such as the Sorrento
Valley. Many business guests are affiliated with the Palomar Airport
Business Park; other origins include the East Coast and Texas. About 5 to
10 percent of this market segment is comprised of relocating job transfer-
ees who benefit from an extended stay corporate rate. Like most primary
market area facilities, the summer months are dominated by tourists from
Southern California, which are predominantly families and young couples.
'This latter guest category is also apparent during the non-summer/winter
peak seasons and perceives Carlsbad as a favorable weekend "getaway desti-
nation." Another fraction of the market segment is tourists attending the
annual Carlsbad MotorCross for two or three weekends each June.
1-18
Since opening, occupancies at Lexington Hotel Suites have been
relatively strong for a new facility — in the upper 60 percentile; al-
though Lexington is a corporate-oriented facility, occupancies are slight-
ly higher during the weekends. These occupancies are attributed to a
recreation-oriented corporate market segment, coupled with a consistently
strong Southern California based tourist market segment. Due to its
famous restaurant and location, Pea Soup Andersen's is considered the
Lexington's strongest competition by hotel management. Rates average $75
single occupancy and $95 double occupancy.
Carlsbad Inn Beach and Tennis Resort
Situated in downtown Carlsbad, at the corner of Elm Avenue and
Carlsbad Boulevard, 1.5 blocks from the beach, the 66-room Carlsbad Inn is
the most recent addition to the primary market area inventory. Since
opening in July, occupancies have averaged 40 percent; hotel management
intends to market the facility as a corporate-oriented hotel, complete
with appropriate rates and amenities. Guests from the Southern California
region will be targeted. Room rates currently average $50 single occu-
pancy and $65 double occupancy but will increase after January 1986. The
Inn will offer an extensive amenity package oriented to the 132 pending
time-share condominiums. Facilities will include a subterranean gym,
tennis and volleyball courts, and a pool; no restaurant will be on the
premises.
Olympic Resort Hotel
Located across from the Palomar Airport, the Olympic Resort Hotel
is dominated by independent corporate and meeting related guests. Con-
tracts with airline personnel and companies like Hughes Aircraft are
common. The hotel has seven conference rooms, the largest of which accom-
modates 200 persons. The secondary market segment, tourists, are apparent
during the summer and typified by a mixture of young couples, families,
and retired persons. Many Del Mar Racetrack spectators also stay at the
1-19
Olympic. Most guests are from Southern California, particularly San
Diego. Occupancies are in the 60s; they are slightly higher on weekends
due to the growing recreation-oriented business group trend. This hotel
also receives many "overflow" referrals from La Costa and other high
quality facilities. The increasingly strong primary market position of
the Olympic Hotel is due to (1) relatively lower rates ($50+^ single
occupancy), (2) convenient location off freeway and near the Business
Park, and (3) favorable businessperson-oriented amenities such as restau-
rant, banquet/meeting rooms, driving range, and others.
Sanderling Place
This is the only notably competitive resort-type hotel in the
nearby community of Encinitas, located 8 miles south of Carlsbad. The
102-unit facility opened in July of last year and has exhibited occupan-
cies in the low 80 percentile; not surprisingly, weekday occupancies are
projected by management to be stronger than weekend occupancies. Dominant
guests are independent corporate travelers affiliated with such local area
companies as IBM, Hewlett Packard, and other "Fortune 500" companies.
Roughly 5 to 10 percent of this market segment is comprised of relocating
job transferees. Group meeting guests are also a strong segment and are
typically corporations and associations from San Diego County. Groups
utilize the few conference rooms which can accommodate between 12 and 75
persons. Local clubs and business groups also use these rooms for daily
rates of $65 to $125 depending on party size. Due to its location and
corporate orientation, the Olympic Resort Hotel is considered by manage-
ment to be the strongest competition for Sanderling Place.
The tourist segment, comprising one-quarter of the hotel's guest
mix, dominates this "corporate" hotel during the peak summer season; many
tourists are spectators at the Del Mar Racetrack events during July or
August each year.
1-20
An extensive amenity package includes: ocean views, private bal-
conies and patios, complimentary continental breakfast daily, beach and
racetrack shuttle service, and a golf putting green. Average room rates
are $85 single occupancy and $95 double occupancy. Significant to note,
this facility was originally designed to be a tourist-oriented large-scale
recreational resort, similar to La Costa; however, due to growing corpo-
rate demand coupled with lack of relatively developable land for large-
scale amenities, the property has since taken on its current corporate
orientation.
Countryside Inn
Opened in April of this year, the 108-unit Countryside Inn is
characterized by an even mix of tourists and independent corporate travel-
ers; corporate "overflow" guests from the Encinitas Sanderling Place often
lodge at this facility. Nearly one-half of the tourists to date have been
spectators at the Del Mar Racetrack; young couples and families from
Southern California and Arizona are also prevalent. The hotel is current-
ly marketing strongly to corporate and meeting-group travelers from Los
Angeles, Arizona and Texas via certain rates and promotional incentive
packages.
To date occupancies have not been especially strong, owing to the
nearly overbuilt hotel/motel secondary market area, according to manage-
ment. The hotel location, which is across from, rather than directly on,
the beach may also be a deterrent to higher occupancy rates. The hotel
has received requests for meeting space by local groups of 30 to 50 per-
sons, and is planning to add such a facility; a pool, spa and compli-
mentary continental breakfast are amenities. Proximity to the Del Mar
Racetrack and Torrey Pines Golf Course are advertised among other ameni-
ties.
1-21
Stratford Inn
This hotel is a combination of the original 33-room Namara Inn,
built over 25 years ago, and a 64-room addition built 2.5 years ago which
is one block from the ocean in the city of Del Mar. It is therefore one
of the newest high quality resort inn type facilities in the city. The
hotel has a higher proportion of independent corporate travelers and
meeting group guests than tourists. A large part of the corporate demand
stems from Sorrento Valley firms and surprisingly, empty nesters from
Florida. The tourist segment is comprised of young couples and families,
many of which are racetrack enthusiasts. Winter "snowbirds" are another
prevalent market segment; these persons are often from the Midwest and
East Coast. Monthly rates of $1,200 are commonly supported by this market
segment. The hotel has two small meeting rooms. Roughly half of the
meeting space user volume stems from day-use local firms (i.e., E.F.
Button) and associations. Nightly off-season rates range from $55 to $85
single occupancy and $60 to $90 double occupancy.
Colonial Inn
One of the many unusual hotel facilities found in La Jolla, the
Colonial Inn was renovated into a Victorian style full-service hotel in
1979. Guests are typically tourists and independent corporate travelers,
exhibiting a rather even mix. The former group is comprised of middle-age
couples from Southern California and Texas. Business guests are typically
from the Midwest and Texas and stay a few days during the weekdays.
Occupancies have been consistently high and average 90 percent for this
year to date. Local clubs and associations utilize the one small meeting
room, as often as, if not more often than, the small proportion of group
meeting hotel guests. Rates average $90 for single occupancy and $100 for
"double occupancy during the off seasons and are $5 to $10 higher during
the summer as well as February, March and April. This "snowbird" rate is
a new addition to the hotel's pricing structure.
1-22
RESORT-TYPE COMPETITIVE PROPERTIES; OWNERSHIP BASED
A significant trend among the primary and secondary market area
potentially competitive projects is the addition of newly constructed or
renovated time-share and/or condominium ownership-based rental pool resort
facilities. A few of the 16 existing competitive facilities and several
pending ownership-based projects are worthy of note.
Existing Projects
Five units in the renovated Villa Marina Resort Hotel, in Ocean-
side, are owned and operated on a time-share basis by Vacation
International. Also in Oceanside, the 20-year-old Marina Del Mar
Condominium Resort facility was redesigned as a condominium project from
apartments, in the early 1970s. It took roughly seven years to sell the
82 one- and two-bedroom units. Currently, many owners participate in a
"rental pool" program and units are "marketed" as regular hotel rooms,
primarily during the two peak seasons, for one-week time periods. Los
Angelenos are the dominant patrons — both unit owners and hotel guests —
at both these Oceanside resort facilities.
Other secondary area submarkets are also characterized by beach-
oriented time-share facilities. The Wavecrest Condominium, located one
block from the beach in Del Mar, was developed by Winners Circle Resorts
International, Inc., in early 1982. These 31 fee simple one- and two-
bedroom units sold for an average of $8,500 per time-share week. All
1,500 potential weeks were sold within two years, the majority to middle-
aged couples from Los Angeles County. Winners Circle Resorts is currently
developing some significant time-share projects in a few primary and
secondary submarket areas such as Oceanside, as seen in Table 1-6.
1-23
094-1
CDV
•H
4-1
s*Of U
i II
G
p OLi 1 §
£ j "8 u IIo B § 8 J«: 2
J i S £ o a S
2 gsl2 * S
f-i • H Jo
a- 5• eg |
1
b £
-S U-I *lj1 ° £Z u
•8
b D
oj
5
—I
j! . .. a § §•« AJ *J in £ Si -^i(0 f-H IW i-H AJ
•o • ».£ t-i S 'TO i-i C
4J <0 4J V 4J O. 4J
(4 0 Irf A) C*0O 00&(-( O JO C AJ tlC Ci-1 6. O -P COt-l t-< O O tO • -H O
•H OS t-1 •*-» Q U-t O<h< jj (2 • c c>s 00 CO 3 -H
aSffl^ Stio-Safg % S •* ^ C S ^ -^ *
i-)ij^.H i-i i- »»>^ao
t: &8 ••a oo •
4J "tJ O
S 5 2
« O *d o)
n en
c c
*° s
AJ 03 4J
T1 8 T1
lJ P" 14
C 01 C
"T." sssai « -i ,3 ^.v§ -a0--*J -H fi. d 0)00 00 g) -3 O(0 "*». Bc 3 ho .» •*«EC u e OD o•HO) *H 000) i-l 2 gj M
& -H — 5 H.'O
.
1C •*
c
es in
*
^ ~^
01 0) b
£ £ I
9 » -u SSS S S« M O n e. £
b x o 6 b 5fi Ir lig SfiS S£
tf-c
o §•!
x b u eSag cO. *J b.. .. S •"S vC CO -i00 01 U
524:500 -H J3So) v4J 4J D
SJS J g
r«4 aj
O $
8. oo
Restaurants ,spa, puttingo -a — i
•"1*g « a
3« « aIB 00 4J <01- vH fcriCM -H C flj<n- tw 3 bO
OSf-t
1
tili-i ti
§.2
•• §IS
is
<*^
s
ro OD 09•-H OJ 4J
3!
t;
00 0)ill
we oo
s -s *s si0 oS S
•4-1
O •n
8 ZT *Su a*M O> t« >IM in 0)O .* — ig«S
B 2 'o -a"* s Sj; b xi
r-* 00 0> COcu QJ c ^U B b bSn 83
4k
»H a xOf » *Ji« s^Olympic size2 spas, vldeirecreation rexercise facg
CN
S
IfwB .« O00 01 IM
CO 01 *J -^0) -! n -i .
|1 1^ =
!
u
§ *" g
8 5 4J
l<r §
ft
— 2en S aCM £ ^00 00 00a 01 ufH E -Ha-i gW 4-1 9
i-t
•>. 0!
n 03
Q.
J= 01u a!
eo oT
ll9 co
IH
OJ
O iH •
o u •« o S4* 4) (U BJ (j
QJ bO V O n?i= -H nT4 * 4-1 QJ•o iu oj c•H 3 4> 01 4J
*H O C o y-ias 82^,
01
•8 S11 i 41
?id g<b o d — i
Addition toservice, res310-room retwith recreat:services§ 0,•H 00 U
•— ( "O V ^N•H 3 tU (-<11 -3 J! 2
25 g g<f> •**' O CJ
03•H
|
I
y C2 «
4J f— 1 Nfi00 CL 00
S CJ "*
tM
S
11-1
IO. b
Of-H ^H
CO CO4J U
33
Ǥ83
g u > -an --( S,-1 co » .o
jj 01 B
8 -la33-83&2-S e",3 8•as*-1"
= " ° 2
3|*Safc4 3 *H O CS DO « * M
s .u aS B4J 3
S a>s
•o1 S 92 u 8-3 iT .
l*°I S 8.
Ml .A I O -Hffi m -a c ^_ S t J> ^-t i-tH 4J M X ft)5Js^ e3l
2 20)8*3
?S
f*-4 Q) 4JUs
a
0) 09
•*•! i-H 0)SB 8 M
P -e s. <
2en
h V1-1144 t4
I
C 4-t C Vce 3 a
•gI
4J 0>•H U 01 0*O CO i-l U CS a c n -HK o 3 K -o
I
I
I
d
f
£
(0•HCMO
CO4JC
i8o
14J
•H
§1
** §ss•s1?£ 7J
*£
g
•9 <HOt 4-1 4Jg oj toO J2 u5. h eo to ojhi Z -iC g
34J«JJW
te|J V
4> -H
£ *W UBOO3 *->Z CO
<Mo
*** s
ll
hi
o-,_!
1is
1*23 s*_g
Ui W tH AJ CO *g c .a v 41 <w
SoS 1 SO i> O *J 4J *o
<M IU -* CO Ui
BP 1 § 2 f a .:•H 1M S « IM O4J IU 4J ••-< t-> 4J O -^f £ S 88 3 *»
Cr-l'S>Ol'o1 SOsak-ssk S-a
§•H »
U hi§oi e•H • Qan 5
-H a hi-aa •« " .8O ffl .« (0 -H
W Q. -— v -H JJ•M *Q N a1 88 3201 v h! o u nu e « « 01 •O >^ 00 «-J hi C
^*
gi•H 01i-H B
i-H 4)•g |
^ & •• B (0•4 <H .a.^ e
s<V*W 4J
° S B2 e g>S
3 >v 5 ^H
«*-> 0 -H •
5i|X1S B « <S B
§
hi X -HO T3 00
•O Bn •• so ^Hfi-BS *.s- &1 ^i "•HOB TiQ *H E B OJ)S. hi 5 5 S1 0> B ^H &0S S >. fi 2S S£ £ S
•»n te
A
5 S
C
2
IB4J • 1hi U is s «
**^* r^ (B 8) (VIJ3 (U 01 O C «-H 13 i-* C 3 5 4J !u rt o o wzjstn sS UM^ Ja "S a
^ -H *J -^ I fl Oi-s-s"? s ' £-0X -rf « oo t uiu C Im S hi 01 -Hu-i a i? iX C <O OJ 4J B -H E « 3&§o,g5 •fl'E^.,| S Is £ 3 £ £ ^
^
*w
aU B•H 01-H <H
11^•H 0)o a iw x 34J4J C6 «rlS2iS•n 3 4)f IS
*•Q1a« uJ 3
• *wL LIB OB -H O hi U6 s H q B xO * W 3 0 0) hi•-"-* S »HSB *>-p 60 U2U B 5O B D. u 01 BO1 4J «H CL C W <HM-l ^H hi -H 0) <d-H 4J 3 hi *H hi TI8 8.2S S 8. £Q
S *B 2i-l 1. 1 u
jlfcj 8
E • u^X X u B X -HQ *H -H (Q fHB w 3 ^H 4J B •B B a hi u a§01 J Q U 01o a •-£ o> u•H 0) r-t B B f-i fO4J hi « O -H0) *Q B 0) hi U^ .. OJ — i f & nar^ ij -a 3 B
g 00 0) » B ~* £Q 2 "a. g 2 * <
0 J=
x •* Sbe oi a•H U o)S U -rt nT B 5. S•o -H Co:
21 hi 01r a B
1 U-H -H
— 1 63 eIM B8* o§T5 UU4J "^
§ §
1 S= -at gs s
2 »
S 5•H« TJ e8 B gC3 -r- ^Hcu j- a*-». o.( >> • Xi at F^ «u ui 4^f H 4* » 4J f*• 8 «5 •§, y
£ * M s -ae] B 01 0j i-i O 6. S Q
^H 4J O « w3: o a i-i"J hi 01 •O^ oj > SI) co J! S) C «JS J W3 S «4 0J 1
Important to note is that the existing and pending ownership-based
projects may not definitely be competitive to a new potential resort-type
hotel in Downtown Carlsbad. Several factors such as (1) proximity to the
beach relative to other hotels, (2) ownership versus non-ownership base
and (3) tourist versus corporate market orientation in addition to gener-
al target market disparities stemming from socioeconomic requirements will
ultimately define the competitive nature of existing and pending time-
share/ownership properties to a potential new resort property. In fact,
new condominium properties in the primary market area may be more
competitive to these time-share facilities than conventional hotel/motel
properties.
Summary
The combined primary and secondary market area higher priced hotels
are predominantly tourist and/or corporate oriented; during the summer
months, both hotel types are strongly dominated by tourists. Facilities
which are situated within one block of the beach enjoy consistently high
occupancies; they are less vulnerable to seasonal guest attraction pat-
terns than those which are situated only a few blocks from, or a few miles
from the water's edge.
The primary market area hotels and motels, listed in Table 1-1, are
grouped into three categories: (1) low mid-priced low-rise motels or
motor lodges which generally serve corporate guests such as traveling
salesmen and tourists, such as families and retired couples, in equal
proportions and rely heavily on repeat business; (2) good quality, upscale
hotels which have a corporate orientation and often attract groups of 25
to 100 persons with needs for moderate-sized meeting facilities, often
have nice amenities, are 100 to 300 rooms, and are constructed in low-rise
or mid-rise buildings; (3) older, predominantly oceanfront facilities
under 50 rooms, which charge substantial room rates and cater primarily to
families during the summer and "snowbirds" during the winter peak seasons.
Significant to note about this primary market area is the intramarket
1-27
informal referral system, regardless of hotel type; this trend is the
result of overall flexibility of the hoteliers, coupled with recently
limited demand relative to the existing hotel/motel inventory. Should a
new upscale hotel facility enter the market, it would ultimately benefit
from a reciprocal relationship with other market area facilities, regard-
less of its primary market segment expectations.
PENDING HOTEL/MOTEL ESTABLISHMENTS
There are currently about 2,020 non-time-share/ownership-based
hotel and motel rooms proposed and/or under construction in the primary
and secondary market areas, 345 of which may not be completed. Of the
remaining 1,675 pending rooms, 1,564 will be in major hotel facilities in
the Carlsbad primary market area. An additional 217 ownership/time-share
units are pending in both market areas, 72 percent of which will be
located in Carlsbad. Table 1-6 shows the major hotel,1 (not motel)
establishments pending for the primary and secondary market areas. The
most significant projects are described below and shown in Figure 1-1.
The Tamarack Beach Resort is currently under construction across
the street from the beach on the principal downtown corridor, Carlsbad
Boulevard. This project will have 54 total one- and two-bedroom units, 23
of which will be rented as conventional hotel units; the remainder will be
time-share units. For the first two years, the time-share owners will be
given priority access to the hotel units for the "competitive beach-
oriented rack rate" of $80. The 23 hotel units may eventually be
converted to time-share, according to property developers. All the units
will be of a high quality design; time-share sale prices will be $8,000 to
^Ownership and nonownership based.
1-28
$12,000 and entitle a buyer to a two-week usage. The primary target
market will be couples and families from throughout Southern California.
Amenities will include an Olympic-sized pool, two spas, a 4,000-square-
foot recreation room, video arcade and exercise facility. They will be
available to conventional hotel guests. Completion is anticipated for
January 1985.
Extensive amenities at the Carlsbad Inn are described earlier, in
reference to the existing 66-unit conventional hotel. There are currently
132 condominium units under construction which began sales in July of
1985. Since then, 660 weeks averaging $7,000 to $12,000 per week have
been sold. The target market is couples and families from Los Angeles,
Orange, and San Diego Counties. To date, the average buyer age is 39
years. Project developers anticipate that the revitalized retail centers
and quality beach amenities of Carlsbad will draw potential time-share
owners.
Also planned for the Carlsbad primary market area is the Twin Inns
Hotel, located one block from the beach at Elm Avenue and Carlsbad Boule-
vard. This 161-unit upscale hotel will be complementary to the recently
renovated, existing Victorian style restaurant, originally a hotel built
in 1887. The hotel will be constructed in a three-story "E" formation.
Larger than average size hotel units will be rented for an average rate of
$83 per night. Primary target market segments are upper income tourists
from throughout Southern California and Palomar Business Park related
corporate/meeting guests. "Snowbirds" from the Northeast will be a less
significant market segment due to lack of kitchenettes and amenities
geared to long-term visitors. Hotel completion is anticipated for late
1987, or early 1988.
Of the other pending non-downtown-oriented projects outlined in
Table 1-6, the most significant is the 240-room addition to the La Costa
Resort which is described on page 18. This expansion is anticipated for
completion in March of next year. The remaining projects shown in the
table are either not likely to be built or not situated in the downtown
1-29
portion of the Carlsbad primary market area and therefore not worthy of
close scrutiny at this time.
HOTEL DEMAND
The Carlsbad primary market area demand is comprised of roughly
four varied groups: tourists, independent business travelers, conference/
meeting related guests, and Camp Pendleton related military visitors.
Demand for hotel/motel accommodations in the primary market area has been
only moderate within the last few years. Based on our interviews within
the hotel/motel industry and review of published data, the estimated
general occupant mix of the primary market is shown below:
Market Segment Percent
Tourists 45%
Individual Corporate 37
Conference/Meeting 13
Military 5
Total 100%
As shown, the Carlsbad primary market area is characterized by tourists
and independent business guests in roughly equal proportions. If one were
to combine the proportions of independent corporate businesspersons and
those businesspersons who stay in Carlsbad as part of a moderate-sized
group to conduct meetings there, then corporate guests actually would
dominate the market.
Tourist Demand
This market segment is extremely dependent on seasonal hotel usage.
"During the summer season, commonly between mid-June and the Labor Day
weekend, many families and couples from the Los Angeles area, as well as
San Diego, Arizona and foreign countries, patronize local establishments.
Their average length of stay is two to five nights. Certain hotel/motel
establishments have traditionally attracted more middle-age versus young
1-30
couples over the years; for example, the Best Western Beach View Inn
attracts predominantly preretired couples while the Best Western Pea Soup
Andersen's is consistently patronized by couples in the 30s as well as
families. Type of management, amenity package and general ambience are
influential factors.
In addition, certain hotels, especially those with furnished kitch-
enettes, have a relatively high propensity to attract "snowbirds" —
middle-age couples from the northeastern, midwestern and northwestern
United States. These persons typically visit the area for one week to one
month, between December and March, and pay appropriate long-term rates.
During the nonpeak seasons, tourists dominate the market area
during weekends. Commonly couples from the San Diego and Los Angeles
areas, these persons seek weekend "getaway destinations" in the Carlsbad
primary market area. Similar to all tourists, these individuals are
attracted by the North County area's varied amenities: the beach, 23
public and private golf courses, 18_+ tennis courts, and proximity to San
Diego entertainment such as Sea World and the Zoo.
Independent Corporate Demand
Business travelers account for the second largest share of Carlsbad
primary market area hotel demand. These guests are primarily oriented to
local firms in the Palomar Airport Business Park and areas such as the
Sorrento Valley and metropolitan San Diego. Some significant corporate
contracts include IBM, Hughes, Linear, and Kaiser. Another fraction of
this market segment is comprised of traveling businesspersons from all
over the state who patronize the freeway-close facilities such as the
Olympic Resort Hotel, Economy Inn, and Best Western Pea Soup Andersen's.
All independent corporate guests typically stay one to three nights.
Historically, this segment has visited during the week, but conversations
with local hoteliers suggest this trend is changing; business guests are
beginning to stay one or two weekend nights in hopes of utilizing the
1-31
local and on-site amenities more extensively than a short mid-week stay
would permit.
Another important section of this market segment is comprised of
job transferees from varied states. These individuals typically stay for
a few weeks while seeking a home, prior to the arrival of their families.
Conference/Meeting Guest Demand
Another significant hotel demand segment is that of groups visiting
the area to conduct meetings. This segment is dominated by corporate
business groups but also includes some private associations. The current
primary market area hotel inventory is characterized by limited meeting
space. Most hotels have one or two rooms able to accommodate 30 to 50
persons. The Best Western Pea Soup Andersen's contains the largest avail-
able space, seven divisible meeting rooms and a banquet room which holds
up to 200 persons. The La Costa Resort will soon have an extensive
40,000-square-foot conference center which will dominate the market.start-
ing in the spring of 1986. While a few other planned facilities will also
add significant meeting/conference space to the Carlsbad primary hotel
market inventory, this square footage will not be completed for several
years. Also important to note is that the local area meeting space inven-
tory is utilized partially by local clubs, associations and residents in
need of entertainment space.
These meeting groups, ranging from 25 to 100 persons, typically
stay two to five days, encompassing weekdays as well as weekends. Depend-
ing on the party size and current market conditions, groups will typically
patronize one hotel/motel facility. They tend to enjoy local amenities,
but also travel to San Diego and Orange County attractions. Example
_groups have included the Meat Purveyors of America, National Lumber corpo-
rate representatives, and a Mira Costa College departmental conference.
1-32
Military
Due to the proximity of Camp Pendleton to the primary market area,
a modest proportion of the local hotel market demand is comprised of
individual service persons on leave or in between assignments. Families
of the service men and women do not typically join them on their stay in
Carlsbad. These individuals commonly patronize local establishments for
convenience rather than amenity offerings. Other military-related demand
stems from retired Camp Pendleton personnel wishing to relocate their
permanent homes in the Carlsbad-Oceanside area.
Occasionally individuals or groups affiliated with the U.S. Depart-
ment of Defense stay in market area hotels and motels; these persons are
considered part of the two previously described market segments.
Market Area Room Demand
Based on (1) the data shown in Table 1 for primary market area
competitive facilities, (2) the competitive market area higher priced
facility survey shown in Table 5, and (3) interviews with lower priced
Carlsbad motels, current room-night demand by market segment is derived
below:
Market Segment Room-Nights
Tourist 173,220
Independent Corporate 142,426
Conference/Meeting 50,042
Military 19,247
Total 384,953
Projected Hotel Demand
Table 1-7 presents a reasonable projection of hotel room-night de-
mand within the primary market area over the 1985-1993 eight-year period,
by source of demand.
1-33
Table 1-7
CARLSBAD PRIMARY MARKET AREA
PROJECTED ROOM-NIGHTS FOR
QUALITY HOTEL/MOTEL PROPERTIES
BY SOURCE OF DEMAND
1985 1989 1993
Tourist 173,220 191,202 215,199
Independent Corporate 142,426 173,119 202,525
Conference/Meeting 50,042 57,424 68,479
Military 19.247 20,428 21.682
Total 384,935 442,173 507,885
Source: Economics Research Associates.
Tourist demand is closely tied to overall San Diego County visitor
figures. As shown below, the number of visitors has increased by roughly
2 percent per year, based on compounded annual growth percentages, over
the last five years:
Year Total Visitors
1980 26,674,000
1981 27,754,000
1982 27,706,000
1983 28,557,000
1984 28,830,000
1985 29,500,000
Due to the addition of quality facilities — both regular and
timeshare — as well as anticipated retail revitalization in the redevel-
opment area, we project tourist demand to increase by 2.5 percent between
1985 and 1989, and by 3.0 percent between 1989 and 1993. This results in
215,199 room-nights demanded by tourists by 1993. As general downtown
facilities renovate and expand, it is projected that a greater percentage
of total visitors to the San Diego area will stay in Carlsbad's lodging
facilities.
Independent corporate demand will mainly stem from a combination of
local area commercial/industrial space absorption and Southern California
regional employment trends. According to local brokers absorption trends,
documented for the San Diego North County submarket, roughly 900,000
square feet were absorbed during 1984. Carlsbad accounted for roughly
one-third of this absorption, principally due to Palomar Airport Business
Park activity. Assuming (1) 300,000 square feet will be absorbed per year
between 1985 and 1989 and (2) 350,000 square feet will be absorbed between
.1989 and 1993, by applying a factor of 20,000 annually absorbed square
feet per new hotel room per year, and also considering employment trends
shown below, we are able to estimate independent corporate-based room-
night demand.
1-35
Average Annual
Percent Change in Employment
Region 1980-1990
North San Diego County 2.5
San Diego County 1.7
Orange County 2.6
Los Angeles County 1.2
We project there will be a 5.0 percent annual growth rate between
1985 and 1989 and a 4.0 percent growth rate between 1989 and 1993. This
results in 173,119 corporate-based room-nights in 1989 and 202,525 room-
nights in 1993.
Independent corporate-based demand is the most important hotel
demand component in the primary market area and is thus projected to
increase more rapidly than tourist-related demand during the next eight
years.
Room-night demand based on conference/meeting group guests is
expected to accelerate more rapidly than tourist and even corporate ori-
ented demand after 1989. Estimates of room-night demand are based on
these factors: (1) addition of substantial meeting room square footage to
the primary market area over the next several years, beginning in spring
1986 with the 40,000-square-foot La Costa Conference Center, (2) employ-
ment projections cited above, with emphasis on North County versus overall
county figures, and (3) commercial/office space absorption trends in the
North County, also mentioned above. Given a combination of these comple-
mentary factors, we project that this demand segment will increase by 3.5
percent between 1985 and 1989 and by 4.5 percent between 1989 and 1993.
This growth rate results in roughly 57,424 room-nights by 1989 and 68,479
room-nights by 1993.
Discussions with local hotel industry representatives and reviews
of metropolitan area employment trends suggest that the military demand
component has not shown marked changes over the years. While naval and
marine officers increasingly utilize market area hotels, this use is more
1-36
food/beverage than lodging oriented. Therefore, we estimate that this
component will increase by a minimal 1.5 percent between the two four-year
periods under consideration.
In sum, a total of 442,173 room-nights is projected by 1989 —
roughly a 3.5 percent compounded annual growth rate in the Carlsbad pri-
mary market area from 1985. By 1993, total demand for good quality hotel
or motel accommodations in the primary market area is projected at 507,885
room-nights.
MARKET SUPPORT FOR A NEW HOTEL
The projected growth in hotel demand translates into market support
for roughly 1,730 hotel/motel rooms in the primary market area by 1989,
and 1,900 rooms by 1993, assuming a 70 percent average annual occupancy
rate. Given that roughly 640 new good-quality rooms will likely be added
to the Carlsbad primary market area by 1989, for a total supply of almost
2,125 rooms, there may be an excess of around 395 unsupportable rooms in
1989. Given the planned development of another 920 rooms by 1993, for a
hotel supply of 3,045 rooms, there may be an oversupply of 1,145 rooms in
1993.
Significant to note is that these figures do not include the nearly
200 ownership-based units coming on line in Carlsbad over the next eight
years. Should any of these units be converted to conventional hotel
units, due to market/economic conditions, the excess room figures cited
above will notably increase. Even without conversions, these properties
may still provide some competition to pending high-quality hotel/motel
rooms.
At the same time, Carlsbad may be in an advantageous position
relative to secondary market area communities due to its relatively lower
room rate structure, "village" ambience, and comparable quality level
beaches. However, due to the strong competitive edge created over time,
enjoyed by other submarkets, such as La Jolla and Del Mar, a new hotel in
1-37
Carlsbad would have to enjoy a prime beach oriented location to enjoy
assured market demand in the near future. A new facility will have to
offer the following characteristics to secure the necessary market demand
levels: (1) a "unique" design and ambience, (2) relatively affordable
rates, and (3) seasonally flexible rates and lodging services that can
serve both tourists and business guests. In sum, regardless of how close
a new hotel adheres to these criteria, there will still be insufficient
market demand for an upscale, moderate size resort-inn until around 1993-
1994, following the adequate absorption of current and pending supply of
good quality hotel rooms in the Carlsbad primary market area.
On the other hand, while an additional large resort-inn lodging
facility is not recommended for the near future, in the longer term,
moderate size tourist-oriented inns and small bed and breakfast hotels may
be encouraged. In order to facilitate the overall revitalization of the
primary market area, 5-20 room "B&B's" in refurbished homes could create a
unique Village environment. With the addition of several such facilities,
all concentrated in one section, the Village could eventually enjoy the
same consistent market demand factors as the well-established beach-resort
communities of La Jolla and Del Mar.
In addition, the timeshare condominium complex is another potential
lodging options for the Village primary market area in the future. At
this time, ERA encourages the City to allow private development of time-
share projects as long as the private sector incurs all the risks of
development. The Redevelopment Agency should not participate in financing
time-share units, nor should write down land costs. Close observation of
the performance of the two new Village-based time-share projects is
advised over the next two years.
1-38
Section II
RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS
The downtown business community serves a mixed market made up
primarily of area and city residents, and tourists. We have examined the
support for retail establishments in the Village first from residents, and
then from visitors.
RETAIL MARKET AREAS OF RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT
ERA has examined the demographic characteristics of three market
areas which supply shoppers to the downtown district. (See Figure II-l.)
Important factors in determining a market area include the character of
the site area, the nature of the existing retail businesses, access and
driving times, residential densities, and the nature and location of
competing retail facilities. Given these factors, ERA has defined the
three market areas as the Village area, and two rings centered at the
intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Elm Street. The Village is defined
as extending from Buena Vista Lagoon to Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and from 1-5
to the ocean. The first ring has a radius of 1.5 miles, and extends east
to approximately the crest of the hill west of El Camino Real. The third
market area has a radius of three miles, and extends south to Palomar
Airport Road, east to the intersection of Elm Street and Tamarack Avenue,
and north to the intersection of Mission Ave and Hill Street in Oceanside.
Each market area includes all smaller market areas within it.
The smallest market area, the Village, is quite distinct from the
rest of the City, with the two succeeding areas—the 1.5-mile and 3-mile
rings—each following citywide characteristics more closely. The market
areas are, in general, growing more slowly than the City as a whole, show
fewer traditional family households, and have proportionately higher
Hispanic populations. Household incomes are lower, and do not appear to
be catching up to the rest of the City. Market area residents are more
II-l
likely than other residents to live in apartments or condominiums, and are
more likely to be renters. Median housing values are lower than through-
out the City. Tables II-l through II-5 provide demographic data on the
three market areas, and the City.
Village Market Area
The Village market area provides the great majority of support for
such local serving businesses as dry cleaners, markets and supermarkets,
liquor stores, and hair care establishments. As shown in Table II-l, the
1980 population of the Village area was recorded as 8,039 persons, and
3,395 households. There were 2.29 persons per household, a low figure in
the City of Carlsbad, where the median household had 2.54 persons in 1980.
However, the proportion of families in the Village that had one or more
children was higher than throughout the City. This apparent discrepancy
is due to the fact that so many Village households are not occupied by
families: they are made up of single persons, or persons unrelated by
birth, adoption, or marriage.
As a long-developed sector of the City, the Village area clearly
does not keep up with the very rapid growth and development pace of the
rest of Carlsbad. (See Table II-2.) From 1970 to 1980, the Village
increased its population approximately 20 percent, while the City grew by
138 percent. Both areas have slowed down since 1980, with the City grow-
ing 23 percent from 1980 to 1985, while the Village grew 7 percent.
Growth patterns for households are similar to those for general popula-
tion: extremely rapid citywide during the 1970s while Village growth was
moderate, and more restrained for both areas since 1980.
Median age in the Village is quite low: 27.3 years. (See Table
II-3.) The area shows unusually high proportions of young to middle-age
adults, those aged 21 to 44 years, and low proportions of older adults.
II-2
Table II-l
POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
FOR THE VILLAGE, 1.5-MILE, AND 3-MILE MARKET AREAS1
AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
1980
City of
Village 1.5-Mile 3-Mile Carlsbad
Population 8,039 15,779 41,273 35,490
Households 3,395 6,344 16,373 13,595
Persons per Household 2.29 2.44 2.49 2.54
Families 1,784 3,961 11,004 9,730
Percent of Families
With Children 52.7%49.3%48.7%45.8%
*With the Carlsbad Boulevard and Elm Street intersection as the central
point.
Source: Urban Decision Systems, Inc.; and Economics Research Associates.
Table II-2
POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHANGE
FOR THE VILLAGE, 1.5-MILE, AND 3-MILE MARKET AREAS
AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
1970-1980
Percent Change
1970-1980
City of
Village 1.5-Mile 3-Mile Carlsbad
Population
1970
1980
6,705
8,039
13,082
15,779
29,300
41,273
14,914
35,490
19.9%20.6%40.9%138.0%
1985 (estimate)
Percent Change
1980-1985
8,636
7.4%
16,866
6.9%
46,306
12.2%
44,566
25.1
Households
1970
1980
Percent Change
1970-1980
1985 (estimate)
Percent Change
1980-1985
2,428
3,395
39.8%
3,665
8.0%
4,467
6,344
42.0%
6,869
8.3%
10,206
16,373
60.4%
18,602
13.6%
5,150
13,595
164.0%
17,566
29.2%
Source: Urban Decision Systems, Inc.; and Economics Research Associates.
Table II-3
POPULATION AGE DISTRIBUTION
FOR THE VILLAGE, 1.5-MILE, AND 3-MILE MARKET AREAS
AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
1980
Age
City of
Village 1.5-Mile 3-Mile Carlsbad
0-13 Years 18.0 17.2 17.9 17.6
14-20 Years 11.7 12.6 12.9 10.9
21-34 Years
35-44 Years
45-64 Years
35.4
15.0
15.2
28.5
9.1
20.2
27.9
9.4
20.1
27.1
11.3
21.5
65+ Years 12.6 12.4 11.7 11.5
Median Age (years)27.3 29.5 29.2 32.1
Note: Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: U.S. Census, 1980; Urban Decision Systems, Inc.; and Economics
Research Associates.
Table II-4
HOUSEHOLD INCOME CHARACTERISTICS
FOR THE VILLAGE, 1.5-MILE, AND 3-MILE MARKET AREAS
AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
1985 Estimates
Age
Population
Households
Families
Village
8,636
3,665
1,847
1 . 5-Mile
16,866
6,869
4,155
3-Mile
46,306
18,602
12,312
City of
Carlsbad
43,632
16,976
12,064
Per Capita Income $10,929 $12,021 $11,902 $14,641
Household Income
Less than $10,000
$10,000-19,999
$20,000-29,999
$30,000-39,999
$40,000-49,000
$50,000+
Median
Average
25.1%
34.0
16.9
9.4
6.2
8.3
$17,251
$21,258
20.7%
28.7
17.7
12.0
8.4
12.6
$20,294
$26,860
18.5%
27.2
18.8
13.4
8.9
13.1
$22,086
$28,094
12.1%
19.7
17.6
17.0
12.9
20.8
$30,345
$35,408
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: U.S. Census, 1980; Urban Decision Systems, Inc. 1984; and
Economics Research Associates.
Table II-5
INCOME CHARACTERISTICS
FOR THE VILLAGE, 1.5-MILE, AND 3-MILE MARKET AREAS1
AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
1980
Median
Household
Income
Income
Per Capita
Village
1970
1980
Percent Change
$ 7,079
12,123
71.3%
$ 2,966
6,864
131.4%
1.5-Mile
1970
1980
Percent Change
8,465
14,851
75.4%
3,373
8,085
139.7%
3-Mile
1970
1980
Percent Change
8,286
16,107
94.4%
3,399
8,231
142.2%
City of Carlsbad
1970
1980
Percent Change
7,485
21,841
191.8%
2,127
10,112
375.4%
Hfith the Elm Street and Carlsbad Boulevard intersec-
tion as the central point.
Source: U.S. Census 1980 and 1970; Urban Decision
Systems, Inc.; and Economics Research
Associates.
Income levels in the Village area average less than those of sur-
rounding neighborhoods, and of the City. (See Table II-4.) Median house-
hold income for 1985 is estimated at $17,251, or 43 percent less than the
city's median. One quarter of Village households have 1985 incomes of
less than $10,000. Nearly 60 percent of Village households earn less than
$20,000, although this is true for less than one third of all Carlsbad
households. As the City has grown, household income has risen dramati-
cally: it is up 192 percent 1970 to 1980. In the Village area, mean-
while, income increased only 71 percent over the decade. This suggests
that as the City attracts higher income residents, Village residents are
falling farther and farther behind.
1.5-Mile Market Area
A 1.5-mile market area, as defined above, supplies clients for
establishments such as restaurants, supermarkets, and general service
retail establishments. This area is more like the City in terms of demo-
graphics than is the Village, but it is still quite distinct. The 1980
population was 15,779, housed in 6,344 households. (See Table II-l.)
Households in this ring are slightly larger than in the Village, with an
average size of 2.44 persons. Of the 3,961 families here, 49.3 percent
have a child or children.
Table II-2 shows demographic change over the decade of the 1970s in
the market areas. The 21 percent growth rate here is essentially the same
as the 20 percent Village rate, and nowhere near the 138 percent growth
rate of the City. From 1980 to 1985 the population has increased 7 per-
cent. Numbers of households were up more sharply during the 1970s than
was the number of residents, indicating a high rate of household formation
and shrinking household size.
Residents of the 1.5-mile market area are slightly older than
Village residents, and slightly younger than residents citywide, at 29.5
years. (See Table II-3.) In relation to the City, this market area has a
higher percentage of its population concentrated in the 14- to 34-year-age
group.
11-8
Table II-4 illustrates income characteristics. Residents of the
1.5 mile ring have an estimated median income in 1985 of $20,294 per
household. This figure increased 75 percent from 1970 to 1980, only
slightly more than the increase in median income for the Village. Approx-
imately 50 percent of households in this market area have incomes of less
than $20,000. Per capita income is estimated at $12,021.
3-Mile Market Area
The 3-mile market area encompasses the majority of the City of
Carlsbad, and a sector of southern Oceanside. Residents of this market
area provide customers for the restaurants, and the specialty retail
outlets of the Village. They are not daily clients, since they obtain
daily needs in their own neighborhoods, but they may visit the downtown
area for specialty purchases, for the number and variety of restaurants,
and for the atmosphere.
The 1980 population of this area was 41,273 according to the U.S.
Census. Population is estimated now at 46,306, which indicates a 12.2
percent increase over the five-year period. Households are estimated at
18,602, or 14 percent more than in 1980. The 3-mile market area is thus
growing more rapidly than the Village or the 1.5-mile market, but at only
about one half the pace of the City.
Age distribution in this market area is very similar to that of
Carlsbad. (See Table II-3.) A slightly greater percentage of the popula-
tion is concentrated in the 14 to 20 years age group, and there are some-
what fewer middle age adults (ages 35 to 64). These factors result in a
median age of 29.2, less than the 32.1 median age citywide.
Median household income among these potential shoppers is estimated
at $22,086 for 1985. (See Table II-4.) This is 37 percent less than the
City's median income, but substantially higher than incomes in either of
the two smaller market areas. Approximately 46 percent of households earn
less than $20,000 annually, as opposed to 32 percent for the City. Per
II-9
capita income is $11,902. As seen in Table II-5, percentage increases
1970 to 1980 have been higher in the 3-mile market area than in either of
the other two, but they have remained substantially below those of the
City.
HISTORIC RETAIL TRENDS
Table II-6, "Carlsbad Retail Sales Trends," presents sales in the
City over the five-year period 1980 through 1984. Notice that the pattern
of sales growth is very different for each type of retail outlet, varying
from a 19 percent growth rate for apparel stores to an increase of 80
percent in recorded taxable sales at food stores. Retail activity has
been taking place in the dynamic Carlsbad market of rapid population and
employment growth, and heavy capital investment. Future sales trends
depend on these same patterns of demographic change and investment, as
well as general economic prosperity.
Little of this growth in sales was experienced by Village area
merchants prior to 1982. Observations of land values and development
patterns, and results of the ERA merchant survey indicate that some of the
expenditures that had been lost by downtown merchants during the area's
downturn, have been brought back during the last couple of years.
Table II-7 presents taxable sales by type of business for retail
outlets existing in the Redevelopment Area. Businesses included in the
aggregations are those that have remained in existence in the
Redevelopment Area over the entire two and a half year period. The data
shown are for 1983, 1984, and the first two quarters of 1985. (Data are
unavailable for 1981. This information, if available, would have provided
a picture of retail sales improvements since the institution of the
redevelopment plan.) Since only taxable sales are recorded with the State
Board of Equalization, the food stores category shows a much lower sales
record than it would if all sales were shown.
11-10
-H oa•H 01 ^HOB w ed4-1 O .U4) -U OQd CO H
v£> ICO
9t
rovO«s
O> X
00oen CMcn
so
oo »*oo m00 O» •
ON en
m Koo CM00 ON
ON 00en -H
0105I-l 1-1ed T3 COi-i e o)ot cd t-i
C £ OO> U 4JU U CO
eno
Ov£>
en w
\O CMen oo» •
CM 00
mvoen
CM
o o
O 00ao
00 Moo enCM i>«« •en m
uoto
0)
09
V 03u aiq) tJQ. O
O. U•< w
CM O9^<r
CM
•* \Oen —i -H O
ao *«en CM-* CM
<t —ICM
en CM
CM *^CM -H
too
Oo
\O
I
01
3*
ao
OCM
CM
</>
CO
•C
— » CM
O ȣ>
CM O\en
in enen
oo
Mcn
in -Hen -H
o *sa\ vo
vO v.0
oo aocn
m »•?O CMr«- en
CM
sO
-3-
00
eninen
CM
m en
Co
cc
I
o
•o
cd
•o vo uo oBu UCO
CJs
en
•* XCM en\D CM•t •m en
-H CM
O «r~ CMox o
r-. x
O> •-*en m
« •o enCM -*
o>
ed4J
CO
ed•He
o
oooONt— i
ed
CJ
4J
0)uId01On
••^oo
ON
0
4JeVu1-1
Vp<
CM00ON
*-4
0
u
0)uu
01CM
enooON
ed
U
CVu14
01
•*
00ON*«t
cd
uc
0)u(j
01PL,
O
01u
Ui
oCO
m»WN
144^H
"0.Si
U00Id>Hb,
W COC 4-1CU O0 H
£ <0
•
eg-<
S
MON in
en CM
O oo
•* CM
v>
0
en
NOenen
O m
-^ en
O ON— oo-H en
-a
-a
00ON-a
NO
en
en5
—
NO
•^
r*.
ON
f-«
en
CM
OONCM
CM
-a
-d
ON00in•,
NC
inCM
NO-aNO
CM
-a
o
m
o OO
eno OCJN m —i•a in
tn ON
to —: S <u
u njC V
in r~ —< NO CM »oen oo in ON -* enON in in ~H r^ ON
ON m —
CM -a CM
CM
in
•a
o
sr ON en — co«a co m -H oNO —< -a m r~in —CM -H
Oo
mo
rgCM
1
M
0)
—t1
< =1aa
M Q1«s&H H
O POs»
O <-}
3«
ODb
01u
S 010"gS enO o) oo5 a ONH 3 —
"Sio) **•
oo
ON
'Mjj Q)e uOl OO (1hi
01 <4dBL. O
Sa
,§
14en
<r
ONCM00
v>
r^ in — NO
CM ^d •*« -H
CM -a in CMCM ON O Om CM CM en
ON
-a
-aON
-H m
CM —'
O
NO
in
o
CO -"^M inr~ en
00 CO ON «-* oON ON en o O
Oo
o•ION
ae.3CO
aoS
S
O3cr
— 101
1•4!& Noveltl*13
u
*
•H0
•oI
c<H
i.to
Id
101
•1
*H00
w toa <e
0 B
6M O
•H
O
1
Soue«•H
^4
UCO
r
Ud
0
Os
X
<e
u01ato
01
uo
09CXo
u
hi
b.
