HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-22; Design Review Board; MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 22,1999 PAGE 1
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: 6:OO P.M.
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
March 22, 1999
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Compas called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:Ol pm.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Board Member Savary.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Absent: None
Chairperson Compas, Members Savary, Marquez, Forsyth, and Marois
Staff Present: Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Marquez, and duly seconded, to approve the
Minutes of the meeting of December 14, 1998, as presented.
Compas, Marquez, Savary, Forsyth, Marois
VOTE: 5-0
AYES:
NOES: None
Housing and Redevelopment Director, Debbie Fountain reviewed the procedures that would be followed for
this public hearing.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
There were no comments from the audience.
NEW PUBLIC HEARING:
1. VILLAGE PARKING REPORT - Accept the “Parking in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area
Report“ and recommend approval of the programs set forth in the subject report with authorization to
staff to proceed with implementation of the approved programs.
Housing and Redevelopment Director, Debbie Fountain stated that the Board’s action on this item is not final
and will be forwarded to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission for its consideration. Director Fountain
presented the staff report as follows: This is a report that was completed on parking utilization programs and
recommendations for the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area and copies are available to the audience and
the general public. An executive summary of the report has also been distributed.
When the Master Plan was established for the redevelopment area is was the result of a process which began
in 1992 and concluded in 1996. Within the visions established in that Master Plan, there were several
statements that represent what the advisory committee felt was important to the Village as we continue to
move forward with the development. One of the most important issues was that there should be a much more
pedestrian oriented environment with interesting buildings and more visually subordinate parking (parking
behind or below the buildings). The concept of shared parking was raised as part of the vision.
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE
APPROVED.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 22,1999 PAGE 2
The purpose of the report that was prepared was: 1) to summarize the existing parking conditions, 2) to
estimate the anticipated future public parking needs based on what was projected in future development, 3)
justification for implementing a “parking in lieu” fee program and setting that fee. The description of the parking
in lieu fee was incorporated into the Master Plan document. However, there were two things that remained to
be done. We had to determine that there was adequate parking in the Village to implement such a program
and set the fee. Those two items are the primary purpose of the report at this time.
In addition to the review of the parking in lieu fee program, in determining whether or not that program can be
pursued, there are other recommended parking programs and policies to be implemented. The parking issues
considered were numerous and varied. The questions were: “Is there a capacity problem or some other type
of problem related to parking? Are the public parking lots appropriately located for utilization purposes?
Should there be time limits for parking or should parking lots and on-street parking be unlimited? If there are
time limits, should they be strictly enforced? Should there be free or paid curb or parking lot parking?
(Currently there is free public parking and this issue was raised because parking meters are frequently used
as a resource management tool, in other cities, to manage limited parking resources or desired parking
resources). Should parking be provided in surface lots or parking structures?
In terms of the existing parking conditions, staff looked at all of the 10 existing public parking lots in the
downtown area which include the North County Transit District parking lot. There are a total 720 spaces with
685 of those spaces having no time limits and provide for free parking. 35 spaces are secured for employee
parking at the Oak Street yard and are not available to the public on Monday through Friday from 6:OO a.m. to
6:OO p.m. Those spaces were not used in the parking counts in 1997 or 1998.
The overhead exhibit shows where the public lots are located. When the counts were done, both the average
weekday occupancy and the peak weekday occupancy were studied. Private consultants, city engineering
staff, and Housing and Redevelopment staff all helped with the counts. In1998 the average weekday
occupancy was 61 % and the peak weekday occupancy was 67%, slightly down from the figures in 1996 and
1997. The reason for the lower percentage figures is probably due to the fact that in 1998 the NCTD’s
additional lot was fully opened, adding to the total number of available spaces. The most heavily impacted lots
are the fountain parking lot, the north depot lot, and the Washington Street Rotary Park (Village Faire) lot.
These represent about 10% of the available parking in the downtown area and tend to be the smaller lots in
the most desirable areas. The analysis of the parking count shows that 6 to 7 of the 10 public parking lots
remain below the full utilization ratio of 85%. 85% is used, over loo%, because 85% still leaves a number of
available spaces that are considered appropriate.
Judging by the results of the analysis, there is a parking proximity problem and not a parking capacity problem.
The parking lots that are the most popular are the ones that are being the most utilized and those are the ones
closest to the Commuter Rail station. In terms of total count, there is still enough parking in the downtown
area. The determination from this analysis is that there is adequate parking available to accommodate
addition a demand, related to development. The key is going to be to get people to use that available parking.
The parking in lieu program is just one option for meeting the on-site parking requirement. There are some
concerns, within the public, that all businesses are going to be assessed an $1 1,000 fee. That is not what is
intended by the parking in lieu fee program. What happens is, when someone comes in to the
Redevelopment Office intending to build a new building, to intensify their land use, or to expand an existing
business, they are required to meet the current parking requirements. In many cases, due to the design of
buildings that were built many years ago, there is not adequate on-site parking to meet that parking
requirement. Right now, the only option that is available is to arrange for some type of shared parking with
another private property owner, figure out how to build on-site parking, or buy additional land for parking within
300 feet of their business. The parking in lieu program provides one more option which means that the
Redevelopment Agency and the property owner, developer and/or business owner, basically enter into a type
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE
APPROVED.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH22, 1999 PAGE 3
of joint venture arrangement where the applicant makes a payment to the Redevelopment Agency which is a
portion of the cost of producing additional public parking. The Agency then assumes the responsibility for
obtaining the balance of the money from another source (or sources). It is voluntary and it is not going to be
assessed to every business or property in the downtown area.
When the Master Plan was taken to the Coastal Commission (a portion of the Village is in the Coastal Zone)
for approval, the Commission said that they were not quite ready to allow us to do this within the Coastal Zone
until they see how it is working elsewhere in the Village. They instructed the City to establish the fee and they
will see how it is going to work. Right now, the option is only available if the applicant‘s property is east of the
railroad tracks. The shared parking arrangement is bringing the public and private sectors together to provide
parking. However, anyone participating in this program does not get a specific parking space assigned to
them. It is all public parking and the payment is for public parking, not for private spaces. The program also
supports development, in that it does offer options not currently available. In lieu program participation is
based on the location of the business (east of the railroad tracks) and also on how close that business is
located to an existing public parking lot. If the business is within 600 feet of a public parking lot, depending on
which zone it is in, it can make a payment for up to 100% of the parking requirement. However, if the business
is in Zone 2, the payment can only be for a maximum of 50%. Outside the 600 foot radius of a public parking
lot, the payment maximum is 50% in Zone 1 and 25% in Zone 2.
To implement the program, the Design Review Board will need to make a recommendation to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission that there is adequate parking in the Village to initiate the program. The
Commission also has to set the fee and they are asking the Design Review Board to make a recommendation
on that fee amount. Staff has recommended a fee of $1 1,240 per parking space required. When calculating
the fee, several scenarios were studied. The recommendation is to provide parking within a public parking
structure and maintaining that structure for a period of 30 years. The cost is estimated to be approximately
$13,800,000. to provide 410 spaces @ $33,709 per space. Regarding fees, the consultants have indicated
that different cities base their fees on different criteria. Consequently, the assumption made in the proposed
program is that two-thirds could be paid for by the applicant and the Redevelopment Agency would pick up the
other one-third as part of the joint venture. Other possibilities were considered in an effort to reduce the cost,
one of which was the cost if maintenance was not included for that 30 year period. The lower cost would then
be $6.5 million for the 410 space parking structure, thereby reducing the “per space” cost to approximately
$15,000 and the one-third payment would be $5,300. Surface level parking, with the 30 year maintenance, is
very close in cost to that of a structure with no maintenance. The reason is that a structure would have more
spaces on the same land area. The cost per surface level space is approximately $25,000 per space and the
one-third payment would be approximately $8,500 (with maintenance) and $6,700 without maintenance. A
structure actually saves money even though initial construction costs are high. When broken down, land cost
per space for a structure is lower resulting in a lower fee. A policy decision has to be made as to whether or
not the building maintenance should be included in the fee. Staff has recommended that maintenance be
included in the fee.
A parking in-lieu fee program will be beneficial for the existing property or business owner because it would
allow them to meet their parking obligation and it would also allow new businesses to come into the area who
would otherwise be unable to meet their parking requirements and would consequently not be allowed to
establish their businesses in the Village.
The benefit to the Agency or the City is that it would allow for development or intensification of desired uses. It
also would provide for more interesting architecture because the design can include the entire property without
having to provide parking.
Regarding future development, the projections are that if development occurs as anticipated, the City would
have to some 250 additional spaces in the future based on a shared parking concept.
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 22,1999 PAGE 4
It is believed that two parking structures could net 250 spaces. An additional three or four sites could provide
several more public parking structures and potentially net an additional 614 spaces at a cost of $31.5 million
including maintenance. It is, however, indicated in the staff report that the parking structures should not be
pursued until the need is demonstrated by the parking counts. As previously indicated, the parking counts are
not completely up to the 85% full utilization level and before any parking structures are built, something should
be done to encourage better utilization of the existing parking lots.
Some of the concerns regarding parking structures are accessibility, circulation, design, costs, and safety.
Some of the potential sources of dollars for construction of parking structures are the parking in-lieu fee
(representing 66% of the cost) if development occurs the way it should and if program participation is high), the
tax increment that comes from the Redevelopment Agency, joint venture (with a private developer) to develop
retail or other commercial uses (related to public parking) on the parking structure sites, a business or parking
improvement district, traffic impact fees, gas taxes, transient occupancy tax, and state or federal sources.
Specific sources have not yet been identified.
The Housing and Redevelopment Commission is asking the Design Review Board to look at the following
recommendations and make recommendations back to the Commission as to whether or not the Board
supports the staff recommendations.
1. Parking in-lieu Fee Program: It must be determined that there is adequate parking to
accommodate additional development. Without such a determination, the program cannot be
implemented. The proposed fee is $1 1,240 per parking space. The program is voluntary and
is an option for satisfying a parking requirement.
2. Short Term Parking Limits: Expand the 2 Hour parking and strictly enforce the limits. Strict
enforcement will not be popular. To implement time limits, an ordinance must be created and
presented to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission and the City Council. The time
limits proposed are ; 1) Monday through Saturday from 7 AM to 6PM (no limit after 6PM)
within designated boundaries including alleys not otherwise posted for no parking; 2) Parking
lots north and south of the old railroad depot (ConVis Office) and the fountain lot shall be
included in the 2 hour parking limit.; 3) Two 30 minute spaces within the south depot lot shall
be provided for ConVis visitors; 4) No time limit for remaining public lots.
3. Campaign to Encourage Use of Public Parking Facilities: Focus on creating a more
pedestrian oriented atmosphere. Make the existing lots more accessible by increasing
directional signage to their locations.
4. Facilitate Better Design of Private Parking Facilities: Efforts must be made to increase the
utilization of the existing private parking lots. Work with private property owners to better
design their parking facilities and better utilization of their lots, as some private lots have been
built in such ways that do not allow for as many spaces as they might have if they had been
differently designed.
5. Site Control and Plan Development for Public Parking: Prepare for the future expansion of
public parking facilities within the Village. Identify potential sites for parking structures and
pursue the acquisition (or long term leases) of properties for future parking development.
6. Study of Tourist Impacts on Parking in the Village: Instruct staff to proceed with a study to
determine the projected impacts of LEGOLAND or other future tourist activity on parking in the
Village Redevelopment Area.
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRllTEN MINUTES ARE
APPROVED.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 22,1999 PAGE 5
A survey was developed and distributed to a number of owners and employees in the Redevelopment Area, of
which approximately 43 had been returned to the Housing & Redevelopment Office before the staff report was
completed. The results follow:
Note: Those that did not indicate either Yes or No, generally, did not mark any box to indicate their position.
1. Parking In-lieu Fee Program: 21 - YES, 13 - NO (fees too high), 9 - UNDECIDED
2. 2 HOUR PARKING: 20 - YES, 22 - NO (wanted 3 or 4 hours or no time limit). The Village
Business Association supports a 3 HOUR time limit in the downtown area rather than a 2
HOUR limit.
3. Public Relations Program: 36 - YES, 6 - NO (didn’t feel such a program would make a
difference).
5. Private Parking Design: Generally supported with a few thinking it wouldn’t make a
difference.
6. Construction of Parking Structures: 36 - YES, 3 - NO (fees too high).
Board Member Forsyth asked to have the lots identified that will be open to all-day parking.
Ms. Fountain indicated both the lots with time limits and those that will have all-day parking are noted on the
overhead projection. The all-day lots are a little further away from the business area.
Board Member Marois asked if the numbers on Exhibit 8 are projections for the year 2000 or the current
existing numbers .
Ms. Fountain explained that a consultant reported what the potential for new development would be, in the
future. Exhibit 8 details those potentials, based on the market and demand, and how they relate to parking.
Board Member Marois asked when this parking projection was made.
Ms. Fountain replied that this projection was made and included in the Master Plan in 1996.
Board Member Marois suggested that even if all of the public parking facilities are fully utilized and the annual
increased demand for parking is 20%, capacity will potentially be reached in the year 2000. Using those
figures, Board Member Marois stated that it appears that the Village will exceed its parking capacity by or
sometime during that year.
Ms. Fountain responded to Board Member Marois comments by stating that one of the reasons staff has
based the continued implementation of the in-lieu fee program on the parking counts, is that if parking gets to a
point of 85% utilization, the program would have to be stopped at that point and additional public parking would
have to be built.
Board Member Marois asked if parking counts could be made semi-annually instead of annually.
Ms. Fountain replied that those counts can certainly be done on a semi-annual basis.
Board Member Marois stated that her greatest concern is that the Village will run out of parking, long before
the time indicated by the studies, and how much time and effort should go into interim programs. Also, if
people are paying $1 1,300 per space for in-lieu parking, and the Village runs out of parking within a year or two, how will that be dealt with.
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRllTEN MINUTES ARE
APPROVED.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 22,1999 PAGE 6
Ms. Fountain replied that if the in-lieu program has been implemented and the City has accepted the
appropriate fees, when parking reaches 85% utilization, the program will be stopped and more parking
facilities will be constructed.
Board Member Marquez asked if the parking counts were taken throughout a 24 hour period or just from 7 AM
to 6 PM.
Ms. Fountain indicated that the counts were taken during working hours, 10 AM to 8 PM, in 1996. Counts
taken by staff in 1997 and 1998 were not taken as often but it was felt that the highest impact hours were
between 8 AM and 5 PM. 9 AM, 12 NOON, 2 PM and 4 PM were focused upon as the times to take the
counts. In most cases, the peak times were primarily between 12 NOON and 2 PM. In some cases the peak
times were around 4 PM.
Board Member Marquez asked if this will be a one-time fee that will run with the land (property) and will it be
transferable from owner to owner.
Ms. Fountain replied that the parking requirements and fees are based on land use. If the land use remains
the same, there are no additional fees. If, however, the use is intensified or changed, the fees will change
accordingly.
Board Member Marquez asked if there are any property owners interested in the in-lieu program.
Ms. Fountain replied that there are several property owners who, because of various constraints, have not
been able to improve their properties and have expressed an interest in the program.
Board Member Marquez asked Ms. Fountain to estimate the number of property owners who would enter into
the program if it is implemented.
Ms. Fountain replied that she does not have any specific numbers but estimated that there might be from 20 to
25.
Board Member Marquez asked why there is such a large difference in the maintenance fees of each stall
between a parking structure and a surface parking lot.
Ms. Fountain replied that parking structures are typically more expensive to maintain than surface parking lots.
Board Member Marquez asked if management and security costs have also been included in the fee
calculations.
Ms. Fountain replied that management and security costs have been calculated into the fees. The type of
security system (electronics, patrol, etc.) has not been determined.
Board Member Marquez stated her concerns regarding the aesthetics of parking structures and to keep in
mind that the design will be what people will see first.
Board Member Marquez asked if staff envisions the parking structures and lots will always be free parking.
Ms. Fountain replied that the report assumes that parking will be free but that will be a policy decision by the
City Council. Staff is not recommending paid parking at this time. However, if financing is going to be
impossible without charging for parking, then the tough decision may have to be made to charge for parking.
Board Member Marquez stated that she has not seen anything regarding an escalation clause and asked how
often the in-lieu fee will be reviewed, to see that fees remain in line with property values.
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE
APPROVED.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 22,1999 PAGE 7
Ms. Fountain replied that it is set up to be reviewed annually.
Board Member Marquez asked if staff knows how much parking will be taken up by employees.
Ms. Fountain replied that she does not have those figures at this time.
At Chairperson Compas’ request, Ms. Fountain reviewed and discussed letters from the Carlsbad Village
Business Association, Mr. Tom McMahon, and the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce (copies of all are on file in
the Housing and Redevelopment Office).
Chairperson Compas asked if staff has researched other cities with regard to parking needs, requirements,
and solutions.
Ms. Fountain replied that they researched several cities in an effort to figure out what will work best in
Carlsbad. In many cases, parking resource management tends to be a problem in many downtown areas.
Many agencies have implemented fee programs and have little free parking. In many cities, parking structure
parking is not free because they have issued bonds for construction and fees are a revenue stream to pay off
the bonds.
Chairperson Compas asked how (if they are implemented) paid parking will affect the in-lieu fee.
Ms. Fountain stated that they are two separate programs, in that the in-lieu program is asking participants to
help ease the parking problem by paying the appropriate fee per space so that eventually more parking
structures or lots can be constructed and the fees collected from individual motorists will help with
maintenance and security of the structures.
Chairperson Compas asked if the in-lieu fee would change if there is a charge for parking.
Ms. Fountain replied that staff would have to determine how construction would be impacted with other funds
coming in.
Considering that the parking structures would be built on current public parking lot properties, Chairperson
Compas asked where parking would be provided during construction of the structures.
Ms. Fountain replied that is one of the down sides to building parking structures and that until the structure is
completed, there would be a decrease in the number of available spaces. If possible, temporary lots will be
made available.
Upon Chairperson Compas’ request, Ms. Fountain explained the reasoning of the Traffic Commission with
regard to parking time limits and stated that they voted unanimously to recommend 2 HOUR parking limits.
Board Member Marquez asked if buildings that have (through various circumstances) become non-conforming
will be allowed to participate in this program and if so, will they be obligated to bring their structures into
conformance.
Ms. Fountain replied that if they intensify or expand their use they will be required to bring the property into
conformance and would have to deal with the parking issue.
Board Member Marois voiced concern over the fact that some business owners will reap the benefits of the
parking structures without having to contribute to their construction, and those business owners that will have
to participate in the in-lieu program. She then suggested that a poll be taken of those business owner who
would like to expand their uses, asking them for their opinions regarding the amount of the in-lieu fee and how
such a fee would impact them.
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRllTEN MINUTES ARE
APPROVED.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 22,1999 PAGE 8
Ms. Fountain responded that such a survey would be very time consuming and there would be doubt as to
how productive a survey like that would be. People change their minds rather rapidly and often, changing the
value of a survey.
Board Member Marois stated that she thinks the fee is very high and could possibly cause property values to
decrease and that more information should be gathered before implementing such a program. Staff should
attempt to find out if in-lieu fees might cause businesses to move out, stay, or lower property values.
Ms. Fountain reminded the Board that the only time the in-lieu fees would impact a new or existing owner, is if
they want to intensify or expand the business or use. If a new owner comes in and continues the business as
it has been operated in the past, no in-lieu fees would be required. Also, it is virtually impossible to gather
concrete information and figures upon which to base a decision. They need to implement the program at
some fee level and see if it will work. If the City finds that they cannot get anyone to participate because the
fees are too high, then it will be up to the policy makers to determine what will be an appropriate fee.
Chairperson Compas opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak.
Charles Garner, Town Square, Carlsbad Boulevard between Grand and Carlsbad Village Drive, asked why the
decision was made to use 70,000 of the 80,000 square feet of Block D for a parking structure, leaving only
10,000 square feet in that block.
Jack Henthorn, representing a client who wishes to erect an office building, stated that they are in favor of a
Parking In-Lieu Program. The in-lieu fee presents an alternative that would not be otherwise available. Mr.
