HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-22; City Council; 19295; Carlsbad Village Draft Transit Study PresentationCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 8
AB# 19,295
MTG. 01/22/08
DEPT. CM
Carlsbad Village Draft Transit
Study Presentation from North
County Transit
DEPT. HEAD V<A
CITY ATTY. <^^
CITY MGR. & — -
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive a presentation from Lance Schulte - North County Transit District.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The City Council provides an opportunity for citizens and organizations to have an item placed
on a City Council Agenda. Attached is a Final Draft Conceptual Study for the Carlsbad Village
Transit (Exhibit 1) from North County Transit District. Lance Schulte will make a presentation to
the City Council to summarize the study findings and recommendations to educate Council and
Citizens on the proposed redevelopment of the Carlsbad Village Transit Center.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
EXHIBITS:
1. Attachment E of 12-7-07 NCTD Monitoring Committee report - Final Draft Conceptual
Study for the Carlsbad Village Transit Center.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Rob Houston 760-434-2958 rhous@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY.
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED
DENIED
CONTINUED
WITHDRAWN
AMENDED
D
D
D
D
D
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC D
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN D
RETURNED TO STAFF D
OTHER -SEE MINUTES DCouncil received the presentation.
REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
OCEANSIDE, CARLSBAD & ESCONDIDO
TRANSIT CENTERS
Prepared:
December 2007
•ri*m-S>.'VT £*.*£•
if • .. M - .-< Vilw ^wUA."JUf'
REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
OCEANSIDE*, CARLSBAD &ESCONDIDO
TRANSIT CENTERS
The North County Transit District (NCTD) launched .Station Development
Studies to explore opportunities at three of its transit stations: Carlsbad
Village Station, Oceanside Transit Center and Escondido Transit Center.
These transit stations serve the NCTD Coaster commuter train, the Breeze
bus network and (coming soon) the Sprinter commuter train as well as other
bus and train services provided by other operators.
Development concepts considered as part of this study have been formulated
to achieve specific objectives:
• To improve the efficiency of transit operations;
• To increase transit ridership;
• To help accomplish local redevelopment and community goals;
• To be economically viable and in synch with market trends; and
• To result in economic benefits for the community and for NCTD.
CONCEPTUAL REPORT
The primary purpose of this submittal is to test the feasibility of a variety of
potential land uses and site plans. Feasibility is determined by the ability of
the site to provide for a reasonable level of surface and structured parking
and a financial return on investment that is adequate to cover the costs of
construction and development efforts.
These concepts are not meant to supersede or dictate the development options
that may result from a development agreement. They have been prepared in
order to set parameters on site development types and densities that may be
needed to make the redevelopment of these sites feasible.
* Oceanside is not currently part of this submittal due to City of Oceanside
timing considerations.
Carlsbad Village
Station
REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
OCEANSIDE, CARLSBAD & ESCONDIDO
TRANSIT CENTERS
CARLSBAD CONCEPT , j
CONFIGURATION #1 (see Figures la«Ifil!
Overall Concept
Because of the linear nature of the site and its limited dimensions, the
proposed uses are somewhat dictated by the site. The parking structure
will only be able to fit within one area of the site, with its widening parcel
width being taken advantage of by potentially using the ground floor for
retail. The southern portions of the site are most appropriate for smaller
scale ground floor retail and office in upper levels. The north side of the
site may be most appropriate for residential uses, though noise and vi-
bration will need to be taken into account. The bus platform would then
fit in the converging parcel just south of the proposed parking structure
#2. Specific solutions for grade separated pedestrian crossings and for
access and visibility from State Street will be required to make the project
feasible. Substantial plaza spaces and pedestrian circulation would also
be an integral part of the proposed plan. For specifics on circulation see
Figure 2a and for heights and setbacks, see Figure 3a. The remaining
figures provide more detail about the site plan. Table 1 summarizes the
proposed square footages of the various land uses and facilities. This
table also provides a summary of the development parking requirements,
transit ridership, transit parking requirements and the parking resources
proposed to meet this demand.
Specific Concepts (see Figure 1a)
1 )The plan indicates 3 optional methods of providing fully accessible
crossings of the tracks. Option 1a would consist of a double ramp sys-
tem with short-cut stairs, located north of the existing transit building. Op-
tion 1b would be just south of the existing transit building, and would utilize
stairs and an elevator (integral into the proposed retail / office building) on
one side and ramps and stairs on the other. The final Option 1c would be
an elevated pedestrian bridge as part of the parking structure, with eleva-
tors on each side. It might be possible to develop a ramp system on the
west side in lieu of the elevators. Normally, an open above grade system is
more likely to be used and have less security issues.
2) The bus routing direction may not need to exit from the platform area
to State Street, but could instead go directly south to Grand or loop back
northward to one of the 3 entry roadways from State.
3) Much of the bus platform area is relocated from the west side of the tracks
to the east side. The relocation centralizes the facility, improves operational
efficiency and lessens the requirement of transit riders needing to cross
the tracks to make connections. Under Configuration #1,4 bus routes that
originate more to the east, will utilize the east platform area. On the west-
side 4 bus routes originating on the westside of the tracks would continue
to use the area where bus platforms already exist. This split operation is
not ideal to the transit users nor to NCTD unless the city can assure special
routing, traffic signal priority, and other circulation adjustments to Carlsbad
Boulevard and Grand Ave.
4) The City of Carlsbad requested NCTD look at a parking structure at
the Rotary Park and consider providing an opportunity to partner with
the city to create up to 250 parking spaces. This option shows how the
area could be used in conjunction with the adjacent parking lot to create
a parking structure. This structure is not needed to support the transit
ridership nor the future on-site development. It is included here simply
to show how a structure would work in this location.
5) The existing parking lot would remain to support potential future uses
in the old depot or in nearby retail shops.
6) The Old Depot will either be relocated off-site or it will need to contain
Final Conceptual Study, December 2007
a lease compatible with higher levels of activity resulting from the double
~, tracking.
- 7) A second track would be added to the east side of the tracks. A por-
tion of the existing platform would need to be removed. A min. of 15'
has been kept between all new improvements and this second track
location.
8) To accommodate the double tracking, a new platform would be added
to the west side of the tracks. Amenities such as benches, shade & trash
cans would be added.
9) Though this concept exceeds the city's height restriction, this configu-
ration includes a 5-story residential, hotel or office building. The building
would be designed to wrap and hide the parking structure, that would in
turn lower noise levels to the interior of the buildings. The far north end
of the site would be used for recreational purposes. A health club for
occupants and the broader community is also proposed for the ground
floor area of the building. The building is connected to the parking struc-
ture with exterior hallways and "cat-walk" bridge connections.
10) The option exists for the adjacent Academy recreational field to be
reconfigured for underground parking and new fields developed on the
roof structure. Proximity to the parking structure by way of the pedes-
trian bridge could make this option more feasible. However, the costs of
this option may be prohibitive.
11) The 4-level parking structure would accommodate all transit users
and retail customers. Off-peak afternoon parking use would shift to cus-
tomers of the grocery store and potentially other retail / restaurant uses
in the Village. Portions of the ground floor would be needed for retail and
grocery store loading and circulation. FlexCar (or other providers such
as ZipCar) could utilize the garage to make their car rentals available as
part of a Traffic Demand Management program.
12 and 14) Various ground floor retail spaces would be added with
second and third floor office space.
13) The existing station building could be kept in place with the public
restrooms and commercial retail uses.
15, 19 & 25) Various parcels should be analyzed to allow access
to the alley through the site. Currently, the block length is too long on State
Street for pedestrian or vehicular circulation. Also, the visibility of the NCTD
parcels are too limited to allow the success of proposed uses. The parking
lots proposed on each side of these roadways could be for the use of exist-
ing retail customers and the general public.