000)Ido
CO
3=Ida
u•H
o
u
M
0)0)u
a.
g>c
ua
01e•H
0)
*00sco
a.
60C•H
4dau
UdO
a01o.
H
^H
<
0301UCO
0.
60C•H
4J
COEd
icr
•0V60
U£
>e
1OL.
OD
01OC 09
— 1 U
a2a ca
T3• C
3 1
*H Ce o
bu en
u
oa.
•e
00
pdeo
1*hi
01
if
id.
^H3
^4O.D.3
•OCCO
n01*M0)cn
4JaS
•«
o
9 Services•H
I09hi
vO
ht
«
I
g
•rlH
4J
hia)0.
ouu
The table makes clear the dominance of sales in the categories of
food and packaged liquor stores, eating places with no alcoholic
beverages, eating places with all types of alcohol, and building materials
and imports. All other outlet groups show sales capturing substantially
smaller portions of the total dollars spent.
Some shifts were made between categories of taxable sales outlets
over the two and a half year period shown. Increases are shown in the
categories of sporting goods, cameras/music/jewelry, eating places without
alcohol, and eating places with beer and wine. There were shifts away
from sales in eating places with all types of alcohol, and auto and boat
sales and supplies.
Trends in percentages of total sales are shown to be consistent
when meaningful in all categories except for the furniture, appliances,
and second hand shops group. While in this group sales varied from 2.1 to
3.5 to 2.9 percent of total sales over the two and a half years, in all
other cases patterns are stable—either up or down—through the period.
The Carlsbad Redevelopment Area shows a somewhat different
distribution of captured sales than does San Diego County. Table II-8
shows the amounts of taxable sales recorded by the various groups for the
Redevelopment Area and the County, and the percentages of total sales
assigned to each for 1984. Table II-9 compares 1983/1984 growth by
category in the Village and the County. Major discrepancies in portions
of total sales are shown in the categories of apparel, eating places with
beer and wine, and furniture/appliance/second hand stores, where sales are
substantially below what would be expected from the countywide model.
However, in the areas of gifts, art goods, and novelties, and eating
places with all types of alcohol, sales in the Village are notably higher
than would be expected.
11-13
Table II-8
CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA
COMPARATIVE TAXABLE SALES
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA
1984
(Thousands)
Carlsbad
Redevelopment
Area
Selected Retail Categories
Apparel
Gifts, Art Goods & Novelties
Sporting Goods
Florists
Cameras, Music, Jewelry
Eating Places, No Alcohol
Eating Places , Beer & Wine
Eating Places , All Types of Liquor
Food & Packaged Liquor
Furniture, Appliances,
Second Hand Stores
Building Materials & Imports
Amount
$ 935
587
551
196
712
3,189
453
4,511
4,708
774
2,517
Percent
of Total
4.9%
3.1
2.9
1.0
3.7
16.7
2.4
23.6
24.6
4.0
13.2
San Diego
Amount
$422,658
48,030
80,318
29,827
202,531
480,222
261,602
532,365
1,076,256
502,649
571,016
County
Percent
of Total
10.0%
1.1
1.9
0.7
4.8
11.4
6.2
12.7
25.6
11.9
13.6
Total $19,133 100.0% $4,207,474 100.
Source: State Board of Equalization and Economics Research Associates.
Table II-9
CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA
COMPARATIVE CHANGE IN SALES
CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY
1983-1984
Carlsbad
Selected Retail Categories
Apparel
Gifts, Art Goods, & Novelties
Sporting Goods
Florists
Cameras, Music, Jewelry
Eating Places, No Alcohol
Eating Places, Beer & Wine
Eating Places, All Types of Alcohol
Food & Package Liquor
Furniture, Appliances, &
Second Hand Stores
Building Materials & Imports
Redevelopment
Area
12.8%
12.5
87.4
(4.4)
135.8
17.3
29.1
6.8
8.9
94.5
14.5
San Diego
County
12.4%
2.0
17.0
13.9
17.3
8.7
8.0
12.7
11.6
16.8
35.0
All Above Categories 16.0%14.8%
Source: State Board of Equalization and Economics Research Associates.
Several observations can be made about this information on sales
trends, and comparisons with countywide patterns. First, the specialty
goods sector of the retail market is fairly strong and/or improving.
Percentages pf dollars spent on gifts, sporting goods, and in florist
shops are higher in the area than throughout the County, and sales are
shown to have improved over the two and a half year period for the
categories of sporting goods, and cameras/music/jewelry. And, although at
this time sales in the area for cameras/music/jewelry are below those of
the County, the percentage of dollar spent on these items has increased
notably since 1983. This information paints a mixed picture of demand for
further specialty/tourist oriented shops. Florists are doing poorly, both
over time and relative to the County. Shops carrying gifts, art goods,
novelties, and sporting goods are doing well although the portion of
dollars allocated to these establishments is high enough relative to the
County to suggest that there is little room for expansion in these fields
at this time. As the Village develops an image as a specialty district,
demand for these goods should increase. The clearest indication of unmet
need is in the cameras/music/jewelry category, where sales are improving
at a faster rate than countywide, but are still below the countywide
benchmark capture.
For restaurants, the pattern varies with the type of establishment.
Those without alcohol service show sales capture higher than that of the
County, and much greater improvement in sales over the year than
throughout the County. Activity at establishments serving beer and wine
has been much lower than in the surrounding County, but shows remarkable
growth—29 percent as opposed to 8 percent. Restaurants serving all types
of alcohol, recording in the Redevelopment Area nearly twice the percent
of sales in the selected categories as countywide, show a decrease in
sales percentage captured and significantly less growth than others in the
County. Thus, with the exception of restaurants not serving alcohol where
sales are high and are being maintained, area restaurants seem to be
moving toward conformity with the countywide pattern. This suggests that
11-16
the market area area could support further restaurant seats in
establishments without liquor licenses, and those serving wine and beer
only.
Apparel sales patterns strongly indicate a lack of further demand.
The percent of sales captured by this group of establishments has shrunk
over the observation period, from 4.3 to 3.9 percent. In addition, the
percent captured by this type of outlet in the Redevelopment Area is
approximately one half of that recorded in the County for 1984. Relative
increase in sales was approximately equal for the Redevelopment Area and
the County from 1983 through 1984.
The data shown in the three tables indicate essentially no increase
in sales at food and package liquor stores. The category of furniture/
appliances/second hand stores shows some increase in percent of dollars
captured in the Redevelopment Area, a dramatic increase in comparative
change in sales due to the small portion of sales captured by this group,
but relative to the County, a low capture rate. Although these data are
unreliable due to the small number and incompatibility of outlets,
competition from Plaza Camino Real in the furniture and appliance group
negates any prospect of successful entry into the field. Data for the
building materials and imports category indicate that sales are stable,
and capture about the same percentage of spent dollars as countywide, but
that there has been relatively less increase in sales here than throughout
the County.
RESIDENT RETAIL SUPPORT
Table 11-10 shows the derivation of support for downtown retail
establishments from residents of the Village, 1.5-mile, and 3-mile market
areas. Total retail support for the types of outlets considered is
estimated at $35 million annually.
11-17
i
sB
R 8
8 8 S g•* •-* •—« n
g
S
a oo
S 2
S
3"
a
s a
3oC
S
Iin
s
CM"
3
s
S §
s
R S
S g
CO
o
1C
s
0>
4O-
£
s
oo"
Per capita expenditures for each of the three market areas are
calculated by dividing countywide 1984 total sales by 1984 county
population and adjusting for inflation. Expenditures are thus shown in
1985 dollars.
Multiplied by market area population, per capita expenditures
reveal potential area expenditures by type of outlet. We have then
estimated capture rates for the outlets based on the area's attributes and
its competition. The capture rates for various types of establishments
applied to potential expenditures provide an estimate of capture of
purchases by market area residents at downtown establishments.
In the case of the type of establishments that are developing
rapidly in the area, particularly restaurants, we have estimated capture
rates based on projected square footage. We believe the capture rates
shown here are all achievable for Village establishments.
Estimated capture of expenditures by Village residents is shown as
$18.4 million annually. The 1.5-mile market area is estimated to
contribute an additional $9.5 million to Village sales. The largest
market area, with a 3-mile radius, provides an additional $7.7 million in
purchases.
As seen, the largest portion of captured dollars goes to food
stores. This is as would be expected in a residential area without a
department store, car dealer, or other major draw. General merchandise
establishments (which include variety stores, department stores, dry goods
stores, and drugstores) and restaurants and bars are the next two
important categories. Specialty stores follow, with an estimated capture
of $3.7 million.
11-19
TOURIST RETAIL SUPPORT
Carlsbad's heritage is closely related to tourism, as tourists
before the turn of the century came to Carlsbad and its famous mineral
water. Tourism as a major economic factor abated over time until
recently, with the renewed interest in resort and second-home development
in Carlsbad.
Tourism is an economic impetus to a commercial area as visitors
bring outside dollars into the area and spend their money on lodging,
specialty merchandise, food, and entertainment. Carlsbad's downtown
village has the potential to offer visitors staying at the local resort
hotels the food, entertainment, goods and services that tourists demand,
and, because of its developing quaint village environment, has something
to offer day visitors from Southern California.
Little data exists, however, regarding current and historic tourism
patterns in North County and Carlsbad in particular. ERA has surveyed
downtown merchants and hotels in the area regarding their tourist trade.
Also, the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau has published results
of a tourist survey conducted by CIC Research, Inc. The San Diego survey
does not ask questions regarding North County specifically, but does
provide some general information regarding visitor characteristics. Our
analysis is based on a combination of ERA's survey of hotels and merchants
in the market area, and the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau
study. These general estimates and conclusions should serve the City of
Carlsbad preliminarily until a specific visitor survey regarding North
County and Carlsbad venues and attractions is commissioned.
Based on the number of major hotel rooms in the market area, the
overall occupancy rate, and the percent of customers who are tourists, as
reported by hotels to ERA, we estimate that the local market area annually
experiences approximately 418,000 visitor-nights in its major hotels, of
which 196,000 are tourist-nights. According to the San Diego Convention
and Visitors Bureau study, visitors to hotels in San Diego have an average
11-20
stay of 4.1 nights. Using this average, the 418,000 visitor-nights in the
market area translates into 102,000 parties who stay in local hotel rooms
a year. The Bureau's study also found that the average number of persons
per party in hotels is 2.5 persons; thus, the 102,000 parties converts
into an estimate of 255,000 visitors staying in local hotels. The
Bureau's survey found that 28 percent of San Diego visitors stay in
hotels, with the rest staying in motels, with friends or relatives, at
camp sites, or not at all due to their visits being day-trips. Thus, if
28 percent of the local market area's total visitor stay in hotels, the
255,000 hotel visitors calculated leads to an estimate of 911,000 visitors
who visit the local North County area annually.
Using the San Diego Convention Bureau's latest annual figures for
"Purpose of Visit," the 911,000 estimated market area visitors divide into
the following categories:
Number
Purpose Percent (persons)
Pleasure/Vacation (tourists) 58% 528,400
Visiting Friends 19 173,100
Business 11 100,200
Convention 9 82,000
Personal Reasons 1 9,100
Special Events 2_ 18,200
Total 100% 911,000
The amount of expenditures varies depending on the purpose of the
trip. Concentrating on three categories for visiting the area —
pleasure/vacation, visiting friends, and business —expenditure estimates
are presented:
11-21
Average Estimated
Daily Annual
Purpose Expenditure Expenditure
Pleasure/Vacation $38 $ 88,348,480
Visiting Friends 22 33,512,160
Business 61 34,228,320
Total $156,088,960
Assuming the Village captures 10 percent of this expenditure
potential, Village merchants would receive approximately $15,600,000 in
annual revenues from tourist and business visitors to the Carlsbad area.
Most of this would be spent on lodging, restaurants, and specialty retail.
Of the $15,600,000, 40 percent, or $6,244,000, is estimated to be lodging
expenditures, and 60 percent, or $9,366,000, is estimated to be food and
retail expenditures. We have assumed that 60 percent of non-hotel
expenditures occur in restaurants, and 40 percent occur in specialty
retail stores and apparel stores. The $9,366,000 translates into
approximately 21,700 square feet of tourist-supported restaurant space,
20,000 square feet of tourist-supported specialty retail space, and 10,000
square feet of apparel space.
Residential and visitor retail support are combined in the Village
area. Support in thousands of dollars and in square feet is shown in
Table 11-11. We have concluded that there is a demand for 243,000 square
feet of retail space in the downtown area.
Redevelopment and private efforts have helped to draw a larger
public into the Village. Both sales and retail space have been increased
through these efforts. Any new retail space should be added organically,
as demand continues to develop. This process makes speculative land
purchase and land value distortion less likely.
11-22
,2
-H
4JOH
*j
•21
BO
^
1
(00>0) U
•H <
£ *-*"•g
a«l 01
-H bl•H <!
in S• J4
-^ bl
090101 blbO<09
5 H> bl2
a
bl «J
3 41
CO
0900 T3k Beg eg
—1 B
M
01u ueg 013 01
CO
,-s
01 -Obi 609 eg-1 CDil4J
§ Si5-u,en
^^
0009 -Obl Beg eg— 1 09—I 3
£|
01
eg 013 01
CO
CO09 •a
bl Beg a
— < 03
-H 3
4J
01bl 4J§ £trfc.CO
r^09CD 73
^ ^SJW
NO O£ £
ON Or-
O NOeo aor^ O
en
OC«J
to
^enON
v>
CM O
O CM
•i en
en ON
ON CM
to-
ON 00ON in
00
"*
ON 00
— 00
<f>
1^ O— 1 ONNO ON
CM 00en
— ONr- ON4 00
en
_*
NO
NO
NO
enenin
NO
oo
8
oCM
O
00
CM
o
NO
m
m00
NO«n
00
Mf"X,
15o
o
m— •
00
^^
00ONNO
1^
^ON
NOA
NO
NO-»CM
NO
NO00
CM
ONNOON
en
•^
ON
00
i
1^
CM
ON
NO
ON
O
00
1^in
^^in
-
ms
COCM
ON
NO
in"
m
*
^f*
,^
8.CM
ONO
^
NO
CMmen
O
in
oo
CNI
g
•M
fO
2
f^.
r-.
8
~*
NOen
NO
v^
ONCMCM
NO
O
enON
.3.
NO
in
NO
CM
^ONCM
enr^Sf
CMm
r**CMin
S
in
NO
_*
00
en
oo
CM
CM
m
NOON
I
NO
NOen
enin
NO
NOen
ON
ON
CNl
00•tn
^
m
\D
O«n
•^
CJN
o
in
ON
CO00
i^
ON
S•1
OO
Vf
01bl
o.
uo09 4J
co 09 >a0) ttU CJ T3O 01 Ou a oen to h
•uB«bi3eg
noe 9•H
•O
ub0901a
£
09
U
I
3OCO
Demand will be increased as its two components, residential and
tourist, develop. Both regional and very local population growth results
in augmented Village patronage. The city should allow residential
property to be built out to its maximum density, and actively promote the
Village as a destination. The tourist component of demand will be
realized as the projects proposed and under construction are completed.
As discussed in Section I of this report, the demand for hotel rooms is
several years behind existing and planned supply. Commercial space should
only be given over to tourist-serving retail as the demand becomes
apparent. Addressing this need prematurely could threaten the economic
health of existing businesses.
NORTH COUNTY STATE UNIVERSITY BRANCH
San Diego State University has been considering locating a
"satellite" campus in the North County area. Few details have been
provided by the University regarding size of the student body either at
the outset or ultimately, types of course work to be offered, or criteria
for a location decision. Our information regarding this proposal comes
from a report prepared by the San Diego State University/Carlsbad Campus
Discussion Committee appointed by the Carlsbad City Council.
The Committee's report, dated December 17, 1985, recommends that
Carlsbad actively pursue the location of the satellite campus within the
City because "(a) university would contribute significantly to the
economic well being as well as the educational and cultural development of
our city." The following are highlights of the report:
o Economic Impact
Large employer
Increased sales tax
Merchants drawn to the student population and spending
power
Multiplier of 2.37 on purchases by university related
persons
11-24
o Impact on Tourism
Compatible and synergistic
o Recreational/Cultural Impact
Joint development of a cultural facility
ERA is of the opinion that location of the University in Carlsbad
would be very beneficial to the Village. Most important to the area would
be purchases by students. Secondarily, purchases by other persons
connected with the institution such as faculty, staff, and visitors would
contribute to area sales. Due to distance from the proposed sites for the
University, and the intervening mall, downtown would not have a unique and
dependent relationship with the facility like that of Westwood/UCLA.
However, the Village, offering pedestrian-oriented shopping, could well
orient itself toward this customer group. The specialty retail concept of
small, unique shops, numerous restaurants, evening hours, and foot-traffic
works well in conjunction with university populations.
If the University were to be established in the City, appropriate
additions to the merchant stock of the Village would be record stores,
shops providing apparel for the age group, another book store, and more
restaurants.
The school would create some incremental business for Village
lodging facilities. University visitors will include conference
attendees, prospective students and their parents, and visiting faculty.
Many of these will find, however, that the resort and family orientations
of the lodging located here will not be as appropriate for them as the
hotels located along 1-5. Thus, the City, but not the Village, would
benefit from the dollars spent at lodging facilities and the transient
occupancy tax paid by visitors to the University.
11-25
RETAIL COMPETITION
The downtown area merchants are in competition with three types of
retail concentrations: local serving, regional serving, and specialty
retail. Local serving merchants provide the daily needs for residents of
surrounding neighborhoods. People are generally willing to travel no more
than 1.5 miles for such needs as groceries, common household items,
drugstore purchases, and personal services. These items are most commonly
purchased in a neighborhood shopping center (one with less than 100,000
square feet of gross leasable area (GLA), or in the central business
districts of a city.
The regional center provides shopping goods (items bought after
comparison shopping), general merchandise, apparel, furniture, and home
furnishings in full depth and variety. These centers are anchored by one
or more full line department stores, each of which has a minimum GLA of
100,000 square feet. A number of shopping centers in the North County
area actually qualify as super regional centers: they contain three or
more department stores, and show GLA's in excess of 500,000 square feet.
The specialty retail center is distinguished from other types of
commercial retail complexes by a number of characteristics. Four
essential qualities are found in all specialty retail centers: (1) a
distinctive, unifying theme is employed in architectural design, which is
carried out by individual shops; (2) visitors are drawn to the center by
a combination of restaurants and entertainment facilities rather than by
traditional retail anchors such as department stores and supermarkets;
(3) the specialty center appeals to both the sightseer or tourist as well
as the local shopper; and (4) the specialty center offers unique or
unusual merchandise, not generally available at conventional retail
centers.
The following summarizes existing retail centers, local serving,
regional serving, and specialty, which compete with downtown merchants.
11-26
Local Serving Competitive Facilities
Poinsettia Plaza, and the free-standing and developed shopping
facilities of the downtown area are competing with only one neighborhood
shopping center within a 1.5 mile radius. By way of comparison with the
center described below, Poinsettia Plaza consists of a Big Bear market, a
Texaco service station, and 13 tenant shops. Its GLA is approximately
53,500 square feet on five acres. Opened in 1964, the center has been
recently renovated.
Tamarack Avenue and Adams Street
Located on Tamarack Avenue, just east of 1-5, this is the only
neighborhood shopping center situated within 1.5 miles of the downtown
intersection of Elm Avenue and Carlsbad Blvd. The center is anchored by a
Safeway store and a Thrifty Drug and Discount store. There are
six tenant shops in this older center, which provides the city's only
major grocery store between 1-5 and El Camino Real. The center offers
approximately 70,000 square feet of GLA.
Other Centers
Although not located within the normal market area of a residential
neighborhood, we believe the Vons shopping center and the Handyman
shopping centers (Carlsbad Plaza and Carlsbad Plaza South) located on El
Camino Real, and the Camino Town and Country Center in Oceanside (the
Gemco center), draw some of the retail activity that would normally be
assigned to downtown merchants and the Tamarack Avenue shopping center.
The two Carlsbad Plaza centers are new and attractive, and provide the
perceived convenience of a suburban shopping center with lots of parking
and numerous establishments. The Gemco center provides the same
amenities, along with the price differential of a discount grocery store.
11-27
Regional Serving Retail
Plaza Camino Real
Vendors of soft goods (generally anything other than big ticket
items such as furniture and major appliances) located in the downtown area
are competing with the Plaza Camino Real super regional mall, located at
the intersection of El Camino Real and Highway 78. Now anchored by the
Broadway, Bullocks, J.C. Penney, May Co., and Sears, the mall was
originally opened in 1969. The mall's GLA, including the area assigned to
anchors, is 1.14 million square feet.
Plaza Camino Real has dominated the coastal North County market
since it opened, and successive additions have added to its draw.
Although the mall is now facing competition itself in University Towne
Centre, and in North County Fair, scheduled to open in Escondido in 1986,
it remains the most local and concentrated competition for soft good
retailers in the downtown area.
North County Fair
North County Fair is currently under construction in Escondido, at
the intersection of 1-15 and Via Rancho Parkway. Planned as a super
regional center, it will be anchored by the Broadway, J.C. Penney, May
Co., Nordstrom, Robinson's, and Sears. Tenant shops will number 180, and
the total GLA is 1.3 million square feet on three levels, situated on 83
acres.
Four of the anchors are scheduled to open February 20, 1986, along
with numerous tenant shops. Nordstrom and another major tenant will be
operational in August.
We do not expect North County Fair to have a lasting impact on the
merchants of downtown Carlsbad. Regional and super regional malls compete
most effectively with downtown-type retail in the market for soft goods.
In the case of Carlsbad, this demand has effectively been met by Plaza
Camino Real. Following some diversion of sales attributable to the
11-28
novelty of the new mall, an insignificant portion of sales now taking
place in the Village will leak to the Escondido mall.
Specialty Retail
San Diego County has a larger portion of its retail space
concentrated in specialty retail than do other urban areas. This is due
to the large number of tourists visiting the County, as well as the
relatively high median income of the area: in 1980 the per capita income
of San Diego County residents was 9% higher than that nationwide.
Described below are several concentrations of specialty retail that
compete with the Carlsbad market.
Del Mar
The Del Mar commercial strip is located approximately 16 miles
south of downtown Carlsbad. Extending along Camino Del Mar south from
15th street about one-half mile, commercial buildings are occupied largely
by specialty retail, and seem to describe the model which some Carlsbad
merchants and residents would like to emulate. Restaurants, offices,
small clothing stores, and gift shops are mixed with local serving markets
and personal service outlets. There are several small developed centers,
such as Del Mar Plaza, and Stratford Square, but many businesses are
located in separate buildings with street parking only, or with a few
spaces located behind the structure.
Del Mar has had a long history of catering to the tourist market,
ever since the days of the old Del Mar Hotel once located at the corner of
15th Street and Camino Del Mar. With this history, and the high incomes
of local residents and racetrack devotees, businesses in Del Mar are
relatively stable. They avoid the bane of specialty retail centers: high
turnover due to insufficient patronage and redundant merchandise.
11-29
The Lumberyard
Located about 10 miles south of Carlsbad, this center is housed on
the site of the old Encinitas Lumberyard. Opened in 1982, the center is
comprised of 51,000 square feet of GLA in one- and two-story structures
located on four acres of land. There are approximately 40 shops housed in
"California Victorian" buildings, including restaurants, boutiques, home
accessories outlets, a toy store, a stationary and card shop, and
offices.
The Lumberyard has been a partial success since 1982. Although it
is located on Highway 101, most north-south tourist traffic uses 1-5, one
mile east of the Lumberyard with no direct access. Area residents
patronize the restaurants, but do not supply the support required by
boutiques and other specialized outlets. Recent turnover has been high,
and the center currently has several vacancies.
Flower Hill
Flower Hill is a fashion oriented mall, located in the City of San
Diego near Del Mar, 15 miles south of downtown Carlsbad. Opened in 1976,
the three level, unenclosed center offers 145,000 square feet of GLA. The
51 outlets include a three-theater cinema, eight restaurants and cafes,
approximately 18 apparel shops, a garden center, and several service
businesses.
Flower Hill is oriented toward an up-scale clientele, typically
residents of Del Mar and Rancho Santa Fe. Rancho Santa Fe, in fact, has
little retail of its own and much of residents' convenience shopping is
done in the Big Bear shopping center across Via de la Valle from Flower
Hill. Tenants have been quite stable, although there was some restaurant
turnover early on. Management has been successful in recognizing and
directing the center toward an available, under-served customer group.
11-30
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The foregoing analysis of the potential for retail development must
be seen in light of existing facilities. Table 11-12 compares estimated
existing square footages of various categories of retail development to a
series of supportable ranges. The table shows that, in general, existing
area dedicated to retail is somewhat greater than is demanded by today's
residential and tourist sectors. By category, however, the comparison
shows a great deal of variation.
Apparel outlets, with approximately 29,000 square feet occupied,
are faced with a calculated demand for only 5,000 to 10,000 square feet.
A suggestion that no further investment of space be made in this category
of retail is supported by observation of the performance of these outlets
as seen in the preceding section on retail trends. Sales at Village
apparel establishments have been declining as a percentage of total
Village sales since 1983.
The general merchandise category, which includes variety stores,
department stores, and drug stores, is represented by only 8,000 square
feet of space in the Village—all of it in pharmacy-size drug stores.
There is a potential of support for 65,000 to 75,000 square feet of space
of this type. The Camino Real Shopping Center intrudes on the Village
market area, providing all the square footage of department store space
required by Village consumers. However, a super-drug store would be
supportable by resident, daytime worker, and tourist purchases. Such a
store typically covers up to 20,000 square feet, may be located in a
neighborhood or community size shopping center, and generates sales of
$1.5 to 2.0 million annually.
Specialty stores are also in oversupply in relation to the
existing market. Our compilation shows that approximately 109,000 square
feet is now dedicated to this use, while demand exists for some 40,000 to
60,000 square feet. While no further development should be encouraged at
this time, we believe that the clientele can be developed to strongly
11-31
Table 11-12
EXISTING AND ESTIMATED SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FEET
Retail Category
Apparel
General Merchandise
Specialty
Food and Liquor
Square
Feet Square Feet
Existing Potential Market Indication
29,000 5,000- 10,000 No further development.
8,000 65,000- 75,000 Drugstore okay; mall intrudes,
109,000 40,000- 60,000 No further development.
41,000 45,000- 60,000 Development possibility.
Home Furnishings/Appliances 34,000 5,000- 10,000 No further development.
Restaurants/Bars 65,000 50,000- 70,000 Development as area grows,
Lumber/Hardware/Auto Supply 42,000 5,000- 10,000 No further development.
Total 308,000 220,000-285,000
Source: Economics Research Associates.
support the outlets now in existence. Tourist trade stemming from resort
development on Carlsbad Boulevard, and increased traffic from regional
residents drawn to the Village as it develops its promotional program will
provide additional support to these businesses. The information from the
Board of Equalization shows mixed successes in this field in the recent
past: vendors of gifts, art goods, novelties, sporting goods, and flowers
contribute more to sales in the Redevelopment Area than such vendors do
countywide, but sales have not increased as much as in some other types of
outlets since 1983. (See Tables II-7 and II-8.)
The current supply of food and liquor stores does not meet
calculated demand. At this time, the discrepancy between the
approximately 41,000 square feet existing and the 45,000 to 60,000 square
feet supportable may not justify the construction of another full size
grocery store. However, the Big Bear Market which currently serves the
Village is not of high quality, and, as noted above, area residents
frequent the Vons and Gemco markets on El Camino Real with greater
frequency than their distance would normally indicate. As the incoming
resorts in the Village develop their patronage, and the time-share unitsf
draw in short term residents, demand for a higher quality market will be
augmented, and support for this type of establishment will draw in a
competing grocery store.
The home furnishings and appliances category shows itself to be
overbuilt at this time. Although there are 34,000 square feet of this use
in the Village, demand is calculated at only 5,000 to 10,000 square feet.
None of the development trends of resort visitors, time share owners, or
day-time specialty retail and recreation users suggest stable patronage
for home furnishings and appliance merchants. However, this is misleading
to some degree, in that antique stores have of necessity been included in
this category. Antique stores will benefit from the new traffic,
particularly if they can group themselves into one identifiable "district"
of the Village.
11-33
There is some limited potential for further establishment of
restaurant and bars in the Village today, and a much stronger demand
expected in the future. At this time, the 65,000 square feet occupied by
this use minimally meets the demand for 50,000 to 70,000 square feet. As
noted above, establishments serving no liquor have a high sales capture
rate and sales are improving; those serving beer and wine have had low
sales but are improving this record rapidly; restaurants serving all types
of alcohol have high sales but record recent declines in percent of total
sales captured. This information, examined in conjunction with
expectations for future customer patterns, suggests that as new
restaurants and bars enter this market they will have a different
orientation from some existing establishments. Non-chain fast food
establishments will be popular with any resort or time-share visitors with
children, and with beach users, assuming that access and parking are
provided in the future. (Fast food chains will probably wish to establish
stores in the Village area if access to the beach is improved; City policy
makers will have to decide whether this use is appropriate for the
Village.) Fairly small, unusual cafes and restaurants will serve resort
and time-share clientele, as well as students from the North County branch
of SDSU if it is located within a reasonable distance. There will be a
somewhat limited market for family-style establishments, and neighborhood
bars will probably become a thing of the past.
The Village area has historically provided numerous outlets
supplying lumber, hardware, and boat and auto supplies to a fairly large
market area. Certain concentrations remain, such as the auto supply
stores on north State Street. Supply now exceeds demand by a substantial
margin (42,000 square feet versus 5,000 to 10,000 square feet). Sales
have remained fairly stable as a percent of total sales in the area, but
are not keeping up with growth in sales countywide. We expect the market
to eventually move much of this activity out of the Village area. Land
will become too valuable for auto repair and its attendant auto supply
stores. Lumber and hardware stores will keep their historic clientele
longer, but may leave as the image of the Village changes.
11-34
Section III
OFFICE MARKET ANALYSIS
This section assesses the anticipated market support for
development of general office space in concert with other land uses in the
downtown area. In order to evaluate the potential for office development,
the following tasks were completed and are described in this section of
the report:
o Examination of characteristics of the office market in San
Diego County and its submarkets.
o Discussion of absorption in the county's submarkets.
o Identification of the Carlsbad-Oceanside market and its
submarkets.
o Presentation of survey information for the Carlsbad-Oceanside
market.
o Analysis of office supply based on existing product plus
planned and under-construction space.
o Estimate of demand for office space in the downtown area based
on current and foreseeable supply and expected absorption.
III-l
OFFICE SPACE ANALYSIS — SAN DIEGO COUNTY MARKET AREA
The Carlsbad office market is located in San Diego County as the
northernmost office submarket. The San Diego County office market
contains an estimated 19.0 million square feet. Downtown San Diego with
6.9 million square feet represents 36.3 percent of the total. The next
three largest concentrations are Mission Valley with 3.3 million square
feet or 17.4 percent, Kearny Mesa with 2.8 million square feet or 14.7
percent, and Sorrento Valley with 0.9 million square feet or 4.7 percent.
Rancho Bernardo has a total of 0.7 million square feet, or 3.7 percent of
the market.
Characteristics of Office Submarkets
Downtown San Diego — Dominating the county's office market,
Downtown San Diego now has 6.98 million square feet. Despite
projected growth, downtown's proportion of county product is
expected to fall somewhat as Sorrento Valley and University Towne
Centre, in particular, continue to grow.
Legal firms, drawn by federal and county courts, are the largest
space users followed by financial companies, accounting firms,
corporate offices and stock brokerage houses.
Mission Valley — With 3.2 million square feet, Mission Valley
represents 17.1 percent of the county's office space inventory.
This area enjoys exceptional access to five major thoroughfares:
1-5, 1-8, 1-15, S-163 and 1-805. Freeway access, major shopping
centers and numerous restaurants have attracted finance, insurance
and real estate, and service companies with large office and sales
staffs. Low-rise garden office complexes offer an alternative to
downtown's congestion, although the construction trend is toward
larger office developments as land values have escalated.
III-2
Kearny Mesa — The third largest submarket, Kearny Mesa contains
2.7 million square feet and represents 14.7 percent of the county's
office inventory. This submarket has the largest industrial inven-
tory in the county: 13 million square feet of occupied warehous-
ing, distribution and manufacturing space. The area is now in
transition to higher uses, e.g., research and development, corpo-
rate headquarters and professional office. Some of the industrial
buildings along S-163 are being converted to office space.
University Towne Centre — The fourth largest office submarket,
University Towne Centre has 2.0 million square feet or 11.1 percent
of the total. Expected to continue to grow rapidly, this area
absorbed 159,000 square feet during the first six months of 1985.
Torrey Pines and the Golden Triangle area (bounded by 1-5, 1-805
and S-52) have attracted research and development, high-technology
and corporate headquarters while downtown La Jolla has brought in
prestige law and financial firms. The University of California at
San Diego (UCSD), the UCSD medical school, Salk Institute, Scripps
Hospital, Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation and the Veterans
Administration Hospital have acted as powerful magnets to private
sector R&D firms.
Sorrento Valley — The Sorrento Valley submarket has 0.9 million
square feet of office space, and has absorbed 42,000 square feet,
or over 6 percent of its total occupied space, over the first six
months of the year. Already an established R&D area, Sorrento
Valley is now attracting corporate headquarters, financial
institutions and some professional offices.
III-3
Rancho Bernardo — Total square footage for this submarket is
700,000. A great deal of speculative growth took place here from
about 1979 through 1983, with buildings going up for offices,
corporate headquarters, and R&D users. Occupancy has remained at
48 percent over the past 12 months, as the overbuilt product waits
to be absorbed.
Countywide Absorption
Office space in San Diego County has grown at a rapid rate over the
past five years. Since 1980, the office market has grown at an average
annual rate of nearly 22 percent. During the two-year period 1981-1982,
over 5 million square feet came onto the market, resulting in large vacan-
cies. In 1983 and 1984 the growth rate slowed to 15 percent, with over
2.5 million square feet of new space constructed.
Construction is ongoing despite continued high levels of vacancy
because of current and anticipated demand. This is partially due to
sectoring of the market. The Sorrento Valley and University Towne Centre
submarkets absorbed nearly a half million square feet of space in 1984,
and now account for 1.7 million square feet of product. Net absorption
for each area as a percentage of existing inventory for the year was 28
percent for Sorrento Valley, and 31 percent for University Towne Centre.
Downtown, on the other hand, while absorbing approximately 218,000 square
feet, reduced its inventory by only 3 percent. The following figures,
Figure III-l and Figure III-2, show the amount of space absorbed in 1984,
and net absorption as a percent of existing inventory.
The overbuilt condition of the market is expected to continue, as
the county maintains its position as a high growth area. Up until very
recently, lenders and developers have been proceeding with construction
plans despite high vacancy rates. Given San Diego's expanding employment
III-4
FIGURE III-l
OFFICE SPACE ABSORPTION
IN MAJOR SAN DIEGO MARKETS
UTC SORRENTO MISSION KIARNY
WULEY VULEY MESA
DOWN-
TOWN
32-
30-
28-
26-
24-
22-
20-
18-
16-
14-
12-
10-
8
6
FIGURE III-2
NET 1984 ABSORFHON AS A PERCENTAGE OF
EXISTING INVENTORY IN EACH AREA
DOWN.
TOWN
MISSION
VALLEY
KEAANY SOWUNTO
MESA VALLEY
IOC RANCHO
BEANAKDO
and population base, the anticipated increase in demand has been seen as
justifying the longer term nature of current investment in office space.
As of October 1985, however, financing is becoming less available as
existing inventory remains on the market.
Expectations for office building conditions throughout the county
again vary with the submarkets. Local brokers foresee downtown absorption
improving, and a very good long-term outlook. Mission Valley has not had
the high vacancy rates of other areas, and should see more very large
office developments in the future. Kearny Mesa's submarket shows
increasing R&D space, which competes with traditional office buildings for
cost-conscious and high-technology tenants. Sorrento Valley, as well as
University Towne Centre, are leading the county in absorption, but are
showing high vacancy rates and numerous tenant concessions. The inventory
is not expected to be absorbed for several years. Rancho Bernardo is
showing the worst effects of overbuilding — its 60 percent vacancy rate
was the highest in the county in 1984, and remained so in 1985. Rancho
Bernardo basically provides space for local-serving office users, and is
showing the effects of supply out-pacing growth demand by local-serving
users.
County Office Space Supply
The existing and future supply of space in the county's most impor-
tant submarkets is shown below in Table III-l. Within these markets,
14.80 million square feet is existing, with 74 percent of this occupied.
An additional 1.96 million square feet, or 13.2 percent is under construc-
tion. Approximately 7.36 million square feet beyond the existing and
under construction is proposed; this constitutes 43.9 percent of the
existing market plus space under construction. (Proposed office space may
be planned for the immediate, medium, or long-term future. Discrete
projects may or may not ever be constructed.)
III-7
Table III-l
OFFICE SUPPLY IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUBMARKETS
1985
(Millions of Square Feet)
Downtown
Mission Valley
Kearny Mesa
Sorrento Valley
Rancho Bernardo
Existing
Space
6.90
3.36
2.84
0.96
0.74
Space Under
Construction
0.30
Space
Proposed
2.22
0.36
0.56
0.74
0.00
1.71
0.60
0.82
0.05
Submarkets Total
County Total
14.80
19.0
1.96
2.4
7.36
8.6
Source: Economics Research Associates.
Countywide, existing space totals 19.0 million square feet, as
mentioned above. There are currently 2.4 million square feet under con-
struction, which upon completion will add 12.6 percent to the total.
Proposed space is estimated at 8.6 million square feet, the completion of
which would add an additional 40.2 percent to the total of existing plus
under-construction office space.
Assuming that all under-construction and proposed office buildings
are completed, the supply of space available will be approximately 30
million square feet. Allowing for a 7 percent vacancy at the end of this
period, approximately 28 million square feet will be available (i.e., 7
percent of 30 million square feet, or 2.1 million square feet, subtracted
from 30 million square feet leaves 27.9 million square feet).
Absorption rates for the vacant, under-construction and proposed
space can be examined individually. Over the two-year period 1984-1985
(having projected absorption through the end of 1985), the county has
absorbed approximately 1.84 million square feet annually in buildings over
4,000 square feet. At this rate, it will take 2.3 years to absorb the
4.3 million square feet of space unoccupied today.
Table III-l shows 2.4 million square feet of product under
construction. Allowing a 6 to 7 percent vacancy rate at completion, this
space will be absorbed over a period of 1.2 years. Recall that this is a
countywide absorption rate; product constructed in areas with large
amounts of inventory will be leased out over a longer period of time.
Proposed space for San Diego County totals 8.6 million square feet
at this time, or 45 percent of the existing supply. These projects have
varying likelihoods of completion, with some possibly deterred by high
vacancy rates. Moreover, several are proposed as phased projects,
indicating that the work may be completed over a period of some 10 years.
If 50 percent of the proposed space is assumed to come onto the market
over a four-year period, at recent absorption rates the space would be
fully occupied at the end of four years.
III-9
OFFICE SPACE ANALYSIS -- CARLSBAD-OCEANSIDE MARKET AREA
For purposes of this office space analysis, the market area has
been defined as contiguous with the cities of Carlsbad and Oceanside. The
proximity of the two cities, and their historic isolation from other
concentrations of office users and space have created a single market. In
addition, ease of travel along 1-5 links office tenants to their markets.
This market area covers 63 square miles, and has a 1985 population
of approximately 136,000. The total inventory of office space in this
market is approximately 1,215,000 square feet of net rentable area, or
just less than 6 percent of the total for the county. Within the
Carlsbad-Oceanside market, the largest user group of office product is
business services, as ranked by square feet occupied. Approximately 20
percent of the market is devoted to this use. The Carlsbad-Oceanside
market thus contrasts with other important office markets in the
county: downtown and Fifth Avenue/Hillcrest are dominated by legal ser-
vices users, Mission Valley by insurance brokers, and Rancho Bernardo by
real estate services. Kearny Mesa, La Jolla/Golden Triangle, and Sorrento
Valley are, to varying degrees, also dominated by business service users.
However, because of their distance and higher degree of development,
Kearny Mesa and La Jolla/Golden Triangle are not considered to be
competing with Carlsbad-Oceanside for multi-tenant professional office
space users. With approximately 65 percent as much product as Carlsbad-
Oceanside, Sorrento Valley draws away some of the business services office
users with closer ties to San Diego firms.
Existing Office Survey
ERA has completed a survey of office space in the Carlsbad-
Oceanside market. A total of 42 office projects, totaling nearly 400,000
square feet, was surveyed. Excluding buildings which are 100 percent
owner-occupied, structures of less than 4,000 square feet, and medical
offices, the survey represents approximately 60 percent of area office
111-10
space and the great majority of comparable product. Results of the
analysis are therefore believed to be indicative of general office
conditions. Table III-2 presents survey results for the City of Carlsbad,
the City of Oceanside, and the entire market area.
The Carlsbad-Oceanside market is characterized by several sub-
markets. Carlsbad's downtown area is characterized by a mixture of old
and newer product, in two- or three-story mixed-used buildings. El Camino
Real, as it approaches Highway 78 and Plaza Camino Real, now supports
several two-story office buildings of approximately 70,000 square feet. A
great deal of development has taken place near Palomar Airport in the last
five years. Although there exists some Class A office space in this
submarket, the majority is research and development (R&D) space, or a
combination of office and R&D space. Buildings consist of concrete tilt-
up structures, with flexible office and research areas built out to tenant
specifications. Avenida Encinas is emerging as a new office node,
parallel to 1-5.
Oceanside has two concentrations of product. Downtown consists of
older multi-tenant space. Newer space is concentrated along El Camino
Real near the intersection with Highway 78, and is principally occupied by
business service companies.
Lease rates vary by the submarket in which buildings are located.
Downtown Carlsbad rates currently range between $0.80 and $1.20 per square
foot monthly, or $9.60 and $14.40 annually, and generally do not cover
utilities. El Camino Real-Carlsbad space rents for $1.00 to $1.15 per
square foot monthly, or $12.00 to $13.80 per year, full service. The
Palomar Airport submarket has two types of product: Class A office, and
R&D space. Quality office space rents for $1.20 to $1.50 per square foot
monthly plus utilities, $14.40 to $18.00 per square foot per year. Space
characterized as "Office or R&D" goes for $0.40 to $0.75 per square foot
currently with negotiable tenant improvement allowance of $5 to $10 per
square foot. Although more space has been occupied over the last 12-month
period, the high vacancy rates experienced by developers of Palomar
Airport area properties have kept rents low relative to comparable space
111-11
Table III-2
CARLSBAD-OCEANSIDE MARKET AREA
EXISnNG OFFICE BUILDINGS
CARLSBAD
Building Name
Bryan Square
2890 Pio Pico Drive
Carlsbad Office Center
2945 Harding
Glendale Federal Building
800 Grand Street
Graham International Plaza Phase I
2121 Palomar Airport Road
Graham International Plaza Phase II
Palomar Airport Road
Jefferson Building
2725 Jefferson St.
La Costa Plaza Office Building
7682/7690 El Caaino Real
Nexus Building
3150 Plo Pico Drive
Plo Pico North Building
2850 Plo Pico Drive
Plaza De La Costa Real
7720/7770 El Cam! no Beal
Plaza Del Norte
6120 Faseo Del Norte
Ravreby, Connolly, Wright Building
(Formerly Jefferson Trust Building)
2755 Jefferson Street
Roosevelt Building
3138 S. Roosevelt
Russell Gross Development Building
5850 Avenida Encinas
San Diego Trust and Savings Building
3150 El Camino Real
Security Pacific Bank Building
7700 El Camino Real
Carlsbad Research Center Phase I
2350 Faraday Street
Graham International Plaza Phase III
Paloaar Airport Road
Ocean Pointe Tech Centre
Avenida Encinas and
N. Paloaar Airport Road
Plaza Encina
Avenida Encinas and
Palomar Airport Road
Year
Built
1979
1974
1971
1981
1984
1977
1973
1977
1981
1981
1982
1977
1981
1971
1983
1981
1985
1984
1984
1984
Number
of
Floors
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
Net
Rentable
Square Feet
8,500
13,000
25,710
33,972
33,045
17,425
22,012
11,000
10,000
25,739
27,000
9,085
9,900
10,008
12,500
18 ,600
38,400
33,045
19,000
16,000
Percent Lease Square Feet
Leased Rate Leased
100. OX $1.35
+ utilities
100.0 $1.00
+ utilities/
Janitorial
65.0 $1.00-1.20
+ utilities
100.0 $1.50
+ utilities
97.0 $1.50
+ utilities
100.0 $0.85
+ utilities
94.0 $1.15
25.0 $1.25
100.0 $1.20-1.40
96.0 $1.10
NNN
100.0 $1.39
n.a. n.a.
90.0 $0.80-0.85
+ electricity
90.0 $1.30-1.35
100.0 $1.25
+ utilities
70.0 $1.00
20.0 $1.45
+ utilities
40.0 $1.50
+ utilities
25.0 $1.05
NNN
20.0 $1.35-1.55
+ electricity
8,500
13,000
16,712
33,972
32,054
17,925
20,691
8,250
10,000
24,709
27,000
n.a.
8,910
8,006
12,500
13,020
7,680
13,218
4,750
3,200
Carlsbad Total 393.941 73.01 284,097
Building Name
Copperwood Professional Building
3855 Mission Avenue
Courtyard Office Building
2741 Vista Hay
El Camlno Financial Center I
3H2 Vista Way
El Canlno Financial Center II
3156 Vista Hay
Hill Street Building
2110 S. Hill Street
Keay Praia
560 Greenbrier
North County Place Office Building
2416 El Caalno Eeal
Oceana Professional Building
(Foraerly Jefferson Trust
Business Coaplex)
503 Vista Bella Dr.
Oceans ide Professional Building
2125 El Camlno Real
Oceanslde Union Plaza (4 buildings)
1305/1310/1315/1320
Union Plaza Court
Pacific Federal Building
Pacific Federal Building
810 Mission Avenue
Santa Fe Financial Plaza I
2122 El Caaino Real
Santa Fe Financial Plaza II
2124 El Casino Real
St. Malo Office Building
1930 S. Hill Street
Todd Plaza
1919 Apple Street
Treaont Executive Building
1231 Hill Street
Villa office Park
2103 El Caalno Real
2171 El Caaino Real Building
2171 El Caalno Real
2181 El Caaino Real Building
2181 El Caalno Real
2191 El Caaino Real Building
2191 El Caaino Real
Oceanside Total
Market Area Total
Table III-2
(Continued)
Number Net
Year of Rentable
Built Floors Square Feet
1981 2 30,760
1982 2 11,000
1982 4 32,000
1982 4 32,000
1980 2 13,500
1975 2 9 ,000
1984 3 27 ,000
1978 2 13,885
1983 2 13,615
1982 2 72,000
1968 3 28,348
1979 2 9,641
1979 2 10,415
1975 2 8,400
1977 1 16,900
1977 2 9,500
1982 2 13,000
1977 2 10,000
1975 2 10,000
1972 2 10,000
380,964
774,905
OCEANSIDE
Percent
Leased
55.01
100.0
58.0
100.0
67.0
94.0
50.0
64.0
60.0
62.0
82.0
80.0
79.0
n.a.