Henthorn asked to have the Housing and Redevelopment Commission revisit the issue of the distance that
would permit participation in the in-lieu program. Mr. Henthorn encouraged the Board to take action to forward
the staff recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
Tom McMahon, 4028 Park Drive, Carlsbad, owner of the Carlsbad Village Theater, stated that he is the
individual that prepared the parking survey for the Village Business Association. He explained that the
inference of the study was to show that, in contrast to a similar study done in March and April of 1998, the then
available parking spaces within the NCTD lot are evaporating very rapidly. He added that most of the
downtown merchants that he is acquainted with are in very much in favor of a 3 HOUR parking limit in the
downtown area and that he is present at this meeting to support that survey. He agreed that the frequency of
doing a parking report is important and should be done as often as possible. Mr. McMahon suggested that the
City should make a greater effort in locating interim parking areas while the parking structures are under
construction.
Board Member Marois stated that one possible reason to keep the 2 HOUR parking limits would be that
parking limit signs would not have to be replaced. For the areas where the limits can be changed, Board
Member Marois asked if those areas can have 3 HOUR parking limits.
Mr. McMahon responded that the whole idea was to make all of the parking time limits consistent by raising
the 2 HOUR limits to 3 HOUR limits, so people will get out of their cars to walk and shop without having to
worry about racing back to their cars within 2 hours.
Board Member Marois asked Mr. McMahon if he had to choose between being consistent and having to
replace the existing 2 HOUR signs, which would he choose.
Mr. McMahon replied that there is a very practical solution to the issue of the signs and pointed out that
stickers (similar to the license plate annual stickers) would allow the number 2 to be replaced by the number 3,
with a minimum of effort and expense, thereby eliminating the needs to replace signs.
Board Member Marquez asked Mr. McMahon if it is the thought of the Business Association that more surface
level parking is needed or that they prefer the idea of a structure.
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE
APPROVED.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 22,1999 PAGE 9
Mr. McMahon replied that the Association has not voted on how parking is supplied but focused only on the
time limits. Personally, he added, he thinks that the focus should be on the NCTD right-of-way, where there
will probably never be any housing, to try to control as much land as possible to provide additional parking.
Board Member Marquez asked if the Association might be in favor of having some type of parking permit
issued to merchants so they can have employee parking within lots leaving valuable on-street parking for the
customers.
Mr. McMahon replied that question cannot be answered until after the first phase of the in-lieu program. Then
they would have to go after a voluntary program that would include both the merchants and the employees.
Mr. McMahon further stated that he is going to work to get as many village merchants, as possible, to
cooperate and support a voluntary parking program.
John Jones, 3044 State Street, Carlsbad, stated that trying to enforce a 3 HOUR parking limit is virtually
impossible and the 2 HOUR limit should be maintained and strictly enforced. He also stated that he is in favor
of parking structures.
Pete Ritter, owner of Camera Store and Indian Shop on State Street, Carlsbad, asked; 1) what kind of
businesses are anticipated for the downtown are in the future; 2) is there currently a parking fee for the
downtown area and how much is it; 3) how many square feet of building constitutes one parking space; 4) how
is the $1 1,240 per space in-lieu fee going to be used; 5) isn’t it true that the current parking spaces were built
by the taxpayers and are maintained by the taxpayers. Mr. Ritter further stated that approximately 10 parking
spaces could be made available to the public if some of the City employees would park in the spaces
designated for them.
Bill Booth, 2979 State Street, Carlsbad, stated that the Parking In-Lieu fee will add approximately $44 to
the cost of construction for one square foot of space, for a total cost of approximately $140 per square
foot. The lease rate of that one square foot is $1 50. If the building’s owner needs to increase parking by
30%, he has to add 23 cents per square foot. Assuming that he will have full occupancy, it will take him
approximately 98 months to get back on a level playing field with the rest of the buildings in the
neighborhood. Mr. Booth pointed out that those figures are hypothetical but they could be very close to
accurate and could be a deterrent to attracting attractive development in the area. He went on to point out
that $3,000 or $4,000 would be a more acceptable fee per space and would allow developers to obtain
financing for a viable project.
Board Member Marois asked Mr. Booth if a new developer would be interested in keeping the initial cost
down and, in turn, pay a maintenance fee as a cost of development.
Mr. Booth replied that he cannot speak for the many developers, but personally, he thinks that might be a
good solution.
Caroline Prescott, Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad, stated that the initial cost is tremendous and if she were
trying to expand her business, she would have to look for space outside the Redevelopment Area. She
further stated that the basis for that cost would have to be more deeply explored before she could agree
with the proposal. Ms. Prescott suggested that the City buy some of the currently vacant lots in the area
and maintain them as parking lots rather than build multi-level parking structures. She also suggested that
arrangements be made, with owners of other properties, to use their lands for parking. Ms. Prescott also
pointed out, aside from the discussion of parking structures, that the safety of people getting to and from
their vehicles (especially after dark) should be a primary concern. Ms. Prescott reminded everyone that
even though employees work in the various businesses, they are also customers of the other businesses
in the area and should have the same privileges as other customers. She stated her support for the
continuance of the 2 HOUR time limits.
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 22,1999 PAGE 10
Board Member Forsyth asked Ms. Prescott where the lots that she mentioned are located.
Ms. Prescott replied that one is immediately behind the Carlsbad Realty building and another on the
opposite corner from Carlsbad Realty.
Gary Nessim, Home Life Village Realtors, 530 Grand Avenue, Carlsbad, suggested that the Washington
Street lot be made to have a 2 HOUR parking limit. He stated that the downtown area really does need a
parking structure because there is simply not enough space for businesses to have their own parking
areas and the result is nothing but dirt parking lots where there should be businesses.
Board Member Marois asked Mr. Nessim for his opinion regarding a 2 HOUR parking time limit.
Mr. Nessim replied that it makes no difference to him.
Board Member Marquez asked Mr. Nessim if he thinks the downtown property owners would be more
receptive to a parking improvement district fee that would be added to their tax bills.
Mr. Nessim replied that, in all probability, any existing business would not want to pay any additional tax.
John Gordon, 2956 Madison Street, Carlsbad, agrees that the downtown should consist of
buildings/businesses and not parking lots. He asked what the project development time is for a parking
structure, and where will the access be for the parking structure that is visualized on the property at
Roosevel t Street .
Bob Ladwig, representing the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, read his letter to Ms. Fountain, dated
March 22, 1999, a copy of which is on file in the Housing & Redevelopment Office.
Board Member Marois asked Mr. Ladwig if he thinks it would be more palatable to have an up-front fee,
whether it is at the time of construction or not, that is less and then have an annual maintenance fee.
Mr. Ladwig replied that a smaller fee would be more appropriate for some while a larger fee would be
more appropriate for others, but only if a parking structure is definitely going to be built. He added that
from what he understands, there may never be a parking structure, and he therefore cannot see using in-
lieu fees for existing parking lots. He stated that he feels the existing parking lots should be maintained by
the City as its contribution to the downtown area. Mr. Ladwig also suggested that the fees be refunded
after a certain period (5-10 years) if a parking structure is not built.
Board Member Marquez asked Mr. Ladwig if he thinks the downtown property owners would be more
receptive to a parking improvement district fee that would be added to their tax bills.
Mr. Ladwig stated that he is not a downtown business owner and that he cannot comment on that issue.
He added, however, that he would be in favor of everyone sharing the cost because the project would
benefit everyone.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Compas closed Public Testimony.
Chairperson Compas declared a recess at 8:14 p.m. The Board reconvened at 8:24 p.m. with all Board
Members present.
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRllTEN MINUTES ARE
APPROVED.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 22,1999 PAGE 11
Ms. Fountain responded to questions asked, in Public Testimony, as follows:
1. Potential sites for new public parking lots:
The numbers used regarding new parking lots are strictly estimates (guesstimates) and when
there are private property owners involved, things could change at a moments notice. There have
been discussions with a private property owner regarding public parking on their property in
conjunction with a new project. Staff attempted to estimate what the potential would be. Exhibit
10 shows there would be a net increase of 100 to 274 spaces, depending upon how much space
is actually used for a public parking structure. No decisions have been made as the study has
only identified potential sites.
2. Signs: 2 hours versus 3 hours.
The cost of new signage is not an important issue. The real issue is the goal of a 2 hour parking
limit versus a 3 hour limit. For rapid turnover, a 2 hour limit would be best, and that is why the
Traffic Safety Commission recommended the 2 hour limit.
3. The “in-lieu fee” program description that was placed in the Master Plan Document limits
participation based on the 600 foot number. The reason that program was developed at that time
was that 600 feet was considered, for the Village area, to be the maximum distance customers
might walk. 800 feet was put in this report because staff was attempting to make a comment on
the expert indication that two blocks (approximately 800 feet in the downtown area) is actually the
distance that people are willing to walk. Staff recommends that the distance remain at 600 feet.
Regarding participation, those businesses outside the 600 feet radius can participate, but, they
will not be allowed maximum participation which means they would be allowed to satisfy only 25%
of their parking requirement instead of 50%. The only way more flexibility can be achieved is to
change the Program’s description in the Master Plan which would require a Master Plan
Amendment. The issue has been raised in an effort to determine if the Design Review Board
would be willing to recommend a Master Plan Amendment to the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission.
Commissioner Marois asked if staff is in favor of such a recommendation.
Ms. Fountain replied that, at the time of the Master Plan, staff considered 600 feet to be appropriate and
so recommended.
4. What type of businesses would be added to the area per the consultant?
The consultants based their projections on a variety of different land uses and what they believed
the area could support. They didn’t identify specific retail businesses, they simply stated that ‘‘X”
number of retail could be supported, “x” number of office uses could be supported, etc.
5. Currently there is no “in-lieu fee” program in existence. The City has participated, with two
downtown businesses, in a parking sub-lease program. Their fees were based on the lease
costs, to the City, for those public lots.
6. What happens to the monies collected, before the parking lots or structures are constructed?
When the monies are collected, they will be put into an account specifically set aside for building
parking structures. The City Council, however, could choose to use some of that money for the
maintenance of existing parking lots or improvements to existing lots.
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRllTEN MINUTES ARE
APPROVED.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 22,1999 PAGE 12
7. Is the existing parking funded by taxpayers?
Yes. The existing parking is funded by taxpayers.
8. The appropriate official(s) will be notified regarding the non-usage of City provided parking by City
employees.
If the parking in-lieu fee is set at $11,000 per space and we find out that it won't work, Chairperson
Compas asked if that fee can be lowered and if the fee is lowered, would the $11,000 participants have
some of their money refunded.
Ms. Fountain replied that staff would go back to the Board or the City Council to report that the program is
not working and recommend alternatives. Regarding any refunds, staff would have to look at the situation
at the time and decide appropriate action.
Commissioner Marois as if the City will know who might have developed or expanded their businesses if
they had not been required to pay the in-lieu parking fees.
Ms. Fountain replied that anyone interested in developing or expanding will probably be very vocal. As for
how quickly staff would know, would depend on intentions of the property owners/developers.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Surface parking.
The City could build more surface parking lots, but, whether or not that would be in the best
interest of the City, remains to be seen. If asphalt parking lots are preferred over interesting
buildings, then lots could be constructed. Parking structures are expensive, but, they also provide
more parking at a lower cost (over time) in a much smaller area overall.
Washington Street parking lot.
That parking lot is proposed to have 2 hour parking, because it is considered street parking, in
addition to the Fountain Lot and lots on either side of the Depot.
Development time for parking structure and the location of the access.
These projects have not yet been designed and therefore it is not possible to say where the
access will be. The purpose of this report is to determine if there is support for such a project and
if so, then the next step would be to look at financing, design, location, etc. In terms of
development time, a two year time frame would seem appropriate.
Future development agreements.
The way in which this program has been structured, it is not supportive of future development
agreements and payment would be required before the business opens.
DISCUSS ION 0 F RE CO M M E N DATlO N S :
RECOMMENDATION #I:
Board Member Forsyth stated that the proposed fee, including maintenance, is excessive particularly for
the smaller businesses. Member Forsyth stated that he would recommend the lesser of the fees (not
including Maintenance), and let the City provide maintenance from other sources.
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
--
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 22,1999 PAGE 13
Board Member Marois agreed with Member Forsyth, however, the maintenance aspect must also be
addressed. She stated that her fear is that the people who will benefit most will not be made to pay their
fair share. Member Marois suggested that all those people who will pay little or no fee for the structure,
and yet use it every day, be made to contribute to the maintenance fees.
Board Member Savary stated her preference for recommending the lower fee, not including maintenance.
Board Member Marquez stated that she does not feel that there has been enough information presented
upon which to base a recommendation for either the higher or the lower fee and raised the question that it
is not clear whether any recommendation would apply to a parking structure or surface parking lots. She
stated that she would like to see structures built but does not think it is fair to ask property owners (new
development) to put up a fee to satisfy their parking requirement, particularly when spaces are not
specifically identifiable. She added that she feels that the cost of the downtown parking structures should
be shared, equally, by Lacking the appropriate information, Member
Marquez declined to make a proposal and recommended that this issue be returned to staff for further
study.
business/property owners.
Chairperson Compas agreed that parking structures are desired. However, he also feels that the fees are
too high and suggested that the Board recommend a lower fee.
ACTION: Motion by Member Forsyth, and duly seconded, to accept Recommendation #1,
except for the fee amount which should be reduced to $5,328 which would not
include the 30 year maintenance.
Board Member Marois stated she cannot base her decision on the information at hand and cannot support
this recommendation.
VOTE: 3-2
AYES: Compas, Savary, Forsyth,
NOES: Marquez, Marois
Assistant City Attorney, Rich Rudolf pointed out that it is implied by the recommendations of this Board
that there are several issues that must be addressed, at a later time, before the implementation of the
program can take place.
RECOMMENDATION #2:
Board Member Forsyth recommended a uniform 3 hour parking limit, strictly enforced, from 7 a.m. to 6
p.m., Monday through Saturday. In addition, he recommended that four parking spaces (30 minute limit)
be provided for the Convis ofice.
Board Member Marois agreed with Board Member Forsyth, except that the Convis spaces should remain
at two.
Board Member Savary recommended retaining the 2 hour parking limit, strictly enforced. Regarding
Convis, Member Savary stated that as many spaces as needed should be provided.
Board Member Marquez concurred with the staff recommendation of a 2 hour parking limit and agreed
that Convis should have as many spaces as they need.
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRllTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 22,1999 PAGE 14
Chairperson Compas also agreed with a 2 hour parking limit and two spaces for the Convis office.
ACTION: Motion by Member Marquez, and duly seconded, to accept Recommendation #2,
limiting parking to strictly enforced 2 hours, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through
Saturday, and two parking spaces (30 minute limit) for Convis.
VOTE: 3-2
AYES: Compas, Savary, Marquez
NOES: Forsyth, Marois
RECOMMENDATION #3:
No discussion.
ACTION: Motion by Member Forsyth, and duly seconded, to accept Recommendation #3,
as presented by staff.
VOTE: 5-0
AYES:
NOES: None
Compas, Savary, Marquez, Forsyth, Marois
RECOMMENDATION ##4:
No discussion.
ACTION: Motion by Member Forsyth, and duly seconded, to accept Recommendation #4,
as presented by staff.
VOTE: 5-0
AYES:
NOES: None Compas, Savary, Marquez, Forsyth, Marois
RECOMMENDATION #5:
No discussion.
ACTION: Motion by Member Forsyth, and duly seconded, to accept Recommendation #5,
as presented by staff.
VOTE: 5-0
AYES:
NOES: None
Compas, Savary, Marquez, Forsyth, Marois
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRllTEN MINUTES ARE
APPROVED.
c I
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 22, 1999 PAGE 15
RECOMMENDATION #6:
No discussion.
ACTION: Motion by Member Savary, and duly seconded, to accept Recommendation #6,
as presented by staff.
VOTE: 5-0
AYES:
NOES: None
Compas, Savary, Marquez, Forsyth, Marois
MAIN MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Member Marquez, and duly seconded, to accept the Parking in the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area Report and approve Design Review Board
Resolution No. 267, recommending approval of the programs set forth in the
subject report and authorizing staff to proceed with the implementation of the
approved parking programs, including the six recommended and approved
changes to the foregoing staff recommendations.
VOTE: 5-0
AYES:
NOES: None
Compas, Savary, Marquez, Forsyth, Marois
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Housing and Redevelopment Director, Debbie Fountain announced that the next meeting will be held on
April 26, 1999 at 6:OO p.m. in the City Council Chamber.
CHAIRPERSON REPORT:
None
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of March 22, 1999, was adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, n
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRllTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
t .- A
me City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REWIEW BOARD
I staff DEBBIE FOUNTAIN I Housing & Redevelopment Director I
DATE: MARCH 22,1999
SUBJECT: VILLAGE PARKING REPORT
I. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Design Review Board ACCEPT the Parking in the Carlsbad Village
RedeveZopment Area Report and APPROVE Design Review Board Resolution No. 267 recommending
approval of the programs set forth in the subject report and authorizing staff to proceed with
implementation of the approved parking programs.
11. PROJECT BACKGROUND
The issue of whether or not there is a parking problem within the Village Redevelopment Area has been
a hot topic of debate for several years. There has been no disagreement that the increasing popularity of
the Village Area has had a definite impact on both private and public parking areas. However, there is
disagreement as to whether or not that impact is positive or negative, and to what extent a parking
problem really exists within the Area. This question regarding parking is not unique to the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Area. Many older downtown areas have struggled with the issue of parking and
how to best manage parking resources for years. Even if there are plenty of parking spaces available,
people may argue that there is a parking problem if the available spaces do not meet their individual
needs.
As a result of the controversy, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission requested a report on
parking issues within the Village Area and recommendations on how to best address these issues. As
requested by the Commission, Staff has been researching the issue of parking within the Village Area,
and exploring the opportunities and challenges created by parking demands. The findings and
recommendations of staff are set forth within the attached report entitled “Parking in the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Area”.
On March 2, 1999, the City Council, acting as the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, received
the parking report noted above. Staff reviewed the report contents with the Commission and requested
instruction as to how to proceed with implementation of programs recommended within the report. The
Commission referred the report to the Design Review Board for review, additional public input, and
recommendations. As instructed by the Commission, an “open house’’ will be held on March 22, 1999
AB #
Page 2
followed by a formal public hearing before the Design Review Board to receive testimony and to give
consideration to the recommended actions. The purpose of the open house is to allow the public to
receive information and make inquiries in an informal setting. The public hearing will provide for a
formal presentation by staff and allow an opportunity for public input to be recorded and considered by
the Design Review Board. The Board is asked to make a recommendation to the Commission as to how
to proceed with implementation of the programs set forth within the report following the public
testimony and related discussion.
111. ITEM EXPLANATION
The primary purpose of the Parking in the Village Redevelopment Area report was to provide the
information necessary for the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to make the determination that
there is adequate public parking available within the Village Redevelopment Area at this time. This
determination will allow for immediate implementation of the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, as
described within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. As set forth within the report, Staff has
determined that there is adequate parking remaining within the area to accommodate additional
development. In addition, staff has made a recommendation to set the in-lieu fee at $1 1,240 per parking
space. The method in which this fee was calculated is explained in the attached report. With a
determination that there is adequate parking and by setting the fee, the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program can
be initiated and made available as an option for satisfying an on-site parking requirement for eligible
propertyhusiness owners.
The secondary purpose of the subject report was to focus on other parking issues related to the Village
Redevelopment Area, and to develop a plan for encouraging better utilization and management of
existing private and public parking resources. The parking components addressed within the subject
report are 1) evaluations of existing utilization of off-street public parking resources; 2) projections for
future public parking resource needs; 3) identification of possible locations for additional public parking
resources; 4) parking time limits in public parking lots and on the street; 5) public relations program; 6)
the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program; and, 7) program to support better design and utilization of private
parking resources. Staff believes that all of the components noted above must be considered together in
order to develop a comprehensive parking program for the Village.
Parking Capacitv.
Public parking utilization studies, as well as observations by Police, Engineering and Redevelopment
Staff, indicate that there is not currently a public parking space capacity problem in the core downtown
area. In other words, there is not a shortage of public parking in the Village. However, there may be a
parking proximity problem. The parking issue in the Carlsbad Village mirrors that of many cities with
older downtown areas. There is plenty of parking, but people do not use it all. This may be due to a
variety of reasons, one of which may be that people simply do not know where the public parking is
located, or they do not like the locations of the parking.