16, 17) A drop-off "kiss and ride" and taxi zone is proposed in a conve-
nient location to the platforms.
18) Note indicates that all of State Street is being planned for redevelop-
ment by the City of Carlsbad.
20) Additional retail shops could be added at the ground floor within the
parking structure. The architectural form could allow for individual store-
front identity and scale, while still being mostly under the parking garage.
21) Recreation and open space could be provided at the north end.
22) A Fire Lane is included to provide access around the building.
23) Parking structure #3 would be placed inside the building "wrap" to
support the uses & provide additional parking for the health club.
24) A portion of the roof deck could be used for basketball, volleyball and
tennis for the recreational benefit of the apartment building tenants.
26) A surface parking lot would be added to support retail functions and
provide a method of separating building masses.
27) A 20,000 sf retail space with high ceilings is added envisioning a spe-
cialty grocery store or gourmet / health foods store. Docks could be placed
at the west side of the facility, within a high-bay section of the garage.
4
CARLSBAD CONCEPT
CONFIGURATION #2 (see Figures
Overall Concept
The concept for the second configuration is very much the same as Con-
figuration #1, except that the platform would be fully centralized and the
buildings would fit within a 45' height zone, as requested by the City of
Carlsbad. This height is not yet approved by the California Coastal Com-
mission. Other changes include a different reuse of the area west of
tracks between Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand, changes in the north-
ern building height and shape and one less new entry access point from
State Street. All other concepts are the same, though the numbers have
changed. Changes are indicated in bold italic font.
Specific Concepts (see Figure 1b)
1) This street edge would be available for parking with the relocation
of the bus platforms.
2) The bus routing direction may not need to exit from the platform area
to State Street, but could instead go directly south to Grand or loop back
northward to one of the 3 entry roadways from State.
3) Since all of the bus platforms would be shifted to the east, this
area could be converted to on-street parking. These spaces
would consist of diagonal parking (where the roadway is wide
enough to accommodate) or to parallel parking.
4) This concept does not suggest a public parking structure, but sug-
gests expanding the surface parking lot with on additional aisle of
parking. This would yield 30 new spaces.
5) The existing parking lot would remain to support potential future uses
in the old depot or in nearby retail shops.
6) The Old Depot will either be relocated off-site or it will need to contain
a lease compatible with higher levels of activity resulting from the double
tracking.
7) The plan recommends the grade separated crossing to occur with an
elevated pedestrian bridge with elevators on each side. It might be pos-
sible to develop a ramp system on the west side in lieu of the elevators.
8a) All of the bus platform area is relocated from the west side of
the tracks to the east side. The relocation centralizes the facility and
lessens the requirement of transit riders needing to cross the tracks to
make connections. Under Configuration #2, 8 bus routes can be ac-
commodated in this platform area.
8b) A second track would be added to the east side of the tracks. A por-
tion of the existing platform would need to be removed. A min. of 15'
has been kept between all new improvements and this second track
location.
9) To accommodate the double tracking, a new platform would be added
to the west side of the tracks. Amenities such as benches, shade &
trash cans would be added.
10a) A 4 story building is proposed in this location of the site. The build-
ing would be designed to wrap and hide the parking structure, that
would in turn lower noise levels to the interior of the buildings. The
far north end of the site would be used for recreational purposes. A
health club and retail for occupants and the broader community is also
proposed for the ground floor area of the building. The building is con-
nected to the parking structure with exterior hallways and "cat-walk"
bridge connections.
10b) The option exists for the adjacent Academy recreational field to
be reconfigured for underground parking and new fields developed
on the roof structure. Proximity to the parking structure by way of the
pedestrian bridge could make this option more feasible. However, the
costs of this option may be prohibitive.
11) The 5 level parking structure would accommodate most all transit
users and retail customers. Off-peak afternoon parking use would shift
to customers of the grocery store and potentially other retail / restau-
rant uses in the Village. Portions of the ground floor would be needed
for retail and grocery store loading and circulation. FlexCar (or other
providers such as ZipCar) could utilize the garage to make their car
rentals available as part of a Traffic Demand Management program.
12 and 14) Various ground floor retail spaces would be added with
second and third floor office space.
13) The existing station building could be kept in place with the public
restrooms and commercial retail uses.
15 & 19) Various parcels should be analyzed to allow access to the al-
ley through the site. Currently, the block length is too long on State Street
for pedestrian or vehicular circulation. Also, the visibility of the NCTD par-
cels are too limited to allow the success of proposed uses. The parking
lots proposed on each side of these roadways could be for the use of
existing retail customers and the general public.
16, 17) A drop-off "kiss and ride" and taxi zone is proposed in a conve-
nient location to the platforms.
18) Note indicates that all of State Street is being planned for redevelop-
ment by the City of Carlsbad.
20) Additional retail shops could be added at the ground floor within the
parking structure. The architectural form could allow for individual
storefront identity and scale, while still being mostly under the parking
garage.
21) Recreation and open space could be provided at the north end.
22) A Fire Lane is included to provide access around the building.
23) Parking structure #3 would be placed inside the building "wrap" to
support the uses & provide additional parking for the health club and
retail.
24) All of the roof deck could be used for recreational purposes
including basketball, volleyball and tennis for the recreational
benefit of the building tenants. In addition, a community room
could be added on the top floor.
25) A surface parking lot would be added to support retail functions and
provide a method of separating building masses.
26) A 20,000 sf retail space with high ceilings is envisioned with a specialty
grocery store or gourmet / health foods store. Docks could be placed at
the west side of the facility, within a high-bay section of the garage.
Final Conceptual Study, December 2007 Page 5
IMPORTANT DECISIONS
THE CARLSBAD PLAN
A) The centralized location of the bus platform next to
the rail platform provides operational benefits. But since
the circulation space to concentrate these uses in one
area is tight, should a split platform be considered? The
split platform makes better use of the full site and allows
for westside routes to stay on the west and eastside routes
to stay on the east side. Keeping operations on the west-
side was requested by the City of Carlsbad. However, a
split platform is not as convenient to transit transfers, will
require a properly located grade separated crossing and
will also require other street improvements from the City
of Carlsbad to make routing more efficient and to give
transit a priority at certain locations.
B) Building heights optimize costs, but the five floor
residential units (approximately 55') and the five floor
parking structure (approximately 45' with another 10' for
the trellis) may not be acceptable to the City of Carls-
bad since they exceed the proposed 45' limit. Lower
heights will reduce parking capacity, spread develop-
ment, and reduce feasibility. The sites are "in a hole"
and well screened. Should the height of these facilities
be decreased to make it fit the 45' limit or should efforts
continue with negotiating some level above 45' to obtain
the benefits of cost reduction for the structure and TOD
principles? Note: Even at 45', the structures exceed the
current height restriction and based on recent Council ac-
tion, only portions of upper floors may be allowed to go to
45'.
C) Which of the various grade separation options should
be pursued? Above ground is likely to be more used. Also,
where is the best location for this option. Under Con-
figuration #2, the pedestrian bridge will work well at the
parking structure. Should the elevator shown on the west
side be changed to stairs and a longer ramp?
D) The old depot's relocation to some other property,
would provide space for transit parking and/or develop-
ment. What should be done with this facility? Should it
be moved or renovated?
E) Should transit parking, public parking or development
be pursued for the parcels south of Grand? Should the
area at Carlsbad Village Faire and the tracks be for more
surface parking or a parking structure? If so, who would it
be for?