95.0
87.0
80.0
80.0
100.0
72.0
72.51
73.11
Lease
Kate
$1.05
SI. 35
NNN
$1.25
+ utilities/
taxes
$1.15-1.25
+ utilities
$0.60-1.00
$0.55
+ utilities/
janitorial
$1.40
+ utilities/
janitorial
$0.65
$1.05
NNN
$1.25-1.50
$0.90-1.00
$0.90
$0.90
$0.70-0.85
$0.60
+ utilities/
janitorial
—
Square Feet
Leased
16,918
11,000
18,560
32,000
9,045
8,460
13,500
8,864
6,169
44 ,640
23,245
7,713
8,228
n.a.
16,055
8,265
$0.60 10,400
•*• utilities
$1.15
office
$1.40
executive suites
$0.90-1.10
n.a.
$0.85-0.95
8,000
10,000
7,200
270,262
554,359
Source: Econoaics Research Associates.
in other areas of the county. The Avenida Encinas/Paseo del Norte sub-
market, with all new office space, records rents in the $1.28 plus utili-
ties to $1.65 full-service range. Office/R&D at this location demands
higher rents than those near the airport, at $0.80 to $1.15 per square
foot. Rents in Oceanside's downtown area range from $0.60 to $1.05 per
square foot, or $7.20 to $12.60 annually. Newer space on El Camino Real
rents for $0.90 to $1.40, or $10.80 to $16.80 per year.
The following Table III-3 summarizes vacancy factors in the
Carlsbad/ Oceanside office market area. A single vacancy rate for the
Carlsbad/ Oceanside market is not a reliable figure because of the very
distinct types of product available and because of the rapid development
pace of the airport.
Downtown Absorption
A survey of the capacity and vacancy rates of buildings existing in
1982 in the downtown area was compared to the results of ERA's survey of
the Carlsbad-Oceanside market and submarkets. The examination shows that
the downtown area has absorbed less than 5,000 square feet of office space
over the last three years. The vacancy rate in October 1982 was 23 per-
cent, and in October 1985 was 19 percent. Thus, demand for downtown space
is seen to be continued, and stronger than demand in other submarkets of
the Carlsbad-Oceanside area, where vacancy rates are extremely high.
However, downtown absorption is extremely slow.
One cause of the slow rate is the age and quality of the
surrounding product. Much of downtown's space is in less-than-ideal
structures of poor appearance. Parking may not be adequate or protected.
Existing structures provide space for local serving businesses and
services, but do not attract new users or those who might otherwise be
drawn to a downtown address. The attorneys, brokers, and accountants
whose market area is the City of Carlsbad would normally choose to locate
in a downtown area. However, many of these business offices are located
in other parts of the city, notably the El Camino Real submarket, because
of a lack of quality product downtown.
111-14
Table III-3
MARKET AND SUBMARKET VACANCY RATES
1985
Carlsbad-Oceanside
Market Area
Carlsbad
Oceanside
Downtown Carlsbad
Net
Rentable
Area
Surveyed
823,905
442,941
380,964
92,120
Leased
Area
Surveyed
553,933
283,671
270,262
56,047
Surveyed
Vacancy
Rate1
26.9%
26.3
27.5
15.0
Buildings Constructed
1980-1983 394,131 283,123 18.8
Buildings Constructed
1984-1985 166,490 78,992 47.4
^Actual vacancy rate. Calculation excludes buildings where percent
leased is unavailable.
Source: Economics Research Associates.
Table III-4 shows the projects planned and under construction in
the two-city market area. A total of 748,000 square feet will be
constructed, with approximately 335,000 expected by the end of 1986.
Distributed equally between 1985 and 1986, the 335,000 square feet
constitutes the addition of 10 to 12 percent of existing supply each year.
Seven of the 10 projects are located in the South Carlsbad/Palomar Airport
vicinity, where our survey shows a vacancy rate of 32 percent. The new
product in this area will be absorbed fairly slowly due to the existing
vacancy rate. Because there is only one building in the downtown area,
lease-up will depend more on the quality of the structure and lease rates
than on the district's vacancy rate.
Based on the preceding examination of current office market condi-
tions, historical trends, and projects planned and under construction, it
appears that downtown supply adequately meets demand. Vacancy rates are
lower than those of the Carlsbad-Oceanside market area, and of San Diego
County, where countywide vacancy rates are excessive despite high
absorption. This suggests ongoing demand, despite the supply of newer
space within the two-city market area. However, the rapid development and
high vacancy rates of the airport and Avenida Encinas submarkets, and the
El Camino Real strip in both cities preclude drawing major new tenants
into downtown at this time. Tenant concessions being made in other
submarkets make effective rents very affordable.
ERA believes that the longer term outlook for office space in
downtown Carlsbad is quite good, despite the fact that it is competing in
a very difficult market. A business address in a healthy downtown has
intrinsic value, and, other factors being equal, legal, insurance, real
estate, and business services value a downtown location.
As absorption increases in the newly developed office submarkets,
vacancy rates drop and, in the longer term, rents increase. As this
occurs over the next five to seven years, demand for downtown space will
pick up. We feel that at that time a structure of 20,000 square feet will
be appropriate to meet the demand. The image of the building must be one
111-16
Table III-4
CARLSBAD-OCEANSIDE MARKET AREA
BUILDINGS PLANNED AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Building Name
Camino Corporate Center
Camino Vida Robles
and El Camino Real
Carlsbad Gateway
El Camino Real and Fairaday
Carlsbad Research Center Phase II
2390 Fairaday St.
Jefferson and Grand Building
2910 Jefferson St.
Graham International Plaza IV
Palomar Airport Rd.
Pacific View
Southwest Palomar Airport Rd.
and 1-5
Sycamore Creek (6 buildings)
El Camino Real and College
Carlsbad Pacific Center I
Palomar Airport Rd. and 1-5
Native Sun Professional
Office Building
Avenida de la Plata
First Liberty Financial Plaza
Vista Way
Total
Under
Construction Number Net
or
Planned
1985
1986
1986
1985
1986
1985
1986-1989
1986
1986
1986
of
Floors
2
2
2
2
3
3
3/4
Rentable
Square Feet
26,600
50,000
35,000
12,000
33,045
114,000
413,000
Lease
Rate
$1.20
+ utilities
$1.45
n.a.
$1.35
n.a.
$1.60-1.65
$1.50
NNN
51,102 $1.50-1.60
+ utilities
n.a.
10,300
3,032
748,079
n.a.
n.a.
n.a. means not available.
Source: Economics Research Associates.
of quality, reflecting the quality of the new resorts and retail concerns
of downtown. Heavy landscaping, brick or other attractive exterior, and a
well-designed lobby will contribute to the appearance of the building, and
give it an advantage over local R&D product. However, tenants are
unwilling to pay a significant premium for additional quality, and such
amenities as exercise facilities and balconies will have to be foregone in
order to draw and keep the cost-conscious downtown tenant.
Recognizing that headquarters offices are located in San Diego,
that large users may prefer the El Camino Real district, and that high-
technology and R&D users locate near Palomar Airport, tenants to such a
building will be local-serving independent businesses and branch offices.
An industry standard suggests that the mix will be 20 percent services and
80 percent FIRE (fire, insurance, and real estate) users. A representa-
tive directory would show a travel agent, an investment broker, several
attorneys, and a real estate office. Tenants of this type occupy 700 to
900 square feet apiece. (If the structure is to be promoted for occupancy
by physicians, special plumbing must be drawn into the plans. A
physician's office typically occupies 1,200 square feet.)
A 20,000-square-foot building is best constructed as a two-story
structure. A number of simple architectural styles are possible including
an atrium-centered structure, or a cube with inside corridors.
Acknowledging the concern with parking, tuck-under parking — open sided,
carport-style parking — is appropriate. At four spaces per 1,000.square
feet of leasable area, an 18,000- to 20,000-square-foot building requires
72 parking spaces. With 375 square feet required for a parking space,
including aisles and handicapped spaces, 27,000 square feet is required
for parking. With the addition of landscaping and berming area, a lot of
approximately 33,000-35,000 square feet is required for this type of
office building.
111-18
Section IV
RESIDENTIAL MARKET POTENTIAL
INTRODUCTION
This section describes current household and housing characteristics
in the City of Carlsbad and the primary "Village" redevelopment area, and
the prospects for new multi-family housing development in the redevelopment
area. Most housing acreage in the primary redevelopment market area is
devoted to single-family housing, although multi-family units are slowly
replacing many single-family units. As of January 1985, roughly 60 percent
of the primary Village market area housing units were single-family units,
and 40 percent were multi-family units such as apartments and condominiums.
In order to evaluate the potential for multi-family residential
development, the following tasks were completed and are described in this
section of the report:
o Analyzed current residential market conditions of the Carlsbad
market area, with secondary attention to North San Diego County
for comparative purposes.
o Studied historical population and household trends as they relate
to housing unit projections.
o Surveyed potentially competitive rental and for-sale multi-family
projects within and directly adjacent to the primary Village
market area. Several projects in other parts of the overall
Carlsbad area were also surveyed for comparative purposes.
o Reviewed multi-family residential projects that were under con-
struction and proposed for development that would provide future
competition to a primary market area project. A few projects
outside the primary market area were reviewed for general market
analysis purposes.
IV-1
o Estimated demand for rental and for—sale multi-family residential
projects within the Village primary market area, based on
historical and projected population and household trends.
MARKET AREA
We defined the overall residential market area as the City of
Carlsbad. The primary market area is the redevelopment area, which is
bounded roughly by Laguna Drive on the north, Highway 5 on the east, Walnut
Avenue and Oak Avenue on the south, and Ocean Street on the west. This area
comprises about one-sixth of central Carlsbad, that area located between
Buena Vista and Agua Hedionda Lagoons, the ocean, and El Camino Real.
Another noteworthy subarea within the overall Carlsbad market area in terms
of burgeoning residential development is the four square mile "Batiquitos"
section found on both sides of 1-5 between Palomar Airport Road on the north
and La Costa Avenue on the south.
Our housing demand projections were based on trends in the overall
Carlsbad market area as well as in the redevelopment area. At the same
time, however, trends in the central, La Costa and Batiquitos submarkets
were indirectly considered in this analysis.
MULTI-FAMILY MARKET OVERVIEW
The Carlsbad overall market area may be viewed in terms of the fol-
lowing three subregions: (1) central Carlsbad of which the Village primary
market area is a part; (2) Batiquitos area denoted above and (3) La Costa
area located between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road, to the south
of Palomar Airport Road.
-Central Submarket/The Village Primary Market Area
This area is a mix of single-family and multi-family housing, often
mixed within the same block. The single-family homes were built primarily
10 to 20 years ago. The multi-family residential market is characterized by
apartments constructed within the last five to 15 years, averaging 30 units
per complex.
IV-2
Important to note, out of 40-50 multi-family projects added to the
central Carlsbad submarket within the last five years, about 10-20 percent
have been located in the redevelopment primary market area; roughly 75
percent of these projects have been rental as opposed to for-sale projects.
Village renters include families from other parts of the county, out-of-town
young professionals and military based persons. Buyers are similar, but
also include some local empty nester&.
Only about 5 percent of the total multi-family product inventory is
comprised of condominium projects, which typically average less than 15
units. Many of these projects were completed within the last five to eight
years. A high percentage of apartment projects are found along the two main
corridors of Roosevelt Avenue and Garfield Avenue, many of which were
constructed within the last few years.
Recent trends in residential development include an increasing amount
of demolition of single family dwellings in order to acquire developable
"in-fill" residential property. Within the last year, multi-family
development, particularly that of apartments, has decreased notably due to
the recent downzoning activity associated with General Plan changes. In
July of this year, due to the citizens' request, citywide multi-family
density restrictions were changed from 20-30 units per acre to 15.1-23.0
units per acre. According to local industry representatives, virtually no
apartment projects have begun construction within the last four to five
months, as a result of this legislation. It has, therefore, become less
economically feasible for developers to pursue multi-family projects in the
central primary market area as a result of such legislation. In addition,
permit application costs alone have increased by nearly 40 percent on an
average annual basis between 1980 and 1985. A prominent local developer
recently completed a nine-unit apartment project on Tamarack Avenue several
months after the original plans called for a 16-unit complex.
IV-3
Batiquitos Submarket
The majority of recent and pending residential development is
concentrated in this southern Carlsbad submarket. There are currently eight
large-scale projects, averaging 10-30 acres and comprising about 5,000
residential units, in some stage of construction or completion. Out of this
total the majority of units are single-family, detached or larger than
average duplex units of 1,800 or so square feet. More importantly, roughly
one-third of the total pending units are townhomes, generally clustered in
groups of six units. Stacked flat condominiums averaging eight to ten units
per building, and smaller duplexes are also prevalent. The market for these
attached homes is significantly different from that of the central submarket
described above, in terms of product type, project amenities, and average
sales price. Buyers are typically pre-retired couples from throughout the
state. Prominent developers actively involved in submarket area projects
include: Standard Pacific, Broadmore Homes, McMillan Realty, and a joint
venture with California Federal Savings.
La Costa Submarket
This area experienced extensive multi-family development beginning
some 20 years ago, with an emphasis on "second home" condominiums. Over 60
percent of the total products were stacked flat, two- and three-story com-
plexes and/or townhomes. The target market for these units has historically
been pre-retirees and empty nesters from the East Coast and Midwest.
Absorption in general has been slow, resulting from an overbuilt condo
market. An undeveloped "resort" reputation due to poor management compared
to nearby competitive submarkets such as Del Mar and La Jolla, have created
the glut situation. In response, over the last 18 months, permits and/or
applications for over 50 units have been withdrawn.
IV-4
By the end of the June quarter of 1985, there were 15 active develop-
ments at La Costa. These developments have a potential for 1,674 units of
which 1,099 have been offered for sale and 825 have actually sold over a
relatively lengthy period of time.
The most active development is Sea Point Tennis which began selling
units in January 1985 and has averaged sales of about 2.5 units per week
since then (see Table IV-2 for further details). Interesting to note,
prices for detached homes clustered in the $120,000 to $170,000 range
whereas attached homes sold in the $100,000 to $130,000 range during the
first half of the year. During this time, detached homes averaged 1,453
square feet and sold for $77.09 per square foot, comparatively more than
non-waterfront Village-based condo projects.
According to local brokers, newer attached products show relatively
faster absorption due to somewhat larger unit sizes, more consumer-
responsive designs, and reasonable sales prices.
HISTORICAL BUILDING ACTIVITY
As shown in Table IV-1, over the past few years apartment develo-pment
has gradually "caught up" with condominium development. For example, in
1981 there was a 21:1 ratio of condos to rental units; this year the ratio
is nearly 1:1. In fact, in 1983 apartment construction exceeded condominium
construction by almost 150 units. Important to note, only two apartment
complexes, comprising less than 1 percent of the total market area apartment
construction during 1980-1985, were built within the Village primary market
area. Both of these are senior-oriented projects. The fact that apartment
development has been encouraged over the past several years by the Carlsbad
City Planning Department through various measures helps explain the general
"rental construction trend. Such incentive measures have included: (1) lack
of formal approval requirements depending on density, (2) minimal open
space requirements, and (3) lack of covered parking requirements. As a
result of this city policy, nearly 50 percent of the 1,400-1,500 apartment
units constructed over the past five years, as noted in Table 1, did not
require approvals.
IV-5
Table IV-1
HISTORICAL MULTI-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
CARLSBAD OVERALL MARKET AREA
Apartments Condominiums1
Number
Year of Units
1980 19
1981 40
1982 29
1983 466
1984 419
19852 516
Valuation Number Valuation
(millions) of Units (millions)
$ 1.2 94 $ 7.2
1.6 189 11.1
0.8 213 13.5
12.3 327 19.8
16.6 530 30.8
23.9 533 29.6
^Includes all forms of attached for-sale products.
ZJanuary through September.
Source: Carlsbad City Planning Department; and Economics Research
Associates.
Also noteworthy is the consistent 30-50 percent difference in average
per unit building cost between apartments and condominiums over the 1980-
1985 time period. This disparity may have also acted as a developer
incentive: $40,000 per rental unit versus $60,000 per condo unit.
COMPETITIVE SURVEY OF EXISTING PROJECTS
To gain an understanding of the Village primary market area, ERA
surveyed 12 active apartment projects and ten active condominium projects
within the general central Carlsbad submarket. The majority of these
projects are located directly within the Village primary market area
boundaries. For comparative analysis purposes, ERA also surveyed one active
for-sale multi-family project in the Batiquitos submarket and one in the La
Costa submarket. No apartment complexes were surveyed in either of these
areas. All surveyed multi-family projects are shown in Figure IV-1.
Apartments
ERA surveyed 12 apartment projects containing a total of 505 units
which are described in Table IV-2. Three of these projects are oriented to
senior citizens and maintain a minimum age requirement. Projects average 30
units. The majority of new surveyed units have two bedrooms and one or one-
and-one-half bathrooms. In general, monthly rents average $475 for a one
bedroom and $575 to $600 for a two-bedroom unit. Three bedroom units are
only slightly higher in rental rate and are not prevalent in the central/
primary market areas.
All the units are typically rented at a $0.62 to $0.82 per square
foot rate. Occupancies are extremely high among the surveyed apartment
projects. Average absorption for a 40-unit complex is one to two months.
Rates countywide increased 40 percent between 1983 and 1984; this
trend is expected to continue according to Grubb & Ellis, due to a shortage
of new quality level rental units. On the other hand, data from the San
Diego Apartment Association reveal that vacancies have increased sharply in
IV-7
CENTRAL CARLSBAD
MARKET AREATHE VILLAGE
MARKET AREA APARTMENTS
1. Kremeyer Apartments
2. Roosevelt Meadows
3. Acacia Cove
4. Carlsbad Shores
5. Unnamed
6. Laguna Palms
7. Jefferson Townhouse*
8. Cypress Cove
9. Merrywood Apartments
10. Chinquapin
11. Jefferson House
12. Tyler Courts
FOR SALE PROJECTS
13. The Beach
14. Leisure View Villas
15. The Villas
16. Tamarack Shores
17. Sea Cliff
18. Tanglewood Condos
19. Trails at Calaveras Hills
20. Seapoint Tennis
21. Carlsbad Crest
22. The Palms at Windsong Cove
Figure 1
SELECTED MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS
CARLSBAD MARKET AREA
IIu 8s
86•5 J3
If !
•8
§
l I
si i i i
fl I5r lis-a «"Jg si* g•s -a ss* 3 ~ * a
ini iin *"
?§§§!- §
lI
!i!l
33*! S.ll
8 8 B S
SR93 33* SS SKS ~gjdd sjo'd £d jjdd g
ss ce
§§§
! '
Si
s Ma -sa *aN aa ass -R aa «
saaassss *
igig§£g£ a
I
so r»»
«
I
I1s •<
S £
s
-11
t R H *M * e
ll 111
8
-1« fM -•
3 * ^
*
the overall San Diego County area: from 2.5 percent to 6.1 percent between
January and July 1985. Important to note is that the current North County
vacancy rates averages around 10 percent compared to 2.2 percent in
Carlsbad. The highest vacancy rate in the North County (21.9 percent) is
found in the growing area of Escondido. These data suggest a consistently
growing and healthy Carlsbad rental market compared to other San Diego
County submarkets.
Amenities are minimal and usually include carports, a laundry facil-
ity and a Jacuzzi. Parking ratios are commonly 1.5 spaces per one-bedroom
unit and 2.0 spaces per two-bedroom unit. Off-street parking is also common
among the surveyed projects.
Renters typically move into Carlsbad from within a 100-mile radius of
the city. Many persons are entering the area due to newly acquired employ-
ment with Camp Pendleton, Palomar Airport Business Park firms and/or
companies in North County areas such as the Sorrento Valley. Young
professional couples and singles dominate this renter market. One project
in particular, the Carlsbad Shores, has an unusually high (25 percent)
turnover rate. This trend is due to the prevalence of job transferee
tenants who secure short-term leases while anticipating the arrival of their
families.
The largest surveyed rental project is the 20-year-old Kremeyer
Apartments. Unlike other primary market area projects, units are furnished
but maintain comparable rental rates to unfurnished ones.
The 75-unit Tyler Courts Apartments, the second largest project, is
oriented to senior citizens. Only 87 percent leased, this project opened
earlier this year, compared to the other two senior facilities which show
rather full occupancies. Tenants are from all over the United States,
especially California. Tenants must be a minimum of 62 years to be
considered. This complex offers subsidized rental rates to tenants already
on HUD Section 8 status. The two other surveyed senior oriented projects do
not offer this arrangement to tenants, but are operated on a completely
private basis. Tyler Courts offers moderate amenities such as shuffleboard
and a recreation room. One- and two-bedroom units with one bathroom are
IV-10
available for $0.76 and $0.69 per square foot, respectively. There are also
three handicapped-equipped large one-bedroom units available for $0.69 per
square foot per month.
Seasonal Rental Units
A minor subsector of the Carlsbad central rental market is that of
seasonal "snowbird" oriented rental units. There are roughly 30 of these
units found in small duplex, triplex and fourplex buildings on or near
beachfront properties. Projects include Ocean Manor, SeaSlope and Sea
Escape Apartments. Tenants are commonly retired couples and/or families,
many of whom are repeat visitors. The average length of stay is one to two
weeks; units typically rent for $1,100_+ per month during the summer and
$200-$350 less per month during the winter peak season. Interesting to
note, even during the off season, these units can command weekly "winter
seasonal" rates due to consistent demand from relatives of local residents.
Condominiums
Due to extreme submarket area disparities, it is also necessary to
study the Village primary market area for-sale multi-family market in
relation to these other submarkets: (1) central Carlsbad, (2) Batiquitos,
and (3) La Costa.
As seen in Figure IV-1, only two of the 10 surveyed condominium
projects are found within the Village primary market area boundaries.1 The
rest of the surveyed projects are found in the three submarkets cited above.
New condominiums are concentrated in the Calaveras Hills subsection of
central Carlsbad. While there is a very limited number of new condominium
projects in the central submarket relative to the other two submarkets,
these projects are especially scarce in the Village primary market area.
*0ne of these projects, The Beach, is actually located on the northwest
periphery of this area.
IV-11
Project Scale
The two surveyed projects, each under 15 units, are only a few blocks
apart but command very different buyer segments. Due to land availability
factors, these Village based projects are comparatively smaller than those
in Batiquitos or La Costa areas where projects average 200 units per
development. New condos in the Calaveras Hills area of the central
submarket are also large-scale developments.
Sales Price
The Beach, found in the primary market area, offers the highest
priced attached units in the city—typically $150.00 per square foot for
three-bedroom 3,000-square-foot units. The principal amenity is a prime
waterfront location. These townhouse units are attracting mainly second
home buyers from Los Angeles and Orange counties. On the other hand, the
other Village-based project, Leisure View Villas, offers two- and three-
bedroom units for around 50 percent less than the Beach, or $65.00 per
square foot. These units are one-half mile from the beach and offer some
moderate ocean views. Prices in the other three submarkets average $85.00
per square foot per unit. Higher-end units are typically found in the
Batiquitos submarket.
Amenities
New projects found in the Batiquitos and La Costa submarket are
strongly marketed on the basis of an extensive multi-facility amenity pack-
age. Access to golf courses, on-site tennis courts, spas and pools typify
many of the active condominium projects in both submarkets. Ocean views are
marketed as primary amenities at all submarket projects and may increase the
sales price by $10,000 to $16,000 per unit. The Village market area
projects offer little else other than such views; other central submarket
projects offer moderate packages which commonly include a pool, spas, a
recreation room, etc.
IV-12
Product Type
Both projects examined in the primary market area are townhomes; this
product type appears to be more prevalent in the other submarkets than
stacked flat units.
Absorption
Absorption is notably less rapid at the Leisure View Villas project
than at the other condominium project surveyed in the Village area: one
unit per month versus nine units sold per month. These rates suggest the
extremely strong premium placed on direct beach front location and access,
mentioned above.
Monthly absorption rates among other submarket area projects are also
notably dependent on project location and availability of ocean views.
Those in the Batiquitos area are generally strong—over 10 units sold per
month. The surveyed project with the least significant absorption rate, the
Tamarack Shores, is located within the central market. Monthly sales
average only one unit, mostly due to above-market rates and relatively
moderate amenities.
Buyer Profile
Buyers generally fall into two categories: (1) young professionals
and (2) empty nesters, pre-retirees. The lower end projects attract younger
couples and families primarily from the North County area; persons from Los
Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino counties are also prevalent. Many of
these buyers are employed by new firms at the Palomar Airport Business Park
and/or the growing number of high tech companies in other parts of the North
County. Pre-retirees and middle aged couples in a more financially suitable
position tend to be attracted to upscale, high end, beach front properties.
Although the La Costa submarket is inland, it is dominated by these types of
"second home" buyers who are attracted by golf course/moderate ocean view
amenities offered at several condominium projects in the area.
IV-13
Summary
According to interviews with real estate brokers and developers in
the area, there is a limited market for condominiums in the Village primary
market area. There have been very few new projects built in this area over
the past few years; a handful of conversions have taken place. The
historical dominance of single-family and/or apartment projects is one
factor leading to this trend. Other factors include the recent economic
developer disincentives attributed to recent downzoning legislation, and
general development bias toward beach front or ocean view properties
typically not available in the Village submarket. In fact, a few condo
projects have fared so poorly within the past two years they have recently
been converted to rental units. (See Tables IV-2 and IV-3 for details on
surveyed multi-family projects.)
PENDING PROJECTS
Apartments
According to the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, there are cur-
rently 622 apartment units planned, proposed, and/or under construction in
the central Carlsbad submarket as shown in Table IV-4. This figure
comprises roughly 95 percent of the total pending apartments in the overall
Carlsbad market area.
None of these units are located in the Village primary market area.
In the three-year period between December of 1982 and July of 1985 there
were less than five residential permits issued in the Village primary market
area, most of which were for single-family dwelling improvements. Important
to note is that the two pending rental projects of 80 units and 542 units,
respectively, are both located within a few blocks of the Village primary
market area.
IV-14
1
1
eQ
Q H
fl 111 1
^ "M e ^41 3
1 |B
ll
d
S
E
1
' Si
8
1
III
tw
jhfi
U Q8.!
s a
••«•
8
^M
sf
!!^PI § -jn
s
X *rl
•as
la
P
tuSII1
is
-< BD « 0OB V *J ^Id 06 •* Q.41 O uS"3 S 2 !P•* S5 | 1Ju S xtw 4J
8 f 1 " •
| £S Ji| 1
Is! £ a^
_
8 5
1 1°%* 51"!« IE > ... JSf i i sSfi 5 u kiQ « 6 "*-"
g S
0 C>
8
a i3
i ss'
ft «>
I£ 88
1 35
ss
(i §§
jo jain tri
S ss
•"
-* »1
1 1
-•
1 1
1
> •"••.
'.I ^i.44 W U > 4) CS> T C > 54i S*SSi«5a . il u1 cS ¥ ^li(Q W ^ CD i-<U V (0 4J -H Q U,ISa-3 5i«2
2 2
1
Young professionals,retirees, both localout of state._J
•H U
8
S
S
«
I
sO
a"
Is
«v
1
7"a
jo jass•^ CM
23
(M
S
1
e
1
a*.ssS-3 C3 15="flS
•IS*
2
C 0)Mixed tenants; ofcomuters, 30% work iOrange County; 50X ansecond hone buyers.m8
Recreation rcommon areasS
o
38
SSCM (N
8 9as
«•
I!
* «
il
—
OO
^^
S> s
~C s u
S
1
***. 4J
1^
5 i!*
11^
hi
£
T W M ^
u c — at « -a ™*1 C — X M iJ J= 0) 01SUTJO .'5 "tilO 4-1 0) (*1 »H-H «OUJ="I1-- 38 S*££
fe*^? 51 I"8--• U--4 » 5 <°-QO«
OB 09 "c *4 U< X 0) X*£ Svtu o. u ci UB) ..ujSX H O (OX -^ O X— ( t, UH -p bp.uo M ^y
££^^ * "e c 2£t3x
OB *
•="? 13 g •St.Is »is^^J S ^8-
° 1 » . 2S "
S .• 8
* « R'
.
— « B """
RSS
S "^ "*
$ S o| S O «•
SS ISrC ssii
W1 V> •tf> 30 9> N
I o"-I8s «- $ «>"" —
Q O Q »A O C5 O
S O -* CM
— — CM«• «•>
1
(M^ r^ T . ^ ^ *i,
:•
X J3 * ^in «n u^ (N
CMCM CMfM CM Csl (N DSS SS SSSSPM<*% N«n nen-»po
2 _ c e
O • flOX *e —
1 . 1
- ^ 3
^5 « . 5
^al S I
a-
1 ij i!
IP ia !i^O tO —< .J3 — < I- «-i
-C S ?e TS |tlea II ^^2
f^ CO »
7?
B fi•Hft) 4J
11
OB
I
|
I
&|-.
fcl 4J -^
|°|I
8.1
82
"•«"
8
OM
|i
" £
"^
"^
A* 8 5
w -n tf
M1
hi — tJ'sf£
bp
11
i*Map Name/Location/Key Developer.»£,«fuS.. s« °- s - 5IIS^sg'*ilgi
in .2 01 o ^-i o 01 (3 JT — -^ 3 CDC M eo u-> oi « t- o •00 X tu O in W «4I UKO- > O 4J CO tt Oj O V i— ( 01 £ «-i ki »
<e i «o u Q IT § » §«*->•« mmxoi 5 o> i- M a)C>ift>UT>9>i4 C • 4) 41 Ot OJft>|*-i>t<tt.CO>Cf
"fts5 a — • *J S • v -H : > ffi <NI J8 o j-> j-i <N e
2 ... 4> OT >*- 01 W 41 " fl 9 O 4> 0! W *J M .»<Q S ft) Ot B -$
^ 2 <0 u-i -^ U B (*K4^5kn&iiXu tfJODi<*^'T3licO^O*^ino>4ri
g
* * fe SB" w
1 * isfl^x Is8~ ^s^si §•«•);5.- 2^«»5 N S «11 1|!ili i^l
000in — * •*
OS O» f*l
*A O •*OS B CM
^ s sssss
S — t OS CM (N Q <a*O Os as »« O --
»n r^f*> ••* so *A *o (N
S **» S! S 2 Ss1 2
OV V* V>
8 £ 3§§g§
S mS 3R3SS
I »i i£g$$
o* <r S S S 2 31
-^ P'Jas M — r^Scsl
CM
S ^ iajs(M in *n CM \f\ inA ^^ A • J3 • >> • .O *SiSSs 5S i'sSSS
P4n(MPs|(M fMCM fM — CM fM (M
e e c e c e
^*j«Q O -< tM3 £ os a> f»
* "§8
£ S £222
si
M 1 U -H £ ^® "S 9 "3 * *"*
S C ">S E ? *« »• «^ S M 9 rM
S I
JJ 1 1 1
1^1 sg| s?.c a a W*HX *-» «-i ftpJD J i-* 4) t *j 9 eF< « -3 o « u ^ -H
'"u £ £ i>
S — I N<N rsi
is
o
ea•"1
tori«jjj
IM
5 H•c •V I
8 ^: . 1
.3 u
'Located irlthtn prloary •SFl - stacked flat, two-s'when coaplete.2"Host units."Source: Econonlcs Resear
Submarket
Table IV-4
PENDING1 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS
CARLSBAD MARKET AREA2
October 1985
Total
Apartment
Units
Total
Condominium
Units
Total
Multi-Family
Units
The Village
Redevelopment Area
Central
(excluding
The Village)
Batiquitos
La Costa
24 104
622
0
30
907
614
470
1,529
614
500
Total 652 2,015 2,747
^-Planned, proposed or under construction.
2Data as of October 9, 1985.
Source: Carlsbad City Planning Department; and Economics Research
Associates.
Condominiums
As seen in Table IV-4, there are roughly 2,000 multi-family for—sale
units planned, proposed, and/or under construction in the overall Carlsbad
market area. The majority of these are clustered townhomes and duplexes.
The highest proportion of units are located within the eight large-scale
Batiquitos projects cited at the beginning of the report. Twenty-four of
these units are found in the Village primary market area at the southeast
corner of Harding and Oak Avenue. The target market is military employees
and young professional couples employed in North County.
In the central submarket, there are over 900 pending units, many of
which are found in the southeastern Calaveras Hills portion of the
submarket. The largest project will be 352 units on 41 acres, near the
southeast corner of Marron Road and Monroe Street; this area is somewhat
close to the Village market area northeastern boundary. The project will be
stacked flat units and be marketed to young families/professionals. There
are currently 163 timeshare condos under construction in this market area
but are essentially non-competitive due to their recreation orientation.
Land Values
Due to recent trends in downzoning legislation within the overall
Carlsbad market area, land values are based on per-unit building costs. The
average cost per unit found in Carlsbad is $15,000-$20,000 for a typical
two-bedroom/1.5-bath unit on unimproved or slightly improved land, and
$22,000+ on improved residential land. This figure ranges around $12,500-
$15,000 per unit in neighborhoods with relatively lower housing values.
Areas with high marketability due to ocean views and extensive amenities,
such as the Batiquitos submarket, can command values of $25,000-$30,000 per
unit. In fact, in the current La Costa submarket, values may average over
$30,000 per unit for a typical 30-unit duplex unimproved subdivision.
IV-18
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL MARKET CONDITIONS AND TRENDS
There were approximately 14,940 persons living in the Carlsbad
overall residential market area in 1970. By 1980, there were 40,600 persons
and roughly 15,600 households in this market area, according to the census.
These figures reflect a noteworthy 10.5 percent compounded annual population
increase between 1970 and 1980, compared to a less notable 5.8 percent
compounded annual population increase for the North County area as a whole.
The Carlsbad overall market area comprised roughly 10 percent of the total
North County San Diego population in 1980, more than its 7 percent share in
1970.
Most significant to note in Table IV-5 are these San Diego
Association of Governments' estimates: 1) the compounded annual percentage
increase in the Carlsbad overall market area population between 1980 and
1985 (8.2 percent) and 2) the 2.4 percent countywide population increase.
The number of households also jumped noticeably during this 15-year period—
9.6 percent annually, versus 2.8 percent for the entire county and 2.9
percent for North County.
These significant growth rates are expected to continue, albeit at a
somewhat slower pace, over the next 15 years. For example, household growth
in Carlsbad will be 4.5 percent between 1990 and 1995, compared to 9.6
percent during the 1980-1985 five-year period. In general, the Carlsbad
overall market area is projected to grow in population by a least one per-
centage point more than North County population annually, and at least two
percentage points more than the countywide population figures.
PROJECTED HOUSING DEMAND
Projected household growth, based on migration and household
formation, is the basis for housing demand. Household growth is due to
people moving into an area, and among the existing population, children
moving out of their parents' home to form their own households, married
couples divorcing to form two households, etc. The number of households
IV-19
H B« 01
01OH
bM )O O
o m
CM CM
§o
so o
— o
§oOSvO so
m —•O 00f. CM
§ 8f"«« &<
00 -»f«». fn
* *CM -*
•a I £3 O uj JJu o oV l-cPL, U
vC CM• •
(M CO
«0 O
• •—I CM
O 9s* •
•O -i
O Oo -o
CO COen •»
>O CM
§ 8r^ ao» *
o 5•*CM
O «-l »n o o
en
§
* 3i 5
I
oc
os in• •m \o
rH 6 S§0) uU iu >
C tJ O OC 0> b< PL, U
•ne xid u 4J3 <J «-i *c u. o oe ai h•< B- U
CM so
00 9
O m<*> \o
s a
>n t-.• •
o —
i ssO \0
S 2
CM CM
vO —m CM
-- OS
m CM
§ 2
00 ^
CM OSm m
p» OS
— m<n oo
•» oo
CM CM
§
CM —
O r^
§ 8r- oo
-3- so00 sO
S SOS -<
8
oinoo
t^ Oin m
J5
u
o
X
eo
Populati•o
Househo]x
B
1
4-11*O
BO
Populati0)•o
Househo]§
oao01
a
B0]
§Populati•3
Househo]DO U -H• Um i-" tgo o -H. & 8u 01 •2= 5^-»—I Oa oi oos h o>
tg a01 B
"3 a "•a BCB -H3 IM ••O 01a. in u§00 kiOS 3
U — O— CM CO
decreases as people move from an area, single people marry and combine into
one household, etc. As married couples decide to have fewer children, or
people share housing, household formation rates decrease.
Household Forecasts
As seen in Table IV-5, 33,700 total households are expected in
Carlsbad in 1990. This figure suggests that 1,810 per year may potentially
be added to the Carlsbad overall market area between 1985 and 1990; 1,640
per year may be added to the market between 1990 and 1995.
Housing Unit Forecasts
Given a 5 percent vacancy factor, roughly 9,520 units may be built in
the overall Carlsbad market area between 1985 and 1990, and 8,630 units may
be built between 1990 and 1995. Between 1980 and 1985, approximately 75
percent of net new housing units in Carlsbad were single-family residences;
the balance being multi-family as seen in Table IV-6. This trend was due
primarily to the general availability of large land tracts for subdivision
development. Recent development trends in the Village area, however, reveal
that 95 percent of all new residential units were multi-family, therefore,
as seen in Table IV-7, based on these market area housing trends, 95 percent
(or 862) of the 908 net new units between 1985 and 1995 in the Village
redevelopment area are estimated to be multi-family. These units comprise
roughly 19 percent of the total anticipated multi-family inventory in the
overall Carlsbad market area.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Given current market trends described above, there are some signifi-
cant opportunities for multi-family residential development. The following
factors will lend support to future residential demand in the Village
redevelopment area: existence of views and proximity to beaches; a somewhat
centralized location between the hub of Orange and San Diego counties;
proximity to the major, well traveled interstate route, Highway 5; an
established residential character; access to employment opportunities in
Carlsbad and growing communities such as Vista, San Marcos and the Sorrento
Valley; continued population influx and higher occupancy rates.
IV-21
Table IV-6
HISTORICAL
BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
19851
Total
Permits
466
525
213
921
551
308
Single-
Family
422
482
169
806
346
211
Multi-
Family
44
43
44
115
205
97
Percent
Single-
Family
91%
92
79
88
63
69
Percent
Multi-
Family
9%
8
21
12
37
31
Note: Not shown is the large influx of permits during August 1985,
prior to expanded handicapped building regulations implemented in
mid-September.
1Through April.
Source: Carlsbad Planning Department; and Economics Research Associates.
iriONON
ONON
in
rHA
CM
PO
O> COa a)
J,,*4J •
iH9
ao
Of>vO
oo
CO
0)
• ca4-1 ec o
Si •*B <->
4J hiu oco a.o. oo> hiQ o.
DO
trac00to
>M 8830)
rH
.0
in
OOON
-j a toa) a. a)
V >,
rH -H
M ftc a•H Cfl(A b,
in
o>bo
(BUI-!H 0) COo> a. at
CM(N
oON
CM
0)toCO V. l-i
14 0) COcu a. cu
•H Cd
CO (*«
CM
ON
CM
CO
NO
OCMm
ON
NO
oao
CM
aoCM
oCOXV
a
ou
o
oo
§
0)
• sM CO
O <4-l
*J I
U -H
CO 4J
U-l rH9
S
CO
rH 09
DM 9CD
X C4J CD
•H U
U•o §j. i:
u§uCO
4-1c
O -HH SV a)
m at
hiCOO
54-1
oaOJ
ooto
03
T3
0)hi
•dv
•H
Ua)•c
CO
00
•atox09
CM
C01 0)
rH OrH rH
•H Ol> > m
Ol CO0) TJ a».c u t-iH OS <
0) -a-
> (8O V
§
VM
0
14-1
01hi
0).c4J
0CO
TJgCO
T>01T3C9Ohi
0)hi
CO
09
hi
V
Xe9Z
• •Ol
4J
Oz
*•a0)4-1
0091-1•oCO
00
01hi9bO1-1VM
T3
rHoAOlto9o
rC
4JuCOX01
co
•o0>00tflco
r^
e•H
00
HHo
0)eo•H
4-1hioaohia.
OJbO
COhi
0)>CO
maoON
rHi
30ON
-H
eo
TJ
0)
00
COco
CM
e0)
8,o
rH01>
Olt)
rHcflu
OrH
Co
•o0)
09cflX-
o<hicfl
CO
Vhi
bO•H• M-l•aCO 0)x booo to
rH rH
hi rHCO -Ho >ro
••o
CflX
09
rH
hi
COCJ
U-lo
>,
4J
•H
CJ
5
4J
00
Cfl
•oo>c•H
<4-i
OJa<•
rH
CO
hi0)
o
4-1eo>uhi
0)o.
m
eo
•o
Ol
09
COX
0)hica
09
01u
9
60
•H
IM
0)
60
CO •
rH CO
rH 4J
•H CO
> "0m
•09a>
4-1cfl
•H
Uo
0909
<
fO
hi
CO01m
.SK
09U•H
OeoCJu
• •
01
0hi9OCO
As mentioned earlier, the market for condominium development in the
Village is limited. This conclusion is due to (1) economic disincentives
for developers which stem from recent downzoning activity, (2) limited
availability of large parcels which could enhance the economic feasibility
of condominium development, and (3) competitive advantages of large scale
high-amenity condominium projects in other Carlsbad submarkets such as the
southeastern sector, Batiquitos, and less significantly, La Costa.
The demand for 476 new housing units shown in Table IV-7 between 1985
and 1990, will be met by the 652 planned and proposed units for which
building permits will soon be issued. The remaining projected 432 units
demanded between 1990-1995 may be largely supplied by "infill" development
in the Village primary market area.
These projections compare to an actual 1980-1985 net increase of
roughly 1,000 new multi-family units in the Village area alone, 80 to 85
percent of which were rental units, as reported by local real estate
industry representatives. This notable net increase in multi-family housing
units between 1980 and 1985 indicates accelerated occupied housing
(households) growth relative to SANDAGl projections. However, because of
recent downzoning from higher to lower densities in the city and
subsequently in the Village primary market area, the household growth rate
experienced in the last five years may abate. Therefore, our estimates of
95 units per year between 1985 and 1990, and 86 units annually between 1990
and 1995 are reasonable, although may appear conservative.
As shown in Table IV-7, the majority of housing demanded will be
multi-family units. Given past development trends, the distribution between
condominiums and apartments should be biased toward the latter. According
to the 1980 Census, rents in the central Carlsbad submarket are 96 percent
of the countywide and citywide average. Median housing values are also
about 90 percent of the countywide average. Thus, multi-family housing
built should be targeted, in general toward moderate income households,
particularly young adults, new families, and the elderly.
ISan Diego Association of Governments.
IV-24
Section V
INDUSTRIAL POTENTIAL
This section discusses the possibility for industrial development
in the Village primary market area. Although the majority of new
industrial/R&D space is found within the Palomar Airport area, in south-
east Carlsbad, virtually none of this product type exists in the Village
primary market area. Therefore, the type of real estate under considera-
tion is traditional industrial concrete tilt up, manufacturing, storage
and warehouse-type facilities, as well as small multi-tenant incubator
buildings averaging 2,000-5,000 square feet with a relatively low parking
ratio. The generally prevalent "industrial office" product type,
R&D/light industrial space, typically more improved and exhibiting more
conventional office-type designs and amenities, will only generally be
reviewed in this section. The office analysis (Section III) includes a
discussion of potential demand for such facilities in the Village primary
market area. Some general conclusions regarding industrial development
potential may be drawn based on existing land uses in the primary market
area, planning considerations, the regional industrial development market,
and standard parameters for industrial development.
THE SAN DIEGO REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL MARKET
San Diego County has experienced a steady increase in "industrial"
space development, from a supply of approximately 14 million square feet
in 1978 to 31 million square feet today. According to Grubb & Ellis,
approximately 85 percent of the existing "industrial" space in San Diego
County is occupied as of June 1985. Important to note, approximately 65
percent of this space is multi-tenant incubator and/or conventional indus-
trial space, and 35 percent is R&D space.
V-l
The areas within San Diego County which are experiencing the great-
est industrial/R&D development and absorption are the North County area,
of which Carlsbad is a part, and the South Bay area, due to land
availability and relatively more favorable land prices than other county
subareas.
The major industrial/R&D submarkets within the San Diego region are
as follows, according to the San Diego Economic Development Corporation:
Percent
of County
Total
Miramar 18%
Kearny Mesa 17
South Bay 11
Sorrento Valley and Vicinity 10
1-15 Corridor 9
San Marcos/Escondido 9
East County 8
Carlsbad 6
Central City 6
Oceanside 3
Rose Canyon/University City 2
Vista/Fallbrook 1_
Total 100%
As seen above, the most existing industrial and R&D space in the
county is located in North County areas and Kearny Mesa, while Carlsbad is
responsible for a minimal share of industrial/R&D space in the overall
county. At the same time, Carlsbad's existing inventory of industrial/R&D
space represents roughly 35 percent of the total existing space in North
County, this market share figure is up 3 percent from 1984.
In 1984, roughly 11 percent of the total county net industrial land
acreage was found in Carlsbad. The estimated proportions of industrial/-
R&D space in the city are presented below:
V-2
Percent Square Feet
Traditional Industrial 25% 550,000
Multi-Tenant Incubator 25 550,000
R&D 50 1,100.000
Total 100% 2,200,000
Only around 10 percent of the first category is found in the
Village primary market area. Neither incubator nor R&D facilities are
found there.
Table V-l presents absorption and occupancy rates of industrial/R&D
speculative space in selected submarkets in 1984, as reported by Grubb &
Ellis. Almost 2.5 million square feet of this space was absorbed in 1984,
with Sorrento Mesa and the South Bay leasing the most new square footage.
Carlsbad showed a moderate absorption rate and a low occupancy rate com-
pared to other submarkets. In fact, the moderately low occupancy rates in
Carlsbad are mostly due to abundant new construction which has yet to be
leased.
According to the San Diego Economic Development Corporation, the
vacancy rate among Carlsbad R&D/industrial facilities more than doubled
between 1981 and 1984. Projects completed in 1980 have an average vacancy
rate of 79 percent, according to the EDC — most likely a result of strong
competition from newer facilities.
Table V-2 shows annual absorption of new speculative industrial/R&D
space since 1978 in San Diego County. Although the proportion of leased
new space versus vacant new space has varied significantly between the
years, there is a general upward trend. The county has, on average,
absorbed 2.02 million square feet per year of new speculative industrial
and R&D space between 1978 and 1984. According to EDC, Carlsbad absorbed
33 percent of new existing speculative space from April 1983 to April
1984, compared to a 38 percent absorption rate for the county as a whole.