The report identifies two types of “parkers”-occasional and regular. The occasional Parker may come to
the Village once or twice a month, and will make hisher initial parking decision “on the fly” based on a
quick glance at a sign and/or facility. Regular parkers are different in that they generally work nearby or
regularly access a specific type of service, and intend to park in the area for some time to come. It is
worthwhile for regular parkers to put more time into their selection of a parking facility because they
* -
AB # .. Page 3
will use it far more often. For regular parkers, the closest parking space is generally considered the best
parking space. According to relevant parking literature, a two block walk is as far as most regular
parkers consider acceptable. For the Village Redevelopment Area, this would represent approximately
800 feet.
Due to the concentration of businesses and the location of the Village Commuter Rail Station, the most
heavily impacted public parking lots are those located at, or near, the intersection of Grand Avenue and
State Street. The impacted parking lots include those located at the corner of State and Grand (Fountain
Lot), to the North of the Old Depot Building/CONVIS Office, and on Washington Street at Rotary Park
(east of the Village Faire Shopping Center). These three parking lots represent approximately 10% of the
total amount of off-street public parking within the Village Area and are fully impacted through regular
parking use, most likely by commuters. The average occupancy for the remaining seven public parking
lots (or 90% of the parking) is 56%. At peak occupancy, the remaining seven public parking lots have a
66% utilization ratio.
Many business and property owners believe that the City of Carlsbad and/or Redevelopment Agency
needs to build additional public parking lots to address the “parking problem” within the Village Area.
If, however, the City or Agency constructs additional public parking spaces that are not any closer to the
business or service points than those which currently exist, but are underutilized, how do we solve the
perceived “parking problem”? Before proceeding with the construction of additional parking facilities, it
is staffs opinion that an attempt first must be made to facilitate a change in parking behaviors within the
Village. An effort needs to be made to encourage regular customers, business owners and employees,
and other visitors to better utilize the existing public parking lots, which may require them to walk a few
more blocks to reach their destination.
Parking Time Limits
An issue related to parking supply in the Village is parking time limits on the street and within certain
public parking lots. Currently, prime customer parking is being consumed both on-street and withm the
impacted public parking lots by regular parkers, including commuters, business owners and employees
in the area. This has resulted in a request for parking time limits with strict enforcement. It is important
to note that many of the streets within the core downtown area are already restricted to two hour parking.
However, strict enforcement on a daily basis has not been pursued due to staffing issues and concerns
regarding the potential negative impact on public relations.
The Traffic Commission has previously recommended that the boundaries of the existing two hour
limited parking (on-street) be expanded, and all areas within the boundaries be appropriately posted for
enforcement purposes. In addition to expansion of the boundaries for the two hour parking time limit,
staff is recommending that two hour time limits be implemented within the public parking lots located in
close proximity to the Commuter Rail Station. Exhibit 4 within the attached report identifies the parking
lots to be posted with two hour parking limits.
For time limits to be effective in providing the desired turnover in parking spaces for customers, they
must be strictly enforced. The Police Department has indicated that it would be very difficult to strictly
enforce time limits within the Village Area without additional staff. Currently, the Police Department
has only one parking enforcement officer for the entire City. This person is already very busy responding
to complaints regarding abandoned vehicles and other parking issues throughout the City. Therefore, if
.. -
AB # - Page 4
voluntary compliance can not be obtained and strict enforcement of the time limits is necessary, it is
anticipated at this time that additional staff will be required for parking enforcement purposes.
In addition to staffing issues, parking time limit enforcement raises concerns about public relations. No
matter how pleasant or helpful the parking enforcement officer may be in the performance of hisher job,
any person receiving a parking ticket will be unhappy. This may or may not hurt business in the Village
Area, depending upon how it is perceived by the public. To minimize the negative impact that may be
created by enforcement of parking time limits, it is staffs opinion that it would be very helpful to
broadly promote the time limits before enforcement begins. The program promotion would clarify that
this action is being taken to reserve prime on- and off-street public parking for downtown customers,
clients and patrons, not to punish people or raise revenue.
Although staff is not recommending the installation of parking meters in the Village, meters are a widely
used method for managing and funding public parking resources. Therefore, a discussion of “free vs.
paid curb parking” has been included within the attached report. Because premium value has been given
to curb parking and some parking spaces within public parking lots, the question is: “Are shoppers,
business owners, or employees willing to pay for this premium parking to better ensure its availability?,
If so, the City Council or Housing and Redevelopment Commission may wish to give consideration to
the installation of a fee system for curb or public parking at a future date.
Construction of New Public ParkinP Facilities
As indicated previously, staff is proposing that actions be taken first to increase utilization of existing
public parking lots. Once a need is demonstrated, new parking facilities may then be constructed. Within
the attached report, staff has identified seven (7) locations that are potential sites for future public
parking structures. Although staff is not recommending construction of a parking structure at this time,
staff is suggesting that activities be pursued to place the City and/or Agency in a position to obtain
control over one or more of the identified sites in an effort to be prepared for future development. It is
very unlikely that the Redevelopment Agency would pursue construction of all seven (7) parking
structures noted within the attached report. It was staffs intent to simply identify possible locations for
parking structures. This would allow staff to pursue opportunities as they are presented for future
development. It is anticipated that the Redevelopment Agency would first pursue construction of parking
structures on the property located on Roosevelt Street, between Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand
Avenue, and within the existing parking lot for the Commuter Rail Station (off of State Street).
It is estimated that each space within a parking structure will cost approximately $33,709 to construct
and maintain for thirty years, which means that a 100 space parking structure would cost approximately
$3.4 million. This cost, however, can vary due to soil conditions, special features, architecture, land
costs, etc. At this point in time, staff has not developed a complete financing plan for all of the potential
parking structures identified within the report. If parking structures are pursued, further action will be
required to identify specific funding sources for the capital construction costs and on-going maintenance.
Potential funding sources identified within the report are: redevelopment tax increment, developer
equity, Business Improvement District Funds (if BID is formed), Traffic Impact Fees or Gax Tax Funds,
andor other State or Federal sources. An additional funding source for capital costs is tax-exempt bonds.
The construction and maintenance of parking structures is costly. Staff believes that private/public
partnerships will be necessary to finance any future construction of one or more parking structures.
AB #
Page 5
When and where possible, the ideal situation would be to construct parking facilities in conjunction with
private development.
For a complete understanding of the issues identified above and the various components of the parking
program, the attached report should be read in its entirety. The above provides only a brief summary of
the issues raised within the report and the staff conclusions.
Recommendations on Parking
Within the attached report, staff has made five (5) recommendations on parking-related issues. These
recommendations are outlined below. It is important to note again, however, that the report contains
much more detail on each of these recommendations. The report also contains a “pros and cons” analysis
for each recommendation.
The parking recommendations are as follows:
1. Implement the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program by making a determination that there is
adequate parking at this time to accommodate additional private development, and by setting the fee
for the program at $11,240 per parking space required and to be provided off-site within a public
parking lot. This program offers one option to property owners who are required to satisfy a parking
requirement in order to expand an existing use, or construct a new building. It is currently available
for properties east of the railroad tracks and located within the Village Area. It is a voluntary
program.
2. Authorize staff to proceed with the processing of an Ordinance to expand the boundaries for two (2)
hour parking time limits within the core Village Area. The time limit is proposed for all streets and
public alleys within the designated boundaries which currently allow for parking. All existing “no
parking” areas will remain in effect. The hours in which the two hour time limit would be in effect
are 7:OOam to 6:00pm, Monday through Saturday. The time limits are not proposed to be in effect on
Sundays or Holidays. A map of the boundaries for the two hour parking is provided in Exhibit 1 of
the attached report. As an additional action, staff is recommending that staff be authorized to proceed
with actions to implement time limits within three of the existing public parking lots. The lots
include those located on the north and south side of the old depot/CONVIS Office and the one
located on the northwest comer of State Street and Grand Avenue (known as the Fountain Lot). A
map of the three public parking lots is provided as Exhibit 4 within the attached report. Staff is
proposing the two hour time limits be implemented within the noted three public parking lots, with
the exception that two (2) parking spaces within the south depot lot shall be further restricted to
thirty (30) minutes for CONVIS visitors. These time limits are proposed to be effective for the same
hours and days as noted above for the on-street parking - 7:OOam to 6:00pm, Monday through
Saturday.
3. Authorize staff to develop and implement a program, or campaign, to encourage the general public to
use the free public parking lots already available within the Village and to promote a “walk about” in
the area. The program is proposed to focus on the importance of getting people out of their cars and
walking around the Village in order to experience all that the area has to offer in terms of products
and services. This program will include a “study component” to determine the impediments to
pedestrian activity that currently exists.
c -
AB #
Page 6
4. Authorize staff to develop and implement a program to assist existing propertybusiness owners to
redesign their private parking lots, as appropriate, to increase their effectiveness, and to encourage
cooperation between property owners in the use of these private parking facilities.
5. Authorize staff to take actions to prepare for the future expansion of public parking facilities within
the Village Area by pursuing acquisition of property, or otherwise obtaining control of a site through
a development agreement, as opportunities are presented. In preparing for future expansion, staff
should also be authorized to develop preliminary plans for financing and construction of one or more
parking facilities.
In addition to the above, staff has also recommended that a study be completed to determine the
projected impacts of Legoland or other hture tourist activity on parking in the Village Area if this is a
concern. The option is to take a “wait and see” attitude and determine the impact through parking counts
at a future date.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Department completed the environmental review of the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission Policies and Procedures Manual pursuant to
the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental
Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration was
issued for the project by $he Planning Director on September 29, 1995. The Negative Declaration was
approved on November 1, 1995. All of the program recommendations included within the attached
Parking Program Report were previously anticipated by adoption of the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission Policies and Procedures Manual, and were
considered under the previous CEQA review. No new programs have been recommended which would
expand the scope of the initial project. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required to prior
to accepting this report and implementing the programs outlined within this report. If the construction of
parking structures is in fact pursued at a later date, each parking construction project will require
subsequent CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed recommendations will have a financial impact on the Redevelopment Agency andor the
City of Carlsbad. It is anticipated at this time that the costs of constructing and maintaining two parking
structures for 30 years, which will net an increase of 250 public parking spaces, will amount to
approximately $13,820,700. This estimate of costs will increase if the AgencyKity is required to finance
the construction through bonds or more conventional financing mechanisms. If the Village Parking In-
Lieu Fee Program is implemented, staff is estimating that this program will provide two-thirds of the
funding ($9.2 million) required for the construction and maintenance of the subject parking structures if
the fee is set at $11,240 per parking space. The remaining one-third of the costs ($4.6 million) of
construction and maintenance will need to be provided by the Redevelopment Agency, City of Carlsbad
or other sources. Staff has anticipated that North County Transit District will also provide some funding
for the project(s). In addition, the AgencyKity may negotiate private developer financial assistance with
the construction of parking facilities, if related to new commercial development.
L
AB #
Page 7
To implement time limits on the street and within certain public parking lots, there will be a cost
associated with the manufacture and installation of the required regulatory signage. At this time, staff
does not have an estimate of that cost. It will be dependent upon the number of signs that will ultimately
be required for enforcement purposes. An assessment of the signage costs will be completed at a later
date. For strict enforcement of the time limits, the Police Department anticipates that additional staff will
be required. Parking enforcement is currently staffed with a Community Services Officer 11. At this time,
the estimated cost for employing an additional officer to enforce time limits within the Village Area is
$43,150 (including salary, benefits and overtime). This cost will impact the General Fund.
For the campaign to encourage use of public parking facilities, it is anticipated that $30,000 will be
required to implement this recommendation. A total of $30,000 has been budgeted in the City of
Carlsbad’s 1998-99 Capital Improvement Program for the development and implementation of the
subject public relations campaigdprogram. These funds were generated from previously issued
redevelopment bonds.
Staff has recommended that a program be developed to assist existing propertyhusiness owners to
redesign their private parking lots, as appropriate, to increase their effectiveness, and to encourage
cooperation between property owners in the use of these private parking facilities. At this time, no
estimate is provided on the cost of implementing this recommendation. The cost will depend upon the
extent of the program. For example, if through program development a decision is made to provide
funding for legal services and/or design assistance, the cost of the program will be higher as compared to
simple staff time to facilitate cooperation between owners. Funding for this program will be given more
consideration during the budget development process.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Design Review Board take action to hold a public hearing to receive
testimony from all interested persons and then take action to recommend approval of the recommended
programs set forth within the Parking in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area report.
EXHIBITS:
1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 267 , accepting the subject parking report and recommending
approval of program implementation as set forth within the report.
2. Parking in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area - A Report on Parking Utilization, Programs
and Recommendations for the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA ACCEPTING THE PARKING IN THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENTAREA REPORT AND RECOMMEDING TO THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION THAT STAFF BE AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED
WITH THE PROGRAMS OUTLINED WITHIN THE REPORT.
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency has studied various issues related to parking
within the Village Redevelopment Area and set forth its findings and recommendations related to parking
needs and demands within a report entitled “Parking in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area”; and,
WHEREAS, the findings and recommendations set forth within the “Parking in the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Area” Report have been reviewed and considered by the Design Review Board;
and,
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board has accepted the findings of the “Parking in the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Area” Report; and,
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board has accepted and considered public comments on the
recommendations set forth within the subject parking report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad
as follows:
1. The above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Design Review Board accepts the ‘<Parking in the Village Redevelopment Area”
Report, dated January, 1999, which was prepared to document the findings and
recommendations related to parking within the Village Redevelopment Area.
3. That the Design Review Board recommends to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
that Redevelopment Agency staff be authorized to proceed with the programs outlined within
the subject report, and set forth herein, to address various parking issues within the Village
Redevelopment Area.
....
....
....
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
DRB Resolution No. 267
4. That the Design Review Board finds that there is adequate public parking available within the
Village Redevelopment Area to accommodate additional private development, and
recommends that the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program be implemented according to the
program description and requirements set forth within the approved Village Master Plan and
Design Manual, and reiterated within the subject parking report.
5. That the fee for participation in the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee be set at $1 1,240 per
parking space required and to be provided off-site within a public parking lot, and shall be
subject to annual review by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
6. That the Design Review Board finds that the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee represents one of
several options provided to a private developer within the Village Redevelopment Area for
satisfying an on-site parking obligation and shall be paid via an agreement between the
Redevelopment Agency and the individual property and/or business owners. Because fees
collected pursuant to agreements with redevelopment agencies are not considered to be a
“Development Impact Fee”, the Parking In-Lieu Fee is not subject to the regulations set forth
within Government Code Section 66000(b) for “Development Impact Fees”.
7. The Design Review Board recommends that appropriate City Staff be authorized to proceed
with processing of an Ordinance to expand the boundaries for two (2) hour parking within the
core Village Area for all streets and public alleys within the designated boundaries which
currently allow for parking, to be effective Monday through Saturday from 7:OOam to
6:00pm, excluding holidays.
..
....
....
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
DRE3 Resolution No. 267
8. The Design Review Board recommends that appropriate City Staff be authorized to proceed
with actions to implement two (2) hour time limits within three of the existing public parking
lots as designated within Exhibit 4 of the Parking in the Village Redevelopment Area Report,
dated January, 1999, with the exception that two (2) parking spaces within the South Depot
Parking Lot shall be further restricted to thirty (30) minutes for exclusive use of visitors to the
Carlsbad Convention and Visitors Bureau Office.
9. The Design Review Board recommends that Redevelopment Agency staff be authorized to
proceed with actions to ensure strict enforcement of the existing and future parking time
limits as set forth in Paragraphs #7 and #8 above, following complete implementation of a
public relations program to broadly promote and clarify the intent of the parking enforcement
efforts.
10. The Design Review Board recommends that Redevelopment Agency staff be authorized to
develop &d implement a program, or campaign, to encourage the general public to use the
free public parking lots already available within the Village and to promote a “walk about” in
the area.
1 1. The Design Review Board recommends that Redevelopment Agency staff be authorized to
develop and implement a program to assist existing propertyhusiness owners to redesign
their private parking lots, as appropriate, to increase their effectiveness, and to encourage
cooperation between property owners in the use of these private parking facilities.
12. The Design Review Board recommends that Redevelopment Agency staff be authorized to
take appropriate actions to pursue acquisition of, or control of, property for a parking
structure site, as identified within the Parking in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area
Report as opportunities are presented and according to applicable Redevelopment Agency
policies and procedures.
3
1
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
DRJ3 Resolution No. 267
13. The Design Review Board recommends that Redevelopment Agency staff be authorized to
proceed with actions to develop preliminary financing and conceptual design plans for
construction of one or more parking structure facilities within the Village Redevelopment
Area, as deemed appropriate.
14. The Design Review Board recommends that Redevelopment Agency staff be instructed to
complete annual parking studies of the public parking lots located within the Village
Redevelopment Area to ensure that any increase (or decrease) in parking demand is properly
recorded and calculated into any future need for additional public parking facilities.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 22nd day of March 7
1999, by the following vote, to wit:
' AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Housing and Redevelopment Director
BILL COl"AS, Chairman
4
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.
SECTION 1. PARKING AND VISION FOR THE VILLAGE AREA
0 Village Vision
0 Goals & Objectives
0
Purpose of Report
Philosophical or Policy Statement on Village Parking
SECTION 2. PARKING ISSUES FOR THE VILLAGE AREA
0 Parking Utilization Studies
0 Types of “Parkers”
0 Additional Parking
0 Parking Time Limits
0 General Policy on Parking Time Limits
0 Traffic Commission Recommendations
0 Enforcement of Time Limits
0 Free vs. Paid Curb Parking
0 Issues Summary
SECTION 3. OBJECTIVES OF PARKING REPORT
0 Primary Purpose of Report
0 Components of Report
I
2
8
SECTION 4. EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS IN THE VILLAGE 9
0 Parking Utilization Ratio
0 Public Parking Lots Summary
0
0 Parking Duration Study
1996 Public Parking Lot Counts
1997 Public Parking Lot Counts
1998 Public Parking Lot Counts
SECTION 5. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS
Implementation of the Village In-Lieu Fee Program
Parking Count Summary
0 Public Perception about Parking
SECTION 6. VILLAGE PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM
Program Description
0 Premise of Program
0 Key Features of Program
0 Shared Parking Concept
SECTION 7. PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
0 Participation Limits within Zone 1
0 Participation Limits within Zone 2
0 Findings to Allow Participation in Program
0 Actions Required to Implement Program
0 Finding of Adequate Parking
15
16
18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.-
DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.
SECTION 8. SETTING THE PARKING IN-LIEU FEE
0 Fee Setting Policy
0
0
0
0 Economies of Scale
Benefits
Consultant Comments on Fee Policy
Calculation of Fee Amount - Parking Structures
Calculation of Fee Amount - Surface Level Parking
SECTION 9. FUTURE PARKING PROJECTIONS/NEEDS
0 Future Parking Demand
a Tourist Impact on Parking
SECTION IO. NEW PARKING OPPORTUNITY AREAS
0 Commuter Parking
0 Parking Structures
0 Increase in Public Parking r
0 Concerns about Parking Structures
0 Better Management or Design of Private Parking
SECTION 11. FACILITY COSTS AND FINANCING MECHANISMS
0 Building New Parking Facilities
0
0
0
Costs of Building Parking Facilities
Parking In-Lieu Fee and other Financing Mechanisms
Bond Financing and Paid Parking
SECTION 12. TRANSITION OF AGENCY ASSESTS AND LIABILITIES
0
0
Expiration of Village Redevelopment Area
Time Limit for Establishing Loans, Advances & Indebtedness
Transition of Redevelopment Funds to City
SECTION 13. RECOMMENDATIONS
0
0 Short-Term Parking Time Limits
0
Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program
Campaign to Encourage Use of Public Parking Facilities
Facilitation of Better Design of Private Parking Facilities
Site Control & Plan Development for Public Parking Structures
Tourist Impacts on Parking in the Village
19
25
27
34
37
38
SECTION 14. CONCLUSION TO REPORT 45
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.
SECTION 15. REPORT EXHIBITS 47
Summary of Parking Counts
0
0 Revenue Generation Comparison
Future Public Parking Needs
Locator Map for Two Hour Parking Zone
Locator Map for Public Parking Lots
Locator Map for Two Hour Time Limits for Public Parking Lots
Parking Zones for In-Lieu Fee Program
Cost Estimates for Construction of Parking Spaces
Locator Map for Future Public Parking Structures I and II
Locator Map for Additional Public Parking Structures Sites
Parking Structure Cost Analysis - Structures I and II
Parking Structure Cost Analysis - Structures A-D
Surface Level Parking Cost Analysis
In 1992, the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency initiated the process to develop a new
Master Plan for the Village Redevelopment Area. The primary purpose of the Master
Plan was to identify a Vision for the Village and then to develop goals and objectives
which create a roadmap to the Vision.