F) Should one or more parcels of land between State
Street and the alley be acquired to improve urban design
and improve visual, pedestrian and vehicular access to
the site? The site is currently hidden by properties on
State Street, and is impacted by detrimental back-of-
house views and activities. Benefits would also include
easier bus maneuvering into the transit platform area,
additional parking and configuring the urban form of the
block to match the existing street grid system. Is this a
potential redevelopment agency incentive to acquire and
finance?
G) Concurrence is needed on the amount of parking the
proposed development will be credited for transit ori-
entation, mixed-use, and shared-use parking programs
(compared to non-transit center parking rates)? Parking
rates can effect development potential and transit orienta-
tion. Should the numbers on Table 1 be used for parking
demand calculations or would the project have to use
suburban parking rates with no transit oriented develop-
ment credits?
H) Should the Academy's recreation field to the west of
the site be considered for potential future joint-use park-
ing?
I) Is the apartment demand and the location good
enough to make this site viable, or should hotel or office
uses be more suitable. Can interior sound and vibration
be attenuated in a cost effective manner, given market
conditions and rental rates?
Final Conceptual Study, December 2007
Carlsbad Preliminary
Site Plans
REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
OCEANSIDE, CARLSBAD & ESCONDIDO
TRANSIT CENTERS
Transit & Development
Parking Requirements for
Carlsbad Village Station
REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
OCEANSIDE, CARLSBAD & ESCONDIDO
TRANSIT CENTERS
Table la: Summary of Proposed Development, Transit Ridership and Parking Requirements (Configuration # 1)
CONFIGURATION #1: DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO FOR CARLSBAD VILLAGE TRANSIT CENTER
Public Realm
Transit Platforms Spaces / Plazas
& Operating / Landscaped Transit Services
Transit Circulation Area /Walkways Retail
Vehicular
Circulation Surface Parking
Parking
Structure Retail-Shops
Retail-Grocery
Store Rented Residential
11/30/07
Health Club /
Retail
Ground Floor
Second Floor
Third Floor
Fourth Floor
Fifth Floor
Sixth Floor
Total Development (sf)
% Footprint is of Lot Size
25,000 10,000 15,000 5,165 25,000 14,488 85,861
111,850
122,075
87,968
23,205
5,600
11,795
11,795
19,200 14,285
25,460
25,460
25,460
22,455
25,000 10,000 15,000 5,165 25,000 ' 14,488 407,754 28,805 23,590 19,200 113,120
5.29% 2.12% 3.17% 1.09% 5.29% 3.07% 18.17% 4.91% 0.00% 4.06% 3.02%
GRAND TOTAL DEVELOPMENT (sf)
TOTAL LOT SIZE (sf)
TOTAL LOT SIZE (acres)
FLOOR AREA RATIO w/o Parking Structures
FLOOR AREA RATIO with Parking Structures
SITE COVERAGE OF BUILDINGS (%)
11,170
0
0
0
0
0
11,170
2.36%
201,050
472,626
10.85
0.43
1.28
32.5%
Development Parking Requirements for the Carlsbad Village Transit Center
Assumed
Assumed Reduction from
Assumed Reduction from Occupants/
Rate per 1,000 Reduction from Parking Demand Customer
per City of Sub-total Shared Parking Management Reliance on Adjusted Project Net Parking Adjusted Parking
SF Carlsbad Spaces Req. Strategies Plan Transit Rate per 1,000 Required Rate % of Original
Retail
Retail (Grocery Store)
Retail (Transit Only)
Health Club /Retail
Office
Rented Residential (per 1 ,000 gross sf)'
Residential Guest (per 1 ,000 gross sf)*
28,805
19,200
5,165
11,170
23,590
113,120
113,120
3.33
3.33
3.33
5.00
3.33
2.00
0.40
95.92
63.94
17.20
55.85
78.55
226.24
45.25
10.00%
20.00%
0.00%
25.00%
0.00%
0.00%
25.00%
0.00%
0.00%
25.00%
0.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
5.00%
50.00%
15.00%
10.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2.66
2.50
0.83
3.00
2.66
1.80
0.30
76.74
47.95
4.30
33.51
62.84
203.62
33.94
80.00%
75.00%
25.00%
60.00%
80.00%
90.00%
75.00%
Total Required 314,170 Gross Req. 583 Net Req. 463 79.41%
Gross Residential Req. • 271 Net Residential Req. 238 87.50%
* assumes an average size of 900sf net of 1,000 sf gross per unit average
Carlsbad Village Transit Daily Ridership to Parking Requirement Conversions
COASTER
Standard Bus Service
Totals
Potentia
Pe
Parking Supp
Existing Daily
Transit Riders
300
250
Projected Daily
Ridership to
2020
811
644
550 1,455
Assumed Walk
Assumed Multi- to Transit from Assumed Walk/
modal Transfer within Site Mixed Bike from within
without Vehicle Use 1/4 mile radius
10.00%
55.00%
Total On-site Ridership
Persons on Site for Office / Retail / Residence
rcent of Potential Persons on Site using Transit
y Calculations
15.00%
10.00%
186
700
26.60%
5.00%
5.00%
Assumed Drop-
off Passengers
5.00%
5.00%
Remaining
Ridership
Arriving &
Parking by
Vehicle
527.15
161.00
688
Assumed
Vehicle
Occupancy
1.20
1.20
Peak Hour
Adjustment
Factor
0.80
0.80
SANDAG Modeled 2030 Reasonably Expected Parking Requirements
Parking Summary
Spaces Spaces Amount Handled
Net Parking
Required (2020)
351.43
107.33
459
403
Overall Rider to
Parked Car
Conversion
Percentage
Reduction
43.33%
16.67%
Spaces Provided
Structured Parking
Existing Structured Parking
New Parking Structure / City Parking Non-NCTD
New Structured Parking (NCTD Development or Transit)
Gross Square Net Parking
Feet SF per Space Spaces
0
166,306
275,528
0
324
324
0
513
850
Total Structured Parking Provided 1,364
Cost per space of Structured Parking $20,000
Cost for New Structured Parking $17,007,901
Res. Development Required
Comm. Development Required
Non-NCTD Comm. Required
Transit Ridership
Required (Pre- Required (Post in Surface Amount Provided in (If in parenthesis
adjustments) Adjustments) % Reduction Parking Structures =deficit)
271
311
577
688
238
225
577
459
13%
28%
33%
0
96
48
236
139
529
459
-1.22
9.83
0.06
0.52
1,848 1,499 19%144 1,364
Total Parking Provided for Transit & NCTD Development Requirement] 9
Surface Parking
Existing Surface Parking
Demolition of Surface Parking (21 spaces remain)
Expansion of Rotary Park Parking Area
New surface lot "A": west side-former bus platforms
Acquired Parcels / Surface Lots A and B
New surface lot C: east side near grocery store
Gross Square Net Parking
Feet SF per Space Spaces
137,000
-129,000
11,600
19,200
18,250
375.00
375.00
401.00
400.00
400.00
365
-344
0
29
48
46
tal Surface Parking Provided 144
Total Parking Provided 1,508
Final Conceptual Study, December 2007 Page
V
Table Ib: Summary of Proposed Development, Transit Ridership and Parking Requirements (Configuration #2)
CONFIGURATION #2: DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO FOR CARLSBAD VILLAGE TRANSIT CENTER 11/30/07
Public Realm
Transit Platforms Spaces / Plazas
& Operating / Landscaped Transit Services
Transit Circulaton Area /Walkways Retail
Vehicular
Circulation Surface Parking
Parking
Structure Retail-Shops
Retail-Grocery
Store Rented Residential
Health Club/
Retail
Ground Floor
Second Floor
Third Floor