V-3
Table V-l
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
ABSORPTION AND OCCUPANCY RATES
OF INDUSTRIAL SPECULATIVE SPACEl
1984
Absorption Occupancy
(sq.ft.) (percent)
Sorrento Mesa 504,000 59%
South Bay 405,000 94
Kearny Mesa 355,000 91
Miramar 312,000 92
Carlsbad 270,000 70
Vista/San Marcos 200,000 92
East County 189,000 94
Scripps/Rancho Bernardo 100,000 70
Oceanside 60,000 95
Escondido 40,000 84
Sorrento Valley 45,000 92
Total 2,480,000
IPredominantly R&D space. Also includes conventional
industrial space and multi-tenant incubator space.
Source: Grubb & Ellis and Economics Research
Associates.
Table V-2
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
ABSORPTION OF INDUSTRIAL SPACE1
1978-1984
Square Feet
Year (millions)
1978 1.80
1979 1.75
1980 2.00
1981 2.10
1982 1.70
1983 2.30
1984 2.50
Annual Average
1978-1984 2.02
IPredominantly R&D space. Also includes conven-
tional industrial space and multi-tenant
incubator space.
Source: Grubb & Ellis and Economics Research
Associates.
LAND PRICES AND INDUSTRIAL LEASE RATES
Industrial land prices in San Diego County range from approximately
$8.00 to $12.00 per square foot for improved land, slightly less or on the
low end of the land values quoted for the Village primary market area.
Table V-3 presents industrial lease rates in various areas of San Diego
County. The average asking monthly rate is $0.599 per square foot,
ranging from $0.180 to $1.250 per square foot, on a triple net basis where
the tenant must pay utilities-maintenance, insurance, and taxes. Because
of a moderately over-built market, particularly for R&D space, concessions
are being offered, resulting in effective rents that are approximately 10
percent less than the quoted rate.
Important to note, the Carlsbad/Oceanside submarket lease rates are
roughly 7 percent higher than the countywide average, but somewhat lower
than the burgeoning industrial/R&D submarkets of Kearny Mesa, Miramar and
the Sorrento Valley.
These rates represent an average of rates for the three industrial
product types cited earlier. A more specific breakdown is shown below:
Rental
Rate per
Square Foot
Traditional Industrial $0.40-$0.451
Multi-Tenant Incubator 0.50- 0.602
R&D 0.65- 0.803
^•Triple net basis.
2Gross basis.
3Net basis.
V-6
Table V-3
SAN DIEGO COUNTY INDUSTRIALl
LEASE RATES2
1985
Average
Monthly Rate Range
Area (per square foot) (per square foot)
San Diego
National City
Chula Vista
South County/ San Ysidro
North Beaches/La Jolla
Kearny Mesa
El Cajon
Sorrento Valley
Miramar
San Marcos
Carl sbad/Oceanside
Escondido
Rancho Bernardo
Total Area
$0.330
0.290
0.375
0.425
1.000
0.906
0.376
0.931
0.803
0.425
0.646
0.417
0.863
$0.599
$0.310-0.350
$0.210-0.330
$0.370-0.380
$0.350-0.500
$1.000-1.000
$0.520-0.65
$0.270-0.460
$0.500-1.050
$0.350-1.150
$0.360-0.550
$0.300-0.900
$0.150-1.250
$0.450-1.000
$0.180-1.250
^Predominantly R&D space. Also includes conventional indus-
trial space and multi-tenant incubator space.
2Triple net basis.
Source: Coldwell Banker Commercial Real Estate Services and
Economics Research Associates.
THE "VILLAGE"! INDUSTRIAL MARKET
The Village primary market area has Carlsbad's oldest industrial
space. Typical buildings are 1,000 square feet and hold one or two
tenants; commercial uses such as plumbing, upholstery, auto parts, moving
and storage, auto repair and gas stations are prevalent. Industrial space
found in the Village primary market area is concentrated on State Street,
north of Cedar and Tyler Street. There are also a few distribution and
light manufacturing facilities. There are an estimated 60,000 total
square feet of this older "industrial" space in the Village primary market
area.
Recent Development Trends
Rising land prices, attributed to the Village's centralized and
beach-oriented location, have made it economically prohibitive for any
development other than intensive commercial and residential uses. In
addition, the city has been strongly encouraging industrial development in
the Palomar Airport area through a myriad of measures.
Below are some recent examples of the minimal and erratic activity
in the Village industrial corridors:
o In August 1983, a two-story 4,136-square-foot slightly improved
building near the corner of Elm and State Streets was purchased
by Associated Tennis Suppliers for roughly $48.00 per square
foot. Light manufacturing and retail activities will be con-
ducted there. Associated Tennis Suppliers rehabilitated the
building as part of the city's redevelopment program.
o Near Tyler Street and the railroad tracks, a new 20,000- to
30,000-square-foot concrete tilt-up building was constructed in
1983-1984 to replace the original 4,000+^ square foot UPS
(United Parcel Service) building which had been there for over
10 years.
1Primary market area.
V-8
o A laundromat on State Street was recently sold for $275,000 to
local Carlsbad residents at a relatively high price due to
anticipated property value increases subsequent to recent
revitalization efforts.
PROPERTY PRICES
Recent property sales data reveal disparate land values between the
Village area and the Palomar Airport industrial 'hub.' These differences
are mainly attributed to general location as well as the recent revitali-
zation efforts to create a residential retail destination spot in the
Village primary market area. Many recently purchased improved parcels are
therefore zoned for commercial uses (C-M, C-2, etc.) and currently command
prices of $15-$20 per square foot. On the other hand, parcels in the
Palomar Airport portion of the overall Carlsbad market area are unimproved
and zoned industrial and sell for an average of $6-$7 per square foot.
Building prices for selected old commercial-type industrial space
in the Village as well as the near industrial/R&D space appear to be in
the $40-$50 per square foot range.
RENTAL RATES
Despite increasingly high land prices due to anticipated revitali-
zation efforts, incompatible current rental rates would not seem to sup-
port such values. According to local brokers, the Village market area
industrial 'corridors' generally have some of the lowest industrial lease
rates in San Diego County, ranging from $0.20-$0.30 per square foot per
month on a triple net basis. The nearby Palomar Airport industrial/R&D
properties command rental rates which are nearly double those among the
Village-based "industrial" ones. These lower rates are due to the market
area's inferior competitive position versus newer and growing industrial
areas in the county, particularly in North County, South Bay, and Kearny
Mesa. Thus, new industrial development has not been significant in the
market area because of high land prices and low industrial rents in the
area.
V-9
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN VILLAGE MARKET AREA
There is no significant industrial site within the Village primary
market area. From a market and planning perspective, we do not recommend
industrial development in the corridor for the following reasons:
1. The study area is not an accepted industrial area and would not
compete well with established and growing industrial areas in
the county.
2. Land prices in the study area are too high for industrial
development to be economically feasible relative to competitive
industrial areas.
3. Industrial rents in the market area are below the county aver-
age, reflective of lower demand by industrial space users to
locate in the Village.
4. Industrial development is not compatible with the nearby multi-
family and single-family residential uses, and specialty retail
uses, and thus may have a negative impact upon residential and
commercial land prices in portions adjacent to the primary
market area.
The only industrial land use which would be potentially compatible
with existing uses on State and/or Tyler Streets would be the single lot
small user commercial/light manufacturing tenants such as electronic
assembly, repair, upholstery, small furniture manufacturing, distributor
or information processor. Industrial space would not be built on a specu-
lative basis for this type of 1,000- to 5,000-square-foot user. Due to
lack of vacant land, rehabilitation or in-fill development would be the
only viable option. In actuality prohibitive land values would require
unattainable operating revenues such that this type of development would
be economically unfeasible. Stiff competition from more established
industrial areas in the county would also provide significant deterrents
to potential industrial developers in the Village primary market area.
V-10
Section VI
VILLAGE MERCHANT SURVEY
This section presents the results of a survey administered by mail
to merchants in the Redevelopment Area. Refer to Appendix A for a copy of
the questionnaire and the complete tabulated results. In total, 41 busi-
nesses of the 172 which received questionnaires responded to the survey,
of which 31, or 75 percent, are located between Madison Street and the
railroad tracks.
BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION
Table VI-1 presents the types of businesses that responded to the
survey. As seen, nine of the respondents were eating and drinking estab-
lishments, followed by gift shops and home furnishings. In all, 25 dif-
ferent types of retail and service outlets were represented in the
survey.
Nearly one-fifth of the businesses which responded have been in
their present location for one year or less, and 41.5 percent of the
respondents have been in their present location three years or less, as
seen in Table VI-2. However, only 12.2 percent of the respondents have
been in business less than a year, and 29.3 percent have been in business
for three years or less. Thus, many of the newer businesses in downtown
Carlsbad have relocated from another location, and approximately 70 per-
cent of the respondents are established businesses that are more than
three years old.
The downtown merchants are generally very small businesses with few
employees. As seen in Table VI-3, the plurality of retail businesses,
36.6 percent, have one full-time employee, while 53.7 percent have two or
three full-time employees including the owner. Approximately 41.5 percent
of the merchants have no part-time employees, and 31.7 percent have only
one part-time employee.
VI-1
Table VI-1
TYPES OF BUSINESSES
THAT RESPONDED TO THE SURVEY
TYPE OF BUSINESS
AGRICULTURAL SERVICE
BLDG MTRLS
PAINT,GLASS,WALLPAPR
GENL MERCH
FOOD STORE
CANDY,NUT,CONFECTION
AUTO SUPPLY STORE
APPAREL
MISC APPAREL/ACCESS
FURNITURE-
MISC HOME FURNISHING
HOME APPLIANCES
EATING AND DRINK
DRUG STORE
LIQUOR STORE
MISC SHOPPING GOODS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
JEWELRY
HOBBY
PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICE
GIFT
FLORIST
INSURANCE
REAL ESTATE
HOTEL
PERSONAL SERVICE
BEAUTY SUPPLIES
BUSINESS SERVICES
AUTO RELATED SERVICE
SPORTS CLUBS
HEALTH
EDUCATIONAL
SOCIAL SERVICE
MISC
GENERAL OFFICES
TOTAL
25 50
COUNT; 1111
0f 11111
1 31
9
1
0
2
2
2
0
S 1
4
1
0
1
0111
S 01
0
0
01
0
41
% |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+
2.4|**
2.4J**
2.4|**
2.4|**
0.0|
2.4J**
2.4|**
2 . 4 | **
2 . 4 | **
2.4|**7 . 3 j ******
2.4|**
22 . 0 | ******************
2.4|**o.oj
4.9J****
4.9|****
4.9] ****
0.0|
2.4J**
9 . 8 | ********
2.4|**
0.0|
2.4J**
0.0|
2.4|**
2.4J**
2.4J**
0.0|
2.4|**
0.0|
0.0|
0.0|
2.4|**
0.0|
ioo.o|-+-|-+-|-+-l-+-l-4
0
-|-+-|-+-|-+-| -+-
25 50
Source: Economics Research Associates.
Table VI-2
YEARS AT PRESENT LOCATION
AND YEARS IN BUSINESS
0- 3 Years
4-10 Years
11-20 Years
20+ Years
No Response
Years
at Present
Location
41.5%
31.7
9.8
12.1
4.9
Years in
Business
29.3%
36.7
9.8
17.0
7.3
Totall 100.0%100.0%
141 businesses.
Source: Economics Research Associates, 1985.
Table VI-3
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
Number Full-Time Part-Time
0- 1
2- 3
4-10
11-30
31-50
51-80
80+
No Response
Total1
39.0%
31.7
17.0
2.4
2.4
0.0
4.9
2.4
73.2%
12.2
7.3
2.4
2.4
0.0
0.0
2.4
100.0%100.0%
141 businesses.
Source: Economics Research Associates, 1985.
QUALITY OF BUSINESS AREA
When asked which conditions would affect business performance, most
respondents checked access, followed by parking, visibility, image,
appearance of public property, circulation, appearance of private
property, and compatibility of land uses. Approximately 95.1 percent of
the respondents felt access affects business performance while 68.3
percent felt compatibility of land uses affect business performance. The
other conditions stated above were considered important by between 80 and
93 percent of respondents. Thus, most of the businesses considered all of
the conditions presented as important. However, when asked how important
were these conditions, almost half said "somewhat important" and a little
over a third said "substantially important."
Merchants surveyed were given alternative image concepts for down-
town Carlsbad. Of the alternatives given, three out of four respondents
preferred the "village concept," followed by "pedestrian oriented" and
"European." No respondents preferred "strip development," and only 4.9
percent wanted a contemporary/modern image, as seen in Table VI-4.
Merchants were asked to rank the importance of a given set of
favorable business conditions. As seen in Table VI-5, "types of adjacent"
businesses received the most counts, ranked by 83 percent of the respon-
dents, closely followed by "nearby neighborhoods" and "heavy pedestrian
traffic." "Proximity to 1-5" and "resort development" received the fewest
rankings, from 66 percent of the respondents.
As seen in Table VI-5, "heavy pedestrian traffic" was ranked as the
most important favorable business condition, receiving by far the most
first rank votes (46.3 percent of respondents). The next favorable
business condition to be ranked as the most important was "resort
development," which was ranked as the most important favorable condition
by 14.6 percent of the respondents. The condition to receive the fewest
first rank votes was "proximity to 1-5" and "long-term business." "Types
of adjacent businesses" received the most 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rank votes,
VI-5
Table VI-4
PREFERRED IMAGE OF DOWNTOWN CARLSBAD
Percent 1
Contemporary/Modern 4.9%
Village Concept 75.6
Auto Oriented 9.8
Themed 19.5
European 29.3
Strip Development 0.0
Pedestrian Oriented 34.1
No Response 7.3
141 businesses; multiple responses allowed.
Source: Economics Research Associates, 1985.
Table VI-5
FAVORABLE BUSINESS CONDITIONS
Heavy Street Traffic
Heavy Pedestrian Traffic
Proximity to 1-5
Long-Term Businesses
Nearby Neighborhoods
Amenities
Types of Adjacent Businesses
Resort Development
Other
No Response
Percent
of Total
Responses 1
68.3%
78.0
65.9
73.2
80.5
73.2
82.9
65.9
14.6
2.4
Percent of
1st Rank
Responses 2
9.8%
46.3
4.9
4.9
9.8
7.3
9.8
14.6
0.0
__
total responses or rankings, ranging from 1 to 8.
241 businesses which responded.
Source: Economics Research Associates, 1985.
and, though not considered the foremost factor by most respondents was
overall considered very important.
When asked what types of negative business conditions would be most
detrimental to business, "lack of parking" clearly was most concerning.
As seen in Table VI-6, 83 percent of respondents ranked "lack of parking,"
followed by 78 percent who ranked "lack of access." "Types of adjacent
businesses" was ranked least often, by 61 percent of respondents. "Lack
of parking" also received the most votes as the most detrimental negative
business condition, ranked 1st by 61 percent of the respondents. "Lack of
visibility" was the second category to receive the most first rankings, by
14.6 percent of the respondents. "Lack of access" received the fewest 1st
priority rankings; only 4.9 percent of respondents considered it the most
detrimental business condition, although 43.9 percent of respondents
checked "lack of access" as the second most detrimental condition.
Merchants were asked several other questions regarding business
conditions. When asked, "Do you and other business people have a coopera-
tive relationship with City Hall?," 63.4 percent said "yes" and 7.3 per-
cent said "no," the rest either did not know or did not respond.
When asked, "Is there any evening activity in your area?," 58.5
percent said "no" and 31.7 percent said "yes." Merchants were also asked
if night activity and night business hours would add to their business
activity. Approximately 46.3 percent said "yes" and 31.7 percent said
" no."
When asked, "Would you consider establishing common hours with
other area business?," 51.2 percent said "yes," and 22 percent said "no,"
and 22 percent did not know. Finally, when asked, "Would you consider
being involved in special events and promotions?," 73.2 percent said "yes"
and only 4.9 percent said "no."
VI-8
Table VI-6
DETRIMENTAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS
Percent
of Total
Responses 1
Percent of
1st Rank
Responses2
Lack of Parking 82.9%61.0%
Lack of Access 78.0 4.9
Lack of Visibility 68.3 14.6
Types of Adjacent Businesses 61.0 9.8
Other Detrimental Conditions 9.8 2.6
No Response 9.8 2.6
^127 total responses or rankings, ranging from 1 to 6.
241 businesses which responded.
Source: Economics Research Associates, 1985.
Thus, merchants generally would like to extend downtown hours into
the evening, some of whom would establish common hours as a special shop-
ping district, and most would be willing to participate in special events
and promotions as a special shopping district.
Slightly over half of the merchants live in or near downtown
Carlsbad. As a resident and consumer, nearly 39 percent said they use
downtown "as a place to eat," as seen in Table VI-7. Of those who
responded, the second most common use was "to buy necessities," followed
by "to purchase gifts" and "to show friends downtown." Only 17.1 percent
use downtown for leisure time activity.
PHYSICAL STRUCTURE
Nearly 71 percent of the merchants surveyed rent or lease their
premises, and 24.4 percent own their space. A majority, 54.6 percent, of
merchants willing to respond pay monthly rents between $500 and $999, and
18 percent pay between $1,000 and $1,499 per month. Utilities are usually
not Included in the rent.
The most common floor space was 1,000 to 2,000 square feet, as
stated by 25 percent of those willing to respond to the question. The
next most common size was 400 to 600 square feet, followed by 2,000 to
3,000 square feet. Only two merchants stated they had over 7,000 square
feet of space. A majority, or 61.3 percent, of those who answered the
question stated that they have outdoor space, most often ranging from
+_ under 600 square feet and 1,000 to 2,000 square feet.
Approximately 68 percent of the merchants felt their street front-
age was sufficient, while 17 percent felt their frontage was insufficient,
and 78 percent felt they had adequate property depth, while 7.3 percent
felt their depth was insufficient.
VI-10
Table VI-7
USES OF DOWNTOWN
BY RESIDENT MERCHANTS
Leisure Time
Buy Necessities
Buy Gifts
Show Friends
Eat
Other
Work Only
No Response
Percent
of Total1
17.1%
34.1
31.7
29.3
39.0
7.3
19.5
36.6
141 respondents.
Source: Economics Research Associates, 1985.
PARKING
As seen in Table VI-8, 31.7 percent of the respondents stated that
they had 0 to 3 off-street parking spaces, while 24.4 percent had 10 or
more spaces. Almost half of the merchants claimed 0 to 3 on-street park-
ing spaces and 17 percent claimed 4 to 6 on-street spaces. Generally,
65.9 percent of the merchants felt parking was insufficient, 19.5 percent
felt parking was sufficient, and 14.6 percent did not respond to the
parking questions. Although a little more than a third of the merchants
did not respond to the questions, almost 27 percent of the merchants, or
37 percent of those who answered the question, desired 0 to 3 parking
spaces; and almost 20 percent each desired 4 to 6 or 10 or more parking
spaces. Thus, even though parking is generally not considered sufficient,
the amount of spaces desired is relatively few, and may already be met by
existing supply.
BUSINESS CONDITIONS
Approximately 73.2 percent of respondents stated that weekdays were
their busiest time, and 41.5 percent said weekends (there were some
multiple responses). Almost half of the respondents said the summer
season was the busiest, and 41.5 percent said holidays were the busiest
time of year.
Table VI-9 presents the responses to several questions regarding
the location of customers. Approximately 68.3 percent of the businesses
said they have customers that come from within 1 to 5 miles, and 41.5
percent each reported that they have customers that come from within 5 to
20 miles and 20 or more miles. Specific areas from which customers come
are, in the following order, Carlsbad (except downtown), Oceanside, down-
town Carlsbad, La Costa, towns to the south, towns to the east, San Diego,
and other locations. Thus, the downtown merchant's market is mostly
locally based, although a plurality of businesses, 43.9 percent, target
VI-12
Table VI-8
PARKING
Percent of Merchants 1
Number of Spaces
0-3
4-6
7-9
10+
No Response
Off-Street
36.6%
9.7
7.3
24.4
22.0
On-Street
48.8%
17.0
2.4
7.3
24.4
Parking
Desired
26.8%
19.6
0.0
19.5
34.1
Total Merchants 100.0%100.0%100.0%
Is Parking Sufficient?
Yes 19.5%
No 65.9
No Response 14.6
merchants.
Source: Economics Research Associates, 1985.
Table VI-9
LOCATION OF CUSTOMERS
Percent 1
Within 1 Mile
1- 5 Miles
5-20 Miles
More than 20 Miles
No Response
Total Businesses
17.1%
68.
41.
41.
2.4
100.0%
Downtown Carlsbad
City of Carlsbad (other than downtown)
Oceanside
San Diego
La Costa
Town to South
Towns to East
Other
No Response
Total Businesses
58.5%
90.
80.
31.
56.
51.
41.
31.
7.3
100.0%
^Percent of 41 total businesses. Percentages add to more
than 100 percent due to multiple answers.
Source: Economics Research Associates, 1985.
residents, downtown workers, and tourists. Of the three types of con-
sumers, downtown workers appear to be targeted the least.
The merchants generally feel that their competition is local.
Approximately 31.2 percent of respondents said most of their competition
was from within downtown Carlsbad, 29.3 percent said another area of
Carlsbad, 26.8 percent said Oceanside, and 26.8 percent said another North
County community (there were multiple responses).
Table VI-10 presents business performance trends, as reported by
downtown merchants who completed the survey. Approximately 71 percent
said the trend in customers was up, and 71 percent said the trend in sales
was up. However, only 48.8 percent said trends in profits were up,
reflecting higher costs associated with greater sales and customers. A
plurality, or about one-third, of businesses reported annual gross sales
of less than $100,000, but 20 percent reported annual sales of over
$500,000. Restaurants and bars, home furnishing stores, and specialty
stores particularly should increase customers and profits. Gift shops,
however, generally did not.
FUTURE PLANS
Approximately 63 percent of the respondents said their current
location meets their needs, and 27 percent said their location does not
meet their needs, including a majority of restaurants and bars. A
majority of businesses are considering expansion. Approximately 22
percent plan to expand, almost half of whom are restaurants and bars, and
32 percent said they might expand. Another 46 percent of the businesses
said they were limited by their current lot space, particularly
restaurants and bars and only 20 percent said they were not. Of those
businesses that stated how much additional space they needed, most said
1,000 to 2,000 square feet, followed by 400 to 600 square feet.
Despite perceived space limitations, only one firm stated they had
plans to relocate, although eight firms, or 19.5 percent of total respon-
dents, said they might relocate. Only three firms said that if they were
Vl-15
Table VI-10
BUSINESS PERFORMANCE TRENDS 1
Customers
Sales
Profits
70.7%
70.7
48.8
Down
12.2%
12.2
19.5
Same
7.3%
7.3
24.4
No
Response
9.8%
9.8
7.3
Annual Gross Sales Percent
Less than $100,000 34.1%
$100,000-250,000 22.0
$250,000-500,000 7.3
Over $500,000 19.5
No Response 17.1
Hi businesses.
Source: Economics Research Associates, 1985.
to relocate, they would not relocate within Carlsbad. Most merchants, 71
percent, do not plan to renovate their store, most stating their store
does not need renovation or that it had been recently renovated. About 12
percent of the businesses, however, said they lack funds for renovation.
When asked which business services and conditions were most impor-
tant, 70.7 percent of the businesses said they wanted more retail busi-
nesses, 68.3 percent said they wanted more off-street parking, and 63.4
percent each said they wanted a positive community image and improved
public relations. Development of tourist trade, improved streetscape,
resort development, and public restrooms also were important to a majority
of businesses. Rehabilitation loans, business training, employee train-
ing, improved bank services, residential and office development were the
least important, as shown in Table VI-11.
PROPOSED HOTEL PROJECTS
Merchants were asked about their perceptions regarding the impact
hotel development would have on their business, particularly eating and
drinking establishments and gift stores. Approximately 73 percent said
hotel development would affect their business, and 61 percent said hotel
development would increase business activity and that parking and conges-
tion would be a problem. Since 66 percent of businesses said they serve
both tourists and residents, a majority of businesses would benefit from
increased hotel activity.
SUMMARY
Village merchants generally own very small businesses with few
employees. About 40 percent of the merchants have moved Into the Village
within the last three years, some of whom started new businesses, but many
who have relocated. Although many of the businesses are relatively new to
downtown, a majority are established businesses that have operated for
more than three years either in downtown or somewhere else. The problems
of small independently owned businesses differ somewhat from larger chains
VI-17
Table VI-11
DESIRED BUSINESS SERVICES AND CONDITIONS
SERVICES/CONDITIONS IMPORTANT
BETTER STREET LIGHT
OFF-STREET PARKING
SIDEWALK TRASH CANS
LOW-INT BUSN LOANS
BUSINESS TRAINING
STRICT CODE ENFORCED
CRIME PROTECTION
REHABILITATION LOANS
VISIBLE POLICE ROLE
UPGRADE INVTORY LOAN
IMPROVE BEACH ACCESS
PUBLIC RESTROOMS
IMPROVE STREETS
IMPROVE TRAFFIC
BETTER PUBLIC TRANS
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
IMPROVE BANK SERVICE
MORE RETAIL BUSN
POSITIVE COMM IMAGE
PUBLIC RELATIONS
DEV'T TOURIST TRADE
RESORT DEVELOPMENT
RESID DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
TO YOU
0
(MULTI-VALUE)
50 100
COUNT
20
28
16
17
14
i 18
16
i 13
16
f 17
i 19
22
23
17
17
13: 13
29
26
26
24
23
13
14
2
41
456
!
48
68
39
41
34
43
39
31
39
41
46
53
56
41
41
31
31
70
63
63
58
56
31
34
4
100
8 j ********************
3|***************************
0|****************
5|1j *******
9 j ******************
0|****************
7|*************
0|****************
3|*******************
1|**********************
5|*****************
7|*************
7|****************************
4|*************************
5|***********************
1|**********************
7|*************
,9 I**
0 50 100
Source: Economics Research Associates, 1985.
and stores typically found in a regional shopping center. Although work-
ing capital for inventory, technical business knowledge, and money for
capital improvements is often a problem, most merchants downtown do not
desire assistance in these areas. Perhaps 10 percent could significantly
benefit from a small business loan or technical assistance program.
However, because of the scale of these businesses, most cannot effectively
market their stores in the region. They do not have the budgets for
advertising that their larger competitors have. Thus, merchants may want
to pool resources to advertise the Village District throughout the
region.
Merchants overwhelmingly want to keep the quaint "village"
ambiance, and emphasize pedestrian-oriented amenities. Parking avail-
ability is a major concern, although perceptions of a parking problem may
be more serious than the actual need at this time.
Merchants are concerned about the types of businesses within the
district, and presumably do not want businesses which conflict with the
village concept. Merchants also desire strong nearby neighborhoods to
provide a local residential base. Thus, the Redevelopment Agency should
continue to develop the village concept by continuing to improve pedes-
trian amenities, but should also investigate the development of cen-
tralized parking and easy access to the parking. Nearby neighborhoods
could be strengthened by encouraging higher density near residential
development in the adjacent neighborhoods. The types of businesses that
wish to locate in downtown should be screened, and a list of encouraged
businesses should be developed.
Almost half of the businesses desire night activity to increase
their own business activity, particularly restaurants and gift shops.
About half of the merchants would cooperate by establishing common operat-
ing hours, and a large majority would participate in special events and
promotions. Thus, night activity should be encouraged. This would
require better lighting, more night-oriented businesses, some entertain-
ment, and promotion. Merchants are willing to participate in Village
VI-19
District promotion efforts, so a district promotion program should be
developed.
Most merchants have relatively little floor space which, generally,
is sufficient now, but may soon require expansion. Restaurants in par-
ticular want to expand. More outdoor space should be encouraged and would
be the least expensive way to expand restaurant space, if adequate parking
is available. The district now serves two primary commercial purposes, as
an eating and drinking location and as a place to buy necessities and
gifts. The first function serves a regional base while the second serves
a local neighborhood base. More should be done to increase the capture of
the regional market through promotion. Although the Village potentially
can function as a place to spend leisure time, it is not now primarily
used for leisure activity. Therefore, efforts to increase leisure time
use, such as landscaping and creation of public spaces, and street
furniture should be emphasized, and an attraction management program to
provide entertainment should be development.
Although customers and sales trends are up for most business, only
half reported increasing trends in profits. Restaurants and bars, home
furnishings and specialty stores are doing best, but gift shops are not
keeping the same upward pace in terms of profits. Gift shops would
benefit from more tourist trade. A majority of business felt hotel
development would increase their business activity, because of the tourist
trade hotels would bring, but they were concerned that parking and traffic
congestion would be a problem. Therefore, each hotel's impact upon
parking and traffic should be assessed, and pedestrian linkages through
streetscape design between the hotels and downtown should be developed.
VI-20
APPENDIX A
DOWNTOWN CARLSBAD MERCHANT SURVEY
1985
This survey Is being administered by Economics Research Associates (ERA) for the Carlsbad Redevelopment
Agency. It is designed to provide Information on the concerns of the business community, and the
interest In the future of the area. Please answer each question by checking the most appropriate
response or by filling in the blank where requested. Your responses are kept STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.
Your individual response will add greatly to the validity of the survey and guide the redevelopment
program. Thank you for your participation.
A. Business Identification
Nan Address:
Type of Business:
52 Building materials & garden supplies
53 General merchandise
54 Food store
55 Automotive dealers & service stations
56 Apparel & accessory stores
57 Furniture & home furnishings
58 Eating & drinking establishments
591 Drugstores
592 Liquor stores
59 Jewelry store
59 Hobby, toy, game shop
59 Gift, novelty, souvenir
59 Florist
64 Insurance agents & brokers
65 Real estate
70 Hotels
72 Personal services
75 Auto repair, services, garages
80 Health services
82 Educational services
83 Social services
89 Miscellaneous services
General Office
Other
How long have you been at your present location:
How long have you been in business?
How many employees do you have, including yourself?
(years)
(years)
Full Time Part Time
B. Quality of Business Area
Do the following conditions affect your business performance and activity level?
Yes No
Appearance of public property
(lighting, sidewalk, streets, landscaping, etc.)
Appearance of private property
(buildings, frontages, parking areas, etc.)
Parking availability
Image
Access to business
Visibility
Circulation
Compatibility of land uses
(residential/retail/industrial)
For those conditions affecting your business, how would business activity increase if conditions
were improved?
Substantially Somewhat Very Little
What image would you like downtown to have?
Contemporary/Modern
Village Concept
Auto Oriented
Themed: Yes
If yes, what theme:
or European (small scale)
or Strip Development
or Pedestrian Oriented
or No
In what order do you consider the following to be assets to your business? (Please rank the
nose important benefit as number 1, the second most important as number 2, and so on.)
Heavy traffic along major streets
Heavy pedestrian traffic
Proximity of Interstate 5
Long-term businesses
Nearby residential neighborhoods
Amenities (for example: fountains, creative paving,
street furniture, street art, etc.)
Types of adjacent businesses
Resort development
Other (specify)
In what order do you consider the following to be detrimental to your business? (Please rank
the most detrimental as number 1, the second most detrimental as number 2, and so on.)
Lack of parking
Lack of access
Lack of visibility
Types of adjacent businesses
Other (specify)
Do you and other business people have a cooperative relationship with City Hall?
Yes No Don't know
Is there any evening business activity in your area?
Yes No Don't know
Would night activity and business hours add to your business?
Yes No Don't know
Would you consider establishing common hours with other area businesses?
Yes No Don't know
Would you consider being involved in special events and promotions?
Yes No Don't know
Do you live in or near downtown Carlsbad? Yes No
If yes, how do you use downtown?
A place to spend leisure time
A place to buy daily Items, such as food, clothing, & household goods
A place to buy gifts and specialty items
A place to show friends and visitors
A place to eat
Other
I don't spend much non-working time downtown
C. Physical Structure
Do you own or rent the building? Own Rent
What Is your monthly rent?
Does the rent cover utilities, property taxes, and maintenance? Yes No
How large is the building, or your space in it? (sq.ft.)
Do you have any outdoor space? If so, how much? (sq.ft.)
Is your street frontage sufficient? Yes No
Is the property depth sufficient? Yes No
How much off-street parking do you have? (number of vehicles)
How much on-street parking do you have? (number of vehicles)
Is parking sufficient? Yes No
If not, how many additional spaces would be desirable?
D. Business Conditions
What Is your busiest tine?
Weekdays Weekday Evenings Weekends
Do you have a busy season?
Summer Holidays Other
Where do your customers come from:
Within 1 Mile 1-5 Miles 5-20 Miles More than 20 Miles
Areas: (Check all that significantly apply)
Downtown Carlsbad City of Carlsbad Oceanside San Diego
La Costa Towns to south Towns to east Other
Where is your competition? (List all that apply.)
Downtown Carlsbad Another North County Community
Another area of Carlsbad (Name of community)
Oceanside (Name of cities)
Other
No competition
Do you serve the residential population, the tourist trade, or downtown workers?
Exclusively residential Exclusively tourists Exclusively downtown workers
Mostly residential Mostly tourists Mostly downtown workers
Residents & tourists Residents & workers Residents, workers, & tourists
For past two years, please indicate trends regarding:
Up Down Same
Customers
Sales
Profits
What types of businesses would you prefer as neighbors?
What is your current annual gross sales volume? (Will be kept strictly confidential.)
Less than $100,000 $250,000-$500,000
$100,000-5250,000 Over $500,000
E. Future Flans
Does your current location and size meet your present needs? Yes No
Do you plan to expand your business? Yes No Maybe
If you were to expand, would you be limited by lot space? Yea No
If yes, how much more space would you need? (sq.ft.)
Do you plan to relocate? Yes No Maybe
If yes, do you plan to relocate within downtown Carlsbad? Yes No Maybe
If not, where do you plan to relocate?
Do you plan any renovation of your store or storefront?
Yes No
If no, why do you not plan any renovation?
I recently renovated my store or storefront.
Let the landlord pay for renovations.
Would like to renovate, but lack the funds.
My neighbors do not renovate, why should I?
My place does not need renovation.
Other
In what order of priority would you like to see the following services and conditions appear in your
area? (Please rank the most Important as number 1, the second most important as number 2 and so
on.)
Better street lighting
Off-street parking
Sidewalk trash cans
Low-interest business expansion loans
Business training
Strict code enforcement
Protect business & customers from crime
Low-interest rehabilitation loans
More visible police role
Low-interest loans to upgrade Inventory
Improved beach access
Public restrooms
Improve streets, sidewalks, landscaping
Improve traffic circulation
Better public transportation service
Employee training
Improve local banking services
More retail business
Create positive community image
Public relations to promote area
Further development of tourist trade
Further resort development
More residential development
More office development
F. Proposed Projects
Would construction of major hotel developments in this area affect you and your business?
Yes No If yes, how?
Would Increased development activity in the area be beneficial?
Yes No Why?
Would congestion and parking be a problem?
Yes No If yes, where? _
What new businesses would best serve the area if hotel construction took place?
Would your business primarily serve both the residential and tourist populations?
Yes No If not, which would It primarily serve? Residents Tourist
G. Other Questions
Have you contacted the Redevelopment Agency In the past regarding possible cooperative projects?
Yes No
Would you like to contact the Redevelopment Agency for possible cooperative projects?
Yes No
Would you like to see a copy of the report on the survey results?
Yes No
Please describe any other Issues regarding downtown redevelopment which have not been addressed by
this questionnaire.
BUSINESS LOCATION IN SURVEY
COUNT
STUDY AREA 'A'
STUDY AREA 'B'
STUDY AREA 'C'
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
9 22
31 75
I 2
0 0
41 100
0 50
% |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-
2 2.0 j *********
6|******************************
4|*
50
100
100
TYPE OF BUSINESS
AGRICULTURAL SERVICE
BLDG MTRLS
PAINT,GLASS,WALLPAPR
GENL MERCH
FOOD STORE
CANDY,NUT,CONFECTION
AUTO SUPPLY STORE
APPAREL
MISC APPAREL/ACCESS
FURNITURE
MISC HOME FURNISHING
HOME APPLIANCES
EATING AND DRINK
DRUG STORE
LIQUOR STORE
MISC SHOPPING GOODS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
JEWELRY
HOBBY
PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICE
GIFT
FLORIST
INSURANCE
REAL ESTATE
HOTEL
PERSONAL SERVICE
BEAUTY SUPPLIES
BUSINESS SERVICES
AUTO RELATED SERVICE
SPORTS CLUBS
HEALTH
EDUCATIONAL
SOCIAL SERVICE
MISC
GENERAL OFFICES
TOTAL
0 25
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-
50
1111
011111
3
1
9
1
0
2
2
2
0
1
4
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
01
0
41
2 . 4 | **
2 . 4 | **
2 . 4 1 **
2 . 4 j **
0.0|
2.4J**
2.4|**
2 . 4 j **
2.4J**
2.4J**
7 . 3 j ******
2 . 4 | **
22 . 0 | ******************
2 . 4 | **o.oj
4 . 9 j ****
4 . 9 1 ****
4 . 9 | ****
0.0|
2 . 4 j **
9 . 8 j ********
2.4)**
0.0|
2 . 4 | **
0.0|
2.4|**
2 . 4 | **
2.4|**
0.0|
2.4|**
0.0|
0.0|
0.0|
2.4|**
0.0|
100.0I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+
50
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REV# 99 PAGE 2
YRS AT PRESENT LOCATION
YEAR
YEARS
YEARS
YEARS
YEARS
6 YEARS
7 YEARS
8 YEARS
9 YEARS
10 YEARS
10 - 20 YEARS
20 - 30 YEARS
30 - 40 YEARS
40 - 50 YEARS
50+ YEARS
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
10 20
Hi
8
4
5
1
4
2
3
2
0
1
4
1
3
1
0
2
41
« | -1-- | -T- | -T- | ~r- -T-|-T
19.5 **********************
9 . 8 ********************
- -T- -T- | -T- | -T- |
*****************
12 . 2 | ************************
2 . 4 | *****
9 . 8 ********************
4 . 9 **********
7 . 3 ***************
4 . 9 | **********
0.0|
2 . 4 | *****
9 . 8 ********************
2.4) *****
7 . 3 ***************
2 . 4 | *****
0.0|
4 . 9 | **********
100.0 -+- | -+- | -+-| -+- -+-|-+
0 10
- -+- -+- | -+- | -+- |
20
YRS IN BUSINESS
10 20
1 YEAR
2 YEARS
3 YEARS
4 YEARS
5 YEARS
6 YEARS
7 YEARS
8 YEARS
9 YEARS
10 YEARS
10 - 20 YEARS
20 - 30 YEARS
30 - 40 YEARS
40 - 50 YEARS
50+ YEARS
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
\S\J\JL\ i.
5
2
5
0
0
3
4
4
2
2
4
3
2
1
1
3
41
-6 | -T- | -T- | -T- | -T- | -T- | -T- | - T - |
12 . 2 | ************************
4 . 9 | **********
12 . 2 | ************************
0.0|
0.0|
7 . 3 | ***************
9 . 8 | ********************
9 . 8 | ********************
4 . 9 | **********
4 . 9 | **********
9 . 8 | ********************
7 . 3 | ***************
4 . 9 | **********
2 . 4 | *****
2 . 4 | *****
7 . 3 | ***************
100.0| -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- |
0 10
-T- | -T-I-T- |
|-+- | -+- | -+- |
20
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REV* 99 PAGE 3
FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES
25 50
0 EMPLOYEE
1 EMPLOYEE
2 EMPLOYEES
3 EMPLOYEES
4 EMPLOYEES
5 EMPLOYEES
6 EMPLOYEES
7 EMPLOYEES
8 EMPLOYEES
9 EMPLOYEES
10 EMPLOYEES
10 - 20 EMPLOYEES
20 - 30 EMPLOYEES
30 - 40 EMPLOYEES
40 - 50 EMPLOYEES
50 - 60 EMPLOYEES
60 - 70 EMPLOYEES
70 - 80 EMPLOYEES
80+ EMPLOYEES
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
PART-TIME EMPLOYEES
0 EMPLOYEE
1 EMPLOYEE
2 EMPLOYEES
3 EMPLOYEES
4 EMPLOYEES
5 EMPLOYEES
6 EMPLOYEES
7 EMPLOYEES
8 EMPLOYEES
9 EMPLOYEES
10 EMPLOYEES
10 - 20 EMPLOYEES
20-30 EMPLOYEES
30 - 40 EMPLOYEES
40 - 50 EMPLOYEES
50 - 60 EMPLOYEES
60 - 70 EMPLOYEES
70 - 80 EMPLOYEES
80+ EMPLOYEES
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
uvun i
1
15
7
6
2
2
1
1
0
1
01
01
0
0
0
0
2
1
41
COUNTWwUli JL
17
13
3
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
41
* | -T- | -T- | --r- -T-I--T- -T- -T- | -T- | -T-
2.4|**
36 . 6 j *****************************
17 . 1 | **************
14 . 6 | ************
4 . 9 | ****
4 . 9 | ****
2 . 4 | **
2.4J**
0.0|
2 . 4 | **
0.0|
2.4J**
0.0|
2.4|**
0.0|
0.0|
0.0|
0.0|
4 . 9 j ****
2.4|**
100. 0|-+-| -+-)-+- -+-I-+-I-+- - +-|-+- |-+-
0 25
0 25
«,|,|,j, 4_l_l_ _|_ J_ 1 4. 1 J_
41 . 5 | *********************************
31.7 | *************************
7 . 3 | ******
4 . 9 | ****
0.0)
4 . 9 j ****
0.0|
0.0|
0.0|
0.0|
2.4|**
2.4|**
0.0|
0.0|
2.4|**
0.0|
0.0|
0.0|
0.0|
2.4|**
100.01 -+- | -+- | -+- -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+-
0 25
-T-|
-+-|
50
50
. I
50
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REV# 99 PAGE 4
APPEARANCE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
35 8 5.41**********************************
5 12.2(*****
1 2.4|*
41 100.0 I-+-|- + -1-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-1-+-|
0 50 100
APPEARANCE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
COUNT
33
6
2
TOTAL
0
%
50 100
80.5) ********************************
14 . 6 | ******
4 . 9 | **
41 100.0J -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+-
0 50
-+- |
100
PARKING
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
38 9 2.7 j *************************************
2 4.9|**
1 2.4|*
TOTAL 41 100.0J-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 50 100
IMAGE
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
35 8 5.4 j **********************************
2 4.9|**
4 9.8 j ****
41 100.01-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-I-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 50 100
ACCESS
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
39 95.1j **************************************
0 0.0|
2 4.91**
41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 50 100
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REV# 99 PAGE 5
VISIBLTY
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
37 9 0 . 2 | ************************************
2 4 . 9 | **
2 4. 9 1**
41 100 . 0 1 -+- \ -+- | - + - 1 --I-- | - + - 1 -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | - + - 1
0 50 100
CIRCULATION
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
0 50 100
% -+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+- | -+-I-+-I-+- |--f-|
TOTAL
********************************
COUNT
33 8 0 . 5 j
4 9 . 8 | ****
4 9 . 8 | ****
41 100 . 0 | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- |
0 50 100
COMPATIBILTY OF LAND USES
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
28 6 8.3 j ***************************
9 22.0|*********
4 9.8|****
TOTAL 41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 50 100
CONDITIONS IMPROVEMENT IMPACT
SUBSTANTIALLY
SOMEWHAT
VERY LITTLE
NO RESPONSE
0 25 50
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
14 34.1j ***************************
20 48.8|***************************************
2 4.9|****
5 12.2 I **********
TOTAL 41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 25 50
PREFERRED IMAGE OF
CONTEMPORY/MODERN
VILLAGE CONCEPT
AUTO ORIENTED
THEMED
EUROPEAN
STRIP DEVELOPMENT
PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED
NO RESPONSE
DOWNTOWN CARLSBAD (MULTI- VALUE)
COUNT
2
31
4
8
12
0
i 14
3
0 50
% | _+. | .+. | _+_ | _+. | _+_ | _+. j _+„ | .+. | .+. |
4 . 9 | **
75 . 6 j ******************************
9 . 8 | ****
19. 5 | ********
29 . 3 j ************
0.0|
34 . 1 j **************
7.3|***
100
-+- |
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REV# 99 PAGE 6
TOTAL
0 50
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-
41 100.01-+-|-+-|- + -|-+-|-+-|-+•
74 0 50
I-+-1-+-1-+-1 -100+-1+-I
100
FAVORABLE BUSINESS CONDITIONS
COUNT
HEAVY STREET TRAFFIC
HEAVY FED. TRAFFIC
PROXIMITY TO 1-5
LONG-TERM BUSINESSES
NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS
AMENITIES
TYPES OF ADJ. BUSN
RESORT DEVELOPMENT
OTHER
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
HEAVY STREET TRAFFIC
RANK 0
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
RANK 8
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
(MULTI-VALUE)
0 50 100
3|***************************
0|*******************************
9|**************************
2|*****************************
5|********************************
2|*****************************
9|*********************************
9 j **************************
6|******
4|*
0|-+.|-+.|-+-|-+.|-+-|-+-|.+-|-+-|-+- |-+- |
0 50 100
(MULTI -VALUE)
25 50
8 | ********
4|**
8 j ********
8 | ********
12 . 2 | **********
.4|**
. 6 | ************
. 3 | ******
31 . 7 j *************************
41 100.01 -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- |
41 0 25 50
28
32
27
30
33
30
34
27
6
1
41
248
COUNT
0
4
1
4
4
5
1
6
3
13
68
78
65
73
80
73
82
65
14
2
100
0
9
2
9
9
12
2
14
7
31
HEAVY PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
RANK 0
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK 4
RANK 5
RANK 6
RANK 7
RANK 8
COUNT
0
19
4
2
2
3
1
1
0
(MULTI -VALUE)
25 50
0.0|
46.31 *************************************
9.8|********
4.9|****
4.9|****
7.3|******
2.4|**
2.4|**
0.0|
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REV# 99 PAGE 7
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
0 25
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-
9 22.0|******************
41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-
41 0 25
50
50
PROXIMITY TO 1-5
RANK 0
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK 8
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
(MULTI-VALUE)
0 25 50
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 0.0|
2 4.9 j ****
3 7.3)******
0 0.0|
4 9.8 j ********
5 12.2 I**********
6 14.6 j ************
3 7.3 j******
4 9.8|********
14 34.1j ***************************
41 100.01-+•|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
41 0 25 50
LONG-TERM BUSINESSES
RANK 0
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK 4
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK 8
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
(MULTI-VALUE)
0 25 50
|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
|
9 I****
**********
****
********
************
************
.8|********
1 2.4|**
11 2 6.81*********************
41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
41 0 25 50
COUNT
0
2
5
2
4
6
6
4
%
0.0
4.9
12.2
4.9
9.8
14.6
14.6
9.8
NEARBY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD (MULTI-VALUE)
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK 6
RANK 7
0 10
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-
0 0.0|
4 9.8|********************
7 17.1|**********************************
4 9.8|********************
3 7.3|***************
2 4.9|**********
5 12.2|************************
1 2.4)*****
20
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REV# 99 PAGE 8
RANK 8
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
0 10-20
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
7 17.1j **********************************
8 19.5|***************************************
41 100.0I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I"1"!