Village Vision. The new Village Master Plan and Design Mrrnrral was approved by the
Carlsbad City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission in December of
1995, and certified by the California Coastal Commission in September, 1996. The
Vision for the Village as set forth within the approved Master Plan is as follows:
The Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.. .
e? has a distinct visual identity that makes it unique and a memorable place with identifiable landmarks.
Q strives for excellence thr
improvements.
8 accommodates a wide range
Q has a strong civic character an
community events.
Q is a comfortable and safe place to work,
8 demonstrates a welcoming
are interested in becoming a part of the downtown.
Goals and Obiectives: One of the key goals identified to help the area reach the Vision
was to: stimulate property improvements and new development in the Viilage. An
objective within this goal is to: establish a parking program which allows off-site
pnrking in public lots with payment of a fee.
Philosophical or Policy Statement on Village Parking. The Carlsbad Redevelopment
Agency’s philosophical statement on parking, as developed through the Village Master
Plan, is that excessive paved parking areas are expensive and undesirable from both an
aesthetic and environmental perspective. In a downtown area like the Carlsbad Village, it
is more aesthetically appealing to have interesting buildings which assist in creating a
Village character rather than having large paved areas for parking lots. Therefore, it has
been deemed desirable to create private/public partnerships by allowing developers to
satisfy all or a portion of their parking requirements by paying the Redevelopment
Agency to maintain existing, or develop new, public parking facilities which can then be
shared by a number of different businesses. The total number of paved parking areas are
subsequently limited within the Village Area.
Parking In-Lieu Fee programs are typically established when it is considered to be in the
best interest of a City to develop public parking facilities in a densely developed business
district, rather than to have each property owner provide sufficient parking for each
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 1
individual building/use. This is the policy statement set forth within the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual.
The policy statement on parking as noted above is reinforced through the ViZZage Design
Guidelines which require interesting architectural components to be incorporated into all
new development projects. Heavy landscaping and the use of visually appealing site
development details which support a pedestrian-oriented environment are strongly
encouraged and reinforced through related development standards. The focus of the
Village Design Guidelines is on buildings and the pedestrian features of new projects, not
on parking. Parking is to be provided in a manner which is visually-subordinate to all
other project features. Combined parking facilities are, therefore, consistent with the
Redevelopment Agency’s desire to de-emphasize parking lots and encourage pedestrian
traffic throughout the Village Area. A coordinated effort to create combined parking
areas, including public parking lots, through such programs as the Parking In-Lieu Fee
Program, is also consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village Redevelopment
Area.
Purpose of Report. Consistent with the above noted goals and objectives, the key
purposes for the preparation of this report are three-fold. First, the report summarizes the
existing public parking conditions within the Village Area. Second, the report provides an
estimate of the anticipated future public parking needs (as related to potential, projected
new development). Third, the report establishes the justification for implementing the
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and setting the payment amount which will allow
developers/property okners to pay a fee in lieu of providing parking on-site. In addition,
this report will provide recommendations on alternate programs and policies to be
implemented to address various other parking issues in the Village Redevelopment Area.
The issue of whether or not there is a parking problem in the Village Redevelopment
Area has been a hot topic of debate for several years. There is no disagreement that the
increasing popularity of the Village Area has had a definite impact on both private and
public parking areas. However, there is disagreement as to whether or not that impact is
positive or negative, and to what extent a parking problem really exists within the Village
Redevelopment Area. This question regarding parking is not unique to the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Area. Many older downtown areas have struggled with the issue
of parking and how to best manage parking resources for years. Even if there are plenty
of parking spaces available, people may argue that there is a parking problem if the
available parking spaces do not meet their individual needs. This report will explore the
topic of parking in the Village Area and provide suggestions for various programs to
address identified parking issues.
Parking Utilization Studies. Public parking lot utilization studies, as well as observations
by Police, Engineering and Redevelopment Staffs, indicate that there is not currently a
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 2
est9
public parking space capacity problem in the core downtown area. However, there may
be a parking proximiw problem. With expansion of the parking lots for the Commuter
Rail Station by North County Transit District, public parking capacity has substantially
improved within the Village Area in terms of total number of parking spaces available to
the public. From the time that the parking counts were initially completed to today, the
public parking resources within the Village Area have been increased by 180 spaces. The
Village Redevelopment Area currently provides for 685 free, public parking spaces
within off-street public facilities which have no time limits.
Regardless, however, of the various studies which indicate that there is not a deficiency in
public parking capacity, there remains the belief by many people that there is a parking
shortage in the downtown area. Based on comments received from Village customers,
employees and business owners, staff has determined that the “parking problem” is
related more to the proximity of parking rather than the actual total number of parking
spaces available. This issue will be discussed in further detail later within this report.
The parking issue in the Carlsbad Village mirrors that of many cities with older
downtown areas. There is plenty of public parking, but people don’t use it all. This may
be due to a variety of reasons, one of which may be that people simply do not know
where the public parking is located, or they don’t like the locations.
Tvues of ‘‘Parkers”. In an article entitled “How to Market a Parking Space” (April, 1996),
the author, Richard Sides, notes that there are two primary market segments - occasional
parkers and regular parkers. He states that “occasional parkers come to the area perhaps
once or twice a month, and make their initial parking decision ‘on the fly’. That parking
decision will be based on whatever a quick glance at the sign and facility can tell them. If
they have no reason to change, they will probably park at the same place on subsequent
visits because the parking choice is not viewed as significant enough to justify much
research. Their attitude is, ‘as long as it’s working, why change it?” Mr. Sides continues
by stating that ”the second market segment - regular parkers - work nearby and plan to be
parking in the area for some time to come. It is worthwhile for them to put more time into
the selection of their parking facility because they will be using the service far more
often.” In an effort to identify solutions to parking concerns, it is important to understand
the types of parkers in the downtown area. Mr. Sides indicates in his article that
occasional parkers are probably more willing to walk some distance, while regular
parkers may choose to park much closer to their destination. He explains “when
considering features such as distance from the place of business, an extra block isn’t too
important if someone only has to walk it once a month, but if it is going to be every day,
a block might make a big difference,.and therefore, closer is much better.” Mr. Sides
conclusion is that all other things being equal, the closest parking facility has the edge.
“Closer has the obvious advantage of requiring less walking for those who might be a
little lazy, but it also means that safety-conscious folks are not exposed to street dangers
as long”, says Mr. Sides.
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 3 e
Many Village business and property owners complain that there is a parking problem in
the downtown area. However, as parking counts have shown, many of the Village public
parking lots are not fully utilized. There remains plenty of free, public parking available
for use. The public parking areas most heavily used are those located in close proximity
to the Commuter Rail Station near the comer of State Street and Grand Avenue. The
users of the impacted public parking lots can best be classified as “regular parkers” who
prefer proximity and convenience. Because the City-provided public parking lots closest
to the Commuter Rail Station are most heavily impacted, there has been a demand made
by surrounding businesses for action to be taken by the City or Redevelopment Agency to
move the commuter rail patrons out of these public parking lots and into the parking
spaces provided by North County Transit District specifically for commuter use. Due to
the fact that commuters are “regular parkers”, simply indicating the locations of other
public parking lots in the area will probably not resolve the issue. As “regular parkers”,
the commuters wish to park in those spaces which are closest to their destination and
have convenient access. Therefore, the City or Redevelopment Agency will probably be
required to implement time limits within the impacted parking lots if the goal is to make
this parking available to persons with short term parking needs.
The issue created by the parking habits of the commuters is similar to that created by
other “regular parkers” in the Village Area, which include business/property owners,
employees and regular customers to the area. “Regular parkers” generally want to park in
close proximity to their destination. These “parkers” do not wish to be inconvenienced by
a long walk. As a rule of thumb, a two block walk is as far as most “regular parkers”
consider acceptable. In the Village Area, two blocks is approximately 800 feet in length
and probably takes about three to four minutes (maximum) to walk. In addition to the
distance to walk, some parkers may have security concerns. If they can’t see their car,
they don’t believe it is secure.
Additional Parking. Many Village business and property owners believe that the City of
Carlsbad and/or the Redevelopment Agency need to build additional public parking lots
to address the “parking problem” within the Village Area. However, herein lies the
challenge. If the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency or the City constructs additional public
parking spaces which are not any closer to the businesses or service points than those
which currently exist, but are underutilized, how do we solve the perceived ‘)parking
problem” in the Village. The challenge faced by the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency
and the City of Carlsbad is how to encourage customers and employees to better utilize
the existing public parking lots, which may require them to walk a few more blocks to
reach their destination. An attempt should first be made to change parking behaviors
before any new parking facilities are constructed. Otherwise, the City or Agency may
construct new parking facilities which also remain underutilized, or perhaps even empty.
Parkinq Time Limits. An issue related to the amount of parking provided in the Village is
parking time limits both on the street and within public parking lots. Because the Village
represents an older downtown area with many buildings providing no on-site parking, a
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 4 e
number of businesses are completely dependent upon on- and off-street public parking.
As “regular parkers”, business owners and employees have often parked in front of their
own or a neighboring business, which then reduces the amount of on-street customer
parking. Because of this behavior, many businesses competing for use of prime on-street
parking for customers have requested time limits, ranging from 20 minutes to 4 hours
over the past several years.
General Policv on Parkina Time Limits. The numerous requests for varying time limits
for on-street parking prompted staff to request policy direction from the Village Master
Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and
City CouncilElousing and Redevelopment Commission during preparation of the ViZlage
Master Plan and Design Manual, which began in 1992. The policy subsequently
established through the public review and hearing process was that all streets, including
alleys, within the core downtown area would be posted with two (2) hour parking time
limits; no other time limits were to be supported by Staff. Exhibit 1 provides a map of
the core downtown area and the approved two hour parking zone. This policy, however,
was subject to further review and formal processing as a City Ordinance to allow for full
enforcement.
Traffic Commission Recommendation. In October of 1997, a formal request was
processed through the City of Carlsbad’s Traffic Commission for a recommendation to
the City Council to approve establishment, or expansion, of the two hour parking zone
within the core downtown area. The Traffic Commission approved the recommendation
with the understanding that the two hour parking would be effective between the hours
of 7am and 6pm, Monday through Saturday. There would be no time limits on Sunday or
on Holidays, which is the existing situation. If the parking time limit is ultimately
approved by the City Council, customers, employees and business/property owners will
be required to park in off-street parking lots if they intend to remain in the area for longer
than two hours. The two hour parking restrictions and the related enforcement may
ultimately increase the demand for public parking (off-street) resources. However, it is
important to note that many of the streets within the core downtown area of the Village
are already restricted to two hour parking. The approved policy was an action to expand
the existing two hour parking zone and fill in the gaps within the existing area.
Enforcement of Time Limits. For time limits to be effective in providing the desired turn-
over in parking spaces for customers to the area, they must be strictly enforced. The
Police Department has indicated that it would be very difficult to strictly enforce time
limits within the Village Area without additional staff. Currently, the Police Department
has only one parking enforcement officer for the entire City. This person is already very
busy responding to complaints regarding abandoned vehicles and other parking issues
throughout the City. The Senior Volunteers are assisting in marking vehicles within the
Village Area. However, the enforcement officer is required to prepare the citation for any
parking violations. Therefore, an additional officer will most likely be required if strict
enforcement of time limits is desired within the Village. The Police Department currently
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 5 e
staffs parking enforcement with a Community Services OfJicer II. At this time, the
anticipated annual cost for employing an additional officer to enforce time limits within
the Village Area is $43,150 (including salary, benefits and overtime).
The Police Department has indicated that they are reluctant to strictly enforce time limits
on a regular and ongoing basis within the Village due to the considerable strain it places
on public relations between the government agency (especially the police) and the
community (specifically business owners and employees). This is a very important
consideration. In attempting to enforce existing time limits, the parking enforcement
officer has witnessed numerous actions by business owners and employees to sabotage
enforcement efforts. For example, according to the parking enforcement officer, business
owners and employees have “wiped marks off their tires” or “moved their vehicles
slightly forward to cover the time mark”. If the time limits are desirable, the Police
Department and the Redevelopment Agency believe the business owners and employees
will need to assist in the enforcement effort by showing their support through voluntary
compliance.
If time limits are to be strictly enforced, it must be understood that this action is generally
viewed as a negative form of parking resource management. Staff anticipates that strict
enforcement of the time limits will result in many negative reactions from business and
property owners, employees, customers and visitors to the area.
Free vs. Paid Curb Parking. An option to be considered as part of the program for
implementing time likits for on-street parking (or within public parking lots) in the core
downtown area is parking meters, or an alternate method for charging for curb parking.
This is also not a popular method for responding to a need to maintain adequate curb
parking, or manage parking resources. In fact, it is most often negatively equated with
pay toilets. However, it has been effective in many cities as a method for managing
public parking resources as well as funding enforcement and other parking
improvements. At a modest price of fifty cents an hour for eight hours each weekday, and
an 85 percent occupancy rate, one curb parking space with a parking meter would yield
$884 a year. At this estimated revenue level, the area would need only 50 parking meters
to recover the cost of a full-time parking enforcement officer. Although there are also
costs associated with installation and maintenance of parking meters or other systems of
collecting fees for curb parhng, many cities have discovered that the financial (and
resource management) benefits outweigh the capital or administrative costs of
implementing these type of systems.
Although staff is not recommending the installation of parking meters (or an alternate
method for collecting fees for curb parking) at this time, it is a widely used method for
managing and funding public parking resources which deserves consideration. Staff
would be remiss if this issue is not at least raised and given some discussion.
Consequently, the following information is provided for discussion purposes only.
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 6 e
In an article written by Donald C. Shoup for the Journal of the American Planning
Association, entitled “An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements”, Mr.
Shoup questions whether or not it is “fair to charge market prices for curb parking in
older commercial areas where small businesses rely on curb parking for their customers.”
Donald Shoup, who is a professor of Urban Planning in UCLA’s School of Public Policy
and Social Research, found that “market prices for curb parking will ensure that
everyone can park quickly, will favor higher occupancy vehicles, and will encourage
parking turnover.” He further states that “market-clearing prices will reduce the number
of parked cars by only enough to create a few curb vacancies, so a parking space will
never be hard to find.” A very interesting finding made by Professor Shoup is related to
the allocation of available curb spaces to those who are most willing to pay for them. Per
Professor Shoup, “market-clearing parking prices should attract customers who will
spend more, per hour they are parked, in the adjacent shops. By attracting more, and
higher-spending customers per curb parking space, market-clearing parking prices should
help rather than harm small businesses whose customers rely on curb parking. The
resulting revenue will also be available to spend on public improvements in the business
district where it is collected.”
Professor Shoup’s research and theory could be debated for years. However, it is apparent
that many “regular parkers” within the Village consider curb parking, in close proximity
to their destination, to have a premium value. The question then is: “Are shoppers,
business owners, or employees willing to pay for this premium parking to better ensure
its availability?” If so, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission and/or City Council
may wish to give seiious consideration to the installation of a fee system for curb or
public parking.
In recent years, many new design techniques and technologies have emerged to make it
easier for cities to meet their parking needs. Per an article written by Richard Rich in the
January, 1999 edition of American City and County, “new tools include such innovations
as ‘coinless’ parking meters and ‘master’ meters that serve multiple parking spaces,
thereby eliminating the clutter of dozens of meters.” Descriptions of these new
technologies are provided below:
Coinless Meters. These meters allow users to pay for parking with pre-paid debit
cards or credit cards. These type of meters can benefit businesses who distribute the
debit cards to their customers as an incentive to shop in their stores.
Master Meter. This is a single machine that can control parking revenues for an
unlimited number of spaces. Parkers note their space number and then pay at the
master meter using coins, dollar bills or debit or credit cards. These meters can
simplify enforcement. Rather than reading individual meters, officials can check the
status of dozens of vehicles by looking at just one meter. These type of meters do
have high installation costs. Consequently, they have not yet been widely used in the
United States. However, they are popular in Europe.
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 7 e
Mr. Richard Rich is the Executive Director of parking planning for Rich and Associates.
He states within his article that “parking can have a far-reaching effect on everything
from quality of life to economic growth, and it can serve as a moneymaker or a drain on
resources, depending on how it is managed.” As indicated within this report, staff
believes we need to take actions to better manage the parking resources available within
the Village Redevelopment Area before we consider the addition of parking facilities.
One of these actions may be the installation of a system to collect fees for premium curb
parking.
Issues Summary. Although the utilization studies indicate that there remains plenty of
public parking for use within the Village Area, parking spaces near the Commuter Rail
Station are heavily impacted by long term, regular parkers. Many Village business and
property owners have requested, and even demanded at times, that the City or
Redevelopment Agency take some action to reduce the impact created by the long term,
regular parkers. The request, or demands, include 1) action to construct additional public
parking spaces within parking structures; and, 2) action to implement and strictly enforce
short term parking on the street and within three public parking lots located in the core
downtown area.
In order to solve any perceived ‘parkingproblem” in the Village Area, staff believes it
will be necessary to combine any discussion on construction of new facilities with a
discussion on how to obtain better utilization of the existing, as well as potentially new,
public parking facilities. A discussion on managing public parking resources should also
include consideration of systems for charging a fee for prime curb parking, or parking
spaces within prime parking lots.
In developing this report, it was staffs intent to focus on a comprehensive approach to
addressing parking issues/concerns within the Village Redevelopment Area. Staff does
not believe that it is beneficial to approach the parking issues within the Village in
isolation and implement a “piece meal” plan. All of the issues are interrelated and are
most appropriately addressed in a comprehensive manner.
Primarv Pumose of Report. The primary purpose of this report is to provide the
information necessary to allow the City Council, acting as the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, to make the determination that there is adequate public
parking available within the Village Redevelopment Area at this time to allow for
immediate implementation of the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, as described within the
approved Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The secondary purpose of this report
is to focus on other parking issues related to the Village Redevelopment Area and to
develop a plan for encouraging better utilization and management of existing private and
public parking resources. In addition, a plan has been set forth to identify the potential
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 8 e
locations for future public parking resources and to establish a strategy for implementing
that plan when deemed appropriate and necessary.
ComDonents of Report. Sections 1 and 2 of this report provided an overview of the vision
for the Village Area, as related to key parking issues. The remainder of this report will
provide more specific information on the various components of this proposed
Comprehensive Parking Program for the Village. The components of the program
include the following:
0
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program.
Evaluations of existing utilization of off-street public parking resources.
Projections for future public parking resource needs.
Identification of possible locations for additional public parking resources.
Parking Time Limits in public parking lots and on the street.
Public Relations Program to encourage better use of public parking lots, and to
encourage more pedestrian activity within the Village Area.
Program to support better design and utilization of private parking resources.
As mentioned in the introduction to this report, the Vision for the Village Redevelopment
Area is one where a pedestrian-oriented environment is desired and the design of
buildings becomes more important than whether or not parking is provided on site. A
coordinated effort to providing parking resources is therefore desirable. However, the
Master Plan for the Redevelopment Area also recognizes that parking is important to the
area. Therefore, the parking programs must support both the desire to have pedestrians
walking throughout the Village and also provide for adequate parking opportunities. This
means that the Redevelopment Agency is challenged to establish programs which are
varied in their approach and concurrently address several components of the parking
issues. The first area of program focus for this report is on existing parking conditions as
related to implementation of the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program as well as other
potential parking policies or programs.
Parking Utilization Ratio. In considering whether or not there is adequate public parking
to support ongoing development activities with the Village Area, it is important to
consider what level of parking activity occurs frequently enough to justify providing
additional parking spaces, or simply maintaining the existing facilities. A balance is
required when determining the appropriate level of parking. It is not appropriate to build
for an average day but have insufficient supply for 50% of the days of the year.
Conversely, it is not appropriate to design for the peak accumulation that could
conceivably ever occur because this in effect will create too much parking. Often a peak
accumulation will occur for only an hour or so and does not require the same amount of
parking for the remainder of the day. Building parking facilities for a peak period results
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 9 e
in an unnecessary expense to both the private and public developer. Shared parking,
parking generation and other references generally suggest that parking
requirements be set using a design day at the 8Sh percentile of parking
accumulations.