Fourth Floor
Fifth Floor
Sixth Floor
Total Development (sf)
% Footprint is of Lot Size
25,000 10,000 15,000 5,165 25,000 20,000 49,745
71,135
79,655
49,780
20,805
11,795
11,795
11,795
16,415 20,460
31,630
31,630
31,630
25,000 10,000 15,000 5,165 25,000 20,000 250,315 20,805 35,385 16,415 115,350
5.29% 2.12% 3.17% 1.09% 5.29% 4.23% 10.53% 4.40% 0.00% 3.47% 4.33%
GRAND TOTAL DEVELOPMENT (sf)
TOTAL LOT SIZE (sf)
TOTAL LOT SIZE (acres)
FLOOR AREA RATIO w/o Parking Structures
FLOOR AREA RATIO with Parking Structures
SITE COVERAGE OF BUILDINGS (%)
11,170
0
0
0
0
0
11,170
2.36%
204,290
472,626
10.85
0.43
0.95
25.1%
Development Parking Requirements for the Carlsbad Village Transit Center
Retail
Retail (Grocery Store)
Retail (Transit Only)
Health Club/Retail
Office
Rented Residential (per 1,000 gross sf)*
Residential Guest (per 1,000 gross sf)*
Total Required
Assumed
Assumed Reduction from
Assumed Reduction from Occupants /
Rate per 1,000 Reduction from Parking Demand Customer
per City of • Sub-total Shared Parking Management Reliance on Adjusted Project Net Parking Adjusted Parking
SF Carlsbad Spaces Req. Strategies Plan Transit Rate per 1,000 Required Rate % of Original
20,805
16,415
5,165
11,170
35,385
115,350
115,350
3.33
5.00
3.33
5.00
3.33
2.00
0.40
69.28
82.08
17.20
55.85
117.83
230.70
46.14
10.00%
20.00%
0.00%
25.00%
0.00%
0.00%
25.00%
0.00%
0.00%
25.00%
0.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
5.00%
50.00%
15.00%
10.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2.66
3.75
0.83
3.00
2.66
1.80
0.30
55.42
61.56
4.30
33.51
94.27
207.63
34.61
80.00%
75.00%
25.00%
60.00%
80.00%
90.00%
75.00%
319,640 Gross Req. 619 Net Req. 491 79.36%
Gross Residential Req. 277 Net Residential Req. 242 87.50%
" assumes an average size of 900sf net of 1,000 sf gross per unit average
Carlsbad Village Transit Daily Ridership to Parking Requirement Conversions
COASTER
Standard Bus Service
Totals
Potentia
Pe
Existing Daily
Transit Riders
300
250
Projected Daily
Ridership to
2020
811
644
550 1,455
Assumed Walk
Assumed Multi- to Transit from Assumed Walk/
modal Transfer within Site Mixed Bike from within
without Vehicle Use 1/4 mile radius
10.00%
55.00%
Total On-site Ridership
Persons on Site for Office / Retail / Residence
rcent of Potential Persons on Site using Transit
8.00%
8.00%
116
743
15.67%
5.00%
5.00%
Assumed Drop-
off Passengers
5.00%
5.00%
Remaining
Ridership
Arriving &
Parking by
Vehicle
583.92
173.88
758
Assumed
Vehicle
Occupancy
1.20
1.20
Peak Hour
Adjustment
Factor
0.80
0.80
SANDAG Modeled 2030 Reasonably Expected Parking Requirements
Net Parking
Required (2020)
389.28
115.92
505
403
Overall Rider to
Parked Car
Conversion
Percentage
Reduction
48.00%
18.00%
Parking Supply Calculations
Structured Parking
Existing Structured Parking
New Parking Structure / City Parking Non-NCTD
New Structured Parking (NCTD Development or Transit)
Gross Square Net Parking
Feet' SF per Space Spaces
0
0
295,095
0
324
324
0
0
911
Total Structured Parking Provided 911
Cost per space of Structured Parking $20,000
Cost for New Structured Parking $18,215,741
Parking Summary
Amount Handled Spaces Provided
Required (Pre- Required (Post in Surface Amount Provided in (If in parenthesis
adjustments) Adjustments) % Reduction Parking Structures =deficil)
Res. Development Required
Comm. Development Required
Non-NCTO Comm. Required
Transit Ridership
Total Provided
277
342
78
758
242
249
78
505
13%
27%
33%
0
96
78
243
164
504
0.39
10.83
0.00
-1.03
1,455 1,074 26%174 911
Total Parking Provided for Transit & NCTD Development Requirement I 10
Surface Parking
Existing Surface Parking
Demolition of Surface Parking (21 spaces remain)
Expansion of Rotary Park Parking Area
New surface lot "A": west side-former bus platforms
Acquired Parcels / Surface Lots A and B
New surface lot C: east side near grocery store
Gross Square Net Parking
Feet SF per Space Spaces
137,000
-129,000
12,000
11,600
19,200
18,250
375.00
375.00
400.00
401.00
400.00
400.00
365
-344
30
29
48
46
tal Surface Parking Provided 174
Total Parking Provided 1,085
Final Conceptual Study, December 2007 Page 18
\<\
Carlsbad Project
Workshop # 1 & # 2 Input Summary
REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
OCEANSIDE, CARLSBAD & ESCONDIDO
TRANSIT CENTERS
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
CONCEPTS AND
WORKSHOP INPUT #1
CARLSBAD VILLAGE STATION WORKSHOP #1
(Wednesday, September 13, 2006)
All comments with concept item notes can be found on
Figure la. Many of these concept are also found on Con-
figuration #2, Figure Ib).
• Suggestions included having street fairs, provide good
restaurants and nighttime entertainment with music
(street performers), art and theatre, and retail establish-
ments (see concept items 3, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20 & 27).
• Set up outdoor/sidewalk cafes (see concept items 3, 9,
11, 12, 13, 14, 20 & 27).
• Provide signage and access to the beach (see concept
items 1 & 15).
• Supply more parking (see concept items 4, 5,11,15,19,
23, 25, &26).
• Restore the theater across the street and consider a
shared parking structure with theater (parking added in
items 11,15,19, 23, 25, & 26 could support this use).
• Redevelop land west of State Street with residential,
retail and office uses and encourage State Street to be
pedestrian-friendly (see concept items 5, 9, 15, 18, 19
&25).
• Include civic uses, a museum, plaza, and fountains at
the south end of the site (this concept would be real-
ized through the City owned parcel in the southeast
corner).
• Provide residential uses at mixed densities (see concept
item #9).
• Incorporate mixed use at the northwest corner of
Grand and State Streets (this concept would be realized
through the City owned parcel in the southeast corner
and see 5 & 6).
Serve commuters and the adjacent residential uses with
convenience uses such as restaurants, petcare, day-
care, grocery store (i.e., Trader Joe's), dry cleaning or
auto-detailing shops near the station (see concept items
5,9, 15, 18, 19&25).
Consider including a hotel (not recommended).
Use the vacant portions of the site for parking in the
interim and develop residential uses in the long-term
(concepts for parking and residential can support a
phased approach like suggested).
Keep and restore the historic depot (plan allows reloca-
tion or major renovation with increased revenue source,
see concept item 6).
Provide informational kiosks with maps and/or a visi-
tor's bureau (would be added but not noted at this
conceptual level).
Encourage use of bikes, motorcycles, and scooters
by providing parking for them in the front (would be
added, see circulation Figure 2a and 2b).
Final Conceptual Study, December 2007 Page 20
NCTD CARLSBAD VILLAGE WORKSHOP #2 November 6, 2007
Map Comments (Locations shown on attached map. Stars indicate items the public liked. Red Dots indicate an element they did not like.)