41 0 10 20
AMENITIES
RANK 0
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK 8
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
(MULTI-VALUE)
0 25 50
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 0.0|
3 7.3 j******
3 7.3|******
6 14.6|************
5 12.2)**********
2 4.9 I****
1 2.4|**
5 12.2 j **********
4 9.8|********
12 29.3|***********************
41 100.0)-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+- |-+-|
41 0 25 50
TYPES OF ADJACENT BUSINESSES (ASSET)
RANK 0
(MULTI-VALUE)
25 50
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK 4
RANK 5
RANK 6
RANK 7
RANK 8
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
RESORT DEVELOPMENT
RANK 0
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK 4
RANK 5
RANK 6
COUNT
0
4
12
8
7
0
1
2
0
7
41
41
COUNT
0
6
3
7
3
1
3
% | .+. | .+. | _+. | .+. | .+. | .+. | .+. | .+. | .+_ |
0.0)
29 . 3 | ***********************
19 . 5 | ****************
17 . 1 | **************
0.0|
2.4J**
4 . 9 j ****
0.0|
17.1) **************
100.0) -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+-
0 25
(MULTI -VALUE)
0 25
% | .+. | .+_ | .+. | .+- | .+. | .+- | .+. | .+. | -+.
0.0)
14 . 6 j ************
7 . 3 | ******
17 . 1 | **************
7 . 3 | ******
2.4|**
7 . 3 1 ******
1 •"*" 1
1 •+- 1
50
50
1 ••*" 1
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REV# 99 PAGE 9
RANK 7
RANK 8
NO RESPONSE
0 25
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-
1 2.4|**
4 9 . 8 | ********
13 3 1 . 7 | *************************
TOTAL 41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-
41 0 25
-+--+--
50
+-|
-+--+--+-|
50
OTHER FAVORABLE BUSINESS CONDITIONS (MULTI-VALUE)
RANK 0
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK 4
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 0.0|
0 0.0)
0 O.OJ
0 O.Oj
0 0.0|
1 2.7|*
0 0.0|
0 0.0|
0 0.0|
36 9 7.3 I ***************************************
37 100.01-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
37 0 50 100
DETRIMENTAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS
LACK OF PARKING
LACK OF ACCESS
LACK OF VISIBILITY
TYPES OF ADJ. BUSN
OTHER
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
COUNT
34
32
0
(MULTI-VALUE)
50 100
%
82 . 9 *********************************
78.0| *******************************
28 68 . 3 | ***************************
25 6 1 . 0 | ************************
4 9 . 8 | ****
4 9 . 8 | ****
41 100.0) -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+-
127 0 50
-+- |
100
LACK OF PARKING
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
(MULTI-VALUE)
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 0.0|
25 61.0|************************
7 17.1|*******
1 2.4|*
1 2.4|*
0 0.0|
0 0.0|
7 17. ij ********
41 100.01-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
41 0 50 100
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REV# 99 PAGE 10
LACK OF ACCESS
RANK 0
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK 4
RANK
RANK
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
(MULTI-VALUE) '
0 25 50
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 0.0|
2 4.9 I****
18 43.9|***********************************
9 22.01******************
3 7.3|******
0 0.0)
0 0.0|
9 2 2.0 j ******************
41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
41 0 25 50
LACK OF VISIBILTY
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK 4
RANK
RANK
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
(MULTI-VALUE)
0 25 50
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 0.0|
6 14.6 j ************
5 12.2 j **********
13 31.7|*************************
4 9.8|********
0 0.0|
0 0.01
13 31.7 j *************************
41 100.0J-+- | -+- | -+- | - + -1 -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | --f- | -+- |
41 0 25 50
TYPES OF ADJACENT BUSINESSES (DETRIMENT)(MULTI-VALUE)
RANK 0
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
0 25 50
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 O.OJ
4 9.8|********
1 2.4|**
4 9.8 j ********
16 3 9.01*******************************
0 0.0|
0 0.0|
16 39.0 j *******************************
41 100.01-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
41 0 25 50
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9 REV# 99 PAGE 11
COMMAND: COUNTS
OTHER DETRIMENTAL CONDITIONS
RANK 0
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
NO RESPONSE
COUNT
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
34
TOTAL
(MULTI -VALUE) "
0 50 100
% |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0.0|
2.6*
2.6|*
0.0|
0.0|
5 . 3 | **
0.0|
89 . 5 j ************************************
38 100.0| -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- |
38 0 50 , 100
RELATIONS WITH CITY HALL
YES
NO
DON'T KNOW
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
COUNT
26
0 50 100
%
6 3 . 4 *************************
3 7 . 3 | ***
10 24 . 4 | **********
2 4.9|**
41 100.0 | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -
0 50
+- |
100
EVENING BUSINESS ACTIVITY
YES
NO
DON'T KNOW
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
50 100
COUNT
13
24
2
2
31
58
4
4
%
.7
.5
.9
•9
| .+. | .+- | _+. | .+. | .+_ | _+_ | .+. | .+_ | _+_ | _+.
j *************
| ***********************
|**
|**
41 100.0J-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+
0 50 100
EXTENDED EVENING HOURS IMPROVE BUSINESS
YES
NO
DON'T KNOW
NO RESPONSE
COUNT
19
TOTAL
25 50
46.3 I *************************************
13 31.7|*************************
7 17.1|**************
2 4.9|****
41 100.01 -+- | -+- | -+- | -+-1 -+- | --I-- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- |
0 25 50
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REV# 99 PAGE 12
ESTABLISH COMMON HOURS
YES
NO
DON'T KNOW
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
COUNT
0 50 100
% |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
21 51 . 2 | ********************
9 2 2.0 | *********
9 2 2. 0| *********
2 4.9|**
41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-f-|-+-|-+-|
0 50 100
BE INVOLVED IN SPECIAL EVENTS/PROMOTIONS
YES
NO
DON'T KNOW
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
50 100
WU11 i
30
2
8
1
41
73
4
19
2
100
* l•2|
•9|
.5|
•4|
.0|
0
~r- | ~r- | ~r- | --r- | --r- | -T- | —r- | -T- |
*****************************
**
********
*
-+- | -+- | -+- | - + - | -+- | - + - | - + - | -+-
50
1 -T-I-T- |
|-+-|-+- |
100
DO YOU LIVE IN DOWNTOWN CARLSBAD
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
0 50
COUNT % |-+-!-+-[-+-j-+-|-+-)-+
21 51.2|********************
18 43.9|******************
2 4.9|**
TOTAL 41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-
0 50
100
--+--+--+--+-
- | -+- | --I-- | -+- | -+- |
100
AS A RESIDENCE, I USE DOWNTOWN FOR:(MULTI-VALUE)
LEISURE TIME
BUY NECESSITIES
BUY GIFTS
SHOW FRIENDS
EAT
OTHER
WORK ONLY
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
25 50
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
7 17.1|**************
14 34.1|***************************
13 31.7|*************************
12 29.3|***********************
16 39.0)*******************************
3 7.3|******
8 19.5|****************
15 3 6.61*****************************
41 100.01-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
88 0 25 50
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B.-CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REV# 99 PAGE 13
DO YOU OWN OF RENT
OWN
RENT
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
10 24.4|**********
29 70.7|****************************
2 4.9|**
41 100.01-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 50 100
MONTHLY RENT
$100 -
$500 -
$1000 -
$1500 -
$2000 -
$2500 -
$3000 -
500
999
1499
1999
2499
2999
3499
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
(MULTI-VALUE)
0 25 50
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
2 4.9J****
12 2 9.3 j ***********************
4 9.8|********
1 2.4|**
2 4.9 I****
0 0.0|
1 2.4J**
19 46.3|*************************************
41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
41 0 25 50
IS UTILITY INCLUDED
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
0 25 50
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
8 19.5 11 ****************
18 43.9|***********************************
15 36.6)*****************************
41 100.01-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 25 50
BUILDING SIZE (SQ.FT.)
0 - 200 SQFT
200 - 400 SQFT
400 - 600 SQFT
600 - 800 SQFT
800 - 1000 SQFT
1000 - 2000 SQFT
2000 - 3000 SQFT
3000 - 4000 SQFT
4000 - 5000 SQFT
5000 - 6000 SQFT
6000 - 7000 SQFT
7000+ SQFT
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
COUNT
0
0
6
4
2
8
5
2
1
1
1
2
9
41
0 25
0.0|
0.0|
14.61 ************
9.8 | ********
4.9)****
19.5|****************
12.2 j **********
4.9|****
2.4|**
2.4|**
2.4J**
4.91 ****
22.0|******************
100.0)-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+•
0 25
50
-+- | -+- | -+- | -+- |
50
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REV# 99 PAGE 14
DO YOU HAVE OUTDOOR SPACE
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
0 25 50
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
19 46.3 I *************************************
12 29.3|***********************
10 24.4|********************
TOTAL 41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-\-+-\
0 25 50
OUTDOOR SPACE (SQ.FT.)
50 100
0 - 200 SQFT
200 - 400 SQFT
400 - 600 SQFT
600 - 800 SQFT
800 - 1000 SQFT
1000 - 2000 SQFT
2000 - 3000 SQFT
3000 - 4000 SQFT
4000 - 5000 SQFT
5000 - 6000 SQFT
6000 - 7000 SQFT
7000+ SQFT
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
l*WUll X
4
3
2
1
0
5
1
1
1
0
0
1
22
41
* I ~T I T- I -T~ I "T" I ~T- ~T- I ~T"
9 . 8 | ****
7 . 3 | ***
4.9|**
2.4J*
0.0|
12 . 2 j *****
2.4|*
2.4|*
2.4|*
0.0|
0.0|
2.4|*
5 3 . 7 j *********************
100.01 -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+-
0 50
-T- | -T- | -T- |
-+- | -+- | -+- |
100
IS STREET FRONTAGE SUFFICIENT
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-(-+-I-+-|-+-|-+-(-+-|-+.|.+.|.+.|
28 68.3 j ***************************
7 17.1|*******
6 14.6|******
TOTAL 41 100.0I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I
0 50 100
IS PROPERTY DEPTH SUFFICIENT
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
YES 32 78.0|*******************************
NO 3 7.3|***
NO RESPONSE 6 14.611 ******
TOTAL 41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 50 100
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B.-CARL9
'COMMAND: COUNTS
REV# 99 PAGE 15
NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES
COUNT
0 PARKING SPACE 3
1 PARKING SPACE 5
2 PARKING SPACES 5
3 PARKING SPACES 2
4 PARKING SPACES 1
5 PARKING SPACES 0
6 PARKING SPACES 3
7 PARKING SPACES 3
8 PARKING SPACES 0
9 PARKING SPACES 0
10 OR MORE PARKING 10
NO RESPONSE 9
TOTAL 41
0 25
7.3|******
12.2|**********
12.2|**********
4.9|****
2.4|**
0.0|
7.3 j ******
7.3|******
0.0|
0.0|
24.4|********************
22.0|******************
100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-
0 25
50
"M
50
NUMBER OF ON-STREET PARKING SPACES
0 25 50
0 PARKING SPACE
1 PARKING SPACE
2 PARKING SPACES
3 PARKING SPACES
4 PARKING SPACES
5 PARKING SPACES
6 PARKING SPACES
7 PARKING SPACES
8 PARKING SPACES
9 PARKING SPACES
10 OR MORE PARKING
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
% |.+.|.+.|_+.|_+.|.+_|.+.|.+.|.+.|.+.
I****
9.8 |********
19.5|****************
14.6|************
,2|**********
,4|**
,4|**
,4|**
,0|
.0|
,3|******
24.4 j ********************
41 100.0| --I-- | -+- | -+-1 -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+•
0 25
COUNT
2
4
8
6
5
1
1
1
0
0
3
10
!
4
9
19
14
12
2
2
2
0
0
7
24
50
IS PARKING SUFFICIENT
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
YES 8 19.5 j ********
NO 27 65. 91**************************
NO RESPONSE 6 14.6|******
TOTAL 41 100.0J-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 50 100
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REV# 99 PAGE 16
HOW MANY PARKING SPACES DISIRED
0 PARKING SPACE
1 PARKING SPACE
2 PARKING SPACES
3 PARKING SPACES
4 PARKING SPACES
5 PARKING SPACES
6 PARKING SPACES
7 PARKING SPACES
8 PARKING SPACES
9 PARKING SPACES
10 OR MORE PARKING
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
0 25 50
COUNT
6
0
4
1
2
4
2
0
0
0
8
14
41
i
14
0
9
2
4
9
4
0
0
0
19
34
100
6|************
0|8|********
41**
9|****
9|****
0|
0|
0|
19.5 I ****************
***************************
100.01-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 25 50
WHAT IS YOUR BUSIEST TIME
WEEKDAYS
WEEKDAY EVENINGS
WEEKENDS
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
COUNT
30
6
17
1
(MULTI -VALUE)
50
73 . 2 | *****************************
14 . 6 | ******
41 . 5 | *****************
2.4|
100
41 100.01 -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+-
54 0 50 100
WHAT IS YOUR BUSIEST SEASON
SUMMER
HOLIDAYS
OTHER
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
(MULTI-VALUE)
0 25 50
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
20 48.8 j ***************************************
17 41.5|*********************************
8 19.5|****************
5 12.2|**********
41 100.01-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
50 0 25 50
WHERE DO YOUR CUSTOMERS COME FROM (MULTI-VALUE)
WITHIN 1 MILE
1 - 5 MILES
5 - 20 MILES
MORE THAN 20 MILES
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
7 17.1|*******
28 6 8.3|***************************
17 41.5|*****************
17 41.5|*****************
1 2.4|*
41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
70 0 50 100
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REV# 99 PAGE 17
AREAS YOUR CUSTOMERS COME FROM
DOWNTOWN CARLSBAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
OCEANSIDE
SAN DIEGO
LA COSTA
TOWNS TO SOUTH
TOWNS TO EAST
OTHER
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
(MULTI-VALUE)
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
24 58.5 ***********************
37 90.21************************************
33 80.5|********************************
13 31.7|*************
23 56. 1|**********************
21 51.2|********************
17 41.5|*****************
13 31.7|*************
3 7.3|***
41 lOO.Oj-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
184 0 50 100
WHERE IS YOUR COMPETITION (MULTI -VALUE)
DOWNTOWN CARLSBAD
ANOTHER AREA: CRLSBD
OCEANSIDE
ANOTHER NORTH COMMIT
OTHER
NO COMPETITION
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
0 25 50
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
13 31 . 7 j *************************
12 29 . 3 | ***********************
11 26.8) *********************
11 2 6 . 8 1 *********************
2 4 . 9 | ****
10 24 . 4 1 ********************
4 9 . 8 | ********
41 100.0| -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- |
63 0 25 50
WHO ARE YOUR TARGET CUSTOMERS
COUNT
EXCLUSIVE RESIDENTAL 2
MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL 4
RESIDENTS & TOURIST 15
EXCLUSIVELY TOURIST 0
MOSTLY TOURIST 0
RESIDENTS & WORKERS 8
EXCLUS. DWNTN WORKER 0
MOSTLY DWNTN WORKERS 1
RESID,WORKER,TOURIST 18
NO RESPONSE 2
TOTAL
(MULTI-VALUE)
0 25 50
% |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
4.9J****
9.8|********
36.6 j *****************************
0.0|
0.0|
19.5 j ****************
0.0|
2.41**
43.9 j ***********************************
4.9|****
41 100.OJ-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
50 0 25 50
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REV# 99 PAGE 18
TREND IN CUSTOMERS
UP
DOWN
SAME
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
COUNT
29
5
3
4
50
70 . 7 | ****************************
12.2| *****
7. 3 I***
9 . 8 ****
100
41 lOO.O -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- |
0 50 100
TREND IN SALES
UP
DOWN
SAME
NO RESPONSE
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
29 70.7|****************************
5 12.2 I*****
3 7.3|***
4 9.8|****
TOTAL 41 100.0|- + -|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 50 100
TREND IN PROFITS
UP
DOWN
SAME
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
COUNT
20
8
10
3
25 50
%
48 . 8 | ***************************************
19 . 5 | ****************
24 . 4 | ********************
7 . 3 | ******
41 100.01 --f- 1 -+- 1 -+- 1 -+- 1 -+- 1 -+- 1 -+- 1 -+- 1 -+- 1 -+- 1
0 25 50
ANNUAL GROSS SALES
LESS THAN $100,000
$100,000 - 250,000
$250,000 - 500,000
OVER $500,000
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
(MULTI-VALUE)
0 25 50
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
14 34.1|***************************
9 22.0|******************
3 7.3|******
8 19.5|****************
7 17.1|**************
41 lOO.Oj-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
41 0 25 50
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REVS 99 PAGE 19
CURRENT LOCATION MEET YOUR NEEDS
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
26 63.4 j *************************
11 26.8 I***********
4 9.8|****
TOTAL 41 100.0I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I-+-I
0 50 100
DO YOU PLAN TO EXPAND
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
MAYBE
TOTAL
COUNT
9
16
3
13
41
0 25 50
22.0|******************
39.0 j *******************************
7.3 j ******
31.7 j *************************
100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 25 50
IF PLAN TO EXPAND, LIMITED BY SPACE
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
HOW MUCH MORE SPACE
0 - 200 SQFT
200 - 400 SQFT
400 - 600 SQFT
600 - 800 SQFT
800 - 1000 SQFT
1000 - 2000 SQFT
2000 - 3000 SQFT
3000 - 4000 SQFT
4000 - 5000 SQFT
5000 - 6000 SQFT
6000 - 7000 SQFT
7000+ SQFT
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
COUNT
19
8
14
41
0 25 50
% | .+. | _+_ | .+. | .+. | .+. | .+_ | .+_ | .+. | .+_ | .+. |
46 . 3 | *************************************
19 . 5 j ****************
34 . 1 | ***************************
100. Oj -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -
0 25
+- |
50
DO YOU NEED (SQ.FT.)
COUNT
1
1
3
0
0
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
28
41
0 50
% | .+_ | _+_ 1 _+_ I _+_ 1 _+_ 1 _+_ I _+_ 1 _+_ I _+_ I .
2.4|*
2.4|*
7. 3 j***o.oj
0.0|
14 . 6 j ******
4.9|**
0.0|
0.0|
0.0|
0.0|
0.0|
68 . 3 j ***************************
100.01 -+- 1 -+- 1 -+- 1 -+- 1 -+- 1 -+- 1 -+- 1 -+- 1 -+- 1 -
100
+ . |
+• 1
0 50 100
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REV# 99 PAGE 20
DO YOU PLAN TO RELOCATE
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
MAYBE
COUNT
1
26
6
8
0 50
2.4|*
6 3.4 j *************************
14.6 j ******
19.5 I********
100
TOTAL 41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+
0 50
- -+- -+--+- |
100
PLAN TO RELOCATE WITHIN CARLSBAD
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
MAYBE
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
1 2.4|*
3 7.3j***
31 7 5.6 j ******************************
6 14.6|******
TOTAL 41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 50 100
DO YOU PLAN TO RENOVATE YOUR STORE
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
8 19.5j********
29 70.7 j ****************************
4 9.8|****
TOTAL 41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 50 100
WHY DO YOU NOT PLAN ANY RENOVATION (MULTI-VALUE)
RECENTLY RENOVATED
LANDLORD RENOVATE
LACK FUNDS TO RENVTE
NEIGHBORS WON'T
DOESN'T NEED RENVTIN
OTHER
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
0 25 50
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
6 14.6|************
3 7.3|******
5 12.2|**********
0 0.0|
15 3 6.6 j *****************************
5 12.2|**********
12 29.3j***********************
41 100.01-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
46 0 25 50
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: B:CARL9
COMMAND: COUNTS
REV# 99 PAGE 21
SERVICES/CONDITIONS IMPORTANT
BETTER STREET LIGHT
OFF-STREET PARKING
SIDEWALK TRASH CANS
LOW-INT BUSN LOANS
BUSINESS TRAINING
STRICT CODE ENFORCED
CRIME PROTECTION
REHABILITATION LOANS
VISIBLE POLICE ROLE
UPGRADE INVTORY LOAN
IMPROVE BEACH ACCESS
PUBLIC RESTROOMS
IMPROVE STREETS
IMPROVE TRAFFIC
BETTER PUBLIC TRANS
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
IMPROVE BANK SERVICE
MORE RETAIL BUSN
POSITIVE COMM IMAGE
PUBLIC RELATIONS
DEV'T TOURIST TRADE
RESORT DEVELOPMENT
RESID DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
NO RESPONSE
TOTAL
TO YOU
0
(MULTI- VALUE)
50 100
COUNT
20
28
16
17
14
• 18
16
13
16
f 17
; 19
22
23
17
17
13: 13
29
26
26
24
23
13
14
2
41
456
i
48
68
39
41
34
43
39
31
39
41
46
53
56
41
41
31
31
70
63
63
58
56
31
34
4
100
8 I ********************
3 I ***************************
0|****************
5|*****************
1|**************
9|******************
0|****************
7|*************
0|****************
5|*****************
3|*******************
7|*********************
1i**********************
5|*****************
5|*****************
7|*************
7|*************
7|****************************
4|*************************
4|*************************
5|***********************
1|**********************
7|*************
1|**************
9 I**
0 50 100
WOULD HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AFFECT BUSINESS
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
30 73.2)*****************************
9 22.0|*********
2 4.9|**
TOTAL 41 100.01-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 50 100
WOULD INCREASED ACTIVITY INCREASE BUSN
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
0 50
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-
25 61.01 ************************
6 14.6 I ******
10 24.4|**********
TOTAL 41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-!-+-
0 50
100
100
ABTAB 2.00
FILE: "B:CARL9 REV# 99 PAGE 22
COMMAND: COUNTS
WOULD CONGESTION/PARKING BE A PROBLEM
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
YES 25 61.0 j ************************
NO 1024.4)**********
NO RESPONSE 6 14.6|******
TOTAL 41 100.01 -+- | -+-1 -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | --I-- | -+- \
0 50 100
WHO DOES YOUR BUSINESS PRIMARILY SERVE
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
RESIDENTS 8 19.5 j********
TOURIST 1 2.4|*
BOTH 27 65.9|**************************
NO RESPONSE 5 12.2(*****
TOTAL 41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-\-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-\-+-\
0 50 100
HAVE YOU EVER CONTACTED REDEVLPMT AGENCY
0 50 100
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
YES 8 19.5 j ********
NO 28 68.3|***************************
NO RESPONSE 5 12.2|*****
TOTAL 41 100.0|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|
0 50 100
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTACT REDVLPMT AGNCY
0 25 50
COUNT % |-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|-+-|YES 13 31.71 *************************
NO 16 39.0j*******************************
NO RESPONSE 12 29.3j***********************
TOTAL 41 100.01 -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | -+- | --H-1 -+- | -+- | -+- |
0 25 50
Economics Research Associates
Los Angeles, California
San Francisco, California
Seattle, Washington
Chicago, Illinois
Boston, Massachusetts
Washington, D.C.
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
VOLUME III
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS & LAND USE ANALYSIS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA
ECONOMIC CIRCULATION AND DESIGN STUDY
PREPARED FOR
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
MARCH 1986
PREPARED BY
ECONOMICS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
POD, INC.
KAKU ASSOCIATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
VOLUME III - INTRODUCTION
VOLUME III - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Urban Design 1
Land Use 6
Circulation and Parking 8
Implementation and Costs 12
Fiscal Impact 16
I URBAN DESIGN I- 1
Introduction 1-1
Urban Design Considerations 1-2
II LAND USE II- 1
Existing Conditions .... II- 1
Build-Out Potential II- 4
Opportunities II- 4
Land Use Recommendations. II- 8
III CIRCULATION AND PARKING Ill- 1
Introduction Ill- 1
Traffic and Circulation Ill- 1
Parking 111-22
IV IMPLEMENTATION AND COSTS. . . IV- 1
General Strategy — Land Use IV- 1
Urban Design Implementation IV- 2
Circulation and Parking Implementation. . . IV- 6
Traffic and Circulation IV- 7
Parking IV- 9
Specific Strategy IV-11
Attractions Management Program IV-19
V FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS V- 1
Calculated Costs to the City of
Increased Development .. V- 2
Calculated Costs to the Agency V- 4
Calculated Revenues to the City V- 8
Conclusions V-12
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
II- 1 REDEVELOPMENT AREA, ESTIMATED DEVELOPABLE ACRES
AND BUILD-OUT POTENTIAL II- 5
II- 2 REDEVELOPMENT AREA, ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY II- 7
III- 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS . . . ., Ill- 7
III- 2 EXISTING EVENING PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS
OF SERVICE Ill- 8
III- 3 REDEVELOPMENT LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS 111-10
III- 4 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION RATES Ill-11
III- 5 TRIP GENERATION 111-12
III- 6 UNMITIGATED EVENING PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION
LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH REDEVELOPMENT 111-16
III- 7 EXISTING PEAK PUBLIC PARKING OCCUPANCY II1-26
III- 8 PROJECTED PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR REDEVELOPMENT 111-28
V- 1 ANNUAL COSTS, CITY OF CARLSBAD, 1984-1985 ... V- 3
V- 2 INCREMENTAL ANNUAL CITY SERVICE COSTS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW CONSTRUCTION AND USES IN
REDEVELOPMENT AREA, 1990 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS,
CITY OF CARLSBAD V- 5
V- 3 INCREMENTAL ANNUAL CITY SERVICE COSTS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW CONSTRUCTION AND USES IN
REDEVELOPMENT AREA, 2000 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS,
CITY OF CARLSBAD V- 6
V- 4 ANTICIPATED AGENCY COSTS V- 7
V- 5 KEY REVENUE MULTIPLIERS, 1986 Values V- 9
iii
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Number Page
V- 6 ANNUAL INCREMENTAL REVENUE PROJECTIONS, CITY
OF CARLSBAD AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 1990 and
2000 V-ll
V- 7 SUMMARY ANNUAL INCREMENTAL REVENUE PROJECTIONS. V-13
V- 8 ESTIMATED ANNUAL INCREMENTAL COSTS AND REVENUES
TO THE CITY V-14
V- 9 CASH FLOW, DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS,
1985-2000, 170-Space Parking Lot Constructed,
1986-1990 V-16
V-10 CASH FLOW, DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS,
1985-2000, 170-Space Parking Lot and 400-Space
Parking Lot. Built 1990-2000 V-17
iv
VOLUME III
INTRODUCTION
Volume III presents analysis and recommendations regarding urban
design, land use and parking/circulation issues. Implementation recommen-
dations and a fiscal impact analysis also are included in this volume.
The market analysis of various land uses, which provided the basis for the
land use recommendations, the parking/circulation analysis and the fiscal
impact analysis, is presented in Volume II of this study. Volume I is a
summary of Volumes II and III.
VOLUME III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
URBAN DESIGN
The urban design goals place emphasis on creating a diverse village
environment which is pedestrian oriented in the European tradition.
Five specific zones within the Redevelopment Area were selected for design
improvements to achieve this environment. These zones are described
below, in order of recommended priority.
Elm Avenue Corridor
Existing Conditions:
o The existing streetscape does not do justice to the important
function of this major thoroughfare as a gateway to the
Redevelopment Area.
Opportunities and Constraints:
o Elm Avenue is a strong visual corridor which has enormous
potential to promote imageability and physical coherence for
the Redevelopment Area. Elm Avenue acts to draw the eye
towards the sea and excite anticipation.
Urban Design Recommendations:
o The intersection of Elm Avenue and Harding Street should be
improved with enriched paving in the crosswalks. Along Elm
Avenue, palm trees should be planted at regular intervals;
sidewalks should be upgraded; and street furniture and
pedestrian decorative lighting should be installed to announce
the gateway to the Village, emphasize the corridor, focus
attention seaward, and develop design uniformity. A landscaped
median should be installed in the left turn lane the length of
Elm Avenue between Harding Street and Carlsbad Boulevard, and
should be extended through certain intersections. Special
treatment should be given the railroad crossing area to create
a pedestrian node. Consideration should be given to designing
and constructing an ocean overlook at the terminus of Elm
Avenue.
Carlsbad Blvd. Corridor
Existing Conditions:
o The corridor is heavily vehicular-oriented and evokes an
irregular visual impression. Sidewalks and pedestrian cross-
ings do little to encourage pedestrian movement into the
Village. Pedestrian movement to the sea also is limited. The
mature landscape and open space, however, act to impart an
informal, spacious and somewhat rural quality.
Opportunities and Constraints:
o Excellent opportunities exist to enhance the boulevard's func-
tion as a major scenic corridor. At both northern and southern
entries, existing physical characteristics afford opportunities
to create a strong element of surprise and arrival. The his-
torical park and the beaches are elements that should promote
pedestrian activity.
Urban Design Recommendations:
o Creative entry statements announcing Carlsbad and the Village
should be designed. The intersections of Carlsbad Boulevard
and Elm and Grand Avenues should substantially be upgraded.
Landscaped medians should be constructed on Carlsbad Boulevard
from Grand to Elm. Sidewalks should be made continuous the
length of Carlsbad Boulevard on both sides of the street.
Pedestrian scale street trees should be planted and decorative
lighting fixtures should be installed in the section between
Grand and Elm. Signage should be uniform, complement Village
signage, and be held to a minimum. Bike paths should be main-
tained. A bluff top pedestrian promenade should be developed
along the ocean frontage. Pedestrian linkages should connect
Carlsbad Boulevard north of Grand Avenue to the beach, lagoon,
park at the end of State Street and the Village.
•f
State Street North of Grand Avenue
Existing Conditions:
o State Street conveys variety and interest, but also a sense of
disorder and confusion, magnified by overhead utility lines,
heavy vehicular traffic and parked cars. Little landscaping
softens the appearance. Although sidewalks are mostly con-
tinuous, the types of business for the most part discourage
pedestrian activity.
Opportunities and Constraints:
o Recent public improvements at the pedestrian node at the Grand
Avenue intersection, a park offering a view of the lagoon, and
its diverse land uses, are significant urban design assets
along State Street.
Urban Design Recommendations:
o Eliminate on-street parking along certain sections of the west
side of State Street in order to expand the pedestrian
environment. Landscaping, street furniture and decorative
lighting fixtures at particular stretches should be put in
place. Engineering and urban design improvements, including
plans to place overhead utilities underground, should be
coordinated to save costs. Existing trees and shrubs along the
Buena Vista Lagoon in the park should be thinned out to open up
views of the lagoon. Parking along the west edge of the park
should be eliminated.
interstate 5/Elm Ave. Interchange
Existing Conditions:
o This eastern gateway to the Village is indistinguishable from
many other Interchanges; there is no clear sense of having
arrived somewhere distinct. With a strong vehicular orienta-
tion, and cluttered signage, the overall visual character is
one of disharmony.
Opportunities and Constraints:
o From an urban design perspective, the primary opportunity of
this interchange is its function as the east gateway into the
Village Centre.
Urban Design Recommendations:
o The City should construct an entry monument on the city owned
property west of 1-5 on the south side of the Buena Vista
Lagoon. A specially designed entry gate, which physically
complements and reflects the overall design style of the
Village Centre, should be erected on Elm Avenue just west of I-
5. The planting of palms in masses and rows and flowering
shrubs throughout the Caltrans right-of-way would dramatically
enunciate the Village Centre gateway. Property owners should
be encouraged to plant large shrubs or build decorative walls
to screen parking lots. Street lighting standards should match
or complement those in the Village. To establish a stronger
relationship between the Village and the Civic Center, the
streetscape improvements proposed should extend east of 1-5 to
Pio Pica Dr. Consideration should be given to beautifying the
Elm Avenue/1-5 underpass.
Grand Ave - Carlsbad Blvd. to Harding St.
Existing Conditions:
o The special design treatments along this corridor have estab-
lished this area as the heart of the Village and created an
overall theme. However, the area between the alleyway west of
State Street and Carlsbad Boulevard and the area between the
east side of Madison Street and Harding Street, have not
received special treatment. In addition, neither Jefferson
Street nor Harding Street between Grand and Elm Avenues have
received special attention, although they are visually
pleasant.
Opportunities and Constraints:
o The major opportunity to be realized by extending streetscape
improvements is to establish a continuous pedestrian link along
Grand Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard and Harding Street,
attracting tourists and residents to the Village Core, and
unifying Grand Avenue as a strong pedestrian-oriented visual
corridor.
Urban Design Recommendations:
o A landscaped median should be constructed on Grand Avenue
between Carlsbad Boulevard and the railroad crossing to soften
and lend a human scale to this expanse of asphalt. Enriched
paving should be installed on the sidewalks to tie Carlsbad
Boulevard to the Village. Landscaping, pedestrian-scale
decorative lighting, street furniture, and directional signage
should be strategically placed. The special treatment area
proposed in the area of the Elm Avenue railroad crossing should
be extended to the south side of Grand Avenue.
LAND USE
o The market analysis, presented in Volume II, did not indicate a
strong short-term market for new office, industrial, hotel, and
retail uses in the Redevelopment Area, mostly due to short-term
overbuilding in the regional market. The long-term outlook for
development, however, is good.
Tourist Accommodations:
o The Travel Services Commercial Area should not be expanded at
this time. Hotel and time-share projects should be accepted by
the city as long as the private developer absorbs all the
risks. Development of a moderate size tourist-oriented inn of
approximately 100 rooms should be encouraged after the next thr
ee years in the Travel Services Commercial Area. Until the
early 1990s, the Agency should concentrate its efforts on
design and beach access improvements in the Travel Services
Commercial Area in anticipation of more hotel development in
the next decade.
Commercial Development:
o The existing supply of 252,000 square feet of commercial space
should expand at 3 percent per year. Restaurant space should
increase by 5 percent per year. In addition, 30,000 square
feet of grocery space and 20,000 square feet of pharmacy space
may be developed. A 20,000 to 30,000-square-foot office
project should be built after the next three to four years.
The Commercial Area should not expand at this time, but the
Special Treatment Village Core Area should be expanded north of
Grand Avenue to include parcels within the Commercial Area
between Madison Street and the railroad tracks. More
entertainment activity is required to attract residents and
tourists at night. The Latino theater should be renovated to
service a broader audience. Entertainment projects should be
sought.
Residential Development and the Combination District:
o Approximately 90 to 100 multi-family housing units should be
built in the Redevelopment Area, or more if density is
increased beyond 25 units per acre. The market could support
90 to 100 units per year until the desired density is reached.
Moderate to high density residential development in the
redevelopment area and the surrounding neighborhoods should be
encouraged to increase the resident consumer base of downtown.
Residential development is preferred over office development in
the Combination District.
Industrial/Commercial Uses:
o Most limited industrial uses within the Redevelopment Area
should be encouraged to relocate elsewhere in the City, outside
the Village project area. Some relocation will naturally occur
due to changing land values. Relocation will gradually occur
over five years or more. A possible program that might replace
the current industrial uses is a special crafts district where
goods may be manufactured visibly to the public, and sold
wholesale and retail to the general public as well as to com-
mercial customers. The semi-industrial area west of Tyler
Street and south of Elm Avenue should eventually convert into a
general neighborhood-serving Commercial Area.
Time-Share, Accommodations, and a New Redevelopment Project Area:
o A new redevelopment project area south of the existing redevel-
opment project area is not recommended at this time, because
the existing area still has room to develop and accommodate
growth, and the area under consideration is not obviously
blighted. It is recommended that, instead, time-share
projects, small inns, and bed and breakfast accommodations be
permitted in the proposed area south of the existing redevelop-
ment project area on a conditional use permit basis.
CIRCULATION AND PARKING
o 1-5 carries 104,000 to 107,000 vehicles per day (vpd). The
arterials which carry the highest volumes are Elm Avenue and
Carlsbad Boulevard. The six major intersections analyzed all
currently provide good to excellent levels of service during
evening peak hours.
Traffic and Circulation Projections:
o Based on assumptions regarding potential development within the
redevelopment project area by the years 1990 and 2000, approxi-
mately 21,400 daily and 2,140 evening peak hour vehicular trips
would be added to the redevelopment area by 1990. In total,
39,600 daily and 3,850 evening peak hour trips would be added
by the year 2000. Based on the downtown development
assumptions for the next 15 years, the intersections of Elm
Avenue at Harding Street and Elm Avenue and 1-5 northbound
ramps would operate under poor conditions (LOS E) by 1990. The
other major intersections would continue to operate under very
good or excellent conditions. By the year 2000, the
intersections of Elm Avenue at Harding Street and Elm Avenue at
the 1-5 northbound ramps would be overloaded, operating at LOS
F. Conditions at the intersections of Elm Avenue at Carlsbad
Boulevard and Elm Avenue at the 1-5 southbound ramps would
deteriorate from very good (LOS B) to fair (LOS D) conditions,
still considered acceptable for an urban street. Future
volumes along Elm Avenue will begin to exceed the carrying
capacity of the street.
Circulation Recommendations:
o Provide an additional travel lane in each direction along Elm
Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard and Harding Street, for a
total of four through lanes, by 1990. A raised median island
should be installed along Elm Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard
and Harding Street, and the intersection of Elm and Madison
should be signalized, to facilitate traffic flow and safety.
At the northbound 1-5 ramps, Elm Avenue should be restriped to
provide a second left-turn lane on the east-bound approach by
the year 1990. By the year 2000, the northbound 1-5 off-ramp
should be widened by one lane. By the year 1990, the
northbound and southbound approaches on Harding Street at Elm
Avenue should be restriped to provide one exclusive left-turn
lane and one shared through and right-turn lane on each
approach. By the year 2000, the westbound Elm and northbound
Harding approaches should be widened to accommodate an
exclusive right-turn lane each.
Alternative Circulation Plan:
o An alternative to providing four travel lanes on Elm and
improving the Elm Avenue/Harding Street intersection is to
convert Elm Avenue and Grand Avenue into a one-way couplet
between Harding Street and Carlsbad Boulevard. Elm Avenue
would provide two lanes for eastbound traffic and Grand Avenue
two lanes for westbound traffic. Advantages to this
alternative include the directing of traffic past commercial
shops in the village core along Grand and traffic flow in the
Village area would be facilitated.
Existing Parking Conditions:
o The Redevelopment Area was divided into seven parking zones for
analysis. There are approximately 625 public parking spaces in
the Commercial/Village Core area, 170 on-street spaces in the
two limited industrial areas, and 403 on-street spaces in the
two residential/combination districts. Although blocks closer
to activity centers are occupied at a much higher rate than
blocks further away, the peak parking occupancy rate, in
general, was below existing capacity in all zones, ranging from
28 percent to 63 percent. Thus, although there is often a
perceived shortage of parking spaces in the immediate vicinity
of particular stores, ample supply of parking exists within a
short walking distance of no further than one or two blocks.
Parking Impacts:
o Development in the Commercial/Special Village Core area will
generate demand for 790 new parking spaces by 1990, and 1,905
new spaces by 2000, including 100 new spaces needed to support
the theater renovation and 265 spaces required for the proposed
Vons complex. The actual number of additional spaces required
for continued redevelopment of the Commercial/Village Core area
is 295 spaces by 1990 and 1,110 spaces by 2000. New hotel, inn
and time-share developments would generate demand for an
estimated 285 and 495 parking spaces by years 1990 and 2000,
respectively. New multi-family development would generate
demand for 265 spaces by 1990 and 615 spaces by 2000.
Approximately 75 new spaces will be needed by 1990 and 890
spaces by 2000 in the Commercial/Special Village Core
area.
10
Recommendations:
o The City has three options for supplying parking: 1) require
all future commercial development to provide parking on-site,
2) develop centralized parking through a parking assessment
district, 3) require some on-site parking and develop central-
ized parking through an assessment district. Lodging and
residential development should be required to provide adequate
on-site parking. Existing public parking lots are currently
under-utilized. Appropriate signs should be placed to direct
traffic to these lots. The existing public lots along the
alley south of Grand between State and Roosevelt should be
restriped and resigned. Existing two-hour parking zones should
be enforced. A new surface lot should be constructed along the
east side of the railroad south of Oak Avenue, providing 170
more spaces, by 1990. An additional new parking lot should be
constructed along the east side of the railroad north of Grand,
providing 400 spaces, between 1990 and 2000.
o The above recommendations would provide 60 to 65 percent of the
parking needed by the year 2000. The balance should be pro-
vided by private on-site parking requirements. An in lieu fee
may be charged to those projects which do not provide enough
on-site parking, with fee revenues used to develop public
parking.
11
Beach Parking:
o Beach parking may be provided by clearly delineating on-street
parking on Carlsbad Boulevard, constructing a new surface lot
within the undeveloped Garfield Street right-of-way between
Beach and Cedar avenues, and using the surface lots recommended
for the Commercial/Village Core area, particularly the railroad
right-of-way lots. This would help attract beach-goers to the
village core area.
IMPLEMENTATION AND COSTS
Given limitations in the market for new commercial development in
the short term, as demand catches up with the abundant new supply of
commercial space in the region, the Agency should concentrate its efforts
on public improvements in the near term so that the downtown may position
itself to capture quality commercial development in the near future when
demand has met existing supply of space and new development is needed.
Urban Design Implementation
Costs:
Elm Avenue Corridor - Harding Street to the Sea $1,230,000
The Carlsbad Boulevard Corridor 1,155,000
State Street - North at Grand Avenue 764,000
Interstate 5/Elm Avenue Interchange 202,000
Grand Avenue - Carlsbad Boulevard to Harding Street 822,000
Total $4,173,000
12
Priority:
o The above areas should be treated in the order presented above,
with the Elm Avenue Corridor receiving the first attention, and
Grand Avenue receiving the last treatment.
Circulation and Parking Implementation
Traffic and Circulation:
o The following street system improvements are recommended for
implementation by the year 1990:
Elm Avenue Widening $ 4,000
Elm Avenue Signalization 70,000
Elm Avenue/I-5 Northbound Ramps 13,000
Elm Avenue/Harding Street Intersection 1,000
Total $ 88,000
o The following street system improvements are recommended for
implementation by the year 2000:
Elm Avenue/I-5 Northbound Ramps Wideningl $ 64,000
Elm Avenue/Harding Street Intersection 13,000
(excluding right-of-way acquisition)
Total $ 77,000
'•Includes land acquisition costs.
13
Parking:
o The following measure is recommended for implementation by
1990:
A New 170 Space Surface Parking Lotl $1,446,000
o The following measure is recommended for implementation by
2000:
A New 400 Space Surface Parking Lotl $2,332,000
Financing
o The following financing scenario is suggested:
Public Improvements Expense — $4,175,000
Funds - Tax Increment Bonds $3,630,000
General Revenues 270,000
Quimby Fees/Public Facility Fees 275,000
$4,175,000
Parking/Circulation Expenses - $4,000,000
Funds - Parking Authority Bonds $3,500,000
Tax Increment Bonds 500,000
$4,000,000
o Negotiated developer agreements may offset some of these costs
and funding requirements.
Includes land acquisition costs.
14
Other Projects
Latino Theater:
o The Agency should seek a theater operator to convert and reno-
vate the theater for a broader audience. The City should
commission a study to determine the feasibility of converting
the theater into a joint use movie and performing arts theater.
The City should consider placing the theater the on historic
register. CDBG funds could be used for the recommended
studies.
The Crafts District:
o The Agency should develop the crafts district concept in more
detail and should consider developing a Specific Flan for the
State Street area north of Grand Avenue to ease this area's
transition from semi-industrial to commercial uses. CDBG funds
may be used for this purpose.
Attractions Management Program
o It is recommended the the Agency in cooperation with the
Downtown Merchants Association and the Chamber of Commerce
develop an attractions management program for downtown Carlsbad
that concentrates on seasonal special events to attract
tourists and North County residents to the Village.
15
FISCAL IMPACT
City Costs
This abbreviated table demonstrates incremental city service costs
attributable to new construction and uses in the Redevelopment Area for
the years 1990 and 2000. Note that a reduction in the amount of space
dedicated to industrial uses results in a savings in service costs.
Year Residential Commercial Hotel Industrial Total
1990
2000
$32,200
20,000
$13,600
18,400
$ 9,200
16,200
($1,600)
(3,400)
$53,400
51,200
Agency Costs
Anticipated Agency costs are summarized below. The Agency's
administration costs are annual; costs for the improvement programs are
total.
Redevelopment Agency
Administration $ 262,000 annually
Public Improvement Program 4,176,800 total
Traffic Improvements Program 4,015,750 total
City Revenues
Projected City revenues are substantially higher than municipal
costs. By the end of 1990, annual revenues are expected to total
approximately $558,200. By the end of the succeeding decade, incremental
revenues should be approximately $714,800 annually. Not only do revenues
more than outweigh costs, but revenues continue to increase while the
incremental growth in municipal costs decreases.
16
Agency Revenues
The following shows "snapshot" views of aging revenues for 1985,
1990, 1995, and 2000.
Tax Increment
Bond I Proceeds
Bond II Proceeds
Total
1985 1990 1995 2000
$550,000
0
0
$1,241,900
880,000
0
$2,070,200
0
380,000
$2,898,600
0
380,000
$550,000 $2,121,900 $2,450,200 $3,278,600
Recommendations
Based on the analysis demonstrating revenues to both the City and
the Agency to be greater than costs, we recommend that the intensified
development of the downtown area be pursued. Land acquisition and
construction of the 170-space parking lot should be deferred until after
1990, unless financed by a parking assessment district, in order to avoid
severe negative cash flows during the early years of the project when
public improvements are being funded.
Summary and Fiscal Impact
City Costs
City Revenues
Agency Costs
Agency Revenues
1990
? 53,400
557,400
1,521,000
2,121,900
2000
? 51,200
715,000
1,567,000
3,278,600
17
SECTION I
URBAN DESIGN
INTRODUCTION
Among the measures established by the Redevelopment Plan for revltallzation of
the Village Redevelopment Area, urban beaut1f1cat1on and a significant
Increase 1n public and private landscaped open space are perhaps the most
feasible. Immediate steps for achieving positive results. Significant
progress has already been made 1n key areas of the Redevelopment Area, such as
the Grand and State Street Intersection, which has established the character
of the downtown area, set the tone for future Improvements and reinforced the
small scale, pedestrian-oriented quality of the area.
Design guidelines for the Village Redevelopment Area set forth 1n the Village
Design Manual Indicate that land use 1n the area should reflect "diversity,
variety and urbanity." Landscaping, enriched and special paving, enlightened
and artistic slgnage and amenities; Including street furniture, lighting,
fountains, sculpture and kiosks, are envisioned as essential Ingredients to
achieve a "setting which manifests urbanity." Moreover, while the diversity
of land use 1n the subareas of the Redevelopment Area Is encouraged, the
Importance of Interconnectedness of the areas through landscaped and specially
treated pedestrian linkages 1s underscored.
The results of the Merchant's Survey, discussed above, serve to validate the
desirability of these measures for revltallzation of the area. In this
survey, merchants overwhelmingly expressed a preference for maintaining a
"village" ambiance 1n the European tradition which stresses pedestrian-
oriented amenities.
Heavy pedestrian traffic from nearby neighborhoods and resorts was Identified
by merchants as the most favorable business condition, underscoring the
Importance of pedestrian linkages to the Village Centre. In sum, 1t may be
concluded from the merchants' collective response that they desire an
environment 1n the Village Redevelopment Area which attracts prospective
clientele, promotes their Interest and encourages movement and lingering as
they shop, browse, dine and participate 1n leisure activity.