In an effort to determine whether or not there is adequate public parking to initiate the
Parking In-Lieu Fee program, a consultant was hired to complete parking studies in the
Village Area. The consultant completed the studies in July of 1996. To confirm whether
or not those numbers were still accurate in August of 1997, City staff completed
additional parking counts in each of the public parking lots. Because this program report
was not complete by August of 1998, additional counts were conducted by staff for
further comparison purposes. The parking count information for the three year period
allowed staff to compare the utilization variations from one year to the next in the Village
Area. The results of the parking counthtudies are summarized below.
Public Parking Lots Summaw. Currently, there are a total of ten (10) public parking lots
within the Village Redevelopment Area, including the Commuter Rail Station Parking
Lot. Exhibit 2 to this report provides a locator map for those parking lots. The ten public
parking lots provided for a total of 540 parking spaces in 1996/97. All of these parking
lots are surface lots and provide for free public parking with no time limits. In 1997, 180
new public parking spaces were added to this supply for a total of 720 public parking
spaces in the Village Area located within off-street facilities with no time limits. It is
important to note that 35 of the existing public parking spaces within the parking lot
located east of the raiiroad tracks and south of Carlsbad Village Drive have been secured
for exclusive use by employees of the City’s Public Works Department who have their
office or work site at 405 Oak Avenue. These spaces are not available for general public
use during the hours from 6am to 6pm, Monday through Friday. They are, however,
available for public use after 6:00pm, Monday through Friday, and all day on Saturday,
Sunday and Holidays. Due to their limited availability, these spaces were not included in
the counts for public parking utilization purposes in 1997 or 1998.
1996 Public Parking Lot Counts. Existing public parking utilization counts were
conducted by Linscott, Law and Greenspan on Thursday, July 25, 1996 and Saturday,
July 27, 1996 at all ten public parking lots. Counts were recorded on an hourly basis
between loam and 8pm. These multiple hour counts were then analyzed to determine the
peak and average parking demands at each lot. Public parking lots at or above capacity
(which is considered to be 85% for full utilization) were identified.
The Thursday counts indicate that the average weekday occupancy of all ten lots was
56% (304 occupied236 available). With the exception of the public parking lots on
Washington Street (at Village Faire) and the small lot north of the old Train Depot
building, the counts indicated that all of the public parking lots had average occupancies
which were less than SO%, or less than the full utilization ratio of 85%. The Washington
Streemillage Faire lot had a 96% occupancy and the parking lot to the north of the Depot
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 10 et3
had a 97% occupancy. The peak weekday occupancy for all ten lots was 72% (387
occupied1 53 available) and it occurred at 1 :OOpm. At the peak occupancy, six of the ten
public parking lots remained below maximum capacity. The Commuter Rail Station
parking lot and the three public parking lots in close proximity to the station had peak
occupancies of 98% or greater.
Summary of the Thursday counts indicate that Lot G, which is the parking lot located
north of the old Train Depot and immediately south of the Commuter Rail Station, was at
capacity during ten of the eleven hours counted. Lot H which is the public parking lot
located on Washington Street, adjacent to the Village Faire Shopping Center, was at
capacity during the entire count period. Lot I, the Fountain Parking Lot at State and
Grand, was at capacity from loam to 4pm. Lot J which is the Commuter Rail Parking Lot
was at capacity from loam to 5pm.
The Saturday counts indicate that the average occupancy of all ten lots was 35% (190
occupied/350 available). With the exception of Lot H, which is the lot located adjacent to
Village Faire, all of the public parking lots had an average occupancy of less than the full
utilization ratio of 85%. Lot H (Village Faire) averaged 96% occupancy during the
Saturday count.
The peak Saturday occupancy of all ten lots combined was 45% (245 occupied295
available) and it occurred at 2:OOpm. At the peak time, eight of the ten lots were below
capacity. The remaining two lots, G (north of the old Train Depot) and I (fountain lot),
had peak occupancies near 100%. Lot G was at capacity during five of the ten hours
counted. Lot H (Village Faire) was at capacity during nine of the ten hours counted. Lot I
(fountain lot) was at capacity for six of the ten hours counted.
1997 Public Parking Lot Counts. Existing public parking counts were completed by
Engineering and Redevelopment Staff in August, 1997. Counts were made in the ten
public parking lots on Thursday, August 21 , 1997, Tuesday, August 26,1997, and Friday,
August 29, 1997. The counts were made at approximately lO:OOam, 12:OO noon, 2:OOpm
and 4:OOpm. Again, the counts completed by staff indicate that there is overall capacity in
the public parking lots for more vehicles. A summary of the staff counts is provided
below.
Thursday (8/21/97) counts indicate that the average weekday occupancy of all ten lots
was 69% (333 occupied/l52 available). The counts reflect that six (6) of the public
parking lots had an average occupancy that was 80% or less, which is less than the full
utilization ratio of 85%. The Washington StreetNillage Faire Lot (Lot H) had a 98%
average occupancy. The parking lot to the north of the old Depot (Lot G) and the
Fountain Lot (Lot I) had a 100% average occupancy. The Transit Station Lot (Lot J) was
also full, with a 99% average occupancy. The peak occupancy for all ten lots was 75%
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 11
(365 occupied120 available) and it occurred between 12:OOpm and 2:OOpm. At the peak
occupancy, five of the ten public parking lots remained below maximum capacity (85%).
The Commuter Rail Station parking lot and the four public parking lots in close
proximity to the station had peak occupancies of 88% or greater.
Summary of the Thursday counts indicate that Lots G and I, which are the parking lots
located north of the Old Train Depot and at the Fountain, were at capacity during the
entire count period. Lot H which is the public parking lot located on Washington Street,
adjacent to the Village Faire Shopping Center, and Lot J, the Commuter Rail Lot, were
very near capacity during the entire count period. Lot H was at capacity at 12:OOpm and
2:00pm, and only 1 or 2 spaces below full capacity at 10:OOam and 4:OOpm. Lot J
(Commuter Rail) was only 1 space below full capacity during the entire count period.
Tuesday (8/26/97) counts indicate that the average occupancy of all ten lots was 62%
(305 occupied/l80 available). Six of the ten public parking lots had an average occupancy
of less than the full utilization ratio of 85%. Lots G, H, I and J, which are those lots
located in close proximity to the Transit Station were at full occupancy 99% and 100%.
The peak Tuesday occupancy of all ten lots combined was 75% (366 dccupiecVl19
available) and occurred at 12:OOpm and.2:OOpm. At the peak time, five of the ten lots
were below capacity (85%). Lots G, H and I had peak occupancies at 100%. Lot F (south
of the Old DepotKONVIS Office) had a peak occupancy of 93%, which occurred at
12:OOpm. Lot J was 98% capacity at peak, and near capacity during the remaining period.
Friday (8/29/97) counts indicate that the average occupancy of all ten lots was 67% (326
occupied/l59 available). Five of the ten public parking lots had an average occupancy of
less than full utilization ratio of 85%. Lots F, G, H, I and J, which are those lots located in
close proximity to the Transit Station were at, or near full capacity with a range of 9 1 %
to 98% occupancy. The peak Friday occupancy of all ten lots combined was 75% (366
occupied1 19 available) and it occurred at 11/12:00pm and 2:OOpm. At the peak time,
five of the ten lots were below capacity (85%). Lots F, G, H and I had peak occupancies
at or near 100%. Lot F (south of Old DepotKONVIS Office) had a peak occupancy of
93%, which occurred at noon. Lot J was at 98% capacity at peak, and near capacity
during the remaining period.
1998 Public Parking Lot Counts. Additional counts were completed by Engineering and
Redevelopment Staff in August 1998 to update the previous counts and determine if the
condition has remained the same, or changed, over time (3 years). It should be noted that
the overall condition of Village parking improved in 1998 as related to the total number
of parking spaces provided due to the fact that North County Transit District completed
construction of an additional 180 parking spaces (approximately) at the Commuter Rail
Station. This increased the total number of public parking spaces available within the
Village to 720. For the purposes of the parking counts, it is important to note that staff
used 311 parking spaces at the Commuter Rail Station as the base number. In fact,
however, there are approximately 330 parking spaces, if we consider the spaces created
by NCTD along the alley way. These spaces were not counted because they are not
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 12 e
.-
striped. Depending on the size of the vehicle and the manner in which the car is parked,
however, the alley spaces may provide a total of 15 to 19 additional parking spaces. In
addition, as noted previously, staff did not count the 35 parking spaces secured for use by
City employees during the week.
The Tuesday (8/18/98) counts indicate that the average weekday occupancy of all ten lots
was 62% (410 occupied/256 available). With the exception of the public parking lots on
Washington Street (at Village Faire), the small lot north of the old Train Depot building
and the fountain lot, the counts indicated that all of the public parking lots had average
occupancies which were less than 78%, which is less than the full utilization ratio of
85%. The Washington StreetNillage Faire lot had a 98% occupancy. The parking lot to
the north of the Depot had a 100% occupancy. The fountain parking lot had a 92%
occupancy. The peak weekday occupancy for all ten lots was 67% (447 occupied219
available) and it occurred primarily during the lunch period from 12:OOpm to 2:OOpm. At
the peak occupancy, seven of the ten public parking lots remained below maximum
capacity. The Village Faire, north depot and fountain public parking lots had peak
occupancies of 92% or greater.
The Thursday (8/20/98) counts indicate that the average weekday occupancy of all ten
lots was 61% (408 occupied258 available). With the exception of the public parking lots
on Washington Street (at Village Faire), the small lot north of the old Train Depot
building and the fountain lot, the counts indicated that all of the public parking lots had
average occupancies which were less than 79%, which is less than the full utilization ratio
of 85%. The Washingion Streemillage Faire lot had a 96% occupancy. The parking lot
to the north of the Depot had a 100% occupancy. The fountain parking lot had a 92%
occupancy. The peak weekday occupancy for all ten lots was 67% (444 occupied222
available) and it occurred primarily during the lunch period fiom 12pm to 2pm. At the
peak occupancy, six of the ten public parking lots remained below maximum capacity.
The Village Faire, north and south depot and fountain public parking lots had peak
occupancies of 9 1 % or greater.
The Friday (8/21/98) counts indicate that the average weekday occupancy of all ten lots
was 60% (400 occupied266 available). With the exception of the public parking lots on
Washington Street (at Village Faire), the small lot north of the old Train Depot building
and the fountain lot, the counts indicated that all of the public parking lots had average
occupancies which were less than 72%, which is less than the full utilization ratio of
85%. The Washington Streemillage Faire lot had a 97% occupancy. The parking lot to
the north of the Depot had a 95% occupancy. The fountain parking lot had a 92%
occupancy. The peak weekday occupancy for all ten lots was 67% (464 occupied202
available) and it occurred primarily during the lunch period from 12pm to 2pm. At the
peak occupancy, seven of the ten public parking lots remained below maximum capacity.
The Village Faire, north depot and fountain public parking lots had peak occupancies of
92% or greater.
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 13 e
Summary of the average and peak occupancies for a weekday (Thursday) in the month of
August during 1996, 1997 and 1998 are as follows:
Avg. Weekday
Occupancy
Occupancy
Peak Weekday
r 1996 1997 1998
56% 69% 61%
72 Yo 75 yo 67%
As the chart above indicates, the utilization ratios have fluctuated over the three year
period, and actually decreased from 1997 to 1998. This decrease is most likely due to the
fact that the additional parking spaces (1 80) provided by North County Transit District
were fully available for use by August, 1998. It should also be noted that even at peak
occupancy the utilization ratio did not exceed 85%, which is considered a fhll utilization
ratio.
Review of the parking counts indicates that the most heavily impacted public parking lots
have consistently been those three located closest to the Commuter Rail Station - the
fountain parking lot, the north (old) depot parking lot and the parking lot located to the
east of Village FairelWashington Street (a@acent to Rotary Park). These lots are all
maintained and provided by the Redevelopment Agency andor City. Parking spaces
remain available within the Commuter Rail Parking Lot, provided by NCTD. However,
due to the fact that ,the impacted public parking lots are located in closer (walking
distance) proximity to the Station, they remain the choice for many commuter rail
patrons.
Parking. Duration Study. On Thursday, December 3, 1998, Engineering Staff completed a
Parking Duration Study of three of the public parking lots within the Village. These three
(3) lots were: 1) South Depot (old Depot) Parking Lot; 2) North Depot (old depot)
Parking Lot; and, 3) Fountain Parking Lot. The studies were conducted on the half hour
from 7:30am to 5:30pm. The results of this parking duration study are as follows:
South Depot Parking Lot. From the data, it was found that a total of 65 vehicles parked in
the 43 parking spaces during the 10 hour time period. Calculations indicated that the
average length of time a vehicle remained parked (average parking duration) was 5.5
hours per vehicle. The parking turnover rate was .15 vehicles per stall per hour. This rate
indicates that a large number of vehicles are being parked for long periods of time during
the day.
North Deuot Parking Lot. From the data, it was found that a total of 43 vehicles parked in
the 26 parking spaces during the 10 hour time period. Calculations indicated that the
average length of time a vehicle remained parked (average parking duration) was 6.5
hours per vehicle. The parking turnover rate was .17 vehicles per stall per hour. This rate
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 14 e
indicates that a large number of vehicles are being parked for long periods of time during
the day.
Fountain Parking Lot. From the data, it was found that a total of 19 vehicles parked in the
12 parking spaces during the 10 hour time period. Calculations indicated that the average
length of time a vehicle remained parked (average parking duration) was 6.1 hours per
vehicle. The parking turnover rate was .16 vehicles per stall per hour. This rate indicates a
large number of vehicles are being parked for long periods of time during the day.
Parking. Count Summarv. Although the total parking count varied from year to year, there
are some general conclusions that can be drawn from the parking statistics noted above.
First, at both non-peak and peak times, at least six to seven of the ten public parking lots
remain below a full utilization ratio of 85%. According to the parking counts, the only
public parking lots which exceed the full utilization ratio at any given time are: 1) the
Washington Street Lot, adjacent to Village Faire; 2) the North Lot at the Old
Depot/CONVIS Office; and 3) the Fountain Lot at the corner of Grand and State.
Although the South Lot at the Old DepotKONVIS was not fully utilized at all times
according to the parking counts, it is heavily impacted by long term, regular parkers per
the parking duration study.
Exhibit 3 summarizes the public parking facility counts made by the consultant and
RedevelopmentEngineering Staff during 1996, 1997 and 1998.
Implementation of the Village In-Lieu Fee Program. As indicated previously, 85% is
considered to be a full utilization ratio for a parking lot. Even at peak times, many of the
public parking lots within the Village Area remain at or below this full utilization ratio of
85%. With these findings, a determination can be made that there remains capacity within
many of the public parking lots to accommodate additional customer and/or
employeehusiness owner parking. This determination would allow the City Council,
acting as the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, to approve implementation of the
Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program as it relates to the accommodation of developers or
property owners who would like to construct new projects, or intensify existing uses,
within the Village. This action would allow developers/property owners an option for
meeting their parking requirement through execution of a shared use agreement with the
Redevelopment Agency to provide parking within public lots.
Public Perception. Even with the addition of 180 new public parking spaces by North
County Transit District, there continues to be concern expressed by many business
owners and/or employees that there is a shortage of parking within the Village Area,
specifically around the Commuter Rail Station. Again, staff believes that this represents a
parking proximity issue, rather than a parking capacity problem. Currently, there is not a
parking capacity shortage at the station. Many commuter rail patrons have simply chosen
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 15 e
not to use the new spaces provided by NCTD because they are located farther away from
the Station than the existing spaces they are utilizing within the public parking lots
provided by the Redevelopment AgencyKity of Carlsbad. Also, many customers,
business owners and employees in the Village will not use all of the new parking spaces
provided by NCTD because they are located “too far” from their businesses or point of
service.
The first program to be recommended for implementation within this report is the Village
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. The program description and fee proposal are described
below. In addition to a recommendation regarding the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, the
remainder of this report provides other suggestions and recommendations related to
parking within the Village Redevelopment Area.
Program Description. The Parking In-Lieu Fee Program as set forth within the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual allows developers an option for meeting an on-site
parking requirement. The Developer enters into an agreement with the Carlsbad
Redevelopment Agency which requires a payment to be made to the Agency to assist in
the provision of public parking. In practice, the agreement between the Developer and
Agency represents a shared parking arrangement which allows the Developer to satisfy a
portion, or in some cases all, of hisher parking requirement off site. The other options are
for the Developer to provide for all of hisher parking on site or within 300 feet of the
development, or to enter into a shared parking agreement with a private party. The funds
collected by the Agency will be used for costs associated with maintenance of existing
public parking lots, andor development of new public parking facilities within the
Village Area when deemed appropriate. At this time, the program will only be available
to property owners who have property in the Village Redevelopment Area and of the
railroad tracks. The California Coastal Commission did not agree to allow
implementation of the in-lieu fee program for any properties west of the railroad tracks
until more details could be provided on actual implementation of the program (ie., how
well it works and the amount of the fee).
Premise of Program. As developed, the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program works on
the premise that parking funds are pooled for all land use districts within the Village
Redevelopment Area to support the development and/or on-going maintenance of public
parking. Under the proposed program, the dollar amount to be paid by the Developer is
based upon a determination of the estimated cost of providing an above ground structured
parking space, including land, construction, soft costs and maintenance. The In-Lieu Fee
payment will be made according to the number of spaces required and approved for
participation in this program. The parking payment will always be made for a whole
parking space, rounded up. For example, if a developer has a requirement to provide 4.5
parking spaces, the in-lieu fee would be based on a total of 5 parking spaces. Since shared
Parking Program Report, Revised 1199
Page 16
--
parking is a concept supported by the ViIIage Master Plan and Design Manual, this
program is consistent with applicable goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Agency.
Key Features of the Program. The funds to be collected through this program will be
deposited into an earmarked, interest-bearing account to be used for construction of new,
or maintenance of existing, public parking facilities within the Village Redevelopment
Area only. The funds are pooled because all of the land use districts within the Village
share a common trade area and all are part of a coordinated revitalization strategy. A
public parking facility which may have direct benefit for one district will have indirect
benefits for other districts and for the Village Area as a whole.
It is very important to understand the following two' key features of the in-lieu fee
program:
1. The funds are applied toward development and/or maintenance, of slzared Village
public parking facilities. Participation in the program through an in-lieu payment does
not entitle any individual business to a reserved parking space within a public parking
lot. Reserved parking conflicts with the objective of maximizing the utility of all
parking resources.
2. The Parking In-Lieu payments alone will not equal the entire cost of constructing
new public parking facilities on a per space basis. The funds will need to be matched
or leveraged with other funding sources. The in-lieu payments reflect the fact that
public parking wiil be shared resulting in better utilization and relatively lower costs
in comparison to-the cost of exclusive on-site private parking.
Shared Parkina ConceDt. The shared parking concept recognizes that different land uses
routinely experience peak parking accumulation at different times of the day, week or
season and that parking spaces not occupied by one use can accommodate another nearby
use. The Parking In-Lieu Fee Program described herein reflects a sharedparking concept
that is very often quite beneficial to cities with densely developed business districts, such
as the Village Redevelopment Area. To revitalize the Carlsbad Village Area, property
improvements and new development needs to be encouraged. Some flexibility in how the
parking requirements are met is necessary to allow for this desired development in many
cases. The Parking In-Lieu Fee Program is one option available to allow for new and
intensified development.
In areas with mixed uses, such as those in the Village Redevelopment Area, parking
demand can often be reduced for the individual businesses due to the interrelationship of
the activities present. For example, in the Village, a person could park in a public parking
lot and then walk to several different types of businesses, such as the post office, a travel
agency, a hair salon, and then a restaurant. With no time in the public parking lots, this
person could stay in the Village for as long as he/she desires, walk around the Village,
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 17
and never be required to move hidher car. With this action, several businesses will
benefit from the public parking provided to the customer,
For the purposes of determining participation in the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee
Program, the Village has been divided into two parking zones as shown on Exhibit 5 of
this report. Developers/property owners will be eligible to participate in the program
according to the parking zone in which they are located.
Participation Limits within Zone 1. Within Zone #1 and east of the railroad tracks,
developers/property owners may be allowed to make an in-lieu fee payment for up to one
hundred percent (1 00%) of the on-site parking requirement for the proposed new
development, conversion and/or intensification of a desired use, if the property is located
within 600 feet of an existing public parking facility. If the property is not located within
600 feet of an existing public parking facility, but a new facility is proposed to be
constructed and available for use within a period of time not to exceed two years, a
developer/property owner will be eligible to make an in-lieu fee payment for up to 100%
of the on-site parking requirement. If the property is not, and will not soon be, located
within 600 feet of an existing or proposed public parking facility, a developer/property
owner will be eligible to make an in-lieu fee payment for a maximum of 50% of the on-
site parking requirement.