• Support expressed in the following areas: central parking structure #2; central retail specialty grocery store ground floor of
parking structure #2; centralized bus platforms; grade separated pedestrian crossing (all three options but above ground
preferred, locations nearest existing concession preferred); keeping and reusing the transit station building.
Non-support or questions expressed for the following areas: busses left on the west side and their affect on new adjacent
residential development; and counting on reduced parking requirements given success of SD Trolley based TODs that are
different.
• Mixed opinions expressed for: residential development to the north with concerns expressed for noise and vibration issues;
whether parking structure #1 should be in its proposed location or further south
Open Discussion Comments and Questions
Received during Discussion (check marks that follow the question indicate the response provided by the consultant or NCTD staff)
Double Tracking
• Need for plans to accommodate Quiet Zones (non-whistle blowing at crossings at night)
How would this affect efforts at quite zones?
•/ It may assist, since it provides potential grade separated pedestrian crossings
• When will double tracking be completed?
s Depending on State High Speed Rail and other NCTD capital project priorities
Bus Platform
• Support for moving buses to east side of tracks
• Concerned over Bus Routing on Grand by shifting the bus platforms to the east. How would special events be handled? Will
there be more congestion?
•/ Ideal to have all bus operations on one side
s Many of the busses are coming from the east side
^ Special events would be handled by temporary bus stops, perhaps back on the west side where parking may be
proposed but could be temporarily limited for bus use
s Other traffic improvements are likely to be required to improve overall bus efficiencies and general traffic flow
Development
• When would this redevelopment project be completed?
•/ No start date is set, but once approved at various levels, it would likely need to be phased over a 5 - 15 year period
Concern over TOD applicability of successes of TOD for the SD Trolley to Carlsbad. It was expressed that the trolley has more
connections, is quieter, and has more frequent service. Also, the SD Trolley had more workable sites to begin with.
s Long term goal is to have 20-30 minute headway for the Coaster, but the capacity of additional services is limited by
the single tracks and existing parking.
s The Carlsbad Village site is workable and in an area of high development potential, though the site is slender and the
noise issues do need to be dealt with. The adjacent area is very walkable and would be a desirable TOD location for
those that do (or plan to) commute using the Coaster. In this sense, it is very much like SD Trolley TODs.
Proposed plans will be very positive for existing vendors, retailers
Grocery store may be oversized, small deli would be okay
• Preference stated that the pedestrian over-crossing would be preferred over the underground version
Some hesitation to having residential adjacent to tracks at North End - would like to see more parking and retail as buffer
from noise/tracks. Residential in this area stops expansion of retail along tracks (Northward)
• Where to park when surface parking goes away?
/ Parking areas that are fully accessible during construction will need to be planned for and handled as best as
possible through phasing
• Suggest moving the south parking structure on the west side one further block south on the leased church site. The street here
could be closed off, wouldn't require you to disturb anything.
• Parking structure may need to be proposed at the Poinsettia Station.
Final Conceptual Study, December 2007 Page 22
Page 1 of3
Council Internet Mailbox - Re: Parking Options for the Village Master Plan and All
of Carlsbad
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
"Mike Bullock" <mike_bullock@earthlink.net>
"Council Internet Mailbox" <Council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
01/22/2008 4:55 PM
Re: Parking Options for the Village Master Plan and All of Carlsbad
ChartsForJan22Meeting.pptjJan22_2008ToCarlsbad.doc
Kira,
The proposed NCT redevelopment is another opportunity for the City to reduce parking requirements if
"conditions of use" are utilized to give the residents (at apartments) and employees (at office developments)
new choices regarding car ownership (at apartments) and commute mode (at office developments).
Please give this message and the attached files to all of the stake holders in this redevelopment. Please also
see that the spirit of the Brown Act is maintained by allowing all interested members of the public to also view
the material.
Thanks and highest regards,
Mike Bullock
760-754-8025
AGENDA ITEM #
ct Mayor
City Council
' City Manager
,' City Attorney
' City Clerk— Original Message —
From: Mike Bullock
To: Council Internet Mailbox * '' L —«——
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:29 PM
Subject: Parking Options for the Village Master Plan and All of Carlsbad
Kira,
I have decided to attach a Word document of the letter I submitted. I fixed the error of writing "November 16th"
when I should have written "October 16th". It is also an "electronic version" of a letter having the critical table
showing the "drive alone" mode dropping from 89% to 54%, after paying cashout.
Finally, I would like to present the complete set (10 case studies) of the cashout data. That can be seen on
Chart 3 of the Power Point Charts, with a picture of the data on Chart 4. These PP Charts are a subset of the
charts that I presented to Dave Knapp, the Cupertino City Manager. These attached charts also have
the details of what was proposed in Cupertino. I am proposing these same actions, for your consideration, for
Carlsbad. I will attempt to set up face-to-face meetings with your staff to discuss this information.
Thanks and regards,
Mike Bullock
760-754-8025
— Original Message —
From: Council Internet Mailbox
To: Mike Bullock
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US
Hi Mike,
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47961FEDGW-... 01/22/2008
Page 2 of3
All correspondence regarding items on upcoming agendas get sent also to the City Clerk's
office, so that they are on record and everyone has the opportunity to review them.
I have also forwarded the e-mail to Debbie Fountain.
Thanks again,
Kira Linberg
>» "Mike Bullock" <mike. bullock@earthlink.net> 10/19/2007 2:24 PM >»
Hey Kira,
Great to hear the update. Is it possible to also see that the key folks involved in producing the proposed
Amendments to the Village Master Plan get the letter? Especially Debbie Fountain. I watched her October
16th presentation on line. It was very comprehensive and well done. I only viewed two citizens that were
commenting. I get the feeling they don't see the global implications of this stuff. The good news is that the
Amendments are good for the Village, without even considering "global implications". On the other hand, if
we lose the ice on Greenland, the Village might look a little different.
Regards,
Mike Bullock
— Original Message —
From : Council Internet Mailbox
To: mike_bullock@earthlink.net
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US
Hi Mike,
I have printed this e-mail and given it the Mayor/Council's secretary. I also already
received the letter you are speaking of, both in the mail and via e-mail.
Thank you,
Kira Linberg
Secretary
City Manager's Office
City of Carlsbad
>» <mike_bullock@_earthiink£net> 10/17/2007 9:08 PM >»
A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us"
form to department, City Council.
FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE.
Below, please find the information that was submitted:
Please call me at 760-754-8025. I would like to meet with you to discuss potential
hanges in Carlsbad/Es car parking policies. I have sent you a 3-page letter to introduce
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47961FEDGW-... 01/22/2008
Page 3 of 3
the topic of car parking cashout at places of employment. You will probably get the osnail
mailo version by Monday, October 22nd.
At least 3 council members of the city of Cupertino (South Bay region of the San
Francisco Bay Area and home to Apple, Hewlett Packard and other high tech companies)
agree that if a Cupertino company committed to pay its employees cashout, they wanted
the City Manager to negotiate a reduced parking requirement, based on the nominal
cashout amount paid. After the third vote of support become apparent (April 18th 2006
Cupertino City Council meeting), I met with Cupertino/Es City Manager. He stated that he
recognized the majority opinion of the Council and he agreed with the applicability of the
cashout case studies that I had presented. The case studies related the reduction in
driving to the nominal amount paid. In Cupertino, land is so expensive that companies
could make more money from the parking reduction than the amount of money that they
would pay to their employees in cashout payments. This would probably also be true in
Carlsbad. Please call me so that we can discuss t!
his further.
By the way, although I live in Oceanside, I represented the City of Carlsbad in Mission
Viejo at the Long Course Meters, US Masters Swim meet. I was able to get the most
points of any Carlsbad swimmer and the most in my age group. I am not that fast but I
am pretty old, which helps a lot. I swim at your aquatics center every Saturday morning.