The remainder of this section 1s concerned with the translation at a
conceptual level of these Important urban design goals Into more specific
recommendations for Improvements which can be Implemented In the short run and
which will contribute to a rich, urban framework which manifests "urbanity."
1078L
1-1
URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
In the course of this urban design review, which has entailed extensive field
observation and discussions with city staff and merchants, several
opportunities for public Improvements have been Identified and prioritized for
specific zones within the Redevelopment Area. These zones are distinct In
land use, visual characteristics, and function and represent a h1erarch1al
circulation network within the Village Area. In order of priority these zones
are:
I. Elm Ave. Corridor
II. Carlsbad Blvd. Corridor, Including the Intersections of Carlsbad
Blvd. at Elm Ave. and Grand Ave.
III. State Street Corridor North of Grand Ave.
IV. Elm Ave./I-5 Interchange.
V. Grand Ave. - Carlsbad Blvd. to Harding St.
In the following, each of these zones are analyzed 1n terms of their existing
conditions and the opportunities/constraints they pose for Improvement.
Finally, specific urban design recommendations are made for each zone which
not only help define 1t but which also contribute to the overall texture and
physical, design fabric of the Redevelopment Area. These recommendations are
ranked 1n the order proposed for Implementation. The thrust of these
recommendations 1s to physically reinforce the distinctive character and
function of each zone, yet, at the same time, to unify them through a common
vocabulary of urban design elements. In general, variations 1n street trees
and special paving treatments are proposed as the primary elements for
distinguishing the zones. Specially designed and complementary street
lighting and furniture and slgnage are viewed as the major Ingredients for
establishing a strong sense of unity and Interconnectedness 1n the Village
Area. To Illustrate the process through which design recommendations have
been derived and to aid visualization of their Impact, Exhibit 1-1 has been
provided.
1078L 1-2
EXHBITI-3
PJ«:
P-l&j
I tauimm^ -MA* a N
^ .--*
• ••|l *.(
_...
1 TIVAT4 or MM
;
e<
rtr*
.... • ...
*Y
J A .,-.-... ...
i;
CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS
Economics Rnetrc" Auccules
1-3
I. ELM AVE. CORRIDOR - HARDING ST. TO THE SEA
A. Existing Conditions
Elm Ave. 1s the major east-west thoroughfare Unking the C1v1c
Center and 1-5 to the Village Centre, Carlsbad Blvd. and beach
access points. Elm Ave. 1s an 80 foot right of way and throughout
most of Its length, from Harding St. to Carlsbad Blvd., provides two
travel lanes, a left turn median lane and parking lanes on either
side of the street which abut 8 foot continuous sidewalks. The
street widens to four travel lanes between 1-5 and Harding St. to
accommodate freeway traffic. The sidewalks from 1-5 to Carlsbad
Blvd. are monolithic concrete, which are punctuated at more or less
regular Intervals by a variety of street trees, Including Queen
Palms and Carrotwood and conventional "Cobra Head" street lights.
Between State St. and Carlsbad Blvd., street trees have not been
planted; however, generous plantings of trees 1n adjoining lots,
especially eucalyptus species which dominate the western horizon,
give the Impression of continuity 1n planting.
At the Intersection of State St. and Elm Ave., Interlocking pavers,
bound 1n concrete bands, form the crosswalks. This special paving
dramatically breaks the monotony of the sidewalks and 1s the first
visual sign along Elm Ave. for the first time visitor that something
unique may be just around the corner.
For the motorist entering Carlsbad from 1-5, the overall visual
character of Elm Ave. between Harding St. and the sea 1s comfortable
and pleasant, especially for the westbound traveler who has emerged
out of the visual distraction of service stations and convenience
retail complexes which marked his arrival. However, the existing
streetscape does not do justice to the important function of this
major thoroughfare as a gateway to the Redevelopment Area.
B. Opportunities and Constraints
The Redevelopment Plan envisions Elm Ave. as the east-west gateway
to the Village Centre and beach access points which facilitates
circulation and promotes strong financial and commercial land use.
From an urban design perspective, Elm Ave. represents a very strong,
visual corridor which has enormous potential to promote the
imageabllity and physical coherence of the Redevelopment Area. With
the Pacific Ocean at Its western terminus and visible from an
extended distance, the towering trees that silhouette Us western
horizon and the Impression it gives of descending from 1-5 to the
sea. Elm Ave. acts to draw the eye and excite anticipation. While
the terminus of this axial street is not sufficient by itself to
emphasize the axis, much can be done with landscaping, paving,
lighting and, perhaps, banners and flags to visually reinforce the
Elm Ave. corridor.
1078L 1-4
Urban Design Recommendations
In recognition of Its Important function and potential, the Village
Design Manual calls for a high degree of landscaping along Elm Ave.
and Improvements 1n the circulation along the street. To achieve
these objectives, the following specific recommendations are made:
1. The Intersection of Elm Ave. and Harding Street should be
Improved with enriched paving 1n the crosswalks and
Interstitial area similar to the treatment at the State
St. and Elm Ave. Intersection. SignalIzatlon and
additional slgnage at this Intersection should be
Incorporated Into specially designed lighting standards
(see discussion of lighting, below). These actions will
serve to visually announce the eastern gateway Into the
Village Centre and set the tone of the village character.
Evergreen street trees should be planted at regular
Intervals from Harding St. to Carlsbad Blvd. A
combination of Wash1ngton1a robusta and F1cus nttlda are
recommended for consideration. The palms will provide
strong vertical elements which will emphasize the
corridor, focus attention seaward, and establish a uniform
formality which will highlight Elm Ave.'s Important role
as a gateway and financial/commercial corridor. The F1cus
nltlda will provide a pedestrian scale canopy, but should
be used judiciously to avoid blocking building fronts and
entries.
Sidewalks on both sides of Elm Ave. from Harding St. to
Carlsbad Blvd. should be upgraded through a combination of
modular and monolithic concrete paving 1n a rich, uniform,
but relatively simple pattern. Curb cuts should be
eliminated wherever possible to facilitate vehicular and
pedestrian movement. A well designed ground plane,
represented by the sidewalks, will accentuate the Intended
formality and promote a sense of unity along this corridor.
Lighting along Elm Ave. should be of two types and should
be specially designed to help define the village character
of the Redevelopment Area. Standard "Cobra Head" fixtures
should be used to Illuminate Intersections; pedestrian
scale fixtures should be used along sidewalks. Both
fixtures should have decorative standards and should be
sufficiently visible to begin to establish the village
character. It 1s proposed that lighting standards
selected for Elm Ave. be used throughout the Redevelopment
Area to reinforce the Integrity and Interconnectedness of
the area.
1078L
1-5
Directional and Informational slgnage along Elm Ave.
should be uniform, aesthetically designed to complement
other urban design elements, strategically placed and held
to a minimum. As with lighting standards, slgnage
designed for Elm Ave. should be used throughout the
Redevelopment Area to help establish Its Identity.
Street furniture. Including benches, planter, cigarette
urns, waste containers and drinking fountains, banners and
bus stop enclosures, should be specially designed,
complementary and strategically placed along Elm Ave.
Like lighting and slgnage, these elements should be
consistent 1n design throughout the Redevelopment Area to
reinforce Its Integrity.
•f
2. A median should be Installed In the left turn lane the
length of Elm Ave. between Harding St. and Carlsbad Blvd.
Consideration should be given to extending this median
through certain Intersections, such as Jefferson St. and
Elm Ave., to Improve circulation along Elm Ave. The
median should be planted with shrub masses and ground
cover. Special paving should be Installed at the
perimeter of the median to define the edge and facilitate
maintenance and 1n those sections of the median where
planting 1s Impractical. This landscaped median will
soften the character of Elm Ave., yet still noticeably
contribute to Its function as the Redevelopment Area's
major visual corridor.
3. Special treatment 1s recommended 1n the general area of
the railroad crossing on the north side of Elm Ave. The
presence 1n this area of the park, the old railroad
station (now the Chamber of Commerce), the expansive alley
way west of State Street and the under-utilized parcel at
the northwest corner of Elm Ave. and State St. (now a
transmission repair shop), give 1t great potential as a
vibrant, pedestrian node. In this area, consideration
should be given to provide heavy landscaping and added
amenities; such as a low seating wall, a fountain, an
Information kiosk and enriched paving detail 1n the alley
way, to capture Its potential.
4. Consideration should be given to designing and
constructing an overlook at the terminus of Elm Ave. at
the Pacific Ocean to maximize the public benefit of this
major view and beach access point. At present, private
residences partially obstruct the view and serve to
diminish the Importance of this major focal point. A
viewing platform which extended out seaward beyond the
line of houses along Ocean Street would dramatically
1078L
1-6
unveil a panoramic view of the coastline for visitors to
Carlsbad. In addition, the use of palms, decorative
lighting fixtures, banners and, possibly, a gateway such
as that proposed for the Elm Ave./I-5 Interchange area
(see Item IV., below) would enframe and highlight the
visual Importance of this major focal point.
1078L
1-7
Flgur* 1-1
Elm Av«. Corridor
Carlsbad Redevelopment Area
Design Study
1-8
II. THE CARLSBAD BLVD. CORRIDOR
A. Existing Conditions
Carlsbad Blvd., commonly referred to as Old Highway 101, functions
as the major north-south thoroughfare In the downtown area.
Existing land use along this 100 foot corridor consists of tourist,
highway commercial, Institutional and local heritage. Several
prominent landmarks punctuate the boulevard, such as the historical
park, the Lutheran Home and the Twin Inns.
The Carlsbad Blvd. corridor 1s for the most part heavily vehicular-
oriented and evokes an Irregular, Informal and, at times, chaotic,
visual Impression. Two distinct visual zones are present. Moving
southward from the north entry point at the bridge over the railroad
tracks to Grand Ave., the street consists of three travel lanes, a
painted, left turn median lane, and bike and Intermittent parking
lanes on either side. Sidewalks 1n this area are discontinuous and
do not encourage pedestrian movement.
Large, mature ecualyptus specimens, randomly planted at the edges of
the right-of-way and 1n groves and palms at the Lutheran Home,
dominate the view corridor 1n this area. Open space 1s afforded by
the park, the military academy athletic field and generally by low
density development. Together, these characteristics act to Impart
a loose, Informal, spacious and somewhat rural quality to the area.
The second zone essentially begins at the Intersection of Grand Ave.
and ends at P1ne Ave. Development within this area 1s more Intense
and urban. The street opens up Into four travel lanes with a
painted median, and Intermittent parking lanes and bike lanes on
either side. Sidewalks are more or less continuous, but are of
different materials and do not promote pedestrian movement.
The junctures of Carlsbad Blvd. at Elm Ave. and Grand Ave. are major
Intersections, which like the street Itself, have decided vehicular
orientations. Pedestrian crossings at these Intersections,
especially across Carlsbad Blvd., are Imposing, uninviting and do
little to encourage pedestrian movement Into the Village Centre.
For a short distance along the east side of Carlsbad Blvd. fronting
the Twin Inns, no curb exists at all, adding to the discomfort of
pedestrian movement. In this area parking extends to the highway
with no break, transition or buffer. With a few exceptions, this
section of Carlsbad Blvd. 1s devoid of street trees or other
landscaping, lending at times a harsh quality to the streetscape.
At the south end of Carlsbad Blvd., where 1t veers toward the ocean
and affords a panoramic view of the sea, pedestrian movement and
enjoyment of the view 1s discouraged by the absence of Improved
sidewalks. With the exception of an unimproved trail to the beach,
no provision has been made for walking along the bluff top
overlooking the ocean.
1078L
1-9
B. Opportunities and Constraints
Excellent opportunities exist along Carlsbad Blvd. to enhance Its
function as a major scenic corridor and to contribute to the
revltaHzatlon and overall character of the Redevelopment Area. The
likelihood that Carlsbad Blvd. will Increase 1n future Importance as
an alternative route to 1-5 as regional growth continues and as a
tourist destination, makes 1t Imperative that Us relationship to
the Village Centre be strongly and visibly reinforced.
As the primary north-south corridor Into the Redevelopment Area,
Carlsbad Blvd. provides major entry points Into the area. At both
the northern and southern entries, existing physical characteristics
afford opportunities to create a strong element of surprise. At the
north entry, the southbound motorist literally ascends and then
descends over a bridge through a veil of towering eucalyptus Into a
relatively open, somewhat rustic environment, which rapidly
transitions Into an Increasingly urban setting. This experience
from the road evokes a very strong sense of arrival and discovery.
Appropriately designed slgnage and amenities -at the Intersections of
Carlsbad Blvd. and Grand Ave. and Elm Ave. would reinforce this
sense of arrival and serve to draw the motorist Into the Village
Centre.
Should the southbound motorist continue beyond Elm Ave., he 1s
awaited by the dramatic unveiling of the Pacific Ocean. This
panoramic view, together with a special sense of place which marks
this short span of Carlsbad Blvd., Instills 1n the motorist an
overall visual Impression of the area which may prompt him to return
another time.
For the northbound motorist entering the Redevelopment Area along
Carlsbad Blvd., the serial experience from the road 1s less
dramatic. However, as he turns Inland from the ocean, he does
experience a definite sense of arrival. The unusual character of
the Twin Inns, 1n particular, serves to signal a presence of a
unique environment. Again, directional and Informational slgnage
and special amenities at Elm and Grand Avenues would attract the
motorist Into the Village Centre.
Major opportunities also exist along Carlsbad Blvd. to Intensify and
promote pedestrian activity. The Village Centre, the historical
park and, of course, the beaches are very strong attractions to the
pedestrian-minded, especially tourists and beach visitors who can be
expected to Increase 1n number as a result of new resort development
and regional growth. Landscaped medians along Carlsbad Blvd. are
already being considered as measures to beautify and lend pedestrian
scale to this corridor. Further Improvements In pedestrian pathways
and streetscapes Unking areas of Interest, 1n addition to special
treatments at the Elm Ave. and Grand Ave. Intersections, offer
promise of transforming Carlsbad Blvd. from a largely
vehicular-oriented street Into a vibrant, active pedestrian network.
1078L
1-10
Urban Design Recommendations
The Village Design Manual calls for heavy streetscaplng and open
space amenities along Carlsbad Blvd., particularly at the Elm Ave.
and Grand Ave. Intersections, to coordinate tourist, recreational
and commercial activities of the beach area with the Village
Centre. Specific recommendations to achieve these objectives are
set forth below:
1. Entry statements announcing arrival Into the City of
Carlsbad and the Village Centre, should be constructed at
the north and south entrances to the Redevelopment Area on
Carlsbad Blvd. Consideration should be given to
constructing an entrance gate just south of the bridge
similar to that proposed for the Elm Ave./I-5 Interchange
area (see Item IV, below). In addition, the bridge Itself
might be highlighted with specially designed lighting and
colorful banners to emphasize arrival Into the
Redevelopment Area.
2. The Intersections of Carlsbad Blvd. and Elm and Grand
Avenues should be substantially upgraded. Crosswalks
should be defined with paving detail to more clearly mark
pedestrian areas and Invite pedestrians to cross the
street Into the Village Centre. S1gnal1zat1on and
directional Information should be Incorporated Into
specially designed street light standards. In addition,
entry monuments should be constructed at the northeast and
southeast corners of the Carlsbad Blvd. and Elm Ave.
Intersection. Land use changes at the northwest and
southeast corners would significantly reinforce these
Improvements and generally enhance the 1mageab1l1ty of
this key Intersection.
3. Landscaped medians should be constructed on Carlsbad Blvd.
1n the portion of the corridor from a point just north of
Grand Ave. to a point just south of Elm Ave. This will
serve to reinforce the sense of arrival Into the urban
core from the north and south, tend to slow vehicular
traffic, dramatize the Improved Intersections and
generally lend a smaller, more human scale to this wide
expanse of thoroughfare. At the same time, consideration
should be given to removing on-street parking on both
sides of Carlsbad Blvd. between Grand Ave. and Elm Ave. to
permit greater pedestrian-oriented activity. In both
respects, 1t 1s Important that engineering and urban
design Improvements be closely coordinated and performed
simultaneously to Insure cost effectiveness and
fulfillment of urban design Intent.
1078L
I-11
Sidewalks should be made continuous the length of Carlsbad
Blvd. on both sides of the street from the bridge at the
north entrance to the southern boundary of the
Redevelopment Area. The degree of paving detail should be
Intensified 1n the area between Grand Ave. and Elm Ave. to
reinforce the more urban character of this Interval of the
streetscape. Monolithic, concrete sidewalks should be
Installed 1n the areas between Grand Ave. and the bridge
and Elm Ave. and P1ne Ave., as required, to fill existing
gaps. These spans of plain concrete will contrast with
the enriched paving 1n the Grand Ave. and Elm Ave. area
and serve to accentuate the transition In urban quality
and sense of arrival Into the Village Area.
Street trees of the same species should be planted at
relatively close Intervals along Carlsbad Blvd. between
Grand Ave. and Elm Ave. to create pedestrian scale, soften
the visual harshness of this area and provide visual
rhythm.
With the exception of the segment between Grand Ave. and
Elm Ave, lighting along Carlsbad Blvd. should be "Cobra
Head" fixtures with decorative standards to match those .
proposed for the Village Centre. In this segment,
pedestrian scale, decorative lighting fixtures proposed
throughout the Redevelopment Area should be Installed.
Street furniture, Including benches, bus stops, planters,
cigarette urns, waste containers and drinking fountains,
should be specifically designed to complement furniture to
be used throughout the Village Centre and strategically
placed along Carlsbad Blvd., but concentrated 1n the area
between Grand Ave. and Elm Ave.
Directional and Informational slgnage should be uniform,
aesthetically designed to complement other slgnage to be
used 1n the Village Centre and held to a minimum.
Existing bicycle paths should be maintained but more
clearly demarcated to encourage bicycling as an Important
alternative for accessing and experiencing the Village
Area. On street parking areas along Carlsbad Blvd. should
be clearly Identified to facilitate circulation.
Improvements should be made along the western edge of
Carlsbad Blvd. at the southern end of the Redevelopment
Area to permit pedestrian movement along the ocean
frontage. A bluff top pedestrian promenade would maximize
the ocean vistas 1n this area and capitalize on this
undeveloped natural asset as a tourist and visitor
1078L 1-12
attraction. Consideration should be given to creating a
pedestrian loop In this area which would begin at the
southwest corner of Elm Ave. and Carlsbad Blvd.. head
south along Carlsbad Blvd. to the bluff top promenade and
return along Ocean St. and Grand Ave. or Christiansen Way
to Elm Ave.
6. Pedestrian linkages which would connect Carlsbad Blvd.
north of Grand Ave., to the beach, lagoon and the park at
the north end of State St., should be explored as ways of
completing a pedestrian network 1n the Redevelopment Area.
7. Additional Informal landscaping should be provided 1n the
southern section of Carlsbad Blvd. between Walnut Ave. and
Elm Ave., especially on the east side of the boulevard.
This measure would serve to enframe this entrance Into the
Redevelopment Area, soften the visual appearance of the
area, and create a more comfortable setting for pedestrian
circulation.
8. The Informal, open and semi-rural quality of the Carlsbad
Blvd. corridor between the north entrance to the city and
Grand Ave., should be reinforced through additional
landscaping. Additional eucalyptus, other complementary,
flowering specimen trees and shrubs should be loosely
Interwoven 1n or along the right-of-way, especially 1n the
historical park, to provide a bucolic setting for
leisurely strolling and a retreat from the more Intense
activity of the Village Centre.
1078L
1-13
Flgur* 1-2
C«rl»b«d Blvd. at Elm Av«.
Carlsbad Redevelopment Area
Design Study
1-14
III. State Street - North of Grand Ave.
A. Existing Conditions
The area of State Street north of Grand Ave. 1s the active
commercial center of the Redevelopment Area. Along this 60 foot
right-of-way are located a diverse array of businesses, ranging from
automotive services, a plumbing outlet, an equipment rental yard, to
a mini-market and liquor store, small cafes and antique shops.
In overall visual character, State Street conveys great variety and
Interest, but also a sense of disorder and confusion. This
disordered character 1s magnified by the presence of overhead
utility lines, heavy vehicular traffic and the omnipresence of
parked cars. Little landscaping exists to soften the appearance and
buffer the visual confusion.
Pedestrian movement along this Interval of State Street Is
accommodated by continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street,
except for a short distance along the east stde of the street
approaching Laguna Or. The nature of the businesses 1n the area and
Its overall urban design character, however, discourage pedestrian
activity.
B. Opportunities and Constraints
State Street north of Grand Ave. contains a number of features which
give 1t promise as an Important pedestrian corridor and visual
extension of the Village Centre. Recent public Improvements at the
pedestrian node at Its Intersection with Grand Ave., a small,
passive park offering a view of the lagoon at Its northern terminus,
and Us diverse land uses, are significant urban design assets which
endow State Street with potential to become an active and exciting
pedestrian corridor. Recommended land use changes directed toward
establishing this area as a crafts district (see Section 11-13,
below), together with special urban design treatments, could
transform this corridor Into a unique attraction for tourists and
regional residents.
C. Urban Design Recommendations
The Village Design Manual calls for the provision of landscaping and
open space amenities along State Street and Increased off street
parking as major elements 1n transforming this busy street Into an
active pedestrian corridor. The street Is envisioned as a visual,
as well as, functional link to the Village Centre which not only
encourages pedestrian movement Into the commercial center, but also
Interconnects residential neighborhoods to the northeast with the
Village Centre. At the same time, the Village Design Manual
requires that a landscape buffer be provided between State Street
and the residential areas east of 1t.
1078L
1-15
The following specific urban design recommendations are made tofulfill these goals and transform the State Street area Into an
attractive, Interesting extension of the Village Centre:
1. Consideration should be given to partially eliminating
on-street parking on the west side of State Street to
expand the pedestrian environment at the alleyways which
are proposed to link State St. with off-street parking
along the railroad right-of-way (See Item III-C-2,
below). Rich, modular paving should be Incorporated Into
the existing monolithic, concrete sidewalks to add warmth
and texture. A variety of paving detail patterns should
be used to accentuate the casual character of the area.
A limited pallette of small street trees should be planted
at regular Intervals along the entire length of both sides
of State Street and should be selected to provide
variations 1n texture and color. These trees will provide
pedestrian scale, reinforce the diversity and Informality
of the streetscape, yet moderate the extremes 1n the
disordered, visual character of the area. In addition,
trees along the east side of the street will serve to
buffer the residential neighborhoods to the east.
Street furniture; Including, benches, planters, cigarette
urns, waste containers and drinking fountains, should be
concentrated along the west side of State Street at
strategic locations and should complement street
furnishings proposed throughout the Village Area.
Existing "Cobra Head" lighting fixtures on State Street
from Elm Ave. to Its Intersection with Carlsbad Blvd.
should be replaced with the same pedestrian-scale,
decorative light fixtures proposed throughout the Village
Area.
Engineering and urban design Improvements along State
Street, Including plans to place overhead utilities
underground, should be closely coordinated and performed
simultaneously to Insure cost effectiveness and
fulfillment of urban design Intent.
2. Consideration should be given to providing off-street
parking along the railroad right-of-way to the west of
State Street. In addition, the possibility of providing
landscaped, pedestrian-vehicular alleyways Unking this
off-street parking facility directly to State Street
should be Investigated. Pedestrian crosswalks should be
provided across State St. where the alleyways Intersect
this street.
Directional and Informational signage along State Street
should complement that proposed throughout the Village
Area.
1078L
1-16
3. Existing trees and shrubs along the Buena Vista Lagoon In
the park should be thinned out to open up views of the
lagoon. Parking along the west edge of the park should be
eliminated.
1078L 1-17
Flgur* 1-3
Stat* 8tr«*t
Carlsbad Redevelopment Area
Design Study
I-1B
IV. INTERSTATE 5/ELH AVE. INTERCHANGE
A. Existing Conditions
The Interstate 5 and Elm Ave. Interchange functions as the eastern
gateway to the Village Centre. This subarea of the Redevelopment
Area accommodates neighborhood commercial services and caters
heavily to the tourist for food, lodging, refreshment and gasoline.
In most respects, the Interchange area 1s Indistinguishable from
many others along the 1-5 corridor. Elevated commercial signs
punctuate the area, dominating the view from the freeway 1n both
directions. For the freeway motorist exiting at Elm Ave., there 1s
no clear sense of having arrived somewhere distinct nor any visual
hint of the special character of the Village Centre just a short
distance away.
Within the subarea Itself, Elm Ave. has a very strong vehicular
orientation. Between 1-5 and Harding St., Elm Ave. consists of four
travel lanes, a left turn median lane and bicycle paths on either
side of the street. Sidewalks exist on both sides of the street the
length of the subarea, but are Interrupted by multiple curb cuts.
Street trees on the south side of Elm Ave. serve to screen views
Into the neighborhood commercial complex and soften this edge. The
north side of the street, however, 1s mostly devoid of landscaping
and as a result Imparts a harsh, uninviting quality to the area.
The shrubs 1n planting areas contiguous with the sidewalks on both
sides of the street are either too low or too sparse to effectively
screen parking lots and other vehicular areas. In a few words, the
overall visual character of this subarea 1s one of disharmony and
discomfort, both for the motorist and the pedestrian.
B. Opportunities and Constraints
From an urban design perspective, the primary opportunity of the Elm
Ave./I-5 Interchange resides 1n Its function as the east gateway
Into the Village Centre. Physical Improvements 1n the area,
Including landscaping, streetscape amenities and bold entry
statements, could significantly contribute to a gateway effect. In
addition, the potential exists to produce a positive association
between the subarea and the C1v1c Center which lies directly to the
east on the other side of 1-5.
At the same time, 1t should be pointed out that the existing land
uses 1n this subarea pose certain constraints which only long range
process of urban land succession may overcome. The visual
disharmony created by elevated commercial slgnage, for example, 1s
likely to characterize the area well Into the future. In effect,
this means that the urban design treatments possible 1n the short
term cannot, 1n themselves, be expected to bring about a complete
transformation 1n the visual and physical quality of the area.
1078L
1-19
C. Urban Design Recommendations
The stated design goals of the Village Design Manual for the Elm
Ave./I-5 subarea are to enhance the gateway effect, moderate the
hard visual character of the area and to facilitate the Ingress and
egress of freeway tourist traffic which now dominate activity 1n the
area. To achieve these goals, the following specific urban design
recommendations are offered:
1. Consideration should be given to constructing an entry
monument on city owned property west of 1-5 on the south
side of the Buena Vista Lagoon. This would serve to
announce arrival and excite anticipation and Interest for
southbound motorists, who are the primary source of
tourist traffic.
2. A specially designed entry gate, which physically
complements and reflects the overall design style of the
Village Centre, should be erected on Elm Ave. Just west of
1-5. This element would bring about three desired
results. First, 1t would tangibly Identify and define Elm
Ave.'s function as a gateway; secondly, 1t would encourage
freeway tourists existing at Elm Ave. for gas or food to
explore the Village Centre; and finally, 1t would draw
attention of freeway motorists passing over Elm Ave. to
the downtown area.
The possibility of a general redesign of the freeway
right-of-way, along the Elm Ave/I-5 Interchange, should be
explored with CALTRANS. The planting of palms In masses
and rows and flowering shrubs throughout the right-of-way
would dramatically enunciate Elm Ave. as the Village
Centre and C1v1c Center gateway for freeway motorists and
help screen existing land uses.
3. Street trees should be planted on the north side of Elm
Ave. between the freeway offramp and Harding St. to match
those on the south side (I.e. Carrotwood). The trees on
the south side should be extended to the southbound
freeway on-ramp. In addition, property owners along this
section of Elm Ave. should be encouraged to plant more and
larger shrubs adjacent to the public right-of-way to
screen and separate parking lots and vehicular areas from
motorists and pedestrians. As an alternative, low
decorative walls could be built along the outside edge of
the sidewalks. Together, these measures will soften the
"hard look and feel" of the subarea.
1078L 1-20
Sidewalks on both sides of Elm Ave. should be Improved to
the extent that they are uniform and functional.
Consideration should be given to coloring and texturing
the concrete finish of the sidewalks to add warmth and
comfort; however, enriched paving details should be
minimized to emphasize Its functional role and, more
Importantly, to accentuate by contrast the pedestrian
focus of the enriched paving proposed for the Elm Ave.
corridor west of Harding St. and the village gateway.
Existing street lighting on Elm Ave., together with
Illumination emitted by existing land uses, 1s sufficient
for vehicular and pedestrian movement but Its appearance
should be enhanced with decorative standards proposed
throughout the,Village Area. Street furniture should be
minimized, and should complement furniture proposed for
other areas of the Redevelopment Area.
Directional and Informational slgnage 1n this subarea
should be concentrated, whenever possible, 1n the gateway
area proposed for the Elm Ave. and Harding St.
Intersection. When required elsewhere, 1t should be
consistent with slgnage proposed throughout the
Redevelopment Area.
4. To establish a stronger relationship between the Village
Area and C1v1c Center, streetscape Improvements proposed
for the Elm Ave. subarea west of 1-5 should be extended to
the east side of 1-5 to P1o Pica Dr.. In addition,
consideration should be given to beautifying the Elm
Ave./I-5 underpass through a combination of special
lighting, mural paintings on the concrete embankments and
decorative stanchions along the sidewalks.
1078L
1-21
Flow* 1-4
InUrttaU 5 at Elm Av«. - Southbound
Carlsbad Redevelopment Area
Design Study
V. Grand Ave. - Carlsbad Blvd. to Harding St.
A. Existing Conditions
Grand Ave. 1s the major corridor running through the core of the
Village area. Major streetscape and urban design Improvements have
been made along Grand Ave. just west of State St. to Madison St. and
along State St., Roosevelt St. and Madison St. between Elm Ave. and
Grand Ave. These special treatments have established this area as
the heart of the village and created an overall theme for further
urban beaut1f1cat1on 1n the redevelopment overall area. However,
two sections of Grand Ave., specifically the area between the alley
way west of State St. and Carlsbad Blvd. and the area between the
east side of Madison St. and Harding St., have not received special
treatment. In addition, neither Jefferson St. nor Harding St.,
between Grand Ave. and Elm Ave., have received special attention.
Although these areas elicit a pleasant visual Impression, they
represent noticeable gaps 1n the special character which signifies
Grand Ave.'s key role 1n the Village commercial core and as a major
pedestrian and vehicular corridor.
B. Opportunities and Constraints
The major opportunity to be realized by the extension of streetscape
Improvements and open space amenities Into the two sections of Grand
Ave., especially that west of State St., and along Jefferson St. and
Harding St. 1s to establish a continuous pedestrian link along Grand
Ave. between Carlsbad Blvd. and Harding St. The Importance of
attracting tourists and beach visitors as well as local residents
Into the Village Centre has already been emphasized. Design
Improvements which direct, facilitate and encourage pedestrian
movement along most of the length of Grand Ave. become essential
elements In achieving this goal. At the same time, they would serve
to unify Grand Ave. as a strong pedestrian-oriented, visual
corridor, appreciably expand the village character and establish an
urban design framework for future expansion of the Village Core
commercial area.
C. Urban Design Recommendations
The following specific urban design recommendations are offered to
promote pedestrian activity and movement and extend the village
character along Grand Ave.:
1. A landscaped median should be constructed on Grand Ave.
between Carlsbad Blvd. and the railroad crossing to soften
and lend human scale to this expanse of asphalt. Enriched
paving should be Installed 1n the sidewalks adjoining
Grand Ave. between Carlsbad Blvd. and the alley way west
of State St. to tie the Carlsbad Blvd. corridor to the
Village Centre and promote pedestrian access from the
1078L 1-23
beach areas. In the sidewalk on the north side of Grand Ave.,small street trees should be planted at regular Intervals to
help define and give symmetry to this section of the Grand
Ave. corridor. Additional trees should be planted on the
south side of Grand Ave. to fill gaps.
Sidewalks should be made continuous between Madison St. and
Harding St. and should be enriched and textured to add warmth
and to promote pedestrian comfort.
Pedestrian scale, decorative lighting fixtures proposed
throughout the Village area should be Installed the length of
Grand Ave. between Carlsbad Blvd. and Harding St., except at
Intersections. At Intersections, "Cobra Head" lighting
fixtures with decorative standards should be Installed.
Street furniture and directional and Information signage
proposed throughout the Village area should be strategically
located along Grand Ave. between Carlsbad Blvd. and Harding St.
2. The special treatment area proposed in "the area of the Elm
Ave. railroad crossing should be extended to the south side of
Grand Ave. (see Item I, above).
3. Streetscape improvements, similar to those along Roosevelt St.
and Madison St. between Elm Ave. and Grand Ave., should be
made on Jefferson St. and Harding St. to complete the urban
beautiflcatlon program in the Village Centre area and to
establish a stronger relationship between Elm Ave. and Grand
Ave. Except at intersections, existing "Cobra Head" lighting
fixtures on Harding St., Jefferson St., Madison St. and State
St., between Grand Ave. and Elm Ave. should be replaced with
pedestrian scale, decorative light fixtures recommended
throughout the Village Area.
1078L 1-24
Flgur* I-S
Grand Ay*, at Carlsbad Blvd.
Carlsbad Redevelopment Area
Design Study
1-25
Section II
LAND USE
This section presents existing iand use conditions and estimated
build-out potential, compares the build-out potential with estimated
existing building space, and, given market projections, makes recommenda-
tions regarding the redevelopment land use plan.
Existing Conditions
As shown in Map II-1, the Redevelopment Project Area is comprised
of eight land use zones — the commercial area, special treatment village
area, commercial-limited industrial area, travel services commercial area,
combination district, open space, high density residential, and low-medium
residential. Together, these areas contain an estimated 142.5 acres of
developable land.
The Commercial Area generally permits C-2, C-l, R-P, and R-3 uses,
but encourages specific types of commercial uses: restaurants, boutiques,
retail shops, craft shops, specialty shops, professional office complexes,
medical complexes, law firms, architectural and engineering firms,
accounting firms, utility company offices, and company headquarters. The
residential uses are permitted above first level commercial uses to create
a mixed use project. The commercial area west of the railroad tracks is
within Subarea 5 of the Village design plan, an area which encourages
tourist-related commercial uses including hotels.
The Special Treatment Village Area, at the core of the
Redevelopment Project Area, allows the same uses as in the Commercial
Area, but requires adherence to special design standards in creating a
special character, as specified in the Village Design Manual. These
standards attempt to create a "village" atmosphere by emphasizing open
space and pedestrian amenities, and by encouraging those land uses which
most lend themselves to a "village" environment.
II-l
Map 11-1
VILLAGE AREA LAND USE MAP
COMMERCIAL AREA
SPECIAL TREATMENT VILLAGEy:::::::::::n|] wruv.fcr^k. JIM^
X*?^ CORE AREA
COMMERCIAL - LIMITED INDUSTRIAL
TRAVEL SERVICES COMMERCIAL
COMBINATION DISTRICT (RM. 8 MHJKL)
gHSl OPEN SPACE,•
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
] LOW MEDIUM DENSITY "
The Commercial/Limited Industrial Area found along State Street
north of Grand Avenue permits higher density C-2 and C-l commercial uses
and light industrial uses such as regional headquarters, contractors'
offices, professional complexes, wholesale sales, furniture sales, hard-
ware and lumber wholesale and retail sales, car wash, laundromats, small
engine repair, appliance sales, tire sales, coffee shops, delicatessens,
auto parts sales, artisan shops, and plant nurseries.
The Commercial/Limited Industrial Area along Tyler Street south of
Elm Avenue permits vocational educational centers, auto-related services,
contractor's yards, laundry and dry cleaning plants, storage areas,
cabinet and furniture manufacturing, glass studios and electronic
assembly, bakeries, rock shop manufacturing, wholesale sales distribution,
moving van companies, and neighborhood commercial uses.
The Travel Services Commercial Area, a C-T zone within the Beach
Overlay Zone, limits development to two stories and encourages travel
services, restaurants, convention facilities, theaters, novelty shops,
souvenir and gift shops, florists, parking lots, hotels, art galleries,
handicraft shops, and antique stores.
The Combination District is a mixture of residential and profes-
sional office uses, containing R-3 and R-P zones. Encouraged uses include
a buffer zone of office and professional space such as law offices, archi-
tectural offices, medical offices, and contractors' offices, around a
moderately high density residential area.
The Open Space zones include parks and some institutional uses such
as the military academy. The High Density Residential area, found in the
Beach Overlay Zone, permits 15 to 23 residential units per acre. The Low-
Medium Residential Zone found mostly in the neighborhoods surrounding the
Redevelopment Area allows 0 to 4 units per acre.
II-3
Build-Out Potential
Table II-l presents estimated build-out potential for each subarea
within the Redevelopment Area given the number of acres in each area, lot
coverage assumptions, and permitted building heights. The Commercial Area
is the largest area in terms of acreage, and can support approximately
988,000 square feet of developed commercial building space. The next
largest subarea is the Combination District, which contains approximately
29 acres, which could support a combination of 227,000 square feet of
office space (assuming 20 percent of the district's land area is used for
office development), and 578 housing units (assuming 25 units per acre).
The third largest subarea is the Commercial/Limited Industrial Area, which
contains approximately 27.6 acres, on which about 721,000 square feet of
building space may be built. The Travel Services Commercial District
includes approximately 23.5 acres of land on which 614,000 square feet of
hotel and commercial space may be built. Open space accounts for 13.4
acres, some of which includes institutional buildings such as the military
academy. The Special Treatment Village, which is surrounded by the
Commercial Area, contains almost 7 acres on which 271,000 square feet of
commercial space may be built if some parking is accommodated on site. If
parking is not accommodated, and buildings cover 80 percent of each lot,
approximately 721,000 square feet of commercial retail and office space
may be built in the Special Treatment Village. The High Density
Residential Area can accommodate 90 units on its 3.6 acres (assuming 25
units per acre), while the Low-Medium Density Area is practically non-
existent in the Redevelopment Area.
Opportunities
In total, an estimated 2,821,000 square feet of commercial space,
including retail, office, hotel, and light semi-industrial uses, poten-
tially may be built in the Redevelopment Area. Also, approximately 670
housing units may be built. If the office component in the Combination
District increases its share within the district, the potential commercial
II-4
Table II-l
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
ESTIMATED DEVELOPABLE ACRES
AND BUILD-OUT POTENTIAL
Acres
Subarea
Commercial Area
Special Treatment Village
Commercial-Limited Industrial
Travel Services Commercial
Combination Districts
Open Space
High-Density Residential
Low-Density Residential
Number
37.8
6.9
27.6
23.5
28.9
Percent
26. 5%
4.8
19.4
16.5
20.3
13.4
3.6
0.8
9.4
2.5
0.6
Potential
Building Space
988,000 square feetl
271,000 square feet2
721,000 square feetl
614,000 square feetl
227,000 square feet2
578 housing units3
90 housing units3
3 housing units4
Total 142.5 100.0%
^Assumes 30% lot coverage x 2 stories height limit.
2Assumes 30% lot coverage x 3 stories height limit.
3Assumes 25 units per acre.
4Assumes 4 units per acre.
5Assumes 80 percent of land area is comprised of residential uses and 20
percent is comprised of office uses.
Source: Economics Research Associates, 1985.
square footage would increase and the number of residential units would
decrease. Also, the number of potential residential units could increase
if a higher density than 25 units per acre were encouraged.
Table II-2 compares the build-out potential with an estimate of
existing square footage in the Redevelopment Area to determine the amount
of new development which could occur before development capacity is
reached in the Redevelopment Area. As seen for the various uses, the
potential capacity of the Redevelopment Area is much greater than the
existing supply of commercial space. Approximately 1.26 million square
feet of commercial retail and office space may be built in the Commercial
Area and the Special Treatment Village Core Area given the land area and
zoning parameters; however, only 152,000 square feet is estimated to exist
in the two subareas. There is adequate space available, therefore, for
future commercial development within existing commercial zones, assuming
that some intensification of existing density occurs as permitted by
zoning. Although some existing buildings have less space than is per-
mitted by zoning, they should not necessarily be demolished in order to
build more commercial space. There is still adequate room for new devel-
opment within the Redevelopment Area without replacing most existing
structures.
The land area within the Combination District and High Density
Residential Area could support approximately 668 housing units, compared
to 579 number of units that now exist in the area. Therefore, 89 more
units could be built within the designated residential areas, as well as
units above commercial uses within the Commercial Area and the Special
Treatment Village Core Area.
Approximately 614,000 square feet of accommodation and commercial
space may be built along Carlsbad Boulevard in the Travel Services
Commercial Area. An estimated 300,000 square feet of such space, includ-
ing the Lutheran Home and the planned additions to the Twin Inns and
Carlsbad Inn, exists there now. Therefore, the Travel Services Commercial
Area could accommodate another 314,000 square feet of development, equiva-
lent to 570 more accommodation rooms.
II-6
Table II-2
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY
Estimated Estimated Estimated
Potential Existing Development
Type of Land Use Development Building Space Opportunity
Commerciall 1,259,000 sq.ft. 252,000 sq.ft. 1,007,000 sq.ft.
Residential 668 units 579 units 89 units
Hotels/CommercialS 614,000 sq.ft. 300,000 sq.ft. 314,000 sq.ft.
Office4 227,000 sq.ft. 30,000 sq.ft. 187,000 sq.ft.
Industrial/Commercials 721,000 sq.ft. 173,000 sq.ft. 548,000 sq.ft.
^Includes office space in Commercial Area and Special Treatment Village Area.
2lncludes residential in Combination District and High-Density Residential
Area.
3Includes commercial uses in Travel Services Commercial Area.
4lncludes office space in Combination District.
Slncludes commercial space in Commercial-Limited Industrial Area.
Source: Economics Research Associates.
The Combination District could support approximately 227,000 square
feet of office space, assuming 20 percent of the district is devoted to
office development. A cursory review indicates that there may be approxi-
mately 30,000 square feet of office space in the district, most of which
is medical or small professional space. Thus, significant office develop-
ment could still occur in this area.
The Commercial/Limited Industrial Area has enough land to support
approximately 721,000 square feet of building space, although almost a
quarter of the land available is adjacent to the railroad right-of-way.
Approximately 173,000 square feet of space is estimated to exist within
Commercial/Limited Industrial subareas. The block at the southwest corner
of Tyler and Oak is mostly built out, although below what is possible
under the zoning since most of the buildings are single story. The dis-
trict on State Street north of Grand Avenue has more vacant land avail-
able, particularly near the railroad tracks.
In general, the opportunity for more development exists within the
current subareas of the Redevelopment Area, either by developing under-
utilized or vacant land, expanding existing buildings, or replacing exist-
ing buildings with larger buildings. Therefore, opportunity exists in the
Redevelopment Area as it is now delineated, and no additional land area is
needed nor change in subarea boundaries required for the foreseeable
future to accommodate growth. The one recommended exception, however, is
that the Special Treatment Village Core Area should be expanded across
Grand Avenue to include the designated Commercial Area between Madison
Street and the railroad tracks, north of Grand Avenue, as shown in Map
II-2.
Land Use Recommendations
The market analysis, presented in Volume II, did not indicate a
strong short term market for new office, industrial, hotel, and retail
uses in the Redevelopment Area, mostly due to overbuilding in the regional
market.
II-8
ntfj
xye v.v.v;
i i.
sroalTl
VILLAGE AREA LAND USE MAP
lijiiiiiiifl COMMERCIAL AREA
SPECIAL TREATMENT VILLAGE
CORE AREA .
M i M i •• i SPECIAL TREATMENT VILLAGE CORE AREA
EXPANSION
Map 11-2
VILLAGE AREA LAND USE MAP
Tourist Accommodations and the Travel Services Commercial Area
The market analysis indicated an oversupply of 300 to 400 hotel
rooms until the early 1990s, which will reduce occupancy rates, although
small older beachfront resort hotels tend to have higher than average
occupancy rates. Due to a hotel market that is becoming overbuilt and the
available space for new hotel development in the Travel Services
Commercial Area, the following actions are recommended:
— The Travel Services Commercial Area should not be expanded a
this time.
— Proposals for hotel and time share developments in the Travel
Services Commercial Area that conform to Village design
standards should be accepted as long as the developer pays all
development costs and absorbs all the risk. The Agency should
not contribute financially or in-kind to a proposed hotel or
time-share project.
— In the long-run, development of moderate size tourist-oriented
inns of 50 to 100 rooms should be encouraged in the Travel"
Services Commercial Area since they bring tourist trade to
downtown. In addition to the 424 additional rooms now under
construction or planned, for a total of 540 rooms in the Travel
Services Commercial Area, approximately 570 more rooms can be
developed between 1993 and the year 2000.
— Until the early 1990s, the Agency should concentrate its
efforts on design and beach access Improvements in the Travel
Services Commercial area in anticipation of more hotel and time
share development in the next decade.
11-10
Commercial Development and the Commercial and Special Village
Areas
— The existing supply of approximately 252,000 square feet of
commercial space in the Commercial and Special Treatment
Village Area should generally expand at an average of 3 percent
per year, or 30,000 square feet of general new retail
development over the next four years. Restaurant space should
also increase by 5 percent per year, or 13,000 square feet over
the next four years.
— In addition, 30,000 square feet of grocery space, and 20,000
square feet of pharmacy space should be developed.
— A 20,000- to 30,000-square-foot office project should be built
after the next three to four years.
— The Commercial Area should not be expanded at this time.
— The Special Treatment Village Core Area should be expanded
north of Grand Avenue to include those parcels currently within
the Commercial Area between Madison Street and the railroad
tracks.
— More entertainment activity is required to attract residents
and tourists at night. Therefore, the Latino theater should
be renovated to serve a broader audience by offering either
first run films, fine art films and film festivals, and/or
stage performances. Also, entertainment related projects, such
as dinner theaters, music-cafes, and clubs should be sought by
the Redevelopment Agency.
11-11
Residential Development and the Combination District
— Approximately 90 to 100 residential units per year should be
built in the Redevelopment Area, unless density is increased
beyond 25 units per acre. If density is increased, more hous-
ing may be built. The market in the area theoretically could
support up to 90 more units per year until the desired density
is reached. Although some residential development should be
encouraged as part of mixed-use projects in the Commercial Area
and Special Treatment Village Core Area, most residential
development should occur in the Combination District, and, to a
lesser extent, the High Density Residential Area.
— The residential density in the Redevelopment Area should
average between 25 and 30 units per acre.
— Most residential units should be apartments, with the balance
as condominiums or townhouses. The price range for units
should be varied to create a diverse community and to
accommodate all income groups, particularly lower income
existing residents.
— Residential development is preferred over office development in
the Combination District since the market for residential
development is stronger than the market for office development,
since a strong local residential base will provide greater
consumer support for the village commercial area, and since
projected office demand can be accommodated in the Commercial
Area. The Agency's housing set-aside funds may be used to
develop housing in this district.
— Residential units should be targeted towards the elderly in
areas with easy pedestrian access to the village core. Singles
and young adult couples should also be targeted by housing
developers and the Agency.
— Multi-family housing development should also be encouraged in
residential areas adjacent to the Redevelopment Area.
11-12
Industrial/Commercial Uses and the Commercial/Limited Industrial
Area
— Most of the limited industrial uses within the Redevelopment
Area, particularly along State Street, should be encouraged to
relocate elsewhere outside of the Village project area. Some
of the industrial occupants will probably relocate as their
property becomes more valuable and reaches a point where it is
profitable to sell and operate from a cheaper location.