Participation Limits *ithin Zone 2. Within Zone #2 and east of the railroad tracks,
developers/property owners may be allowed to make an in-lieu fee payment for up to fifty
percent (50%) of the on-site parking requirement for the proposed new development,
conversion and/or intensification of a desired use, if the property is located within 600
feet of an existing public parking facility. If the property is not located within 600 feet of
an existing public parking facility, but a new facility is proposed to be constructed and
available for use within a period of time not to exceed two years, a developer/property
owner will be eligible to make an in-lieu fee payment for up to 50% of the on-site parking
requirement. If the property is not, and will not soon be, located within 600 feet of an
existing or proposed public parking facility, a developer/property owner will be eligible
to make an in-lieu fee payment for a maximum of 25% of the on-site parking
requirement.
Findings to Allow Participation in Program. Before any developer/ property owner is
allowed to participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, the following findings must
be made by the appropriate approving body:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual; and
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 18 6b
2. The proposed use is consistent with the land use district in which the property is
located; and
3. Adequate public parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project's
parking demand; and
4. The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
Actions Required to Implement Program. In order to implement the In-Lieu Fee Program,
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission must take the following actions:
1. Determine that there is adequate public parking in the Village Area to initiate the
program based on a full utilization ratio of 85%; and
2. Set the In-Lieu fee for the program.
Within this report, staff is recommending that the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission take action to initiate the program on a year to year basis. On an annual
basis, staff will provide information on parking counts for the public parking lots,
recommend an appropriate utilization ratio, and then request that the Commission either
continue or suspend the in-lieu fee parking program based on the adequacy of public
parking. Each year the Commission will be allowed to review the fee and determine its
continued appropriatehess for implementation purposes. If during the annual review the
Commission determines that there is not adequate public parking to continue the
program, the Commission may suspend further participation until additional public
parking is constructed in the Village. The Commission may also adjust the fee during this
annual review of the program.
Finding of Adequate Parking. Based on the parking counts, staffs analysis of the current
utilization of public parking resources within the Village Redevelopment Area, and use of
an 85% full utilization ratio, staff is recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission that a finding be made that there is adequate public parking within the
Village Redevelopment Area to allow for immediate implementation of the Parking In-
Lieu Fee Program as set forth within the VilIage Master Plan and Design Manual. The
following discussion will focus on establishment of the appropriate fee to be charged for
participation in the program.
The Parking In-Lieu Fee Program provides an option for developers/property owners who
are unable to meet some or all of their parking requirement on site. Therefore, staff
believes that the appropriate fee should be based on the cost of actually producing a
public parking space with a parking structure or surface level lot. Staff has calculated the
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 19
fee two ways - first on construction of a space within a parking structure and second on
construction within a surface parking lot.
Housing and Redevelopment Commission Parking Payment, or Fee Setting, Policy. With
adoption of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the City Council and Housing
and Redevelopment Commission approved a Policies and Procedures Manual which
established a policy for how to set the payment amount, or fee, for the Village Parking In-
Lieu Fee Program. The policy states that the In-Lieu Fee payment for each parking space
required to meet an on-site parking obligation for a private development shall be set at
one third of the estimated cost of producing a new public parking space within an above
ground parking structure. The justification for setting the payment amount at one third of
the cost of producing a new public parking space is 1) public parking is partly a
responsibility of the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency as a redevelopmenthevitalization
activity for the Area; 2) public parking should be partially subsidized to promote
redevelopment activities; and 3) public parking lots operate on a “shared use” basis; some
businesses have greater demand for public parking in the morning and others in the
afternoon or evening. No property or business owner will have exclusive use of a public
parking space. Since a property or business owner making a payment for the provision of
public parking will not have exclusive use of the parking space, the individual property or
business owner should not be required to bear the entire cost of producing the space(s); it
should be a shared financial arrangement.
Within the approved policy, the estimated cost of construction for an above ground
parking structure was selected as the base figure for determining the Parking In-Lieu Fee
because:
1.
2.
Land costs within the Village are high. Due to the high land costs, it is more cost
effective for public parking lots to be constructed within structures rather than surface
lots. Although structures are actually more expensive to construct and maintain than
surface lots, parking structures offer the opportunity to provide a greater number of
total parking spaces and ultimately reduce the per space land cost for producing
public parking spaces.
Construction of an undergroundkubtenanean parking structure was not considered to
be an appropriate basis for setting the Parking In-Lieu Fee because this type of
parking is much more expensive to produce and most likely will not be pursued by
the Redevelopment Agency, unless part of a joint public/private partnership. It is
estimated that undergroundsubterranean parking can cost as much as 1.5 to 2 times
the costs of above ground structures. Therefore, it was determined that a
business/property owner wishing to participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program
should not be required to bear the additional cost associated with constructing a
subterranean or semi-subterranean public parking lot.
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 20 6b
Consultant Comments on the Fee Setting Policv. Staff requested that the private
consultant (Linscott, Law and Greenspan) hired to complete the parking utilization study
within the Village Redevelopment Area also comment on the formula established by the
Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency for setting the Parking In-Lieu Fee. Staff requested that
the consultant indicate whether or not the formula seemed reasonable and was consistent
with industry standards. Per the consultant, the formula developed by the Redevelopment
Agency is reasonable. The consultant additionally indicated that there is no typical cost
split for in-lieu fee programs. Agencies typically develop their own cost split depending
on who needs in-lieu parking, why they need it and what funding is available to the
Redevelopment Agency to subsidize the in-lieu fee program. The consultant found
through research that it is not uncommon to require the property/business owner or
developer to pay 100% of the cost of producing the public parking space. However, a
wide range of formulas have also been used from one-fourth of the cost, to one half, to
hll cost recovery.
Based on the information provided by the consultant, staff continues to recommend that
the formula for the parking in-lieu fee remain at one-third of the total cost of producing a
single public parking space within a parking structure and for maintenance of it over a
thirty year period. Initially, maintenance costs were not considered in the proposed
formula. However, because there is an ongoing cost for maintenance of parking facilities,
staff believes that a maintenance cost should be included in the calculation of the fee for
equity purposes. A private property owner would be required to pay for maintenance of a
parking facility if constructed on hisher own private property. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to have the property owner pay a portion of the maintenance cost, if he/she
elects to go off-site to satisfy a parking requirement within a public lot.
Calculation of Fee Amount as Related to Parking Structures. Linscott, Law and
Greenspan (consultant) assisted staff with calculating the cost of producing two separate
public parking structures within the Village Redevelopment Area in an effort to identify
an appropriate paymentlfee to be set for the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. The total cost
of developing two parking structures (one on Roosevelt Street and the other on NCTD
property) that provide for a total of 4 10 public parking spaces, with a net increase of 250
public parking spaces, is estimated to be $13,820,700. This total cost figure includes land
acquisition, construction and maintenance of the spaces within the parking structures for
a thirty year period, The cost per public parking space to be constructed and maintained
within the proposed parking structures I and I1 is estimated to be $33,709. The cost per
space without maintenance was estimated to be $15,985. Details of these cost estimates
are provided in Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 11, and further explained in Section 11 of this
report.
Using the parking structure per space cost of $33,709 and the one-third cost sharing
formula described above, the in-lieu fee would amount to $11,240 (rounded up) per
parking space required by the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. As an example of
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 2 1 e
how this would be applied, if a propertyhusiness owner had to pay a fee for 10 parking
spaces total, the total one-time fee to be paid to the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency
would be $1 12,400. The propertyhusiness owner would not have a separate ongoing
expense related to operation and/or maintenance of these parking spaces. The fee can be
ultimately recovered by the propertyhusiness owners from additional revenue which
could be generated through the construction of a larger building on a private site. As a
general rule, the City will also obtain additional revenue through increased property tax
and sales tax as a result of more building space. Exhibit 7 provides an example of how
providing parking off-site can be a benefit to both the propertyhusiness owner as well as
the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency and the City of Carlsbad.
An alternate to calculating the fee as noted above, which includes maintenance costs for
30 years, is to consider only the cost of construction of a parking space within an above
ground parking structure. The cost of construction alone for a single parking space within
an above ground parking structure is estimated to be $15,985 (rounded up). Using this
parking structure per space cost of $15,985 and the one-third cost sharing formula, the in-
lieu fee would amount to $5,328 per space required. Under this scenario, if a developer or
property owner had a 10 space requirement that he/she would like to meet off-site within
a public parking lot, the total in-lieu fee cost would result in a one-time payment of
$53,283.
The lower in-lieu fee would be more palatable to developers and/or property owners.
However, if selected, there must be an understanding that the City would assume full
financial responsibility for all costs related to long-term maintenance of the public
parking structures. The developer/property owner would not share in the long-term
maintenance cost.
Calculation of In-Lieu Fee as Related to Surface Level Parking. For comparison
purposes, staff has also provided in-lieu fee calculations based on the construction of
surface ZeveZ public parking lots, with and without maintenance costs, for a thirty year
period. If this calculation is selected, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission will
need to take action to revise its Policies ana' Procedures ManuaZ to reflect this alternate
method for determining the Parking In-Lieu Fee payment.
It is important to note before proceeding that the surface level parking analysis is based
on the construction of a total of 250 public parking spaces on new (additional) property
within the Village. The previous analysis on parking structures was based on construction
of 4 10 public parking spaces due to the fact that 160 existing parking spaces would need
to be reconstructed to produce the identified public parking structures, and create 250
additional public parking spaces.
The total cost of developing surface level parking lots that provide for a total of 250 new
public parking spaces, is estimated to be $6,423,000. This total cost figure includes land
acquisition, construction and maintenance of the spaces within the parking lots for a
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 22 e
thirty year period. The cost per public parking space to be constructed and maintained
within the proposed surface parking lots is estimated to be $25,692. The cost per space
without maintenance was estimated to be $20,335. Details of these cost estimates are
provided in Exhibit 13.
Using the surface level parking per space cost of $25,692 and the one-third cost sharing
formula described above, the in-lieu fee would amount to $8,500 (rounded up) per
parking space required by the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. As an example of
how this would be applied, if a propertyhsiness owner had to pay a fee for 10 parking
spaces total, the total one-time fee to be paid to the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency
would be $85,000.
As in the fee calculations for parking structures, an alternate to calculating the fee as
noted above, which includes maintenance costs for 30 years, is to consider only the cost
of construction of a parking space within a surface level lot. The cost of construction
alone for a single parking space within a surface level public parking lot is estimated to
be $20,335. Using this per space cost of $20,335 and the one-third cost sharing formula,
the in-lieu fee would amount to $6,700 per space required. Under this scenario, if a
developer or property owner had a 10 space requirement that he/she would like to meet it
off-site within a public parking lot, the total in-lieu fee cost would result in a one-time
payment of $67,000.
Again, the lower in-lieu fee related to construction of surface parking lots, with or
without maintenance costs, would be more palatable to developers and/or property
owners. However, it h very unlikely that the City or Agency will produce additional
surface level parking within the core downtown area because this would require the
removal of existing buildings or development on vacant lots. Since the goal of the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual is to encourage, and even facilitate, the development of
new buildings or private business structures for revitalization purposes, it would not be
appropriate for the Redevelopment Agency to take prime real estate and build a public
parking facility. This action would only be appropriate if the facility was constructed in
conjunction with private commercial or residential development. It is important to note,
however, that a joint private/public venture would most realistically result in construction
of parlung structures rather than surface level public parking lots.
If the Council were to set the In-Lieu Fee according to the estimates for constructing a
surface level public parking lot, the fee would need to be approved with the
understanding that the City or Redevelopment Agency would assume the additional
(substantial) cost of constructing the parking spaces in a structure if that is ultimately
deemed most appropriate.
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 23 e
The following chart provides a summary of the various fee calculations noted above:
- Parking Assumption Total Cost Per Space Cost Payment
Structure w/ 30yr. Maint $13,820,700 $33,709 $11,240
Structure w/o 30yr. Maint $6,553,700 $15,985 $5,328
Surface w/ 30 yr. Maint $6,423,000 $25,692 $8,500
Surface w/o 30 yr. Maint $5,083,000 $20,335 $6,700
Economies of Scale. In assuming the responsibility for producing additional parking
spaces through use of the in-lieu fee revenues, the City of Carlsbad or Redevelopment
Agency will take advantage of some economies of scale. As indicated above, the in lieu
fee is reduced on a per parking space basis when the comparison is made between parking
structures and surface level parking lots. This is due to the fact that parking structures are
more costly to build and maintain overall. However, it should be noted that the total cost
is still relatively high for surface parking lots due to the high cost of land within the
Village Redevelopment Area. For smaller surface levels lots, the land costs remain high
per parking space simply because there are not as many spaces to share the cost. This is
most clearly reflected in the varying costs per space when maintenance is removed as a
cost factor. As shown above, when considering construction and land costs only (with no
allowance for maintenance costs), the parking payment would be nearly $1400 less per
space under the parking structure scenario.
Benefits. As indicated above, the benefits to the propertyhusiness owner (and perhaps the
Agency and City) in barticipating in the parking in-lieu fee program is that he/she will
ultimately be able to build a larger building, if all of the parkmg does not need to be
constructed on site. As stated above, the Vision for the Village is to provide for visually
interesting buildings with successful businesses located in them. The Parking In-Lieu
Program will allow for the development of more visually appealing buildings and
provide for a more lucrative business venture due to the increase in revenue producing
commercial space.
Development or intensification of desired uses needs to be encouraged within the Village
Redevelopment Area in order for revitalization efforts to continue. The Redevelopment
Agency, the City and the businesses within the Village will benefit from revitalization
activities. The requirement to meet an entire parking requirement on-site, without
options, has stifled development within the Village and is ultimately detrimental to
future revitalization efforts. This matter has been raised as an issue of concern by
developers and propertyhusiness owners in the Village since the late 1970s. The Village
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program offers a desirable option which may make new
development, or intensification of a desired use, possible or more feasible.
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 24 e
As already indicated within this report, there is currently not a parking capacity problem
within the Village Redevelopment Area. Therefore, staff has proposed that the Parking
In-Lieu Fee Program be implemented by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
taking action to set the appropriate paymendfee amount. Although there is not currently a
parking capacity problem, it is important to consider the future demand that could be
generated for parking if development occurs as anticipated with the assistance of the
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program.
Using the applicable parking rates for each individual land use, in conjunction with the
current parking lot counts, residual off-site parking demands were calculated by Linscott,
Law and Greenspan assuming: 1) no shared parking; 2) weekday with shared parking;
and, 3) Saturday with shared parking.
For clarification purposes, shared parking is generically used to define both shared
parking and mixed-use parking. This report also uses that generic definition. Technically,
however, shared parking is a time of day phenomena where two “unrelated” land uses can
share the same parking space because they need it at different times of the day. For
example, offices need parking during the day and hotels need parking at night, therefore
they could share the same parking lot. Mixed-use parking is a synergy phenomena where
two or more land uses help to support each other. For example, a customer parks to shop
and then eat at a nearby restaurant.
Future Parkine: Demand. Linscott, Law and Greenspan calculated future parking demand
within the Village based on land uses, intensity, parking rates and projected new
development. Using the existing average number of available spaces to help
accommodate future development means that there may be future parking shortages
during any hour of the day that the actual demand exceeds the average demand. This may
occur mid-day during the week and all day and evening on Saturdays. Using this
assumption, the consultant created a chart, provided as Exhibit 8, which indicates that
420 additional off-site parking spaces will need to be provided in the future if no shared
parking arrangements are assumed and development occurs as anticipated by the
consultants who prepared the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. With a shared
parking assumption, there is a calculated need for about 250 additional (new) parking
spaces on weekdays and about 89 new parking spaces on Saturday. This need for
additional parking spaces is based on the assumption that new development will occur. If
no new development occurs, there may not be a need for additional public parking unless
utilization ratios increase within the existing public parking lots.
As indicated previously, the parking philosophy set forth for the Village Redevelopment
Area is that shared parking arrangements should be encouraged because the vision for the
Village is one which supports the development of interesting buildings rather than large
areas of asphalt parking lots. With a shared parking philosophy in mind, per the
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 25 e
Consultant, the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency should appropriately plan for the
development of at least 250 new public parking spaces within the next 5 to 10 years in
order to allow additional development to continue to occur and to accommodate the
projected need for parking as related to this new development and permitted participation
in the In-Lieu Fee Program. At this time, Staff is not requesting approval of a specific
parking structure or other facility. All construction projects will be presented for review
and action at a later date. This report, however, will identify the various locations that
staff believes could accommodate parking structures in the future.
Tourist Impact on Parking. This report has not considered the potential impacts of an
increase in tourist activity in the Village as a result of the development of the Legoland
Family Park and other potential new tourist attractions within the City of Carlsbad. While
those tourist attractions may have a future impact on the Village Area in terms of parking,
the primary focus of this study and program development has been on the ability of the
public parking lots within the Village to accommodate existing development as well as
the demands which may be created for additional public parking as a result of new
development in the Village at a future date. ‘
Staff believes that the parking and transportation service demands created by tourists
should initially remain separate from the issue of providing public parking to encourage
new commercial, residential, or office development within the Village Area. For
redevelopment or revitalization efforts, it is important to focus on development or land
use needs. However, staff does realize that tourists do have an impact on the Village Area
and issues related to these impacts will eventually need to be addressed. Staff is therefore
suggesting that the issues be treated separately. If so desired, the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission could instruct staff to study the impacts on the Village Area
subsequent to the opening of the Legoland Family Park in March, 1999, and then prepare
a plan to address those impacts at a future date.
It is staffs understanding that studies completed to date on the potential impacts of the
Legoland Family Park indicate that the most heavily impacted areas will be those
immediately surrounding the Park and within a few miles of it. For example, it can be
anticipated that the hotels and restaurants on Palomar Airport Road, Paseo Del Norte and
Avenida Encinas will realize the greatest impact andor financial benefit from the opening
of the Park. Generally, it is believed that those visitors enjoying the park will be primarily
“day trippers”. Although we also anticipate that some families or visitors will make
Carlsbad their vacation destination and stay for periods longer than a day, we do not
believe that all of the visitors to the Park can be expected to take time to visit the Village
Area on any single day. Therefore, staff has not anticipated the impact of the Park on
Village Area parking to be as great as the total numbers projected for visitors to
Legoland. It is staffs position that it would be best to simply wait and measure the
impact on the Village Area as related to parking needs after the Legoland Family Park
has opened and been operational for several months.
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 26 eh
Although this report does not take into account the potential impacts on the Village as
related to the opening of the Legoland Family Park, it is important to note that the
parking counts completed by the consultant and staff were made during the summer and
have taken into account any existing tourist related public parking lot demand in addition
to the local resident'visitor parking needs. Therefore, staff feels confident that the current
tourist demand for parking is accurately reflected in the noted parking counts and has
been taken into consideration in determining whether or not there is adequate public
parking to initiate the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program.
With the estimated need for an additional 250 parking spaces to be provided in future
years to accommodate calculated demand based on projected new development,
additional new parking lots or structures may eventually be needed. It is important to note
that the need for new parking facilities in the Village is separate from the parking needs
of the Commuter Rail Station.
Commuter Parking. Based on the parking counts and recent activities, clearly the
Commuter Rail patrons are encroaching on the free, long-term parking that currently
exists in the Village and is intended for Village patrons. The Village Area must address
these parking demands by 1) accepting the encroachments, 2) by implementing time
limits in the area of influence to reduce the attractiveness to Commuter Rail patrons,
and/or 3) by working.to provide more convenient parking at the Commuter Rail Station,
perhaps through a parking structure. With the development of the additional 180 parking
spaces by North County Transit District, there is much more parking at the Station
(approximately 330 spaces total). However, we have found recently that some of the
parking spaces provided by the District (those located to the far northern end of the
parking lot) are not as convenient as the public parking lots on Grand Avenue. Therefore,
it may be necessary to implement time limits within the public parking lots on Grand
Avenue to encourage the Commuter Rail patrons to use the new parking provided by the
District. It should be noted that time limits will also have an impact, both positive and
negative, on customers, business owners and employees in the Village. The
recommendation for implementation of time limits both on the street and within some of
the public parking lots located in the core downtown area will be discussed in further
detail later within this report.