It/Es a great program.
I look forward to your call.
Michael Bullock
1800 Bayberry Drive Oceanside, Ca 92054
mike_bullock@earthlink.net
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NETCLR 1.1.4322)
76.212.177.180
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47961 FEDGW-... 01/22/2008
3 Categories of Parking
& Strategies to Reduce Need for Parking
Employee
» "Ecopass" (employer buys bus passes for employees)
» "Cashout" (employer pays employees to not drive) See following charts.
Medium-to-Large Apartment Complex
» Conditions of use:
- Separate ("Unbundle") the rent for the parking from the other rent, to "level the
playing field"
• Fix a system that forces families with fewer cars to subsidize families with more cars
- Management offers transit passes, to encourage transit use
» Even if permit parking is required in the neighborhood, the reduction in car
ownership is worth the trouble
Downtown patron
» See 10/24/07 letter, Bullock-to-Carlsbad Council (UCLA's Donald Shoup)
In a world of expensive energy, limited resources to expand
highways, and climate change crisis, new choices are needed
Should governments continue policies that encourage car ownership & use?
Mike Bullock Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting
Cashout
A Policy to Reduce Congestion
& Increase Profits & Choice
Car Parking Cashout: when employers pay each
employee an extra amount, each time that the employee
gets to work without driving
Mike Bullock Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting
Best Example of Cashout
Case (#1), Reference Patrick Siegman's article in Bicycle Pedestrian Federation
Company: CH2M Hill
» Location: Bellevue, Wa (Seattle suburb)
» Size of (Engineering) Firm: 430 employees
Action: $407month (in 1995), to not drive
CH2M Hill Work Trips
Mode
Drive Alone
Carpool
Bus
Bike, Walk
Before \
89%
9%
1%
1%
100%
After
54%
12%
17%
17%
100%
Mike Bullock Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting
Cashout Results
(10 Locations, 3 Groups, 1995 Dollars)
Reference: How to
Get Paid to Bike to
Work: A Guide to
Low-traffic, High-profit
Development.
Published In Bicycle
Pedestrian Federation
of America, 1995.
3 Largest Responses
» 36%, 38%, 39%
3 Smallest Responses
» 15% ,18%, 24%
Responses are the
change
Car vacancy rates
would be larger
»
Mike Bullock
Financial Incentives, Impact on Parking Demand*
Location Scope Employees,
Assumed No.
Financial Incentive per
mo. (1995 $'s)
Group A: Areas with little or no public transportation
Century City District,
West Los Angleles
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
San Fernando Valley,
Los Angles
Bellevue, WA
3500 employees surveyed
at 100+ firms
9000 faculty & staff
1 large employer ( 850
employees)
1 medium-sized firm (430
employees)
Weighted Average of Group Sum
3500
9000
850
430
13780
$81
$34
$37
$54
$46.75
Group B: Areas with fair public transportation
Los Angeles Civic
Center
Mid-Wilshire Blvd.,
Los Angleles
Washington DC
Suburbs
Downtown Los Angeles
10000+ employees at
several organizations
1 mid-size firm
5500 employees at 3
worksites
5000 employees surveyed
at 118 firms
Weighted Average of Group Sum
10000
430
5500
5000
20930
$125
$89
$68
$126
$109.52
Group C: Areas with good public transportation
University of
Washington, Seattle
Downtown Ottowa,
Canada
50,000 faculty, staff &
students
3500+ government staff
Weighted Average of Group Sum
50000
3500
53500
Weighted Average Over 3 Groups
$18
$72
$21.53
$46.35
Parking
Decrease
15%
26%
30%
39%
23.9%
36%
38%
26%
25%
30.8%
24%
18%
23.6%
25.3%
Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting
Cashout Results Summary
(10 Locations, 3 Groups, 1995 Dollars)
I Average Payout Per
Work Day (1995 $'s)
I Average Percent
Decrease in Parking
Demand
4 Companies,
Poor Public
Transist
4 Companies, 2 Companies,
Fair Public
Transit
Good Public
Transit
Of the 10 Cases
» 3 Largest Responses: 36%, 38%, 39%
» 3 Smallest Responses: 15% , 18%, 24%
» These are changes; vacancy rates would be larger
Mike Bullock Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting
Cashout Recommendation for City
Amend Off-street Parking Ordinance, 3 Items:
» 1.) Definition of Car Parking Cashout
» 2.) Schedule of Parking Lot Size Reductions, as a function
of amount paid (reductions apply only after City verification
of expected reductions in driving), such as . . .
- $4/day allows a parking lot size reduction of 9%
- $6/day allows a parking lot size reduction of 12%
- $9/day allows a parking lot size reduction of 18%
- If the percentage of employees getting cashout exceeds 1.5 times
the parking lot size reduction, then the amount paid can be reduced
by the factor of 1.5 times the parking lot size reduction divided by
the percent of employees getting cashout. "Payment Adjustment"
» 3.) Legal protections so that in all cases the City can
protect neighborhoods from the intrusion of parked cars.
Mike Bullock Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting
Need for Payment Adjustment
from "Nominal Payment"
» Assume 1.5 times the Percent Parking Lot Size Reduction is
the expected Percent of Employees that won't drive after
cashout (Parking lot vacancy rate = 1.5 x Parking Reduction)
» This is a 50% safety factor, to ensure enough parking
» "Nominal Payment" must be adjusted to solve 2 problems
» If too few employees drive, the company would have to
pay more than anticipated or needed
- Need to pay less than the "Nominal Payment"
» If too many employees drive, the 50% safety factor is
reduced
- Need to pay more than the "Nominal Payment"
• Solution: the nominal amount paid must adjusted as
follows:
Mike Bullock Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting
Payment Adjustment from Nominal
Amount paid to each employee for not driving =
(Nominal Payment) (1.5) (%Parking Lot Size Reduction)
Percent of Employees that Don't Drive
» Company always pays:
(NominalPayment)(1.5)(%ParkingLotSizeReduction)(TotalWorkForce)
» If the Percent of Employees That Don't Drive Takes on the following values, the
amount paid is ...
» (1.5)(%ParkingLotSizeReduction) results in the Nominal Payment
» 2 Times expected (3 x %Parking Lot Size Reduction) results in one-half of the
Nominal Payment
» 3 Times expected (4.5 x %Parking Lot Size Reduction) results in one-third of
the Nominal Payment
» Zero safety factor (Percent that don't drive = Parking lot size reduction) results
in 1.5 times the nominal being paid
- This should never happen
Mike Bullock Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting 8
How to Use Land, No Longer Needed for
Parking, to Offset Cashout "Costs"
"Costs" are additional payments to employees, aiding in their retention.
Parking space rental
» To the restaurant next door, for example
» Parking for boats, RVs, extra cars, other storage
Leased, to providers of services for employees
» Laundry pick-up, fitness center, child care
Larger sites could group excess parking for
additional offices (within General Plan guidelines)
If corporate land backed up to residential or
parking lot fronted an appropriate arterial, housing
units could be provided
The city becomes more compact and more functional.
Mike Bullock Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting
Cashout Cash Flow Example
"Cosfs" are additional payments to employees, aiding in their retention.
Assumptions (hypothetical Carlsbad company)
» 5000 Employees
» 120 cars per acre (no parking garage)
» City allows a 12% reduction (but expects a parking lot vacancy rate of 1.5*12%
= 18%)
» 20% of employees don't drive after cashout
» $4/Day paid (except that per-cent of drivers exceeds 18%, so only $4*(18/20)
= $3.60 paid)
» Land sold for $2 million per acre
» Money obtained from sale earns 10%
» 250 work days per year
Cost per year = $4*(18%/20%)*(20%)*5000*250 = $900,000/year
Pay off from investment of sold land = (10%)(12%) [ (5000/120) (total initial
acres) ] $2x106 /acre = $1 million/year
Company gives its employees a new choice, becomes an
environmental leader, and earns money.