Relocation will probably occur gradually over a period of five
years or more.
— A possible development program that might replace existing
semi-industrial and wholesale uses is the creation of a crafts
district. Crafts could be manufactured in this district and
sold wholesale and retail. The goods created would mostly be
handcrafted, such as glassware, leather goods, furniture,
specialty signs, surfboards, knittings, etc. The district
could be specially designed, and the Agency could require that
all tenants must make their crafting process visible to the
public. Such a district would not only supply a home to North
County craftsmen, but would create a unique place for tourists
and regional residents to visit. Since the craftsmen could
sell on a retail basis to the public as well as on a wholesale
basis, and could advertise cooperatively, they would be able to
earn more income.
— Car wash, small engine repair, tire sales, auto parts sales,
and appliance sales should be discouraged as uses for the
Commercial/Limited Industrial Area on State Street.
11-13
— The semi-industrial area west of Tyler Street and south of Elm
Avenue (Subarea 4 in the Urban Design Manual), should
eventually convert into general neighborhood-serving commercial
uses. Although the area should eventually become part of the
adjacent Commercial Area, it may not be necessary at this time
to amend the Redevelopment Plan since "neighborhood commercial
uses" is one of the encouraged uses in this area according to
the Urban Design Manual. In the meantime, therefore, neighbor-
hood commercial uses should be encouraged over semi-industrial
uses such as auto-related services, contractor's yard, storage,
laundry and dry cleaning plants, electronic assembly, rock shop
manufacturing, wholesale distribution and moving van companies
now permitted in this area under the existing Redevelopment
Plan.
Time-Share, Accommodations, and A New Redevelopment Project Area
— A new redevelopment project area south of the existing
redevelopment project area is not recommended at this time,
because the existing area still has room to develop and
accommodate future growth, and the area under consideration is
not obviously blighted.
— Reportedly, some developers have expressed interest in build-
ing time-share units and small resort inns along Carlsbad
Boulevard, south of the existing Redevelopment Area. Such
developments would bring more tourists to the area and increase
commercial activity in the Redevelopment Area. Therefore, it
is recommended that time-share projects, small inns of 50 to
100 rooms, and bed and breakfast accommodations be permitted in
the area south of the existing Redevelopment Area on a condi-
tional use permit basis, with strict design guidelines. Of the
above three types of projects, small inns are probably facing
the most competitive market for the next five years. The
11-14
conditional use permit allows these projects to take place as
the market permits and as developers are able to acquire
properties, without requiring commitment of public
redevelopment money.
To enhance residential and accommodation development in this
adjacent area south of the existing Redevelopment Area, the
City should spend resources to develop the bluff top as a
coastal linear park, improve access to the beach, and begin
beach restoration.
11-15
SECTION III
CIRCULATION AND PARKING
INTRODUCTION
This section presents an analysis of circulation and parking
issues related to the Redevelopment Plan for revitalization of
the Village Redevelopment Area in the City of Carlsbad. Traffic
and circulation issues are examined first, followed by an
assessment of parking conditions. Within each section, existing
conditions are presented, followed by projections of future
conditions presuming development of the recommended land use
plan presented in Section II. Finally, recommendations are made
regarding potential mitigation measures and improvements to
address future traffic and parking problems.
Future conditions for both circulation and parking are assessed
for two time periods: (1) projected development by the year
1990, and (2) by the year 2000.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Figure III-l illustrates the existing street system serving the
redevelopment area. Regional access to the redevelopment area is
provided by the San Diego Freeway (Interstate 5). Locally,
primary access is provided by Carlsbad Boulevard (County Highway
21) and Elm Avenue. Secondary access is provided by State and
Jefferson Streets to the north and Roosevelt, Madison and Harding
Streets to the south.
The redevelopment area is basically served by a grid system which
runs northwest-southeast and northeast-southwest (referred to as
III-l
CITY OF CARLSBAD
REDE VELOPMENT A REA
—REDEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY
N
NOT TO SCALC
LEGEND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
STOP SIGN
YIELD SIGN
RAILROAD CROSSING GATE
PAINTED MEDIAN LANE
l|l RAISED MEDIAN ISLAND
— MID-BLOCK THROUGH LANE
Figure 111-1
EXISTING STREET SYSTEM
north-south and east-west in the remainder of this section).
However, 1-5 and the Santa Fe/Amtrak railroad line on either side
of the downtown area act as barriers to east-west through travel,
^
as only Elm and Grand Avenues cross the railroad and only Elm
Avenue provides access to and past 1-5. To the south, the next
street crossing 1-5 is Chestnut Street, approximately four-tenths
of a mile south of Elm, while the next railroad crossing is about
eight-tenths of a mile south at Tamarack Avenue.
Brief descriptions of the principal streets serving the study
area follow.
o Elm Avenue - This east-west street is a two-lane
facility throughout most of the downtown area.
Between Jefferson and Harding Streets, the street
transitions to four through lanes, which are provided
eastward through the 1-5 interchange area. Within the
study area, there are signalized intersections at
Carlsbad Boulevard, State Street, Harding Street, and
the northbound and southbound 1-5 ramps. There is a
gate-protected at-grade crossing with the Santa
Fe/Amtrak railroad line. Separate left-turn lanes are
provided at all intersections within the study area. A
continuous, two-way left-turn lane is provided between
Harding Street and the southbound freeway ramps. On-
street parking is permitted west of, and prohibited
east of, Harding Street. Bicycle lanes are present
along both sides of Elm east of Harding.
o Grand Avenue - This east-west street provides two lanes
west of, and four lanes east of, Roosevelt Street.
There are signalized intersections at State Street and
Carlsbad Boulevard and a gate-protected at-grade
crossing at the Santa Fe/Amtrak railroad line. On-
street parking is permitted at most locations within
the study area. Head-in angled parking is provided
along the north side of Grand between Ocean Street and
the railroad.
o Carlsbad Boulevard - This north-south arterial is a
four lane facility narrowing to three lanes (one
northbound and two southbound) north of Cedar Avenue
and two lanes north of Mountain View Drive. The
intersections with Elm Avenue and Grand Avenue are
signalized, with separate left-turn lanes. On-street
parking is permitted between Elm Avenue and the
railroad overcrossing. Bicycle lanes are provided
along both sides of Carlsbad Boulevard throughout the
study area.
III-3
State Street - This is a two-lane north-south street
providing access between the downtown area and Carlsbad
Boulevard to the north. Traffic signals are provided
at the intersections with Elm Avenue and Grand Avenue.
On-street is permitted at most locations within the
study area with head-in angled parking provided just
north of Grand Avenue and between Grand and Elm Avenue.
San Diego Freeway (Interstate 5) - This major north-
south interstate freeway connects the metropolitan Los
Angeles and San Diego regions and provides regional
access to the study area. It is a six-lane facility
with a grade-separated diamond interchange at Elm
Avenue.
Roosevelt. Madison. Jefferson and Harding Streets -
These north-south streets each provide two through
lanes and on-street parking. At Elm Avenue, Harding
Street is provided with a traffic signal, while
Roosevelt, Madison and Jefferson are all presently
controlled by stop-signs.
Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service
Figure III-2 illustrates average daily traffic volumes for the
major streets in the area. It can be seen that 1-5 carries the
highest volumes of traffic in the area, with 104,000 to 107,000
vehicles per day (vpd). The arterials which carry the highest
volumes of traffic are Elm Avenue, with volumes ranging from
about 10,500 vpd east of Carlsbad Boulevard to 24,900 vpd on the
west side of 1-5, and Carlsbad Boulevard, carrying approximately
8,400 to 12,700 vpd within the redevelopment area. On- and off-
ramp volumes at the interchange of 1-5 and Elm Avenue are also
shown and indicate that the northbound on-ramp and southbound
off-ramp carry the highest volumes of traffic, 6,240 and 5,750
vpd, respectively.
Intersection turning movement counts were conducted during the
evening peak periods at six intersections within the study area
in January of 1986. These counts were used as the basis for the
analysis of traffic conditions within the study area. The
III-4
CITY OF CARLSBAD
R£DE VELOPMENT AREA
—REDEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY
N
LEGEND:
14100 * TWO-WAV DAILV VOLUME
SOUHCCS CITY Of CAXLSfAOSAN OlfOO ASSOCIATION Of GOVERMCCfJTS
CALIfOHNIA aefAKTHCHTOf TRANSPORTATION
Figure 111-2
EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
intersections were selected based on observations of those
locations that would be most impacted by the Redevelopment Plan
and are as follows:
o Elm Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard
o Elm Avenue and State Street
o Elm Avenue and Harding Street
o Elm Avenue and 1-5 southbound ramps
o Elm Avenue and 1-5 northbound ramps
o Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard
The "Critical Movement Analysis" method was used to determine the
intersection volume/capacity (v/c) ratio and corresponding level
of service (LOS) for the turning volumes and intersection
characteristics at the six analyzed intersections. Level of
service is a measure used to describe the condition of traffic
flow, ranging from excellent conditions at LOS A to overload
conditions at LOS F. LOS D is the level of operation which is
typically considered to be acceptable for urban street systems.
LOS E is near capacity and LOS F represents failure of the
intersection. Level of service definitions are provided in Table
III-l.
Table III-2 summarizes the existing evening peak hour levels of
service at the six intersections. As indicated in the table,
five of the analyzed intersections are curre'ntly operating under
very good conditions (LOS B) or better. The exception of Elm
Avenue at the 1-5 northbound ramps operates under good conditions
(LOS C) for the intersection as a whole. The close proximity of
this intersection with the intersection of Elm Avenue and Pio
Pico Drive just to the east, however, creates operating difficul-
ties for sh'ort periods within the peak hour as eastbound traffic
stopped at the Pio Pico signal occasionally backs up into the
northbound 1-5 intersection and, vice-versa, westbound traffic
stopped at the northbound 1-5 signal backs up into the Pio Pico
intersection. Furthermore, left-turning vehicles from eastbound
III-6
TABLE III-l
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of
Service
Volume/Capacity
Ratio Definition
B
C
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 - 1.00
Greater than
1.00
EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer
than one red light and no approach
phase is fully used.
VERY GOOD. An occasional approach
phase is fully utilized; many
drivers begin to feel somewhat
restricted within groups of
vehicles.
GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have
to wait through more than one red
light; backups may develop behind
turning vehicles.
FAIR. Delays may be substantial
during portions of the rush hours,
but enough lower volume periods
occur to permit clearing of develop-
ing lines, preventing excessive
backups.
POOR. Represents the most vehicles
intersection approaches can accommo-
date; may be long lines of waiting
vehicles through several signal
cycles.
FAILURE,
locations
Backups from nearby
or on cross streets may
restrict or prevent movements of
vehicles out of the intersection
approaches.
III-?
TABLE III-2
EXISTING EVENING PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Volume/Capacity
Intersection Ratio Level of Service
Elm Avenue & 0.44 A
Carlsbad Boulevard
Elm Avenue & 0.47 A
State Street
Elm Avenue & 0.68 B
Harding Street
Elm Avenue & . 0.53 A
1-5 southbound ramps
Elm Avenue & 0.76 C
1-5 northbound ramps
Grand Avenue & 0.18 A
Carlsbad Boulevard
III-8
Elm to the northbound ramps often overflow the designated left-
turn lane on Elm, blocking the left-most eastbound through lane,
although observations indicate that these vehicles successfully
clear the intersection on each signal phase without blocking
traffic on the southbound ramps.
CIRCULATION IMPACTS
Traffic Forecasts
In order to project the future traffic volumes generated by
redevelopment of the study area, specific development assumptions
were made relating to the land use recommendations presented in
the previous section. Table III-3 presents these assumptions.
Year 1990 and year 2000 traffic volumes after redevelopment were
estimated through the application of the trip generation rates
given in Table III-4 to the projected redevelopment land uses, as
shown in Table III-5. Redevelopment would generate an estimated
additional 21,400 daily and 2,140 evening peak hour vehicular
trips in the year 1990. In the year 2000, redevelopment would
generate approximately 39,600 additional daily and 3,850 evening
peak hour trips. In addition to these new trips, existing
background volumes were factored upwards by one percent per year
to represent regional and city-wide growth over and above
specific redevelopment growth.
Figures III-3 and III-4 respectively illustrate the projected
year 1990 and year 2000 daily traffic volumes. As can be seen,
daily volumes on Elm Avenue within the redevelopment area are
projected to rise to between 19,600 east of Carlsbad Boulevard
and 33,500 vpd east of Harding Street by year 1990, and to 28,300
and 41,800 vpd at the same locations by year 2000. Volumes on
Carlsbad Boulevard south of Elm would increase to an estimated
22,500 vpd by 1990 and 33,700 vpd by 2000.
III-9
TABLE III-3
REDEVELOPMENT LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Land Use
Travel Services Commercial Area
Hotel
Inn
Time-share Units
Total
Commercial/Special Village Area
Retail
Grocery/Pharmacy
Restaurant
Office
Theater
Total Retail and Office
Residential/Combination District
Multi-Family Residential
Limited Industrial Area
Crafts/Arts
Growth by
Year 19901
184 rooms2
50 rooms
163 units3
397 units
30,000 s.f.
80,000 s.f.4
13,000 s.f.
25,000 s.f.
500 seatsS
148,000 s.f.
150 d.u.
Growth by
Year 20001
484 rooms2
150 rooms
163 units3
797 units
110,000 s.f.
110,000 s.f.
43,000 s.f.
85,000 s.f.
500 seatsS
348,000 s.f.
350 d.u.
58,000 s.f.6 173,000 s.f.6
1. Cumulative.
2. Includes 23 rooms currently under construction at the
Tamarack Beach Resort and 161 rooms under construction
at the Twin Inns.
3. Includes 31 units currently under construction at the
Tamarack Beach Resort and 132 units under construction
at the Carlsbad Inn.
4. Proposed Vons Pavilion complex along State Street south of
Elm Avenue.
5. Renovation of existing Latino theater, generally for
evening use.
6. Conversion of existing industrial space to wholesale
and retail arts and crafts.
111-10
TABLE III-4
AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION RATES
Average PM Peak Hour
Land Use Daily Rate Rate % In % Out
General retail 40.0 3.6 50% 50%
(trips per 1,000 SF)
Restaurant 100.0 8.0 70% 30%
(trips per 1,000 SF)
Grocery store 150.0 16.5 50% 50%
(trips per 1,000 SF)
General Office 20.0 2.6 20% 80%
(trips per 1,000 SF)
Arts & Crafts 6.0 0.54 50% 50%
(trips per 1,000 SF)
Hotel 10.0 0.8 50% 50%
(trips per room)
Inn 10.0 0.8 50% 50%
(trips per room)
Time-share 10.0 0.8 50% 50%
(trips per room)
Theater 1.8 0.14 70% 30%
(trips per seat)
Multi-family 8.0 0.8 70% 30%
residential
(trips per dwelling unit)
Source: San Diego Association of Governments, "San Diego
Traffic Generators," March 1985.
III-ll
i o m o o o> ^4 «4 CM r* ^• oo in CM
• w| o m in in (& 91 E S ° "••'tkt Ol f* v* f+ ^*
§m o in <O ••» ••* io* CM
§§§8i
s ^D *
!SS
mineo
o
8 2*• ~* r* Ml
in S•i 5
M W
| S
S ft
O O m m o-HNOvor-SSi S 3
II 188 2 1C!s
m o in m o inin Z r» -^ in -H
^*a
s^
^5 \5 ^5 o 25 *o ^j o ^v ^51 cJ^^ O CO ?l ^h fO CO *O ^5 ** ^J "^
•«• fsTf-H ^H ^4 l-< i-*! «-4.-! ' U I CMr2
&n•H <-lo a•rle uo eft 01
g^0
Mri
1
"g
J erclal/Spec:13
^^«4J
«hi
iH
5
U
4
»^
Sg
U staurant^
^iu<«-t
IM
1M0
iH bS2S3^e
0•Hu «4J Un <M9 a
32
s »4J *J
•g
3
i
1-10<«^UutlJ_
tj «J
> oa sH
atu0
•gsiMH
^-1.a
dential/Com•H
&
01hi
>,•H•H
1
«»-»
4J
1-*
I
111-12
Traffic Impact Assessment
+
Year 1990 and 2000 evening peak hour volume/capacity ratios and
levels of service were calculated for the projected traffic
volumes assuming that the existing street system and intersection
geometries remain unchanged.
Table III-6 summarizes this analysis. With the additional
traffic generated by the Redevelopment Area by the year 1990, the
table indicates that the intersections of Elm Avenue at Harding
Street and Elm Avenue at the 1-5 northbound ramps would operate
under poor conditions (LOS E). Elm at the 1-5 southbound ramps
and Carlsbad Boulevard at both Elm and Grand would continue to
operate under very good conditions (LOS B) or better.
Table III-6 also indicates that, by the year 2000, the intersec-
tions of Elm Avenue at Harding Street and Elm Avenue at the 1-5
northbound ramps would be overloaded, operating at a LOS of F.
Conditions at the intersections of Elm Avenue at Carlsbad
Boulevard and Elm Avenue at the 1-5 southbound ramps would
deteriorate from LOS B (very good) to D (fair). As previously
stated, however, LOS D is the level of operation which is
typically considered to be acceptable for urban street systems.
It should be noted that future turning movement volumes and
operating conditions at intersections in the core of the Redeve-
lopment Area, particularly Elm Avenue at State Street, cannot be
accurately projected at this time since the exact locations of
specific future developments within the Redevelopment Area are
not presently known. Therefore, these intersections are not
directly included in this detailed level of service analysis.
Note, however, that some of the street system improvements
recommended later in this report will result in improved traffic
conditions at intersections throughout the core area, particular-
111-15
TABLE III-6
UNMITIGATED EVENING PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH REDEVELOPMENT
Year 1990 Year 2000
Intersection V/C LOS V/C LOS
Elm Avenue & 0.61 B 0.84 D
Carlsbad Boulevard
Elm Avenue & 0.96 E 1.27 F
Harding Street
Elm Avenue & 1-5 0.68 B 0.82 D
1-5 southbound ramps
Elm Avenue & 1-5 0.99 E 1.23 F
1-5 northbound ramps
Grand Avenue & 0.31 A 0.46 A
Carlsbad Boulevard
111-16
ly along Elm Avenue.
A review of the projected daily street segment volumes indicates
that future volumes along Elm Avenue will begin to exceed the
carrying capacity of the street. With left-turn lanes at
intersections, research has shown that two-lane urban streets
typically have a daily carrying capacity of approximately 20,000
to 25,000 vpd. As illustrated on Figure III-3, year 1990 volumes
of 26,600 and 28,000 vpd are projected for Elm east of Roosevelt
and west of Harding, respectively. By year 2000, Figure III-A
shows that volumes will be greater than 25,000 along the entire
two-lane section of Elm between Carlsbad Boulevard and Harding.
This indicates that, without mitigation, Elm will become over-
loaded, with congested operating conditions.
Projected daily volumes on all other street segments within the
redevelopment area appear to remain well within the carrying
capacities of the streets.
CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The following street system improvements are recommended for
implementation in order to maintain acceptable levels of service
within the study area:
o Elm Avenue Widening - Provide an additional travel lane in
each direction along Elm Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard
and Harding Street, for a total of four through lanes. This
improvement can be accomplished within the existing pavement
width by eliminating the existing on-street parking and
restriping the pavement, and should be implemented by year
1990. Approximately 85 parking spaces, of which about 65
are in the commercial/village core area, would be lost.*•
o Elm Avenue Median Island - In addition to providing four
travel lanes, a raised median island should be installed
along Elm Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard and Harding
Street. As discussed earlier in the urban design section,
it is recommended that this median extend through the
intersections with Roosevelt Street and Jefferson Street,
111-17
with median openings provided only at State and Madison
Streets. In conjunction with this improvement, the inter-
section of Elm and Madison should be signalized. The
median island would facilitate traffic flow and safety along
Elm, by providing an insulating area between opposing
traffic streams and reducing the number of conflict points
with traffic from side streets.
Elm Avenue/I-5 Northbound Ramps Intersection - In order to
maintain acceptable levels of service, Elm Avenue should be
restriped to provide a second left-turn lane on the east-
bound approach by the year 1990 (Figure III-5). Although
this segment of Elm is constrained by the 1-5 overpass, the
existing 66 foot pavement width is sufficient to accommodate
the improvement if the lane widths are reduced to about 11
feet each. With the second eastbound left-turn lane, year
1990 operating conditions are projected to improve to a fair
LOS of D, with a v/c of 0.83. Note that dual left-turn
lanes would also alleviate the existing problem of left-
turning vehicles overflowing the single turning lane and
backing into the eastbound through lanes. A disadvantage of
this improvement is that the existing on-street bicycle
lanes on either side of Elm under the freeway overpass would
have to be eliminated to accommodate the extra turning lane.
Bicyclists would be required to walk their bicycles along
the sidewalks in this section. Short of reconstructing the
overpass with greater horizontal underclearance, however, no
other measures will effectively alleviate the projected poor
operating conditions at this location.
By the year 2000, an additional improvement would be
required. Widening the northbound off-ramp by one lane to
provide dual left-turn lanes and a shared through and right-
turn lane would improve year 2000 conditions to a good LOS
of C, with a v/c of 0.79.
In addition, methods should be investigated to provide
better coordination between the traffic signal at Elm and
the northbound ramps with the signals at both the southbound
ramps and at Pio Pico, in an attempt to smooth traffic flow
and reduce existing conflicts between the intersections.
Elm Avenue/Harding Street Intersection - By year 1990, the
northbound and southbound approaches on Harding Street
should, be restriped to provide one exclusive left-turn lane
and one shared through and right-turn lane on each approach
(Figure III-5). This improvement would allow the projected
year 1990 traffic conditions to improve to LOS C, with a v/c
of 0.77. The improvement can be accommodated within the
existing pavement width, although existing on-street parking
will likely have to be eliminated along one side of Harding
for about 150 feet on either side of Elm. Note that this
111-18
improvement is effective only when coupled with the signali-
zation of the intersection of Elm and Madison and installa-
tion of a raised median island along Elm as discussed above.
The new signal at Madison is expected to create a shift in
turning movements away from Harding. Presently, traffic
desiring to turn left onto Elm is effectively forced to use
either State or Harding, due to the difficulty in turning at
the stop-sign controlled intersections of Roosevelt, Madison
or Jefferson. Without this traffic shift, additional
mitigations would be required at Elm and Harding.
To maintain acceptable levels of service in the year 2000,
additional improvements are required. Widening both the
westbound Elm and northbound Harding approaches to accommo-
date an exclusive right-turn lane each would improve
projected operation of the intersection from the unmitigated
LOS of F to a fair LOS of D.
It should be noted that the above improvements are designed to
maintain a fair level of service of "D" or better during peak
periods at the most congested points along the major streets
within the redevelopment area. Although level of service "C" is
often used as a design standard in developing areas, the level of
traffic associated with LOS D is widely considered to be accep-
table, and actually expected, for peak periods within already
built-up urban areas such as the redevelopment area. . The
existing street infrastructure, with the above improvements, is
capable of handling the projected traffic volumes. Note that
during off-peak periods and along most of the minor streets, the
street system is expected to continue to operate under very good
conditions.
Elm and Grand One-Way Couplet
As an alternative to providing four travel lanes on Elm and
improving the Elm Avenue/Harding Street intersection as described
above, another possible solution to improve future traffic flow
and reduce congestion along Elm Avenue in the Redevelopment Area
would be to convert Elm Avenue and Grand Avenue into a one-way
couplet between Harding Street and Carlsbad Boulevard. Under
this concept, Elm Avenue would provide two lanes for eastbound
JII-20
travel and Grand Avenue two lanes for westbound travel. Traffic
traveling westward on Elm Avenue from the freeway vicinity would
be diverted north onto Harding Street and thence west onto Grand
Avenue. East of Harding and west of Carlsbad, both Elm and
Grand would continue to provide two-way traffic. Potential
advantages of a one-way couplet include the following:
o Incoming traffic from the east would be directed past the
commercial shops in the village core area along Grand
Avenue.
o Traffic flow in the village area would be facilitated. The
couplet would alleviate projected congestion on Elm Avenue
by balancing east-west traffic between Elm and Grand.
Furthermore, many conflicting movements at the intersections
along Grand and Elm would be eliminated. Conditions at the
intersection of Harding Street and Elm Avenue would also
improve.
o Additional traffic signals along Elm Avenue would not be
required.
o Neither the raised median island nor four through lanes
would be necessary along Elm.
o Presently, left-turns from Roosevelt, Madison and Jefferson
Streets, each of which are stop-sign controlled, onto Elm
Avenue are very difficult to accomplish. Such movements
would be facilitated since they would now turn into the
curb lane and would not have to wait for gaps in the
opposing through traffic on Elm.
o Wider sidewalks and landscaped areas may be possible along
Grand and/or Elm.
Disadvantages of the one-way couplet include:
o Incoming traffic from the east would no longer travel
directly by the commercial establishments along Elm.
o Access to locations along Elm from the east and along Grand
from the west would no longer be direct.
o Travel speeds along both Elm and Grand may increase as
traffic flow is improved.
o Initially, there may be potential motorist confusion. This
effect should decline over time, as motorists become used
to the couplet.
111-21
o Would detract from the pedestrian ambience along Grand
Avenue.
o Adversely impacts the urban design concept of Elm as the
"corridor to the sea."
o Costs of implementation, including signing, restriping and
possible traffic channelization at both Elm and Harding and
Grand and Harding to divert the westbound traffic northward
onto Harding and westward onto Grand. New signs and
restriping would also be required along Elm and Grand,
particularly at the intersections at Carlsbad Boulevard.
These costs may actually,be less, however, than implementa-
tion costs for the improvements recommended without the one-
way couplet.
PARKING
EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS
For the purposes of the parking analysis, the Redevelopment
Area was divided into seven zones, corresponding roughly with
the land use zones discussed previously in the land use section
of this report. Figure III-6 illustrates the seven zones. The
corresponding land use zones are as follows:
Parking Zone Land Use Zone
1 Commercial/Special Treatment Village
Core
2 Travel Services Commercial (freeway)
3 Commercial/Limited Industrial (north)
4 Commercial/Limited Industrial (south)
5 Travel Services Commercial (ocean)
6 Residential/Combination District (north)
7 Residential/Combination District (south)
111-22
Existing Parking Supply
At present, there are approximately 625 public parking spaces
available within Zone 1, the commercial/village core. Of these,
487 are provided "on-street" and 138 are provided in one of the
existing four public parking lots. About 170 on-street spaces
are available in the two limited industrial zones (Zones 3 and
4), while some 403 on-street spaces are available in the two
residential/combination districts (Zones 6 and 7). Figure III-7
illustrates the existing supply of public parking spaces, while
Table III-7 summarizes the data by analysis zone.
Existing Parking Demand
Parking utilization counts of on-street parking and public
parking lots were conducted during the mid-day peak parking
period on a peak Christmas season weekday in December of 1985.
Table III-7 summarizes the data by parking analysis zone. As can
be seen, approximately 395 spaces were occupied within Zone 1,
the commercial/village core, for an occupancy rate of about 63
percent. The limited industrial areas in Zones 3 and 4 had
occupancy rates of 53 and 63 percent, respectively, while
the travel commercial and residential areas had the lowest
occupancies, ranging from about 28 to 40 percent. It should be
noted that these figures are for each zone as a whole. The
actual occupancy varied by block, with blocks closer to high
activity centers such as the village core occupied at a much
higher rate than blocks further away.
Data from a parking survey conducted by the City of Carlsbad
during Dece'mber, 1984, and January, 1985, was also obtained and
reviewed. This data included average occupancies over the
course of a day for blocks within the commercial/village core.
The average daily occupancies recorded by the City were generally
lower than the utilization survey discussed above, thereby
111-24
TABLE III-7
EXISTING PEAK PUBLIC PARKING OCCUPANCY1
Zone Land Use
Number of
Public Number of Occupancy
Spaces Vehicles Rate Surplus
1
2
3
4
6
7
Commercial/Special 625
Village Core
Travel Commercial 60
(freeway)
Limited Industrial 111
(north)
Limited Industrial 59
(south)
Residential/Combination 262
District (north)
Residential/Combination 141
District (south)
393 63%
24 40%
59 53%
37 63%
103 39%
39 28%
232
36
52
22
159
102
1. Source: Counts conducted by Kaku Associates on December 17, 1985.
111-26
verifying the premise that the utilization survey does in fact
reflect the peak period.
Observations of the existing parking situation and a review of
the existing data indicates that, in general, there is adequate
existing supply to accommodate the existing demand. Although
there is often a perceived shortage of parking spaces in the
immediate vicinity of particular stores, ample supply is general-
ly available within a short walking distance (typically no
further than one or two blocks).
PARKING IMPACTS
Projected Additional Parking Demand
The land use development assumptions presented earlier in Table
III-3 for the traffic analysis were also used to project the
future parking demand presuming redevelopment of the study area.
Projections of future parking demand related to the redevelopment
were made utilizing the appropriate parking requirements as
contained in the City of Carlsbad parking ordinance.1 These
requirements were reviewed in conjunction with other parking
studies and research and were determined to be realistic indica-
tors of the actual number of parking spaces which would need to
be provided in order to both accommodate future demand and
maintain sufficient additional spaces to allow for relatively
easy turnover. Since the exact location of future development
cannot be determined at this time, the analysis of future parking
demand was conducted on a zonal basis, rather than block-by-
block.
Table III-8 summarizes the projected additional parking demand.
1 City of Carlsbad, Parking Ordinance, May 1983.
111-27
1?
srrj
bJi
2 g
M p
• i a*H H-li i
wz>-lMMg<c.
sp
sgB.
-0 00 1
o S -5 2 in m o «i O >QO ooT!*g **i32 SS
o tToS <£j -• -
fl£ 'IN
PI
" S ti« sg
|l] -09). jfi
IM «M *w *4 «• • • • *>
« M « « to _
. » . *xOO en »n *n»-i ^ «•» 00^4 *-4
•0 00 1
o 2 -H S RS2S8 § £ °•r< j< u| 2 «8 H 2 r£ 5<yi a b> aj 1-1 CM CH "-" r» r»
o- S£ £\
_^ ^^
m
•" 8! u* = g
w , .
*" J
• • • • n
«M *M »M »M *J• • • • 10M « « « or -_
» • * *JnS82S
•— «
?*
•*H *J
•J* J9tw OC
<£
• • • • m
«M *M »M »**- *J• • • • ID• " • • s .;
5? 52 5? ?^ to cs
Cn ''S "*••» *tf *^-«>^«».rt — —
V«a
T3
j
«w
J
tl
Ld.§W x^•1 ^>& sJ5 23 fi5! s.
_4 ^
f ! 1« Iii 1 e**" S "• i3^ zrs « s o *u ^H * » o *J «-»H _u « u w -H Q 0 r^
S«j5«tM4> *-» *J ^|«».«>tM.e o« >goeoocOH HZ w
^4 <N
in o »rt•— i ^ r*r*4 CN1
• •«w IM• •0 a
n cor^- P*
«-H >-<
!0« S
I
^4 **<• •« U)
SR
1^4 1^4
• •« n
§o^?-^•^-rl ^H
•2 "2££b> ki«J «-lm «n »3 3 W•O t3 Uc c «~~*s•o •J *' •""*ti j: »-i «u oo n £
•S3 5 H
3
.A2in
o O tn "» "°22S S S
n M a .
o o -H '£ 2 § ^
SS2 §^f ^H i-l ^
^i O in <o K?°^s a s
w n M Je B *j ^o o •*-* —Io 5 c '
" 0sss a
^H ^H
n u *f •** M^ s s ^"44 ?;^^^** ^^- .^_j _^ r^
*-• F-l ^»— •
4J
Uv<
|M
«S-3%? THC C 4J
5 ISX *• t>- a -a_. -5 ti• •s06
'S 3s-is fli^ f . «-SScS 2 ^
Sx£i^ |2 «^
H «
r*
^M•n 3
w* 5
fc*w «> "Oo a
s HO fHSu w
- I
ace per eachuses, doesdonation).„•• gs
"" §s-s afi^••^ « ^j ft £ ti* . Sg
»rH *>tT u **S " ° ti
CO "** %~•H w in•D t> ^*
5J 32MB ? Sc o 5^32 «• *• AJ
5^ "1*j «•D n ti ti
« u fe'2& •* « 3« *• Tl•-• ti yb 01 ^ CA -5 ° ^O ** o w
"So » 2<s °°*, • «r~ m r-l tl
Z v <-> o3 S "•*>« >5" «1i«o £ .
•o in fc S
2'H 8"&s . If•S o «*> u 8• u I u
""• *• »M OCHH O "St> c M IM g«j •»< oID J£ tl ^ S»»Mn•S - w °^ tl Q 5"ta w 0 ** 0ffl O W tl *•fcZU. Z 0.
^ r! n •»
111-28
The new commercial uses in Zone 1 are projected to generate a
demand for 790 new parking spaces by year 1990, and 1,905 new
spaces by year 2000. Note that these projections include 100 new
spaces needed to support the theater renovation. Since the
theater would be used primarily in the evening, thus not conflic-
ting with parking needs of retail and office uses, these 100
spaces could be jointly-provided with parking for day-time retail
or office uses. In a similar fashion, restaurants are projected
to require approximately 260 new spaces by year 1990 and 860 by
year 2000. Since evening peak parking periods for restaurants
would not conflict with the peak periods for retail or commercial
uses, and since much of the daytime restaurant patronage would
actually be generated by the office and retail uses, it is fair
to assume that about half of the restaurant parking demand could
be jointly-provided.
Furthermore, these projections include approximately 265 spaces
required for the proposed Vons complex. Since a supermarket
development, whether it be the Vons or another such development,
could be expected to provide sufficient on-site parking in order
to remain economically viable, these spaces would not need to be
provided in some other manner. Thus, the actual number of
additional spaces required for redevelopment of the commercial/
village core area is projected to be about 295 spaces by year
1990 and 1,110 spaces by year 2000.
The conversion of existing light industrial uses to wholesale
and retail crafts and arts space in Zones 3 and 4 would generate
a demand for an additional 20 parking spaces by year 1990 and 75
spaces by year 2000 over the estimated existing parking demand of
the industrial uses. The new hotel, inn and time-share develop-
ments in Zo'ne 5 would generate a demand for an estimated 285 and
495 parking spaces by years 1990 and 2000, respectively. The new
multi-family dwelling units in Zones 6 and 7 would generate
demand for approximately 265 spaces by year 1990 and 615 spaces
by year 2000.3 111-29
Projected Parking Shortfall
For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all new
hotel/inn/time-share and residential developments will provide
sufficient parking on-site to meet the City parking ordinance
and accommodate the projected additional demand.
•
As indicated on Table III-7, at present there is a surplus of
approximately 230 public parking spaces within Zone 1, the
commercial/village core area, and about 75 spaces within Zones 3
and 4, the limited industrial areas. An additional 56 spaces
will shortly become available in a new public off-street lot
currently under construction on the east side of Roosevelt
Street between Elm and Grand Avenues.
However, approximately 65 existing on-street parking spaces would
be eliminated in Zone 1 if Elm Street is restriped to provide
four travel lanes, as recommended in the circulation section.
Furthermore, the potential elimination of portions of the parking
lane along the west side of State Street between Laguna Drive and
Grand Avenue, as recommended earlier in the urban design section
to enhance the pedestrian qualities of the street, would require
the loss of about 25 on-street parking spaces in Zones 1 and 3.
Combining the above factors with the estimated 295 and 1,110 new
spaces required to accommodate Zone 1 redevelopment indicates a
need for about 75 new spaces by the year 1990 and 890 spaces by
year 2000, respectively. In Zone 3, a surplus of about 15
spaces would still be evident by year 1990, while about 20 new
spaces would be needed by year 2000. In Zone 4, year 1990 would
still have a surplus of about 15 spaces, while the supply of
spaces would just about equal the requirement for new spaces by
the year 2000.
111-30
Again, it should be noted that the above projections of future
required parking spaces already include a built-in allowance to
maintain a sufficient number of spaces in addition to the actual
expected number of vehicles for ease of parking turnover. This
is because if the number of vehicles looking for a space ap-
proaches the total number of spaces, empty spaces would become
increasingly difficult to locate. Potential visitors to the
village area would therefore conceivably become discouraged from
coming to Carlsbad for shopping, personal business or recrea-
tional purposes.
Three options to accommodate the projected future parking
requirements include:
1. Require all future commercial development to provide parking
on-site as per the City parking code. This option, however,
is probably not feasible nor necessarily desirable for all
properties within the village core.
2. Do not require commercial developments to provide any on-
site parking. Instead, developers would be charged "in
lieu" parking fees to be used to construct centralized
parking facilities. Under this option, the entire year 1990
shortfall of about 75 spaces and year 2000 shortfall of
about 910 spaces in Zones 1 and 3 would need to be supplied
in centralized facilities. A review of potential parking
facility sites indicates, however, that 910 centralized
spaces could not be provided within the redevelopment area
without either constructing a large parking structure or
condemning and demolishing existing land uses. It is
estimated that 910 spaces would require up to 8 acres of
surface parking lot or garage levels.
3. A combination of the above two alternatives, with a portion
of parking provided on-site and additional parking provided
in centralized lots. Two potential parking lot sites have
been identified in Zones 1, 3 and 4 (Figure III-8): (1)
along the east side of the railroad right-of-way from about
500 to 1,500 feet north of Grand Avenue, and (2) along the
east side of the railroad right-of-way between Oak and
Walnut Avenues. The first could accommodate an estimated
AOO surface spaces, while about 175 spaces are estimated for
the second location.
111-31
Beach Parking
Parking characteristics in Zone 5, the beach and travel services
commercial district, are related directly to tourist and recrea-
tional users of the beach, resorts, etc., within the area.
Within the context of this study, it is not possible to make
quantitative projections of the future demand for public beach
parking, as no pre-existing parking utilization or occupancy
data is available for the area and, given the seasonal nature of
the parking problem, new counts conducted in the winter months
would not be valid or applicable. However, a qualitative
assessment of conditions is appropriate.
At present, there is free on-street parking available on almost
all blocks within the beach area. Angled head-in parking is
provided along the north side of Grand Avenue between the
railroad line and Ocean Street. Presently, however, there are
no public off-street lots serving the beach area. The existing
public lots in the commercial district east of the railroad are
at best over a quarter of a mile walk from the beach. Thus,
during peak beach days in the summer months, there is often a
sizeable shortage of available spaces to accommodate the beach
demand, with attendant parking congestion.
PARKING RECOMMENDATIONS
A number of potential measures can be taken to provide adequate
parking supply.
o Lodging (hotel, inn and time-share) and residential develop-
ments should be required to provide adequate parking on-site
to meet the City parking ordinance. Note that, without on-
site parking, such developments would not be economically
viable.
o The existing public parking lots west of Roosevelt between
Grand and Elm and east of the railroad between Elm and Oak
are presently under-utilized. Appropriate signing should be
provided directing motorists to the lots, as the lots are at
111-33
present difficult to find for motorists unfamiliar with the
area.
The existing public parking lot along the alley south
of Grand between State and Roosevelt should be restriped and
resigned in order to better delineate the public parking
spaces. At present, the public spaces are easily confused
with private parking areas along the alley.
Existing two-hour parking zones should be enforced to ensure
that all-day parkers (i.e., employees) are not parking in
prime customer spaces.
In order to accommodate the projected year 1990 parking
requirements, a new surface parking lot should be construc-
ted along the east side of the railroad south of Oak Avenue,
as illustrated on Figure III-8. This lot could provide an
estimated 170 spaces if continued as far south as Walnut
Avenue. Vehicular access would be provided via Oak. A
second vehicular driveway may be desirable at the south end
of the lot, which would require extension of Walnut Avenue
westward from its present terminus at Tyler Street to the
parking lot. Adequate signing should be provided to direct
village visitors and employees to the lot.
To accommodate the projected year 2000 parking requirements,
an additional new parking lot should be constructed along
the east side of the railroad north of Grand Avenue, as
illustrated on Figure III-8. This lot could provide an
estimated 400 surface parking spaces. Vehicular access to
the lot would be provided via the alley from Grand parallel
to the railroad. Consideration should also be given to
providing a driveway eastward to State, although this would
require condemning and demolishing a property along State to
provide right-of-way for the driveway. Pedestrian access-
ways should also be provided between the parking lot and
State Street. Adequate signing should be provided to direct
village visitors and employees to the lot. This lot should
be developed as State Street redevelops and demand warrants,
especially if existing parking is eliminated along State
Street.
Since the improvements recommended above can only accom-
modate about 570 of the year 2000 total requirement of 910
new spaces in the commercial/village core and limited
industrial areas, 35 to 40 percent of the new spaces will
have to be provided privately. This can be accomplished by
either (1) exempting certain types of land uses from the
parking ordinance while requiring that others provide their
own parking on-site, or (2) requiring all new development to
provide this percentage of their number of spaces as
required by the parking ordinance (i.e., effectively
reducing the ordinance requirement by 60 to 65 percent).
The second option would appear to be more equitable. No
111-34
matter which option is selected, in lieu fees should be
collected for whatever portion of each development's parking
the development does not provide on-site. The in lieu fees
would then be used to help develop the recommended new
public parking facilities.
Beach Parking Recommendations
Parking characteristics in the beach area, including utilization,
occupancy and operational difficulties, should be monitored
during peak summer periods. As demand grows, the following
suggestions should be considered:
o Existing on-street parking areas along Carlsbad Boulevard
should be clearly delineated.
o Consideration should be given to constructing a new surface
parking lot within the undeveloped Garfield Street right-of-
way between Beach and Cedar Avenues, as illustrated on
Figure III-8. This lot could provide an estimated 75 to 100
new off-street spaces within one-half block of the beach.
Adequate signing should also be provided to direct potential
beach-goers to the lot. Objections to such a lot may,
however, be raised by adjacent property owners.
o If the above suggestions are not sufficient to accommodate
all future beach demand, an alternative would be to use the
surface lots recommended for the commercial/village core
area (i.e., the railroad right-of-way both north of Grand
and between Elm and Walnut) for beach parking. This joint-
use would be possible since peak parking demand for the
beaches would be on Saturdays and Sundays, while peak
parking demand for the commercial area would be on weekdays.
Within the commercial area, retail and restaurant uses would
require parking on weekends, but office uses would not.
Thus, a portion of the lots would be available for beach
use. One advantage of the joint-use would be that beach-
goers would be attracted to the village commercial area.
The disadvantage is that, given the distance from the
beach, some sort of shuttle system may be required in order
to entice beach-goers to the lots.
111-35
CITY OF CARLSBAD
REDE VELOPMENTAREA
—REDEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY
N
Figure 111-3
1990 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
BEDEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY
N
HOTTOSCALf
Figure 111-4
2000 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
N
A EXISTING
CONDITIONS
ELM AVENUE
AND
HARDING STREET If
ELM AVENUE
AND THE NORTHBOUND
1-5 RAMPS ¥
YEAR
1990
41
¥
YEAR
2000
itr
11 r
Figure 111-5
INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
CITY OF CARLSBAD
REDE VELOPMENT A RE A
— REDEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY
N
PARKING ZONE BOUNDARY
PARKING ZONE NUMBER
Figure 111-6
PARKING ANALYSIS ZONES
LEGEND
1oo
IB - NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES
- ANGLED PARKING
- 2 HOUR PARKING
- STREET CONSTRUCTION. NO DATA
- PRIVATE PARKING OFF STREET
- PROHIBITED PARKING
- PUBLIC LOT (OFF-STREET)
- PARKING LOT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
— REDEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY
N
NOT TO SCALE
NUT AVI [_ J- T
Figure 111-7
PUBLIC PARKING INVENTORY
CITY OF CARLSBAD
REDE VELOPMENT AREA
—REDEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY
LEGEND:
PARKING LOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION
POTENTIAL FUTURE PARKING LOTS
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SPACES
Figure 111-8
POTENTIAL PUBLIC PARKING LOTS
Section IV
IMPLEMENTATION AND COSTS
This section presents recommendations and costs for implementing
the public improvements/urban design, land use, and parking/circulation
recommendations presented in Sections I, II, and III.
GENERAL STRATEGY — LAND USE
Given limitations in the market for new commercial development in
downtown Carlsbad (including retail, office, and hotel space) over the
next two to three years, as demand catches up with the abundant new supply
of commercial space developed recently throughout the North County area,
the City and its Redevelopment Agency should generally concentrate on
public improvements/urban design, parking, and circulation improvements in
the near term. By concentrating on these public improvements now, while
there is a short-term oversupply of commercial space in the Carlsbad area,
the downtown will position itself to capture quality commercial
development, including more hotels, in the near future when demand has met
existing supply of space and new development is needed.
Although the analysis of the office, retail, and hotel markets
presented in Volume II of this study indicates a short-term oversupply of
commercial space, downtown Carlsbad is in a region that is expected to
grow dramatically in the long term. Retail, office, and hotel development
of a character compatible with the "village" setting and the redevelopment
area's urban design guidelines are important and should be encouraged in
the long term, particularly after the public improvements and parking
recommendations are in place, since these developments bring people and
activity to the downtown.
Multi-family residential development, in mixed-use projects in the
commercial areas, in apartment and condominium projects in the combination
district, and in residential areas surrounding the downtown redevelopment
IV-1
area, should now be encouraged, so as to increase the residential base,
and thus consumers, surrounding downtown. The growth management limita-
tions placed on multi-family residential development elsewhere in the City
should increase the demand for higher density development in the
neighborhoods surrounding the downtown redevelopment area. Such higher
density would Immediately increase commercial activity in the
redevelopment area.
Given the good long-term prospects for new retail development in
the downtown area, despite the short-term regional oversupply of space,
and the benefits to the redevelopment area of new commercial and hotel
development, the Redevelopment Agency should not reject good and com-
patible privately proposed commercial and hotel projects while it is
concentrating on public improvements over the next three years. If a
private developer is willing to take the risk, the Redevelopment Agency
should approve private projects, such as the proposed 100-room inn on
Carlsbad Boulevard and the Vons Center, compatible with the Redevelopment
Plan, but should avoid contributing redevelopment funds to these private
projects.
At this time, redevelopment funds should be spent on public land-
scaping and design improvements, public parking, upgrading of the Latino
theater, and conversion of the industrial areas into a commercial or
crafts district.
URBAN DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION
The estimated cost of implementing the urban design/public
improvements recommendations contained in Volume III, Section I is
summarized below in the order proposed for implementation. These
estimates do not include the costs of constructing new curb and gutter,
where required, restriping streets or of installing signalization
equipment. A detailed breakdown of these cost estimates, including the
design assumptions on which they are based, is provided in Appendix I.