Parking Structures. To accommodate the additional projected demand for new public
parking spaces in the future, two parking structures were proposed by Linscott, Law and
Greenspan. Exhibit 9 indicates- the proposed location for these two parking structures.
Since most of the new development is anticipated to occur within the core downtown
area, which is bordered by Carlsbad Boulevard (west), Beech (south), Madison (east) and
Oak Avenue (north), the two new structures are proposed to be located within this same
area. The first location is on the east side of Roosevelt Street, between Carlsbad Village
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 27
Drive and Grand Avenue, across from the current location of the Housing and
Redevelopment Office. The second location is on North County Transit District property
on the current site of the Commuter Rail Station parking lot, just north of the station
building.
It should be noted that the two sites identified for parking structures currently provide for
a total of approximately 160 public parking spaces. These spaces would be reconstructed
within the public parking structures. This is important to note for two reasons. First, the
160 spaces (and perhaps additional public parking) would not be available for use while
the parking structure is under construction. Second, the costs associated with construction
of a parking structure include the cost of reconstruction of existing public parking spaces.
This cost will be much higher. However, the land costs would be reduced overall due to
the fact that only a small portion of additional land would need to be purchased to
accommodate the structures at the noted site. The Redevelopment Agency currently owns
a majority of the property required for the first noted parking structure on Roosevelt
Street. North County Transit District owns the second site.
For information purposes, additional details on the proposed parking structures are
provided below.
Parking Structure I - Roosevelt Street. The first proposal for a new parking facility
includes a three story parking structure to be built with a total of 260 parking spaces, with
one level most likely located below ground level. The proposed location is on the east
side of Roosevelt Stieet, between Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue, at the
current site of existing public parking. The selection of this site assumes that the City or
Redevelopment Agency will be able to acquire 2 additional parcels of land. The two
additional lots together with the property currently owned by the Redevelopment Agency,
and used for public parking, would provide adequate space for the proposed three story
parking structure.
In the proposal for Parking Structure I, it is assumed that there will be commercial or
retail areas fronting on Roosevelt Street and Carlsbad Village Drive at street level.
Although the proposed parking structure could provide for a total of 260 spaces, a net of
only 150 new parking spaces would be added to the current parking supply; this is
because there are currently 110 public parking spaces in the two lots located on the site.
In the Redevelopment Agency’s Five Year Spending Plan, it is anticipated that the
Agency will purchase the two properties identified above. To date, the Agency has not
been successful in its attempts to purchase the properties on the open market. The Agency
will continue its efforts to obtain ownership of the properties. However, it is important to
note that this acquisition will not be facilitated by the use of eminent domain through the
Redevelopment Agency. The Agency’s eminent domain powers expired in 1993, as set
forth in the Village Redevelopment Plan adopted in 198 1. If not successful in purchase,
the Agency will attempt to obtain long term lease arrangements or work with the private
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 28 e
property owners in an effort to facilitate development of public parking together with
commercial development on the subject site.
Parkinrr Structure I1 - Carlsbad VillaPe Commuter Rail Station. The proposal for the
second new parking facility includes a three story parking structure to be built with 150
parking spaces on a portion of the current Commuter Rail Station surface lot. A net of
100 spaces would be gained, assuming that 50 spaces within the current surface lot would
be included within the structure. These spaces would be in addition to the 180 new spaces
made available to the public by North County Transit District.
Staff has had some preliminary discussions with North County Transit District staff
regarding this proposal to build a parking structure on their property to serve the general
public as well as patrons of the Coaster. District Staff has indicated some general interest
in a joint venture. However, there have been no formal approvals provided, nor have there
been any specific details discussed between the City and the District. For this
development to occur, the City will need to work closely with the District and develop a
project which can be mutually supported by both parties.
Increase in Public Parkinq The above two parking structures are recommended by the
Consultant who studied the Village Parking conditions and the proposed Parking In-Lieu
Fee Program. Based on current and projected demand for parking, the Consultant
determined that the two locations noted above are the most appropriate locations for
additional parking within the Village. The consultant determined that the two proposed
sites are adequate in'size to support the two subject parking structures. If these two
proposed parking structures are constructed, the supply of off-street public parking within
the Village would be increased to 970 spaces total.
In addition to the two structures proposed by the Consultant, Staff has identified several
additional locations which could be pursued, as deemed appropriate, to increase the
inventory of public parking spaces within the Village Area in future years. Each of these
additional proposals include the construction of parking structures on lots which already
include parking spaces within the core downtown area. Further detail regarding these
potential locations for additional structured parking is provided below.
\
Potential Additional Sites for Public Parking Structures. Although the following
proposals have not yet been closely studied to determine their feasibility, staff has
identified additional locations which might be potential sites for development of one or
more parking structures. It is important to note that two of the proposed sites are on North
County Transit District Property, and there has been no agreement between the City and
the District for development of parking structures on them. However, it is staffs
understanding that the District is currently developing a Business Plan, which upon
completion is anticipated to include an identification of property that could potentially be
sold for development purposes. It is possible that some of the District property might be
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 29
em9
available at a later date for purchase by the City or Redevelopment Agency which may
make construction of one or more parking structures a feasible alternative.
Following is a brief description of each potential location and a rough estimate of the
development that might be possible as related to a parking structure.
Structures A/B: One or two parking structures could potentially be built with an estimated
total of 260 to 320 parking spaces on NCTD property, where existing public parking
surface lots are currently located. One of the existing lots is located between the railroad
tracks and State Street, south of Carlsbad Village Drive, and the second is located on the
property west of the railroad tracks between Washington Street and the railroad tracks,
south of Carlsbad Village Drive. A net of 143 to 200 spaces could be gained, assuming
that 120 spaces within the two current surface lots would be included within the proposed
parking structures. The proposal for these parking structures assumes that the City would
in fact be able to purchase the property from NCTD or at least obtain a long term lease at
a reasonable cost.
Structure C: A two level structure, or perhaps a three level structure with one level
underground, could potentially be built within the block from Washington Street to
Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Grand Avenue (across the street from Village Faire). This
proposed structure may provide for a total of 125 to 230 new public parking spaces, with
a net increase of approximately 35 to 140 additional public parking spaces. This proposal
makes the following assumptions:
Maintenance of 90 parking spaces for Village Faire to assist in the satisfaction of the
retail center parking requirement.
The City or Redevelopment Agency will be able to purchase, or obtain a long term
lease, for the subject property at a reasonable cost.
The Village Faire Shopping Center will share a portion of the construction cost for
the new structure and a portion of the annual cost of maintaining the structure after
construction.
The Village Faire Shopping Center is currently available for purchase. Staff has spoken to
several different parties who have expressed interest in acquisition of the retail center.
Due to the pending action to sell the project, staff has had no formal discussions with the
property owners of Village Faire, or the owners of the properties identified for the
proposed parking structure, regarding this proposal. To determine the feasibility of a
parking structure at this site, there will need to be more substantial discussions with all of
the property owners involved as well as the new owners of Village Faire.
Structure D: A two level structure, or perhaps three level with two levels underground
and one at surface level, could potentially be built within the block bordered by Carlsbad
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 30
Boulevard (east), Garfield (west), Grand Avenue (north) and Carlsbad Village Drive
(south). This proposal could provide for a total number of parking spaces anywhere from
200 to 374 parking spaces, with a net new increase of 100 to 274. This proposal assumes
that 100 of the total spaces provided would be needed to meet the requirements of the
private properties within the area, and participating with the Redevelopment Agency or
City in this project. The proposal for this parking structure assumes that an appropriate
joint venture arrangement can be negotiated between the private property owner(s) of the
subject property and the City of Carlsbad andor the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency for
construction of the parking structure. The current owners of the Town Square property
have indicated an interest in participating with the Redevelopment Agency in the
development of a publidprivate parking structure at this location. However, no specifics
have been discussed as of this date, and no project has been submitted for review.
Size of Property
(Square Feet)
East: 32,879sf
West: 19,350sf
Approx. 25,100sf
Approx. 70,850sf
Exhibit 10 identifies the location of the additional (potential) parking structures proposed
by staff and described above.
Spaces Possible Spaces Possible at
at 320 sf per stall 400 sf per stall
200 165
120 96
(2 level) (2 level)
230 190
(3 levels) (3 levels)
3 06 246
(2 levels (2 levels
surface level) surface level)
underground + 68 underground + 54
The chart provided below indicates how staff calculated the range of parking spaces
which could be potentially created within the proposed additional parking structures A-D:
Potential Parking
Structure
Location
AB:
East & West Side
of RR Tracks,
south of Carlsbad
Village Drive
C:
Grand Avenue,
north of Village
Faire
D:
Carlsbad
Boulevard, off
Garfield, between
Grand and
Carlsbad
Villaee Drive
Maximum ## of
parking spaces
200
120
320 Total
(120 spaces
existing in current
lots; net 200 public
pkg spaces)
230
(90 spaces in
existing private
lot; net 140 addtl
public pkg spaces
3 74
(assume 100
spaces for private
development; net
274 public pkg
spaces)
Approval of this report does not make a commitment to construct any of the parking
structures noted above. With further analysis and negotiations with the appropriate
property owners and other related parties, one or more of these parking structures may be
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 3 1 e
feasible to construct in the future. If all of these sites are considered acceptable locations
for parking structures, staff can pursue development of these facilities as deemed
appropriate or as opportunities are presented to the Redevelopment Agency and/or City.
Concerns about Parking Structures. In an effort to provide as much information at this
time for consideration of parking-related concerns in the Village, staff would like to share
some issues associated with the construction of parking structures. To ensure that a
parking structure meets community needs, it is important for consideration to be given to
the following:
I. Accessibility of the facility.
2. Ease of entering and exiting.
3. Circulation.
4. Parking and “Unparking”.
In designing any off-street parking facility, the elements of good customer service and
convenience and minimum interference with street traffic flow must be given top
priority. If parking facilities are not easy to use or access, they will not be successful
because they will not be used.
Before proceeding with the construction of a parking facility, the City or Agency will
need to give serious consideration to the design. It will be important to design a facility
which blends with the Village character desired for the area, and meets the community
needs in terms of access, ease of use, and parking dimensions. According to the
Transportation and Traflc Engineering Handbook, “Good dimensions and ease of
internal circulation are more important than trying to get a few additional spaces in a
facility. Better sight distance, maneuverability, traffic flow, parking ease, and circulation
are the result of a well-organized, adequately designed lot or garage.”
Each of the proposals noted above for potential parking structures will need to be fully
evaluated from a design standpoint to determine the most appropriate sites. Among other
factors, Parking Structure Design must consider the following:
1. Site Characteristics, such as size, shape, and topography.
2. Access points. The location of entry and exit points is more critical in the design of
a parking structure because of the increased number of spaces available.
3. Dominant type .of “Parker”, short-term or long-term.
4. Number of floors and interfloor travel systems. In determining the number of
floors, the City or Agency will need to consider the height of adjacent buildings. In
the Transportation and TrafJic Engineering Handbook it is noted that “many drivers
develop a feeling of acrophobia in taller garages, particularly when they are driving
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 32 e%
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
at a level above the rooftops of adjacent buildings.” Since there are many one story
buildings within the Village Area, this design feature will need to be given serious
consideration. The structure may need to be designed to limit the driver’s view of
surroundings while seated in the vehicle.
Structural System for the facility. There are basically four types of structural
systems: structural steel, poured-in-place concrete, precast concrete, and post-
tensioned concrete. To complete an analysis of the type of structural system to be
used, the City or Agency will need to consider building code requirements,
maintenance costs, availability of materials, shipping distance and costs, availability
of contractors experienced in each structural system, and environmental and
atmospheric conditions.
Lighting and Electrical Systems. Good lighting is necessary to aid safety of
movement and to discourage vandalism or acts of violence.
Drainage and Waterproofing. According to knowledgeable persons in parking
structure design and operation, water leakage through the floor slab is the main
unsolved long-term maintenance problem of parking structures. Parking structures
need to be designed to get the water off the floor and to be able to drain it quickly.
According to the professionals, without proper maintenance, a garage can be at the
point of structural failure within 10 to 15 years as a result of water leakage.
Safety and Su&eillance Equipment. Any large parking structure is a potential
source of problems from loitering, vandalism, thefts and crimes against persons. A
decision will need to be made as to whether or not there will be on-site parking
managers to assist with safety concerns. The safety of parking structures is probably
the most significant issue for the Village Area. If parkers do not feel safe, they will
not use the facility. To ensure safety within parking structures, regular security
patrols have been identified as the most effective deterrent to vandalism and acts of
violence.
Single-Purpose vs. Multi-Use Parking Structures. A single-purpose structure is a
free-standing structure for parking vehicles with little or no area devoted to other
uses. A multi-use structure is one in which the facility is part of an overall complex
consisting of more than one land use. Scarcity of land and high land costs often make
a single-purpose structure impractical and financially infeasible. The City or Agency
will need to make a decision as to whether or not parking structures will be single
purpose or multi-use.
The purpose for providing the above information is to create an understanding that there
are many decisions which need to be made as related to the construction of public parking
structures. This report has provided potential locations for hture sites of public parking
structures. However, much more consideration is required before construction may begin.
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 33 6b
As this report reflects, staff is recommending that actions be taken first to increase
utilization of existing public parking lots. Once a need has been demonstrated, new
parking facilities may be constructed. In the meantime, the City or Agency can begin to
process the questions raised by the design features noted above.
If a decision is made to pursue the construction of public parking structures, a staff team
will need to be assigned to develop a plan which addresses the issues noted above, as well
as other issues which may be specific to facility construction in the Carlsbad Village
Area.
Better Management or Design of Private Parking Facilities. In addition to considering the
development of new public parking facilities within the Village, Staff is proposing that
the Redevelopment Agency take action to facilitate activities which would provide for
better management or design of existing private parking facilities. There are many
property owners or business establishments within the Village Area which provide
private parking for their customers and/or employees off the street and on site, but may
not be doing so in the most effective manner. Private parking lots in the downtown area
have not always been adequately (or appropriately) designed to take full advantage of
available space, or to encourage shared parking. To assist in making the Village a more
desirable location to shop and use services, it would be helpful for property and/or
business to take a more cooperative approach to providing private parking. Cooperation
through creation of shared parking facilities, would, in effect, increase parking
opportunities within the Village.
As an example, several of the businesses on State Street have parking located behind their
buildings (off the alley). If the individual property owners and businesses could
cooperatively develop a single parking lot which serves all of the State Street businesses,
they could potentially design a parking lot which provides for more private parking for
customers and/or employees. Currently, each of the individual parking lots have their
own entrances and exits which consume space that could be used for parking. If all of the
property ownershusinesses cooperated, they could redesign a single large parking lot
with one or maybe two entrance(s) and exit(s). This, however, will take cooperation
among all of the property owners in the area. Staff is proposing that actions be taken
through the Redevelopment Agency to encourage, and possibly facilitate, joint
agreements for shared parking facilities on private property.
Building New Parking Facilities. As stated already, staff believes that full utilization of
existing public parking facilities should be required before the City or Agency embarks
on the costly task of building new parking facilities within the Village. It would not be
helpfd for the Redevelopment Agency or the City to finance the construction of a
parking facility which will remain empty due to either lack of demand (or its location); at
least one half of the current parking lots are not fully utilized on a regular and on-going
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 34 e
basis. Before the AgencyICity constructs new parking facilities, the groundwork needs to
be set to encourage people to get out of their cars and walk. This campaign to encourage
Pedestrian vs. VehicuZar activity needs to focus on property owners, business owners,
customers, as well as visitors to the area. If the campaign to coax drivers out of their cars
and to walk around the Village is successful, it most likely will result in a need for
additional public parking facilities to be constructed in the future. Therefore, it is
important to consider the facility costs and financing mechanisms for public parking
structures.
Costs of Building Parking Facilities. To determine the amount of funding that would be
required to provide for additional public parking resources within the Village
Redevelopment Area, staff requested that our consultant (Linscott, Law and Greenspan)
complete a study of estimated costs for land, construction, engineering, contingency and
on-going maintenance. This information was used to estimate the costs of providing
additional public parking spaces, as well as for the recommendation on setting the
Parking In-Lieu Fee described above.
Estimated land costs were based on recent appraisals of properties within the Village
Redevelopment Area. The parking construction costs were based on information provided
by nine different sources with the average of $6700 per stall taken to set the per space
cost. These costs could potentially vary due to soil conditions, special features,
architecture, etc. of the parking facility. However, an average was taken for cost
estimation purposes. Engineering and contingency costs are assumed to be 15% of the
total land and constnktion costs. An average maintenance cost of $650 per space, per
year was provided by the International Parking Institute. As previously indicated, the
estimated total cost for constructing Parking Structures I and 11, described above, is
$13,820,700. This total cost assumes that the acquisition of property and the construction
of the parking structures will be funded with cash-on-hand, not financed. It is also
assumed that NCTD will contribute their land for construction of Parking Structure 11.
By applying an estimated per public parking space cost of $33,709 for three to four
additional proposed parking structures (for 924 additional public parking spaces
maintained for 30 years), it is estimated that the total cost for construction and
maintenance would be approximately $31.5 million.
Staff is recommending within this report that activities be pursued to place the Agency
and/or City in a position to obtain control over future sites identified for potential parking
structures, and to begin conceptual design efforts. To be in a strong position to build
additional public parking when it is actually needed, the Redevelopment Agency andor
City will be required to develop partnerships, obtain site control and funding, and design
the structures/facilities. Before any structure or other parking facility can be constructed,
a detailed financing plan will also need to be completed.
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 35 e
Parking In-Lieu Fee and other Financing Mechanisms. As indicated above, substantial
funding is required in order to develop additional parking within the Village Area and to
maintain it for a significant period of time (30 years). In total, it is estimated that the
Redevelopment Agency will need approximately $45.3 to construct all 5 to 6 public
parking structures as proposed within this report, and to maintain them for a period of 30
years. If the Redevelopment Agency and/or City is required to finance a portion of the
cost related to constructing the proposed 5 to 6 parking structures, the total cost is
estimated to be much higher at $59.2 million. Exhibit 11 provides a Parking Structure
Cost Analysis (I & 11) which summarizes a potential financing plan for the proposed
parking structures with a sample phasinghiming schedule for development of the
structures. Exhibit 12 provides a similar analysis for the potential additional parking
structures (A-D). The analysis summaries provided in Exhibit 11 and 12 are based on a
number of assumptions which can change over time. A more detailed analysis of the costs
of constructing and maintaining any given parking structure for a period of 30 years will
be completed at the time action is proposed to initiate the work to construct.
To finance the costs of Parking Structures I and 11, it is assumed by staff that two-thirds ’
of the cost will be financed through the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program with the fee set at
$1 1,240 per space to be provided off-site. The remaining one-third of the funds are
proposed to come from NCTD, the Redevelopment Agency and the City of Carlsbad.
For the additional public parking structures noted as future options, it will be necessary
for the Redevelopment Agency to use a variety of funding sources. For the additional
parking structures (beyond I and II), the Parking Structure Costs Analysis assumes that
the Agency will 1) use Tax Increment Funds and interest earnings; 2) receive funds fiom
private property owners participating in a joint venture for parking with the
Redevelopment AgencyICity of Carlsbad; 3) receive funds from Village businesses
through a Business Improvement District; 4) use a portion of City’s Traffic Impact Fees
or Gas Tax Fund; andor 5) receive funds through other State and Federal sources, such as
State Transportation Development Act (TDA).
Bond Financing and Paid Parking. A significant point to consider at this time is the fact
that many cities require payment fiom “parkers” using public parking facilities. All
public parking within the Village Redevelopment Area is currently provided free-of-
charge to visitors, customers, business/property owners and employees in the area. Staff
believes this free parking has been very beneficial to the revitalization of the area, and is
not recommending a change to the City or Agency’s position on this matter. However, if
parking structures are ultimately determined to be necessary to provide additional public
parking spaces and adequate capital funding is not available, the City or Agency may
need to consider a financing structure which results in the issuance of tax-exempt bonds
where payments are made from one or more of the following sources:
0
0
Revenues collected through charges for public parking.
City of Carlsbad General Funds.
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 36 e
Special Assessments.
Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Funds.
Summary. As reflected above, the construction and maintenance of parking structures is
costly. Private/Public partnerships will be necessary to finance the future construction of
parking structures or other related facilities. If the City or Agency is not able to finance
the capital costs for future public parking structures through in-lieu parking payments or
other existing financial resources, it may be necessary to finance the costs through the
issuance of bonds which require a reliable revenue stream for repayment.