Mike Bullock Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting 10
Comparison of Adding Parking
to Paying Cashout Parking Garage
Assumption
••za\*A£mi4gmmiZff&fm
Additional parking space costs $25,000
» For each space saved, money is invested in
Mutual Fund at 8%, providing $2.000 per year
Cashout will be paid to 1.5 employees for
each parking space saved
Assume $4/day, nominal
Cost per year per parking space is $4x1.5 x
250 work days per year = $1.500 per year
When the number of non-
motorists exceeds 1.5 x
reduction allowed,
payment is scaled down
For these assumptions, the company earns $500 extra on each
eliminated space, while paying some employees extra money!
Mike Bullock Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting 11
Possible Council Cashout Motion
Whereas a goal of the City is to attract and retain
employers to meet General Plan jobs projections, while
creating more transportation choices, the Council
requests staff to encourage companies to consider
adopting cashout programs, by negotiating reductions
in the off-street parking ordinance requirements as a
function of nominal amount paid, as described in the
earlier charts.
Mike Bullock Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting 12
Cupertino* Outcome to Date
• 3 of the 5 Council members agreed that Cupertino
should reduce its parking requirements for any
company that paid sufficient cashout amounts.
• City Manager Dave Knapp recognized this majority
opinion and stated that cashout data was correct and
that the described approach could work in Cupertino.
• As of this date, no company has announced plans to
implement cashout.
^Cupertino is located in the center of "Silicon Valley", which is the South
Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area. It is home to both Apple and
Hewlett Packard.
Mike Bullock Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting 13
Cashout Fears & Concerns
The following are "back up" charts, that might be of
interest. They answer some of the concerns raised by
the Cupertino opponents of cashout, which included,
for many months, the Chamber of Commerce. Note
that the Chamber eventually dropped their opposition.
Mike Bullock Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting 14
Fear of Cashout Being Required
Note that no known group is asking that cashout be required.
Possible Outcomes if the 3 Parking Ordinance Amendments
are Enacted
» No Companies adopt cashout
- Shows no companies see an economic advantage
- Argues against a requirement
- Who would want to force an economic disadvantage?
» A few companies try cashout but have limited success
- Argues against a requirement
» Some companies try cashout & have success
- More will probably follow
- Argues against a requirement
Enactment of the 3 proposed ordinance amendments is
very unlikely to result in cashout being required.
Mike Bullock Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting 15
Fear of Cashout Enforcement Issues
An Explicit feature of the current proposal: no parking size
reduction until after City verification
» As soon as Companies adopt cashout, serious money is being paid
» However, Company cannot start getting the benefit of reduced parking
(leasing parking to others, redevelopment for their own purposes, or sell
off of excess land) until verification
» Companies will be VERY motivated to achieve verification ASAP
» City will randomly ask workers (telecon), "How do you like cashout?"
» City will randomly count cars to determine parking vacancy rates
» If cashout is not real, verification will fail, the company will lose serious
money, and gain no benefit
Only companies that are confident in their own
ability to implement cashout will try cashout.
Mike Bullock Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting 16
Cashout Property Ownership Change
Concern # 1: New tenant company fails to do cashout
At the time any redevelopment or sell off occurs, the property owner must
enter into a use agreement (Item 3, "Protections" of proposal)
» All future tenants must pay cashout at the rate which enabled the change
Comparable to a use agreement a restaurant may enter into that says they
must close at 10 PM, for example
» Enforcement and legal dispute issues may arise
» Still, these agreements are not uncommon
» They show flexibility on the part of both parties, to achieve a desired result
New tenants can expect City "spot checks" to ensure compliance
Tennant companies will be enjoying less rent due to fewer parking spaces
Tennant companies will be spending (most of?) their savings on cashout
Use agreements are common.
Use agreements usually present no enforcement problems.
Mike Bullock Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting 17
Cashout Property Ownership Change
Concern # 2: Property value of cashout property will fall
Owner has less than a normal amount of parking because either. . .
» Has more development (offices, child care, fitness center, or other) than before
» Has sold off extra land
Compared to competing properties (assume identical development) ....
» Substantially less parking
» Substantially less lease needs to be charged (or can be obtained)
Tennant will take the money gained from the reduced rent and use it to pay cashout
» Employees that get cashout money are more easily retained
» Many employees are proud to work for a cashout company
Landlord is OK with reduced rent (compared to similar development with full parking)
because either...
» Extra development allowed a higher baseline
» Selling off of land generated cash that is then earning money elsewhere
Property owners will protect their own interests.
Cashout properties will be able to compete in the market place
Mike Bullock Jan. 22, 08 Council Meeting 18
Michael Bullock January 22, 2008
1800 Bayberry Drive
Oceanside, CA 92054
760-754-8025
Carlsbad Mayor and City Council Members
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Parking Options for the Carlsbad Village Transit Center NCT Redevelopment
Proposal
Mayor Lewis and Members of the Council:
I have recently retired from Lockheed Martin where I worked as an aerospace systems
engineer. For many years my outside-of-work passion has been how to address the
issues of car parking, by increasing choice for developers, employers, employees,
residents, and patrons.
Parking will be an important issue within the Carlsbad Village Transit Center
redevelopment. I believe that the free market is the best way to allocate resources to
meet needs. This approach is also best for the environment and best for increasing
profits, especially in an area where land values are high. An acre will only park 120
cars. Construction costs for a single parking place in a parking garage will range from
$20,000 to $40,000. Costs matter. Ideally these costs would be paid by users, in
proportion to use. Not everyone wants to always drive. Since fairness is not politically
possible, mitigation should be considered. This means doing things differently.
Employers and Employees
Car parking "cashout" at places of employment can be defined as a program whereby
an employer agrees to pay any of its employees an extra amount, each time that they
get to work without driving. Actual case studies show that this reduces driving to work
by an average of 23%. I would like to show you this published data. Carlsbad should
therefore reduce parking requirements by a percentage that is related to the nominal
amount paid by any employer choosing to commit to paying cashout money. A larger
nominal amount paid should result in a larger percentage reduction. Note the use of
the word, "nominal". In practice, any company paying cashout and getting a reduction
in the size of their required parking would have to be protected from the case of too
few workers driving. This protection would be that the amount paid to each worker
would be scaled back from the "nominal" amount, to account for the number of
employees earning cashout on any given day. It is almost certain that this would need
to happen because any city staff will be very conservative in selecting the size of the
reduction in parking. I have worked out all of the necessary details and would love to
show them to you and/or your excellent city staff. Of course I would also love to show
you the published data on cashout results.
Month Corrected, Bullock to Carlsbad Council & Staff 1 October
Note that this approach only increases choice. It will also increase all of the
alternatives to driving alone. The city should therefore both recognize and reward
cashout. (There is no reason to require more than enough parking.) A cashout
program increases choices for employees. They can elect to continue to drive if they
want, but can earn extra money, by, in effect, "cashing out" their parking benefit. This
program works even where transit is poor, as the data shows. It should be useful
throughout the city. The only exception would be in an area where there is a uniform
policy of having parking priced at its full market value.
Here is a single outcome of paying cashout.
CH2M Hill Work Trips
Mode
Drive Alone
Carpool
Bus
Bike, Walk
Before
89%
9%
1%
1%
After
54%
12%
17%
17%
100% 100%
Cashout Results for CH2M Hill, an Engineering Firm in
Bellevue, Washington, Near Seattle
Although it is the best outcome in the study set that I have, its results are not "out-of-
family" with several other examples. Transit at CH2M was ranked as "poor" in a "poor-
fair-or-good" ranking system. This shows that money can have a significant result
even if transit service is not very good.