IV-2
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS/URBAN DESIGN INVESTMENTS IN THE
CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND PERIPHERAL APPROACHES
I. Elm Avenue Corridor—Harding Street to the Sea
A. Streetscape Improvements
1. Elm Avenue/Harding Street intersection $ 57,516
2. Street trees 124,612
3. Sidewalks 107,428
4. Lighting 206,000
5. Signage 7,000
6. Street furniture 90,400
Subtotal $ 592,956
B. Median 95,944
C. Special Treatment Area 229,014
D. Ocean Overlook 66,375
Total $ 984,289
Contingency (25%) 246,072
Grand Total—Elm Avenue Corridor $1,230,361
II. The Carlsbad Boulevard Corridor
A. Entry Statements
1. North entrance $ 41,100
2. South entrance 1,800
Subtotal $ 42,900
B. Intersections—Carlsbad Boulevard/Elm Avenue
and Grand Avenue 103,970
C. Median 30,000
D. Streetscape Improvements
1. Sidewalks 120,906
2. Street trees 48,790
3. Lighting 219,000
4. Street furniture 46,800
5. Signage 8,000
Subtotal $ 443,496
IV-3
E. Pedestrian Areas
1. Bluff Top Promenade 266,900
2. Pedestrian Loop ' 1^,090
Subtotal $ 279,990
F. Pedestrian Linkages—Carlsbad Boulevard
to State Street No estimate
G. Landscaping—Carlsbad Boulevard south of
Elm Avenue 12,895
H. Landscaping—Carlsbad Boulevard north of
Grand Avenue 10,965
Total $ 924,216
Contingency (25%) 231,054
Grand Total—Carlsbad Blvd. Corridor $1,155,270
III. State Street—North at Grand Avenue
A. Streetscape Improvements
1. Sidewalks $ 135,687
2. Street trees 84,925
3. Street furniture 23,200
4. Signage 1,500
5. Lighting 240,000
Subtotal $ 485,312
B. Pedestrian Alley-Ways
1. Special paving 58,560
2. Landscaping 27,356
3. Signage 2,000
4. Lighting 40,000
Subtotal $ 127,916
Total $ 613,228
Contingency (25%) 153,307
Grand Total—State Street
North of Grand Avenue $ 766,535
IV-4
IV. Interstate 5/Elm Avenue Interchange
A. Entry Monument—Buena Vista Lagoon 10,000
B. Interchange Area
1. Entry Gate 20,000
2. Landscaping—Caltrans Right-of-Way 44,300
Subtotal $ 64,300
C. Streetscape Improvements
1. Landscaping 9,545
2. Sidewalks 29,036
3. Lighting 15,000
4. Street furniture 3,400
Subtotal $ 56,981
D. Elm Avenue Underpass
1. Decorative stanchions 21,600
2. Mural paintings 3,000
3. Lighting 6,000
Subtotal $ 30,600
Total $ 161,881
Contingency (25%) 40,470
Grand Total—I-5/Elm Avenue Interchange $ 202,351
V. Grand Avenue—Carlsbad Boulevard to Harding Street
A. Streetscape Improvements—Carlsbad Boulevard
to Harding Street
1. Median $ 25,500
2. Sidewalks 72,540
3. Landscaping 13,578
4. Lighting 205,000
5. Street furniture 32,400
6. Signage 4,000
Subtotal $ 353,018
IV-5
B. Special Treatment Area See I-C
C. Streetscape Improvements
1. Jefferson Street and Harding Street $ 54,808
2. Lighting—State Street, Roosevelt Street,
Madison Street, Jefferson Street and
Harding Street 250,000
Subtotal $ 304,808
Total $ 657,826
Contingency (25%) 164,457
Grand Total—Grand Avenue $. 822,283
Total: Public Improvements/Urban Design Recommendations
for Redevelopment Area $4,176,800
The public improvements/urban design guidelines above are presented
in order of target area priority, and within each target area, in
treatment priority. For example, the Elm Avenue Corridor - Harding Street
to the Sea is the first priority target area, followed by the Carlsbad
Boulevard Corridor, and so on. The target area with the lowest priority
is Grand Avenue - Carlsbad Boulevard to Harding Street, since this area
already has some design treatments. Within the Elm Avenue Corridor -
Harding Street to the Sea target area, the recommended streetscape
treatments are given first priority, followed in order by the median,
special treatment area, and ocean overlook treatments.
CIRCULATION AND PARKING IMPLEMENTATION
The recommended phasing and estimated implementation costs relate
to the circulation and parking recommendations discussed in Section III.
The implementation costs were estimated using unit cost factors supplied
by the City of Carlsbad, and include estimates for any paving, curbs,
striping, signing or signal modifications required for the improvement.
An additional 20 percent is included in the costs to represent engineer-
ing, design and contingency costs. All costs are presented in 1986
dollars.
IV-6
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The following street system improvements, costing $184,000, are
recommended for implementation by the year 1990:
o Elm Avenue Widening — Provide an additional travel lane in
each direction along Elm Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard and
Harding Street, for a total of four through lanes. This
improvement can be accomplished within the existing pavement
width by eliminating the existing on-street parking and
restriping the pavement. The estimated cost to implement this
improvement, including striping and signing, is about $4,000.
o Elm Avenue Median Island — In addition to providing four
travel lanes, a raised median island should be installed along
Elm Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard and Harding Street. This
median should extend through the intersections with Roosevelt
Street and Jefferson Street, with median openings provided only
at State and Madison Streets. In conjunction with this
improvement, the intersection of Elm and Madison should be
signalized. The total estimated cost of this improvement,
including curbs, pavement, signing and the new traffic signal,
is $166,000.
o Elm Avenue/1-5 Northbound Ramps Intersection — Elm Avenue
should be restriped to provide a second left-turn lane on the
eastbound approach, as illustrated in Figure III-5. Although
this segment of Elm is constrained by the 1-5 overpass, the
existing 66-foot pavement width is sufficient to accommodate
the improvement if the lane widths are reduced to about 11 feet
each. The estimated cost of implementation, including removal
of old striping, painting of new striping, signing and signal
modifications, is $13,000.
IV-7
o Elm Avenue/Harding Street Intersection — The northbound and
southbound approaches on Harding Street should be restriped to
provide one exclusive left-turn lane and one share through and
right-turn lane on each approach (Figure III-5). The improve-
ment can be accommodated within the existing pavement width,
although existing on-street parking will likely have to be
eliminated along one side of Harding for about 150 feet on
either side of Elm. The cost, including striping and signing,
is estimated at $1,000. Note that, as discussed in the traffic
and circulation section, this improvement is effective only
when implementated in conjunction with the signalization of the
intersection of Elm and Madison and installation of a raised
median island along Elm as discussed above.
By year 2000, the following street system improvements, costing
$34,000, should be implemented:
o Elm Avenue/I-5 Northbound Ramps Intersection — The northbound
off-ramp should be widened by one lane to provide dual left-
turn lanes and a shared through and right-turn lane. This
improvement would cost an estimated $21,000, including paving,
curbing, striping, signing and signal modifications.
o Elm Avenue/Harding Street Intersection — Both the westbound
Elm and northbound Harding approaches should be widened to
accommodate an exclusive right-turn lane. Estimated cost,
including paving, curbs, striping and signing, is $13,000. Any
right-of-way acquisition costs, if necessary, are not
included.
IV-8
PARKING
The following measures would help to alleviate existing problems,
and should be implemented in the near future:
o The existing public parking lots west on Roosevelt between
Grand and Elm and east of the railroad between Elm and Oak are
presently underutilized. Appropriate signing should be
provided directing motorists to the lots, as the lots are at
present difficult to find for motorists unfamiliar with the
area.
o The existing public parking lot along the alley south of Grand
between State and Roosevelt should be restriped and resigned in
order to better delineate the public parking spaces. At
present, the public spaces are easily confused with private
parking areas along the alley.
o Existing two-hour parking zones should be enforced to ensure
that all-day parkers (i.e., employees) are not parking in prime
customer spaces.
o On-street parking areas along Carlsbad Boulevard should be
clearly delineated.
The following recommendation, costing $167,000, should be
considered for implementation by year 1990:
o A new surface parking lot of about 170 spaces should be con-
structed along the east side of the railroad between Oak and
Walnut Avenues, as illustrated on Figure III-8. Vehicular
access would be provided via Oak. A second vehicular driveway
may be desirable at the south end of the lot, which would
require extension of Walnut Avenue westward from its present
terminus at Tyler Street to the parking lot. Adequate signing
should be provided to direct village visitors and employees to
the lot. The cost of installation, including pavement and
IV-9
striping but not including any right-of-way costs for the
southern driveway to Walnut, is estimated at $167,000. Any
land acquisition costs are also not included.
The following measure, costing $382,000, is recommended for
implementation by year 2000:
o A new parking lot should be constructed along the east side of
the railroad north of Grand Avenue, providing approximately 400
spaces, as illustrated in Figure III-8. Vehicular access to
the lot would be provided via the alley from Grand parallel to
the railroad. Consideration should also be given to providing
a driveway eastward to State, although this would require
condemning and demolishing a property along State to provide
right-of-way for the driveway. Pedestrian accessways should
also be provided between the parking lot and State Street.
Adequate signing should be provided to direct village visitors
and employees to the lot. The estimated cost, including paving
and striping but not including the cost to provide an addi-
tional driveway directly to State, is $382,000. Any land
acquisition costs are also not included.
The following parking recommendations are of a more general nature
and are not tied to a given time frame:
o Lodging (hotel, inn and time-share) and residential develop-
ments should be required to provide adequate parking on-site to
meet the City parking ordinance.
o Approximately 35 to 40 percent of new spaces within the
commercial/village core and limited industrial areas will have
to be provided privately. This can be accomplished by either
(1) exempting certain types of land uses from the parking
ordinance while requiring that others provide their own parking
on-site, or (2) requiring all new development to provide this
IV-10
percentage of their number of spaces as required by the parking
ordinance (i.e., effectively reducing the ordinance requirement
by 60 to 65 percent).
o Within the commercial/village core and limited industrial
areas, in-lieu fees should be collected for whatever portion of
each development's parking needs, as determined by the parking
ordinance, is not required to be provided on-site. The in-lieu
fees would then be used to help develop the recommended new
public parking facilities.
o Parking characteristics in the beach area, including utiliza-
tion, occupancy and operational difficulties, should be
monitored during peak-summer periods.
o If monitoring of beach parking indicates a need, consideration
should be given to constructing a new approximately 75 space
surface parking lot within the undeveloped Garfield Street
right-of-way between Beach and Cedar Avenues, as illustrated on
Figure III-8. Adequate signing should also be provided to
direct potential beach-goers to the lot. The estimated instal-
lation cost, including paving and signing, is $72,000.
SPECIFIC STRATEGY
Since public improvements are emphasized over extensive public/
private development for the near term, the following specific strategy
focuses on implementing and financing the urban design and parking/
circulation improvements.
IV-11
Phasing
The recommended schedule for implementing the recommended urban
design and parking/circulation improvements is as follows:
Completion
Year
Urban Design Improvements
A. Elm Avenue Corridor 1987
B. Carlsbad Boulevard Corridor 1988
C. State Street 1989
D. Interstate 5/Elm Avenue Interchange 1989
E. Grand Avenue 1990
Parking/Circulation Improvements
A. Elm Avenue Restriping 1987
B. Elm Avenue Signalization 1987
C. Elm Avenue/I-5 Restriping 1987
D. Elm Avenue/Harding Street Restriping 1987
E. Elm Avenue/I-5 Northbound Ramp Widening,
including right-of-way acquisition 1991
F. Public Parking Lot Location Signage 1986
G. Public Parking Lot Restriping 1986
H. Carlsbad Boulevard On-Street Parking
Delineation 1988
I. New Surface Lot of 170 Spaces 1990
J. New Surface Lot of 400 Spaces 1992
K. Parking in Garfield Street Right-of-Way 1988
As seen above, all of the urban design improvements should be
implemented by 1990. This would require the expenditure of $4.2 million
over the next four years. Most of the parking/circulation improvements
should also be made by 1990, requiring the expenditure of $1.6 million.
Thus, approximately $5.8 million (1986 dollars) in public improvements is
recommended between 1986 and 1990. The parking/circulation improvements
recommended for after 1990 will cost another $2.4 million (1986 dollars).
IV-12
Financing
A combination of the following funding mechanisms is recommended to
finance the above public improvements:
o Tax Increment Bonds
o Parking Assessment District
o Negotiated Developer Agreements
o Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
o Quimby Act Funds
o General Fund Revenue Reserves
The City may allocate funds from specific departmental budgets for
some of the capital improvements recommended for the Redevelopment Area.
These general revenue funds should be targeted to those improvements
recommended for areas outside the Redevelopment Project Area, but which
affect downtown, such as beach access improvements, the ocean overlook,
etc.
Tax Increment Bonds
Urban design and circulation system improvements could be funded
through moneys generated from the Agency's tax increment revenue. The
improvement projects would probably have to compete with other projects
planned to be funded by the Agency and a decision would have to be made by
the Agency as to the priority for funding various projects. It should
also be noted that Agency funds can only be used to finance those projects
which are located within the boundaries of an established project area or
which can be shown to directly benefit the project area.
Based on tax increment revenue of $550,000 raised in 1985-1986, the
Redevelopment Agency could raise roughly $5.5 million in bonds if all tax
increment were pledged to the bonds. Since the annual tax increment will
increase in the future, the Agency could probably raise even more funds
from tax increment bonds.
IV-13
Parking Assessment District
In general, special assessment district procedures are established
by law to provide for financing the construction and/or acquisition of
public works improvements, such as streets and parking, and for assessing
the costs of such improvements to the benefiting properties. The assess-
ments are levied in specific amounts against each of the individual
properties on the basis of the benefit each parcel receives from the
improvements.
The basis of a special assessment district is the special benefit
that the public improvement confers upon the assessed lands. Most public
works which improve the use or occupation of lands result in a special
benefit to the adjoining property. Parking, curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
paving, waterlines and sewers usually present clear cases of benefit.
Although certain types of developments, such as hotels, super-
markets, office, and residential development should be required to provide
adequate on-site parking, other types of uses such as specialty retail,
restaurants, and entertainment may not be able to provide for their com-
plete parking needs because of lot size constraints. Also, if every use
was required to provide enough on-site parking for its tenants, the
Village would lose its pedestrian-oriented ambiance.
Parking, therefore, needs to be supplied on a public basis. How-
ever, since retailers directly benefit from nearby public parking, and
property owners benefit by not having to supply adequate on-site parking,
it is fair that public parking be financed by an assessment upon those
retailers and property owners that benefit from the public parking.
Negotiated Developer Agreements
This method of public facilities funding has become widespread over
the past few years. With the passage of Proposition 13, tight fiscal
policy by governmental agencies and the decrease of developable land
served by existing infrastructure, a significant shift of public works
IV-14
improvement costs to developers has occurred. The main characteristic of
developer participation is that it is project specific. The negotiations
usually involve the dedication of land for public use and facilities, or
the means by which a developer may construct or finance public improve-
ments necessary to serve the proposed development. Negotiations with
individual landowners and developers are conducted and agreements are
drawn up to facilitate the respective commitments. These agreements may
take the form of developer agreements, conditions of approval, owner
participation agreements, etc.
Developers can take full responsibility for design, processing,
dedication of land, construction and even maintenance of landscaping,
paving, fixtures, and plazas within their project boundaries. Public
spaces and on-site access to the beach or bluff may also be negotiated.
Although the value of negotiated public improvements provided by a devel-
oper cannot be estimated on a generally applied basis, the more public
benefits are supplied by the development projects themselves, the less
public funds will be necessary to pay for the recommended public improve-
ment program.
Community Development Block Grants
The City expects to receive approximately $180,000 in CDBG funds in
FY 1985-1986. These funds may be used for capital projects within the
Redevelopment Area, or may be used for developing programs such as market-
ing or attractions management. The future of CDBG funds, which come from
the federal government, is not promising given the impact of the Gramm-
Rudman measure. CDBG funding is expected to decline in the future,
perhaps by 30 percent next year.
IV-15
Quimby Act Funds
Under the Quimby Act, the City collects fees in addition to
building permit fees from new developments within a designated residential
area. The funds generated are used for park acquisition, development, and
maintenance to serve the residents of the area from which fees are
collected. This funding mechanism may be used to develop a linear park
along the bluff just south of the Redevelopment Project Area.
General Revenue Reserves
The development of cash reserves or capital improvement funds from
the City's general fund is often referred to as "pay-as-you-go" funding.
Under this form of financing, the initial capital cost of a project must
be accumulated in advance of construction. This method has sometimes been
used together with various forms of short-term financing to construct
smaller infrastructure facilities. While pay-as-you-go financing appears
to reduce the total cost for construction of a project through the elimi-
nation of interest payments, extended deferment of the project to accumu-
late funds can often result in greatly increased construction costs. When
the cost of capital financing is greater than construction inflation, then
pay-as-you-go is preferable. General revenues may be loaned to the
Redevelopment Agency, to be paid back from tax increments when available.
Allocation of Funds
The following preliminary funding package is suggested for imple-
menting the specific urban design and parking/circulation recommendations
presented previously in this report:
IV-16
Public Improvements Expenses — $4,175,000
Funds - Tax Increment Bonds 3,630,000
General Revenues or Loan to
Agency to be Repaid Later 270,000
Quimby Fees/Public Facility Fees 275,000
$4,175,000
Parking/Circulation Expenses — $4,000,000
Funds - Parking Authority Bonds/Parking
Assessment District $3,500,000
Tax Increment Bonds 500,000
$4,000,000
General revenues would be used to fund Interstate 5/Elm Avenue
interchange improvements and to construct the Ocean Overlook at the end of
Elm Avenue. Quimby funds would be used to finance development of a bluff
top promenade. Parking Authority Bonds were based on an assumed assess-
ment of $0.50 per square foot on 500,000 square feet of general commercial
space and annual revenues of $100,000 from parking fees to support the
bonds. Total amount of tax increment bonds required to pay the balance of
costs is $4,130,000, well within the Redevelopment Agency's financial
capabilities.
Negotiated Developer Agreements and CDBG were not included in the
funding package.- To the extent that agreements with developers to provide
some of the recommended public improvements are reached, the amounts of
funds required from tax increment bonds is reduced. CDBG was not included
because of its uncertain future and the consultant's opinion that CDBG
funds be used to develop the other projects described below.
IV-17
Other Projects
The Latino Theater
As recommended, the Latino Theater might be converted into a first-
run movie house, a fine arts theater, or a combination movie theater and
performing arts theater. It has been reported that the owner would like
to sell the property. Some interest has been expressed by developers who
would like to convert the theater into an office building. It would be
unfortunate if the City loses this entertainment asset in an area that
needs entertainment.
The Redevelopment Agency should seek a buyer for the theater who
would convert the theater for a broader audience. The Agency may want to
purchase the theater, before it is sold to someone with less creative
plans, and then sell the theater to a quality theater operator. The
Agency should commission a study to determine the feasibility of convert-
ing the theater into a performing arts center, and should obtain an esti-
mate of the cost of rehabilitating the theater. CDBG funds could be used
for this study. The City should also consider placing the theater on the
historic register so that it may be preserved and historic rehabilitation
credits may be taken by a developer.
The Crafts District
The Crafts District, proposed as a potential reuse of a portion of
the industrial area on State Street, needs more detailed study of North
county craft industries, other districts in the County, comparables in
other cities, the facilities currently used by craft industries in the
county, and rents that craft industries are able to pay.
If this concept is appealing to the Redevelopment Agency, the
Agency should study the above issues during the next year. The crafts
district development process may take the following schedule:
IV-18
Year
1) Agency Studies Craft District Issues 1986
2) Agency Develops Concept 1987
3) Agency Develops a Specific Plan 1987
4) Agency Acquires Land (if necessary) 1988
5) Agency Issues Development RFPs 1988
6) Agency Chooses Developer 1988
7) Development Begins 1989
8) Craft District Opens 1990
Although a Specific Plan would cover land uses, design,
infrastructure, and interrelationships in the converted industrial/crafts
zone, the development project may only cover part of the district, acting
as the anchor project which stimulates private initiated projects within
the Specific Plan guidelines.
Funds to develop the Crafts District concept and the Specific Plan
for State Street may come from CDBG monies.
ATTRACTIONS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency and the Downtown
Merchants Association develop an attractions management program to help
market the Redevelopment Area as a special district for tourists and North
County residents. "Attractions Management" is the development, schedul-
ing, and promotion of daily public interest activities, such as street
entertainment; and seasonal special events, such as street fairs, 10K
runs, etc.
At this time, the appropriate tourist and pedestrian density that
would support daily special activities is not evident. The Agency should,
therefore, concentrate its efforts on seasonal special events such as
annual street fairs, a 10K race, a bicycle race, an Oktoberfest, or a
spring festival, for example. During the holiday seasons, particularly
Christmas, the downtown could be elaborately decorated and promoted as a
special place to shop. Special daily attractions could be scheduled and
promoted during this time.
IV-19
Development of an attractions management program may be financed by
formation of a Business Improvement District, in which minimal fees could
be collected annually from downtown merchants, on the promise that all
downtown merchants would benefit from such a program. The annual budget
for such a program and supporting market materials might be $25,000 to
$50,000, or roughly $0.05 to $0.10 per square foot of commercial space per
year in 1990.
IV-20
Section V
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
This section of the report defines the fiscal impact on the City of
Carlsbad of the intensified redevelopment program discussed previously.
Costs to the City, which include increased police and fire protection,
public works and maintenance efforts, library, parks and recreation and
general government costs, are quantified based on increased density of the
various land uses in the Redevelopment Area. These are contrasted with
increased revenues resulting from property taxes, state subventions, sales
tax, business licenses, real property transfer tax, transient occupancy
tax, the public facilities fee, and the license tax on new construction.
The following table summarizes the net new, or incremental develop-
ment assumed for the Redevelopment Area by land use for the years 1990 and
2000, and a total for the 15 year period.
1986-1990 1990-2000 Total
Units Sq.Ft. Units Sq.Ft. Units
Residential 290,000 313 180,000 200 470,000 513
Single Family 00 00 00
Apartments 135,000 150 180,000 200 315,000 350
Time Share 155,000 163 0 0 155,000 163
Commercial 148,000 NA 200,000 NA 348,000. NA
Retail 110,000 NA 110,000 NA 220,000 NA
Restaurants 13,000 NA 30,000 NA 43,000 NA
Office 25,000 NA 60,000 NA 85,000 NA
Industrial (20,000) NA (40,000) NA (60,000) NA
Hotel 102,000 234 175,000 400 277,000 634
Hotel 82,000 184 135,000 300 217,000 484
Inns 20,000 50 40,000 100 60,000 150
NA means Not Applicable; we have not defined these square footage figures
as commercial or industrial units.
V-l
An important assumption was made in this analysis. The incremental
growth in building area is achieved through increased density on property
already dedicated to a particular use; the only conversion of property use
Is assumed in the industrial sector where 20,000 square feet is lost
through 1990, and another 40,000 is demolished by 2000.
Note that all dollar figures used in this analysis are 1986
dollars. No inflationary factor was used in order to simplify the
comparison of costs and revenues appearing in different years.
CALCULATED COSTS TO THE CITY OF INCREASED DEVELOPMENT
The basis of the calculation of incremental costs to the City is
the estimated current cost of municipal services per square foot of
structure. (Table V-l shows city costs in the categories relevant to this
discussion.) We have constructed a model which describes the cost of each
service per square foot of structure citywide by type of land use. We
have then applied a factor derived from the total assessed valuation of
that type of use citywide, in order to take into account varying degrees
of density. For example, in order to determine the costs associated with
the development of residential property, we first estimated the total
square footage of residential structures in the City based on acreage, lot
coverage, and typical sizes of single family, apartment, and time share
units. This yielded an estimate of 115 million square feet of residential
structures. This figure constitutes about 58 percent of all structural
square footage in the City. We next investigated assessed valuations for
the different land uses. According to the County Assessor's Office, the
1985/86 total assessed value of secured and unsecured residential property
in Carlsbad is $1,884,666,728. This figure of $1.9 billion is 76% of the
total assessed value of private property in the City, which totals $2.5
billion. Because the most expensive municipal costs — police and fire
protection, and public works — are tied to assessed valuation, we applied
a factor to the square footage numbers calculated previously which took
into account the portion of assessed valuation stemming from each land
V-2
Table V-l
ANNUAL COSTS
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1984-1985
General Fund
General Government
Police Protection
Fire Protection
Public Works
Maintenance
Libraries
Parks and Recreation
Other
(including Building Department)
Total
1984-1985
Expenditure
$ 1,854,235
3,592,896
2,551,554
1,516,120
2,880,088
1,209,157
1,839,035
1,300,338
$16,743,423
Percent Percent
of of
1984-1985 1984-1985
General Total
Fund Budget
11.1%
21.5
15.2
9.1
17.2
7.2
11.0
7.8
100.0%
9.5%
8.7
6.2
3.7
6.9
2.9
4.4
3.1
Other Funds
Capital Improvement Funds
5,702,526
19,030,259
$41,476,208
Source: City of Carlsbad Budget, FY 1985-86; and Economics Research
Associates.
use. For residential use, we applied a factor of 1.5 to its 115 million
square feet, thus increasing the portion of municipal costs attributable
to residential property, in accordance with its high assessed valuation.
When done for each land use, this resulted in an approximation of the
costs of providing each type of municipal service to each type of land use
by square foot of building.
These cost factors were applied to the net changes of Village
building area shown above. Table V-2 summarizes the incremental costs for
which the City is responsible, assuming the total square footage noted
above is built over the period 1985 through 1990. Total service cost for
all land uses is estimated at $52,000, with $31,000 attributable to
residential uses, $13,000 to commercial uses, $9,000 to hotel use, and a
savings of $1,500 due to a reduction in industrial space. Table V-3
details the same information for the period 1990 through 2000. For this
period, annual costs are approximately $50,000.
It is important to note that the costs measured here are marginal
costs; that is, we have calculated the price of adding to an amount of
service already provided. Municipal service costs would be higher if this
type of activity were to take place in an undeveloped portion of the City.
Here, however, in the downtown district, the infrastructure already
exists, making additional units of service less costly to provide.
CALCULATED COSTS TO THE AGENCY
Table V-4 shows anticipated agency costs resulting from agency
administration, the recommended public improvements program, and the
recommended traffic and circulation improvements program. Redevelopment
Agency administration costs are estimated at $262,000 per year. This is
an ongoing cost. The public improvements are calculated at $4.2 million,
and the circulation improvements are costed out at $4.0 million. Both
costs are one-time investments spread over a period of several years; the
traffic and circulation improvement program cost includes land
acquisition.
V-4
o0
^*PI*•CO-
o0
co
I
-a-
8
Ox
Oo
m
oo
m
o0
m
0o
-»
oo
enin
•CO-
OOOooo OOOOoooo
W
CM
I
CDH
3
< J COu z
CO > OHUMen O H8U Oj
* * 9
S Z CO SO
M CO CO
U CO Z UCO 3 W
M < J i-U U H2 > M_3 o u y
< M O
pgjH2
< 2
g
G03•o1-1
0901on
u u
oooooooo§0000000•a- oo vO r-» o O r-»
•» •» M M «k
<M -H •-> .-I -H
§ § 8 § § § §O O CM <T O in iri
en tM -H t\i -H ^- -H
•CO-
oO
•CO-
oovO
§0000o o o o
CM in CM m CM
OoCM
*(Mf)•to-
05
01
uoenm
o
Ooi
Owa.
aiu
oa,
eO
u01*joMa.
01
ajd aiM Oo e wat
3ex<
C I-•* ^Sa -H
§
•t-l 4-1*-» ecd Q)V SP C
V ft)? *10 rH
(0co I-J«i 011-1 e(0 01cu u
re
0)0301
03
U1-1EO
ou
01u*-.§
oooooooo oooooooo
OH GO f> m in
ooCM
09
1
0000o o o or-. m f> vo
o o o oo o o oCM sr •* f>
Oosi-
•w-
oooooooooooooooomm-3-oocMcooocM
•w-
oo
CM
ro 8
<01-1
o oooooooo§0000000oo vo CM <r o o •*
CM -^ CM CM --
O
O
oo
I
eQJ
•O
88888888-* 00 CM CM
f»1 —i CO -H CM CM -H oCM
en
01
UOCO05
CO0)en
0)
O
•H
4J
O
V
4J
O(J
Pu
0)U
OPu
U J«io> n•u oO 2
ex, u•H
? ^tJ ft
•H 3
U
C COco VC iH0) l-i
U CO
C U-rH XI
CO i-l
•o
ct)
m
COCu
ie
0>
o
^-1
CO
0)c0)cs
oH
0)
tnu
•Heo
oUta
91u
o
Table V-4
ANTICIPATED AGENCY COSTS
1. Redevelopment Agency Administration
(personnel, operations and maintenance)
$262,000/year (ongoing)
2. Public Improvements Program
A. Elm Avenue Corridor
(Harding Street to the sea)
B. Carlsbad Boulevard Corridor
C. State Street (north of Grand Avenue)
D. Interstate 5/Elm Avenue Interchange
E. Grand Avenue
(Carlsbad Boulevard to Harding Street)
3. Traffic and Circulation Improvements Program
A. Elm Avenue Restriping
B. Elm Avenue Signalization
(after median construction)
C. Elm Avenue/I-5 Restriping
D. Elm Avenue/Harding Street Restriping
E. Elm Avenue/I-5 northbound ramp widening
Including right-of-way acquisition
F. Public parking lot location signing
G. Public parking lot restriping and signing
H. Carlsbad Boulevard on-street space painting
I. Grand Avenue angle parking painting
J. New surface lot of 170 spaces (improvements)
Including land acquisition of 59,500 s.f.l
K. New surface lot of 400 spaces (improvements)
Including land acquisition of 130,000 s.f.2
L. Parking in Garfield Street right-of-way
M. Angle parking on a portion of Elm Avenue
$1,230,361+
1,155,270+
766,535+_
202,351+_
822,283+
$4,176,800+
$ 4,000
70,000
13,000
1,000
21,000
43,000
2,000
5,000
1,500
4,000
167,000
1,279,250
382,000
1,950,000
72,000
1.000
$4,015,750+
Note: The public improvements costs are taken from POD estimates.
The traffic and circulation costs are taken from Kaku Associates
estimates, as revised by Economics Research Associates with Kaku
to reflect land acquisition costs and additional lesser item
costs (March 3, 1986).
lLand acquisition estimated at $21.50 per square foot.
2Land acquisition estimated at $15.00 per square foot.
CALCULATED REVENUES TO THE CITY
The following reviews the revenue sources relevant to the proposed
development changes in the Village:
State Subventions
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fund
Off Highway License Fees
Gas Tax (Section 2106)
Gas Tax (Section 2107)
Cigarette Tax
Sales Tax
Business License Tax
Real Property Transfer Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax
Public Facilities Fee/License Fee on New Construction
Table V-5 specifies the key revenue multipliers which have been
used in determining the annual revenues flowing to the City and attribut-
able to incremental growth in the Redevelopment Area.
As land values increase through reuse and further construction, a
property tax increment (the difference between the pre-redevelopment
property tax and the tax assessed in subsequent years) develops. This
increment is assigned to the Agency, not the City. We have included
increment values in the section on Agency Revenues.
These revenue multipliers have been applied to the development
scenario detailed above. The results are shown in Table V-6. Annual
incremental revenue projections are made for the years 1990 and 2000 based
on three types of residential units, office space, industrial space (a net
loss of space is calculated), retail space, and hotel properties.
Several things must be noted in examining this table. The Real
Property Transfer Tax shown is the one-half portion that goes to the City;
the other half is directed to San Diego County. In addition, we have made
no estimate of the Real Property Transfer Tax revenue resulting from the
resale of commercial parcels and structures. Such property turns over
with much less frequency than residential property, and at an unforseeable
rate. For this reason, we have included only the revenue flowing from the
turnover of residential real estate in this analysis.
V-8
Table V-5
KEY REVENUE MULTIPLIERS
1986 Values
Assessed valuation changes are as follows:
+ $37,500 per apartment unit added
+ $ 6,000 per share of time-share units added (50 shares each)
+ $60 per square foot of retail space added
+ $50 per square foot of office space added
- $30 per square foot of industrial space demolished
+ $65 per square foot of hotel space added
These are equivalent to the probable values recorded on permits which
the assessor will use; ERA is being conservative in light of assessor
practices.
2. The effective Redevelopment Area property tax rate is 1.07448 percent
on the total 1985/86 assessed valuation of $87,299,665. ERA has
conservatively used 1.0 percent for purposes of computing potential
total property tax increment.
3. Sales taxes are computed on the following basis:
$100 per square foot of incremental small retail space
$200 per square foot of new restaurant space
$270 per square foot of major grocery market space
$120 per square foot of pharmacy space
$ 20 per square foot of 20 percent of office space
$ 10 per square foot of 50 percent of industrial space
$175 per square foot of hotel-linked retail
$250 per square foot of hotel-located restaurant
Sales at grocery markets are assumed to be 15% taxable
Sales at pharmacies are calculated to be 80% taxable
4. Per capita state subventions are shown below (per League of
California Cities 1985 Budget Bulletin).
Motor Vehicle In Lieu Fund
Off Highway License Fees
Gas Tax (Section 2106)
Gas Tax (Section 2107)
Cigarette Tax
$24.68
.02
3.97
8.64
3.60
$40.91 per capita per year
Table V-5
(Continued)
5. Household Size: 2.3 persons per household is assumed, based on the
1980 census figure for the downtown area. Thus, each household is
calculated to be "worth" $94.09 per year in state subventions.
6. The phasing of projects over the period 1986 through 1990 is presumed
to be even; thus, the Public Facilities Fee/License Tax on New
Construction for all development over the five-year period is divided
evenly over those years. The same is true of construction taking
place from 1990 through 2000.
7. We have calculated both the Public Facilities Fee and the License Tax
on New Construction at 2% of building permit value.
Table V-6
ANNUAL INCREMENTAL REVENUE PROJECTIONS
BASED ON DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO
CITY OF CARLSBAD AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1990 and 2000
A. Residential
Single-Family Units
Property Tax
State Subventions
Multiple-Family Units
Property Tax
State Subventions
Time-Share Units
Property Tax
All Residential
Real Property Transfer Tax
(City share)
PFF/LTNC*
B. Office
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Business License Tax
PFF/LTNC
C. Industrial
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Business License Tax
D. Retail
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Business License Tax
PFF/LTNC
E. Hotel
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax
Business License Tax
PFF/LTNC
Total
Annual by
1990
As Is
As Is
$ 56,300
19,000
489,000
Annual by
2000
As Is
$ 75,000
19,000
0
12,000
75,600
12,500
1,000
1,000
3,800
(6,000)
(1,000)
(200)
73,800
114,000
1,500
22,000
66,300
6,000
286,000
500
20,000
800
11,000
30,000
2,400
2,400
4,500
(12,000)
(2,000)
(400)
66,000
152,000
2,000
12,600
114,000
11,000
482,000
1,000
17 ,000
$1,248,100 $988,300
*Public Facilities Fee/License Tax on New Construction — calculated at 2
percent of building permit.
Source: Economics Research Associates.
Also, Carlsbad assesses a franchise tax on utilities operating
within the City, on the grounds of payment for the right to pass under-
ground pipes or wires, or overhead wires through the City. There will be
some incremental franchise tax directed to the City as a result of the
further development of downtown, but it is an inestimable amount. We have
disregarded this amount in this analysis. All of the amount goes to the
General Fund, none to the Redevelopment Agency.
Each type of land use contributes to a number of different revenue
sources of the City and the Agency. These resources, grouped by type of
land use, and estimated for the years 1990 and 2000, are shown in Table
V-6. All revenue projections are incremental and annual. Revenues will
grow faster through 1990 than in the subsequent decade. This is in large
part due to the property taxes and real property transfer tax generated by
the new time share units assumed built by 1990; no further units are
projected between 1990 and 2000. The annual revenue growth expected for
the 1990s is related to intensification of retail and hotel uses. These
land uses will generate substantial amounts of new property tax, sales
tax, and transient occupancy tax. As shown, total annual incremental
revunue is projected at $1.25 million through 1990, and at $1 million for
the succeeding decade.
A summary of these revenue projections is made in Table V-7.
CONCLUSIONS
The preceding section outlines first the costs and then the
revenues expected from the stated development scheme. Both costs and
revenues to the City are summarized in Table V-8. City revenues substan-
tially outpace expenses, with an even greater benefit to the City during
the 1990s. Although prediction of specific figures is not possible or
called for in this analysis, ERA believes that the magnitude of the
difference between calculated costs and benefits demonstrates the benefi-
cial nature of the development plan. The City should not hesitate to put
the recommendations into effect.
V-12
Table V-7
SUMMARY ANNUAL INCREMENTAL REVENUE PROJECTIONS
1990 2000
Property Tax (to Agency)
Project Purposes
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Fund (20%)
$ 688,000 $ 273,000
$550,400 $218,400
137,600 54,600
State Subventions (to City)
(General Fund revenue)
Only on year-around
dwelling units1
Sales Tax (to City)
Business License Tax (to City)
14,000
121,000
2,800
19,000
163,000
5,000
Real Property Transfer Tax
(to City)13,000 800
Transient Occupancy Tax
(to City)286,000 482,000
Public Facilities Fee/License
Tax on New Construction (to City)121,400 45,000
Total $1,246,200 $1,089,100
*Time-share condominiums do not "earn" per capita subventions from the state,
per the research office of the State Board of Equalization.
Source: Economics Research Associates.
Table V-8
ESTIMATED ANNUAL INCREMENTAL COSTS AND REVENUES
TO THE CITY
By 1990 By 2000
City Costs (three-fourths)
Police $ 11,600 $ 11,100
Fire 8,100 7,900
Public Works 4,800 4,500
Maintenance 9,200 8,800
Libraries 3,900 3,800
Parks and Recreation 5,800 5,600
General Government 5,800 5,600
Other 4.200 3,900
Total $ 53,400 $ 51,200
City Revenues
State Subventions 14,000 19,000
Sales Tax 120,000 163,000
Business License Tax 3,000 5,000
Real Property Transfer Tax 13,000 800
Transient Occupancy Tax 286,000 482,000
PFF/LTNC* 121.400 45,000
Total $557,400 $715,000
*Annually through 1990 and 2000 only; not ongoing thereafter,
Source: Economics Research Associates.
The next two tables provide a comparison of costs and revenues to
the Agency. Cash flows are shown for each year from 1985 through 2000,
with a cumulative cash flow at the bottom of each table.
A number of assumptions were utilized in the running of these cash
flow projections. With regard to the improvements to be completed, all
public improvements are done between 1986 and the end of 1990, as are most
of the traffic and circulation improvements, with the variable factor
being the date of construction of the 170-space parking lot. The first
scenario (Table V-9) projects cash flows with the 170-space lot built by
1990. The second scenario (Table V-10) projects the results of the same
program with the 170-space lot built between 1990 and 2000.
Regarding financing of the program, we have assumed that a bond of
$5.5 million is sold in 1986. The Agency can float this amount based on
the 1985/86 increment of $550,000, and the rapid growth of the increment
received over the past several years. The bond is a 20 year loan, and is
made at 10% interest. The rate Is based on publication of rates paid by
other cities in March, 1986. The Agency is obligated to make monthly
payments totalling $637,560 annually. Twenty percent of the total amount
of the bond, or $1.1 million, is allocated to the required reserve and to
the cost of bond sale. This is a conservative estimate, and may overesti-
mate the amount of set-aside required. If the City is interested in
maximizing the total available for use, it may wish to use credit enhance-
ment techniques. Bond insurance may now be purchased and held in lieu of
a larger reserve. Another option may be a letter of credit obtained from
a major lender. Either mechanism could possibly reduce the percent of the
bond total which must be held in reserve.
A second bond is floated in 1990 to finance the parking lot or
lots. Total value of the bond is $4.75 million, with the same 20 percent
reserve and sale costs subtracted. This leaves the Agency with $3.8
million for its improvements program. On a twenty year loan at 10 percent
interest, the Agency will be paying $550,620 annually in twelve
installments.
V-15
§
1!
s
g
tn
^
g
«
i
OD
i
r*.
§
i
in
E
I
en
E
CM
—
i
i
»i
s2
I
-
i
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
00
aK>
Ift
00
s00
tn
00
*OD
m
oos
m
00
5
o
§ §
en rss s
§ 1
t*\ CM
CM f-J
8.1<n CMen <0(M CM
8 1en rT
CM CM
8.1en CMen ^CM K
§ §
en CMen soCM CM
en CM
CM CM
1 §
m eCm scCM CM
8.1
en CMS $
g §
R SCM CM
g i
•9 CM8 S
R 8«N O
.» CM
R 8CM O
a 2en CM
R 8CM Oii
R gM Cs" i
° 8
i
2 fM
ft R
8 §
ft R
S §
ft" R*>0 ""
S §
2 in
S M
en !n«c in
2 8in ^
r«r pen ini0 in
1 §
ft R"<iO in
I 1
ft R%0 in
a §
ft R
S. |
sO «"»
m
g °
ft>o
S °m
r*.en
S °
3
a. °f^.
o o
*mS
—a
^
—
^i—
8.
i
8
i—
8
ens
8.en$—
S
enS
*i
8.
i
mCM
CO
CM
ms
a
mCM
00
CM
SI
CM"
m
«o
CM*
0
CM
£
R
1
(SJ
CMm^*
CM*
2
r»S
CM
s.
i
(M
Sep^
inmCM
CM
g
|
Rin
i—
§
Rr^
s
f*.in
3
i
7
-
1
enO
O
—•n
?f*.
•*"£
Si
g
R*l/>
o
0
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
1
§
§
g
81
0
i
§
i
0
§
a
1en
§
8"
m
(M
en*
N
•M
m"
O
CM
*.
CM
11 i8I !•
a
§
a
|
§
a"
§
a"
§
a"
0
o
o
o
o
o
1m
CM
8
R
9,m
tM*
i
00
i
en8
S
OD
00^
CM
CM"
1en
*.
O
—ms—
s
i—
sen
I-
R
s
mR
—
R"
**^
—
00
a
—
$i
§g
001
R
S
1
en
O
00i
§
1
inrsiCM
en
»n
S
m
m
en
CM
m
*a*
mmCM
R"m
g
8"
m
er-
£
•^
8
CMCO
m
ins
g
*
m
R
en
tn
en
R0
CM"
m£
8
en
I
O
CM
in
1
men
m
£
^i
CMS
mm
1
§
£
«M
§
g
8
I
«• •- t- TJ T2 "';,|II i
& «s. s
-1
8 - S
^!i i I
5I
o „I I
i *
§
i
•u
i 2
1 1
b *l|| »
ilif
i l
i v
M
41
1
g
1
i
i
r-.
S
i
mE
I
„
E
i
E
i
i
s2
f*.|
*2
m
1
0
o
o
o
o
e
o
o
o
o
in
00
8
in
00
5"
*n
•D
*00
m
»
«e
m
00
s00
o
m
»
ft"
ms
tnS
m
^fi
g
f*.
ins
ft"
s
e-*R
s
S
CM
r-N.
5
s
8
s
85
s
"*
8.5
o
§ s §
3 R R°
§ 1 I
S S 8
01 r*. QtO f> inCM «o in
I 1 §
CM h* O
CM « m
CM" r^ o\B en in
§ 1 §
S ft R
8 S SO in *
CM ^ in
§11
S § R
CM \«o m
§ S §
01 *"* 5?
|8. °fM r-
8 S
I S °
CM r-
11°
S S
§ 8 °
s §
goo1
m
8
S00
Is
I
in8.
00^
8
SOD
—
ii
—
8R"
*i-7
i
8
-
|
S
8
1
inr^.00
s
—
m
OO
R
in
00
R
m».
«Dr^
mf«.
ao
g
j
S °irsi
§ °
O O
CM
S o
^
CM
e °00
men
<^
S °
i
CM
R <=>mi—
s °
sf^*>
$ °
•i
r*.m
g °
!
00 8
Si
-
§ §
en o
S OD
O Q
m o* §
| §
£ §
g §
i i
8 °
s
§1 s
81 S•1 ~
8J S
a
§
cT&rn
a
§
g
8
§
S
o
r*.s
s
00r*.
1m
CM
8
R
CM
1
CM
§
00
~
ol *^8 a
§
a"
o
o
o
0
o
o
m
00
RCO
(M
CM
!-00
o
m«
g
§
o
?
g
R"m
in
g
-
m
ep^
s
in
en
OS
m
£
in
fMCM
Sm
s
inin00
8
i
•nCM
^m
§
in
i
ins
in
CM
S
inen
in"
mR
fM
g
8*
mfM
2*T
8
R
inm0
1•
^•n
i
<M
1
S
CM
in
CM
3~
—
g
ft"
m
I
1
*
mr*.
i
1
tnS
s
I
in5
£
g
i
t s z , ,
" o S I I
2 ? I £ a£ C I £ £
I
B
2I
Table V-9 demonstrates cash flows based on the assumption that the
170-space parking lot is constructed between 1986 and 1990. Land acquisi-
tion is the major portion of the cost of the parking lot. Annual cash
flows are heavily negative through 1989, becoming positive in 1990 as the
tax increment multiplies. (We have conservatively used no land-value-
augmentation factor in this analysis, although it can be safely assumed
that the increment will increase 2 percent annually based on property
value increases.) The cumulative cash flow is negative through 1993, with
the Agency most deeply in the hole in 1989, where the cumulative flow
totals a negative $1.1 million. By the year 2000, annual revenues total
$3.3 million, the annual cash flow is estimated at $1.6 million, and the
cumulative flow is projected at $7.6 million.
Table V-10 shows the same data for a scenario whereby the land
acquisition and construction of a 170-space parking lot is delayed until
after 1990. Both parking lots are thus available for use by 2000. The
cost of these efforts is seen under Agency Costs—Traffic Improvements
Program. Total Agency costs are distributed somewhat more evenly in this
scenario, and the Agency avoids the heavy negative cash flows caused by
buying the land for the parking lot while undertaking the public improve-
ments program. In this case, annual cash flows are negative for three
years: 1986, 1987, and 1991, where the cost of land acquisition comes
into play. The cumulative cash flow line however, shows that there is
only one year of negative cumulative movement. This is in 1987, and the
amount is $640, a minimal amount. Annual cash flow is not as great by
2000 as it is under the previous scenario, $1.5 million as opposed to $1.6
million. However, this scenario avoids the negative cumulative flows
early on in the project and by the year 2000, putting off the parking lot
results in a superior cumulative cash flow: $7.8 million as opposed to
$7.5 million.
V-18
Review of Tables V-8, V-9, and V-10 shows the clear benefits to the
City and the Agency of following the development scheme provided above.
Revenues outweigh costs to the City, as demonstrated in Table V-8. The
subsequent two tables show that the Agency also will substantially
increase its resources by selling the two bonds as described and investing
in the public Improvements program, and the traffic and circulation
improvements program provided. ERA recommends that the Agency seriously
consider delaying land acquisition and construction of the 170-space lot
until after 1990 in order to avoid the heavy costs through 1990 of combin-
ing this program with the public imporvements work. An alternative to
this would be to organize a parking assessment district among the
merchants and business of the Village, and financing the lot through an
assessment based on square footage of space occupied. Whatever the timing
of the project work, ERA'S analysis shows clear fiscal benefits to the
City and the Agency in engaging in an intensified development of the
downtown area.
V-19