Finally, where land is expensive, by providing less parking, companies can earn more
money than they give to their employees as cashout money. Everyone wins.
Residential
At apartments, owners and developers should be rewarded with reduced parking
requirements if they agree to "unbundle" parking rent from apartment rent. This will
end a practice that amounts to economic discrimination against families that might
choose to own less than the average number of cars. A family could then choose the
number of cars they wish to own with the rules being neutral. This would be
particularly important to families that are living on a tight budget and therefore don't
wish to own a car. On the other hand, families that want to own many cars would also
benefit, because they could rent all the parking spaces that they need. Overall, car
ownership and car use would drop, compared to your current system of not
recognizing the choice of unbundling car parking. On-street, permit parking may have
to be implemented around apartments that unbundle, so as to prevent families from
parking unclaimed cars on the street.
Month Corrected, Bullock to Carlsbad Council & Staff October
Downtown Patrons
Please consider researching UCLA Professor Donald Shoup's work on the "high cost
of free parking". He is a hero of mine since the mid 1970's. Last year I met him at a
"Smart Parking" Conference, hosted by the Leadership Group of Silicon Valley. He
was their keynote speaker. He can show that in a village such as Carlsbad, parking
should be priced, hour by hour, block by block, so that there are always at least one or
two parking spaces on each and every block and in each and every parking lot or
parking garage row. Note that this means that quite often, in many locations, parking
is free. In any case, actual demand determines price.
Some will say that if you use this approach you will kill downtown because it will not be
able to compete with the malls, where parking is free. This really doesn't make sense,
since parking only becomes "not free" when it is heavily used.
(It reminds me of the Yogi Berra statement, "Nobody goes to that restaurant anymore.
It's too crowded".)
Note that this approach will raise significant amounts of revenue. Professor Shoup
recommends that to be fair and politically practical, all of this money needs to be spent
on the block where the money is raised. This money can be used for beautification or
property tax relief. This will have the effect of improving the experience of the patron,
either by improving the aesthetics and/or reducing the costs. Professor Shoup can
show that this method converted Pasadena's primary shopping district from one of
urban blight (in the 1970's) to one of economic prosperity.
Final Notes
Thanks to computers, detectors, credit cards, and wireless communication, methods
of charging for parking and the monitoring of parking have advanced rapidly. They can
be used in all of the approaches mentioned above. I hope that I can meet each
councilmember, as well as the key members in your excellent city staff, to discuss
these methods in detail. In the meantime, I would certainly recommend that you ask
your staff to work with the NCT to help them decide if they would like to use cashout
and "unbundled rents" to earn a reduction in the amount of parking required.
In addition, the car parking cashout methods should be applied to your new, large
industrial parks as soon as possible. Company outreach will be useful.
These methods will reduce car use by providing new choices. We all have a
responsibility to review all of our practices that inadvertently encourage car use.
Respectively submitted,
Mike Bullock
760-754-8025
Month Corrected, Bullock to Carlsbad Council & Staff 3 October
Copy to Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment
Month Corrected, Bullock to Carlsbad Council & Staff 4 October
CarlsbadEscondidoOceansideTransit Center Master Plans
TopicsMaster Plans BackgroundCarlsbad Village Master PlanNext Steps
CEO Master Plans Project Objective¾Comprehensive plan for transit improvements, and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) opportunitiesProject Principles¾Improve the efficiency of transit operations and make using transit easier¾Increase transit ridership¾Help accomplish Carlsbad, Escondido, and Oceanside redevelopment and community goals¾Are economically viable and in synch with market trendsGuiding Implementation Principles¾Common real estate practices to create revenue for operations¾Promote mutually beneficial partnerships
CEO Master Plans – key considerationsParking¾Structured at optimal configuration & costs¾Important to manage surface parking & land assets¾Shared/peak parking demand & transit access assumptions¾Steady-state parking supply & grow transit orientationFinancial¾Refined based on pro-forma¾Current land rents don’t fully support costs¾Opportunities for cost reductionsPhasing¾Potential phased development¾Interim development opportunitiesProject approval cost considerations¾Uncertainty in regulatory processing¾Changes in political direction¾Pedestrian and transit orientation
CEO Master Plans – Rider SurveyCommon positive features¾convenient locations, parking, security & cleanliness Common suggested features¾increased shade/covered areas to wait, real-time arrival/departure information, public restrooms, and places to sit Desirable land uses & surrounding conditions¾restaurants/coffee shops, convenience retail such as a market¾improving the surrounding walking routes/environment to the stations, business/employment land uses (work opportunities) and residential uses within walking distance of the transit center
Review of Draft CEO Master PlansCarlsbadSANDAGCoastal Commission
Carlsbad – Review Comments1stPublic WorkshopConvenience and mixed uses encouraging 24/7 activity, improve connections with surroundings, build structured parking, and increase night and weekend serviceCityHeight/mass, bus operations, public parking, City’s Old Depot, coordination with City development and Shea2ndPublic WorkshopLiked: NCTD parking, retail, one bus platform, pedestrian crossing, reuse station buildingDisliked or Questions: buses west of tracks, using reduced parking for mixed-use transitDiscussion issues: double tracking, bus platform, development, & parking
SANDAG comments & Coastal CommissionSANDAGParking demand, PartnershipsCoastal CommissionAct promotes transitCoastal access & parking
Carlsbad - downtownOcean
Carlsbad - areaOcean Ocean
CVS - Overall Site Plan (Config. 1)
CVS - Circulation (Config. 1)
CVS - Building Heights (Config. 1)
CVS - Southern Segment (Config. 1)Non-NCTD Related Public Parking StructureGround Floor Retail with 2 Stories of OfficeExisting Historic Station to be Commercially Redeveloped or RelocatedExisting Transit Shelter to Remain with Commercial Space
CVS - Central Segment (Config. 1)Coaster Platform (double tracked)Over the Track Pedestrian Bridge & Elevators3 & 2/3 levels of parking with trellisTransit Plaza & TrellisCommunity Room, Office or Restaurant on Upper FloorGround Floor RetailSpecialty Grocery StoreNew Entry Area Needed
CVS - Northern Segment (Config. 1)Surface Parking for Grocery & Retail115 Residential Units (5 Levels @ 55’ Height)New Access from State St. NeededHealth Club & Retail3 1/2 Levels of Parking with Community Rec. on 1/2 of Roof
CVS - Apartments (Config. 1)5 Floors @ 55’Height3 1/2 Floors @ 35’ Height
CVS - Transit Center (Config. 1)3 2/3 Levels@ 35’ HeightWith Upper Structure = 45’ Height
CVS - Overall Site Plan (Config. 2)
CVS - Southern Segment (Config. 2)Ground Floor Retail with 3 Stories of OfficeSurface Parking Expansion (30 new NCTD spaces)
CVS - Central Segment (Config. 2)5 levels of parking with trellis (length shrunk by 60’)Consolidated Transit Plaza
CVS - Northern Segment (Config. 2)115 Residential Units (4 Levels @ 45’ Height)3 Levels of Parking with Community Rec. on Full Roof
CVS - Apartments (Config. 2)4 Floors @ 45’Height3 Levels of Parking @ 25’ HeightWith Community Recreation = 35’
CVS - Transit Center (Config. 2)5 Levels@ 45’ Height
ScheduleNext stepsJanuary – Board approval of CVS & ETC MP 1stQuarter 2008 – OTC approval & implementation approach & tasks
Carlsbad Village Station Master PlanThank youQuestions