Exuiration of Village Redeveloument Area. Per the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment
Area Plan, the Village Redevelopment Area will cease to exist as of July 7, 2006. This
means that after July 7, 2006, approximately seven (7) years from today, the
Redevelopment Agency will have no authority to act pursuant to the existing
Redevelopment Plan except to pay previously incurred debt and to enforce existing
covenants, contracts, or other obligations.
Time Limit for Establishing; Loans. Advances and Indebtedness. The time limit for
establishing loans, advances and indebtedness to be paid with the proceeds of property
taxes (tax increment) received pursuant to redevelopment law for projects (non-housing)
within the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Project Area is January 1,2004. This means
that no new debt may be incurred by the Village Redevelopment Agency after January I,
2004.
Any new debt incurred by the Redevelopment Agency afrer I994 and anticipated to be
repaid through the use of tax increment funds must have a repayment plan which
terminates by July 7, 2016. This 10 year debt repayment time limit was placed on
redevelopment project areas as a result of adoption of AB1290.
Any debt incurred by the Redevelopment Agencyprior to I994 is @ subject to the 10
year repayment requirement noted above. The Agency will be permitted to collect tax
increment funds from the County of San Diego to repay all debt approved prior to 1994
for as many years as required to repay this prior debt.
Transition of Redevelopment Funds to City. Per Section 33604 of the Health and Safety
Code, if a redevelopment agency ceases to function, any surplus funds existing after
payment of all its obligations and indebtedness shall vest in the community. If Parking
In-Lieu Payments or other parking fees are collected but not spent prior to expiration of
the Village Redevelopment Area, and these funds are not required for payment of prior
obligations or indebtedness of the Agency, the funds will transition to the City of
Carlsbad for expenditure.
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 37
The following recommendations are provided by Staff in the order of priority for
implementation purposes (as determined by Staff):
Recommendation #1 - Implement Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. As stated
previously, based on the utilization studies for the public parking lots within the Village
Area, there is not a general capacity problem as related to the supply of public parking.
This means that there remains adequate parking supply to accommodate current public
parking demand and that related to future private development. Therefore, staff is
recommending that the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program be implemented with 1) a
determination that there is adequate parking at this time to accommodate additional
private development, and 2) by setting the fee for the program.
Staff is proposing that the fee for the program be set at $11,240 per parking space
required and to be provided off-site within a public parking lot. Although this fee is high,
staff believes it is appropriate in order to obtain adequate funds to actually construct and
provide for long term maintenance of new public parking facilities in the future. The fee
may be adjusted at a later date if it is determined to be inappropriate following full
implementation of the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program.
Because the fee is to be paid via an agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and
the individual propertybusiness owner, it has been determined that the fee is not a
“Development Impact, Fee”. Per Government Code Section 66000(b), “Development
Impact Fee” does not include “fees collected pursuant to agreements with redevelopment
agencies which provide for the redevelopment of property in furtherance or for the benefit
of a redevelopment project for which a redevelopment plan has been adopted pursuant to
the Community Redevelopment Law.” This means that the fee is not subject to the
requirements of AB 1600.
The propertybusiness owner has several options for satisfying hisher on-site parking
requirement. The Parking In-Lieu Fee is only one of those options. If a propertybusiness
owner chooses to enter into an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency for parking,
the appropriate payment is made to the Agency prior to the issuance of any building
permit and/or business license for the project. The Agency then assumes responsibility
for monitoring existing parking conditions and producing additional public parking
facilities as deemed appropriate.
The following chart provides a summary of
implementation of the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program:
“pros” and “cons” associated with
Parking Program Report, Revised 1199
Page 38 e
Will provide an option to property/business
owners and developers for satisfying an on-site
parking requirement.
Will facilitate development of new projects,
intensification of desired uses and/or changes
in land uses within the Village Redevelopment
Area.
Will provide funding to assist in the
construction of additional public parking
facilities, or maintenance of existing facilities.
Will support the shared parking concept and
pedestrian-orientation desired for the Village
Area. Will focus on buildings rather than
parking. Will minimize pedestriadvehicular
conflicts and improve pedestrian circulation
throughout the Village.
The fee is received by the Redevelopment
Agency prior to building permit or business
license issuance. No on-going enforcement or
collection issues.
May increase utilization of public parking lots
which will result in need to build additional
public parking facilities sooner than expected.
Upon implementation, the Agency may find
that the fee is perceived to be too high by the
development community. The program then
may not be a viable option for satisfying an on-
site parking requirement.
Upon implementation, the Agency could find
that the fee is too low. This may result in
inadequate funding being available to construct
new public parking facilities in the future.
~~ Asproposed, the fee only supports a maximum
of two thirds of the cost of producing
additional public parking in the Village. There
will be additional funding required from the
Redevelopment Agency and/or City to
construct new parking.
Because the program can't be implemented at
this time for properties west of the railroad
tracks, there may be a feeling expressed of
inequity or unfairness by others not eligible for
Darticiuation in the program.
Recommendation #2 - Short Term Parking; Limits. Time limits both on-street and
within some of the public parking lots with strict enforcement has been requested by
businesses within the Village Redevelopment Area. As noted previously within this
report, the Village Master Plan and Design Manual set forth a policy statement indicating
that on-street parking within the core downtown area should be limited to 2 hours. The
public parking lots were all to remain available for "all day" parking, with no time limits.
For many years, most of the core downtown area has had a 2 hour on-street parking limit.
The Village Master Plan included a policy statement which confirmed that the 2 hour
time limit is desirable and expanded the area covered by the time limit. Attached as
Exhibit 1 is a boundary map for the 2 hour parking area. The Traffic Commission
recommended approval of 2 hour parking throughout this area between the hours of
7:OOam and 6:00pm, Monday through Saturday. This matter requires final approval by
the City Council of the appropriate City Ordinance to implement this recommendation.
VillaQe Business Association Request on Time Limits. Last year, the Village Business
Association requested a three (3) hour time limit on the street and within three (3) public
parking lots (north and south depot, and fountain parking lots) to provide for short-term
parking within the core Village Area. The Association believes three hours is more
appropriate than two hours on the street. They also believe that the three subject public
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 39
parking lots closest to the Commuter Rail Station require short-tkrm parking to move the
commuters into the parking lot(s) provided by North County Transit District. The
Association has indicated that a three hour time limit allows customers a more reasonable
amount of time before being required to move their vehicle. They have argued that two
hours is not reasonable.
Because the decision to implement two hour parking on the street in the core Village
Area was incorporated into the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and has been
recommended for implementation by the Traffic Commission, staff does not support the
three hour time limit proposed by the Village Business Association for curb parking or
within the subject public parking lots. If, however, the Council wishes to approve the
Association’s request, it can be done with the understanding that all of the signs which
currently indicate two hour parking on the street will need to be replaced. With the
recommendation for two hour parking, existing signs will remain and new signs will only
be required in the expanded areas, or areas where they are missing within the boundaries.
Contrary to the policy statement within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, staff
is supporting the Village Business Association’s request for time limits within the public
parking lots located nearest to the Commuter Rail Station. This would include the parking
lots located on the north and south sides of the Old Depot building/CONVIS Office and
the lot located on the northwest corner of State Street and Grand Avenue (known as the
Fountain Lot). Exhibit 4 provides a map identifying the parking lots proposed for time
restrictions. However, staff is recommending a two hour time limit within these lots,
rather than the three hour time limit proposed by the Association, because differing time
limits can be very confusing to persons parking in the area. It is staffs opinion that the
time limits for the identified parking lots should be the same as the on-street parking
limits. Since the NCTD parking lots have no time limits, it is the Village Business
Association and staffs hope that time limits within the identified public parking lots will
encourage the commuter rail patrons to move out of these lots and into the new, expanded
180 space lot constructed by NCTD.
The Village Business Association and the Carlsbad Convention and Visitor’s Bureau,
requested that two (2) spaces within the public parking lot located to the south of the Old
Depot BuildingKONVIS Office be restricted to thirty (30) minute parking for visitors to
the CONVIS Office. This will allow visitors easier access to the services and information
provided by CONVIS. Staff is supporting this request by the Association and CONVIS.
For the time limits to result in short-term use of on-street parking and some public lot
parking, the should be strictly enforced. It must be understood, however, that this action
may have as many critics as supporters. No matter how pleasant or helpful the parking
enforcement officer may be in the performance of hisher job, any person receiving a
parking ticket will be unhappy. This may or may not hurt business in the Village Area,
depending upon how it is perceived by the public. It is staffs opinion that it would be
very helpful to broadly promote the parking time-limits before strict enforcement begins
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 40
to clarify that this action is being taken to reserve prime on- and off-street public parking
for downtown customers, clients, and patrons. Business owners/employees will be
encouraged to use the public parking lots which offer space with no time limits. This
recommendation will most likely result in the need to hire an additional parking
enforcement officer.
The following chart provides a summary of the “pros” and “cons’’ associated with
implementation of time limits on the street in the core Village Area, and within the
identified public parking lots:
Will provide for more turn-over in prime
downtown parking spaces for customers.
Will please some business/property owners
& customers who desire short-term parking
near their destinations.
Will provide short-term parking for
touristslvisitors obtaining information from
CONVIS.
Encourage visitors, customers, or patrons
to take a more pedestrian approach to
conducting business in the Village, if they
plan one or more activities which take
longer than 2 hours to complete. Encourage
use of the public parking lots with no time
limits.
Require Coaster patrons to use parking
constructed by NCTD specifically for
commuter rail parking.
Has annual cost (approx. $43,150) for
additional parking enforcement officer to
provide for strict enforcement.
Some business/property owners will not be
pleased as they are required to park further
from their destinations.
Parking enforcement is not popular.
Complaints and appeals to Council, City
Manager, Police Dept., and Housing and
RedeveloDment DeDt. mav increase.
May impact private property parking
spaces as persons search for off-street
parking in closer proximity to their
destination. This may require private
property owners to pursue parking
enforcement within their own lots which
could include towing of vehicles.
NCTD could lose ridership or receive more
complaints from their commuter rail
patrons. Since two of the lots proposed for
short-term parking are leased from NCTD,
there is potential for cancellation of the
leases. NCTD could obtain control of these
lots for commuter parking if desired and
would resolve customer complaints.
Recommendation #3 - Campaign to Encourage Use of Public ParkinP Facilities. In
addition to implementation and enforcement of parking time limits, staff is
recommending that action be taken to develop and implement a program, or campaign,
which encourages the general public to use the free public parking lots already available
within the Village and to promote a “walk about” in the area. The program is proposed to
focus on the importance of getting people out of their cars and walking around the
Village in order to experience all that the area has to offer in terms of products and
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 4 1
services. This program will include a “study component” to determine the impediments to
pedestrian activity which currently exists. Activities will need to be identified which will
enhance a positive pedestrian environment within the Village in order to “coax” people
out of their cars and onto the sidewalks. This program may also involve improvements to
existing public parking lots, such as enhanced lighting or additional signage, based on the
findings from the noted “impediments study”.
lots, and people walking around the Village
rather than driving.
Identify reasons visitors to the area, or
business owners/ernployees, are not
currently using the public parking lots, and
make immovements to correct situation.
Staff envisions this campaign to be a marketing program for the Village as well as a
method for facilitating the better utilization of the public parking lots. To encourage
customers to park in the public parking lots and perhaps walk a couple of blocks to their
destination, we need to inform them about the full array of products and services
available within a short walking distance for each of the public parking lots. This may
result in additional public signage, development of walking maps (and perhaps tours),
Village brochures, or other marketing tools.
lots which may require new parking
facilities to be constructed sooner than
anticipated.
Attempting to change behaviors, which
may be quite difficult (and perhaps
impossible) in some cases.
This campaign has not yet been developed. If determined to be appropriate by the City
Council, acting as the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, staff will take
immediate steps to develop this campaign and implement it as quickly as possible.
The following charts provides the “pros” and “cons” associated with implementation of
the above recommendation for a public relations/marketing campaign:
Recommendation #4 - Facilitate Better Design of Private Parkinrr Facilities. Staff
recommends that the Redevelopment Agency take a proactive approach to encouraging
property ownershusinesses to assume a more cooperative attitude towards providing
private parking within the Village. Actions of the Agency could include one or both of
the following:
1. Providing funding to hire a consultant to assist private property owners in designing
private parking lots which are more effective, and to financially assist property
owners to re-stripe private parking lot(s) and/or to make other site improvements for
improved parking purposes; andor,
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 42
2. Assisting private property owners and/or businesses to develop and execute
appropriate agreements to allow for shared private parking facilities, as appropriate.
Enhanced design of private parking
facilities within the Village Redevelopment
Area, with perhaps an increase in the
number of private parking spaces.
Advancement of the shared parking
concept into private parking facilities,
encouraging a more cooperative approach
to providing parking among the various
business/property owners w/in the Village.
Enhance the “friendly neighborhood”
perception of the Village Area.
Staff is recommending that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission authorize the
development and implementation of a program to assist existing property/business
owners to redesign their private parking lots, as appropriate, to increase their
effectiveness, and to encourage cooperation between property owners in the use of these
private parking facilities.
Resistance to change, or resistance to
shared parking for legal reasons. Fear that
other parties would not comply with
agreement and then have no effective form
of enforcement other than legal action.
Business concerns that private parking
would not be available for own employees
or customers if made available under the
shared parking concept.
The potential that no business or property
owner would be interested in cooperating
with another to create shared parking
opportunities.
It should be noted that the Redevelopment Agency has attempted this action in the past
with marginal success. However, staff felt that it should be offered again with some
additions to include possible design assistance and legal assistance for drafting the
required shared use private parking agreements. With motivated business/property
owners, the program could result in some success to assist in the effort to better manage
existing parking resources, both private and public. Although this is a small component of
the Comprehensive Parking Program, staff felt that there is still some merit in including
the program to compliment the other efforts.
The following represents the “pros” and “cons” of implementing this recommendation to
establish a program to facilitate the better design of private parking facilities:
Recommendation #5 - Site Control and Plan Development for Public Parking
Structures. As mentioned previously, staff is not recommending that the City or the
Redevelopment Agency proceed with construction of public parking structures at this
time. Staff is recommending that efforts first be made to increase the utilization of the
existing public parking lots. Once all of the public parking lots are being more fully
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 43
utilized, then actions may be taken to initiate the construction of new public parking
facilities.
At this time, staff is recommending that the Redevelopment Agency or City begin to
prepare for the future expansion of public parking facilities within the Village. This
report allows the Agency/City to conceptually identify the potential sites for parking
structures. As opportunities present themselves, the Agency/City can pursue acquisition
of property, or otherwise obtain control of a site through a development agreement, for
future parking development purposes. Staff can also take actions to develop preliminary
plans for financing and construction of a parking facility.
Actual construction of a parking structure would not be initiated until utilization ratios
within existing public parking lots support a demonstrated need for additional parking, or
private development occurs which may appropriately include the construction of one or
more public parking facilities. Also, new construction of parking facilities would not
begin until funding is determined to be available. Therefore, staff will need to proceed
with identifying potential funding sources, and applying for the funds if appropriate.
The following chart provides the “pros” and “cons” of the recommendation to pursue site
control and plan development for future parking facilities/structures:
Preparing for the future construction of
public parking facilities results in enhanced
readiness to implement a program to
construct new facilities, when deemed
appropriate.
Identification of future sites for potential
new public parking facilities allows for
more productive discussions with
developers regarding new development
projects, and private/public partnerships.
Indicates intent to construct public parking
structures at some future date, which allows
for more time to have serious discussions
on design and safety issues before initiating
dans to construct.
Will construct parking structures only upon
demonstrated need which is less likely to
result in a situation where the structure is
built and then remains empty or is
underutilized.
By pursuing site control and plan
development, a strong expectation may be
created that parking structures are going to
be immediately constructed. Delays in
construction could lead to dissatisfaction.
Waiting until the need is demonstrated to
initiate construction of new parking
facilities could result in a period of time
when there is an actual parking capacity
problem.
If pursued, it is costly to build parking
structures. Also, on-going maintenance
costs are more expensive for parking
structures than surface level parking.
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 44
Recommendation #6 - Studv of Tourist Impacts on Parkine in the Village. As
mentioned previously, this report has not considered the impact of additional parking
demands as related to the opening of the Legoland Family Park, or other future tourist-
related attractions. If this remains a concern, staff should be instructed to proceed with a
study to determine the projected impacts of Legoland or other future tourist activity on
parking in the Village Redevelopment Area. The option is to take a “wait and see”
attitude since the Legoland Family Park is expected to open in March, 1999. In August,
additional parking studies will be completed. At that time, any additional impacts will be
documented or demonstrated through increased utilization ratios. The requirement to
complete annual parking studies will ensure that any increase in parking demands due to
Legoland, or other future tourist attractions, will be properly recorded and calculated into
the need to provide additional parking facilities in the future. These studies will assist to
determine the appropriate timing for new construction of additional facilities.
Resolution of the “parking problem” in the Village Redevelopment Area is complicated
because it requires the Redevelopment Agency and the City to address perceptions, ideals
and many dzflering opinions on the appropriate course of action. The recommendations
set forth above represent staffs best professional opinion at this time as to how to
proceed with addressing parking issues within the Village Redevelopment Area.
As indicated within this report, staff believes that adequate public parking is available at
this time to initiate the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and to begin collecting fees
for maintenance of existing parking facilities, or development of future parking structures
At a hture date, the construction of parking structures are proposed to accommodate
projected demand based on new development, or intensification of existing uses within
the Village Area. In the meantime, staff has proposed some actions, as outlined above, to
encourage better utilization of existing parking resources and to initiate the planning
effort to construct parking structures at a future date.
Initial efforts to construct new public parking resources will focus on development of a
parking structure on Roosevelt Street (Parking Structure I) and another at the Commuter
Rail Station (Parking Structure 11). To be successful in developing these two parking
structures at a fkture date, the Redevelopment Agency or City of Carlsbad will need to
obtain control of two additional parcels of land on Roosevelt Street and negotiate a
successful land and parking constructiodmaintenance contribution from North County
Transit District. Staff has recommended that the process be initiated to obtain site control
for these future projects as opportunities present themselves. Generally, staff believes that
parking structures should be built in conjunction with new development, not ahead of it
unless existing utilization patterns support the construction of the parking structures in
advance of new development. Since Parking Structures I and I1 are to be funded primarily
with In-Lieu Fees, a majority of these fees will need to be collected before the Agency
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 45 e
proceeds with actual construction of the parking structures. If development does not
occur as projected and adequate In-Lieu Fees are not collected, a revised financing plan
will need to be submitted to the CommissiodCouncil for consideration.
The costs of producing additional public parking (beyond Parking Structures I and 11)
within the Village Redevelopment Area will need to be shared by several parties. Existing
businesses andor property owners should contribute in some manner. A Business
Improvement District is a potential mechanism for participation by existing businesses
and/or property owners in the provision of additional public parking resources. However,
the businesses and/or property owners must agree to assess themselves a fee and then
allocate a portion, or all, of that fee to the Redevelopment Agency or the City of Carlsbad
for production of new public parking facilities. The Redevelopment Agency and/or the
City of Carlsbad will also need to commit resources to parking development and
maintenance on a regular and on-going basis. In addition, the AgencyICity will need to
identify and obtain additional sources of funding from other public agencies, such as San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
At this time, staff has determined that adequate public parking facilities are available
within the Village Redevelopment Area based on the utilization studies of all public
parking lots. However, with projected new development and enforcement of two hour
parking on the streets, it is anticipated that additional public parking resources will be
needed at a future date. Since the provision of additional public parking resources will
ultimately benefit the entire Village Redevelopment Area, it is important to recognize that
the production of additional parking must be completed through a cooperative effort.
Parking is not a sole responsibility of any single party within the Village Area. The
responsibility must be shared by all parties who benefit from the availability of public
parking within the Village.
It is also important to note at this time that the Redevelopment Agency and the City need
to focus on development of other parking related programs which encourage cooperation,
flexibility, and perhaps less convenience to the shopper, visitor andor business
employee/owner. Private property owners need to be encouraged to cooperate with each
other to produce parking facilities which can mutually benefit each other. Public
information programs also need to be developed to encourage customers and employees
to come to the Village, park in a single location and then walk to several destinations
within the area (rather than driving from one to the next in the hopes of finding the
parking space closest to the desired destination). It is probably most helpful to view the
Village Area as a large open air shopping mall. At shopping malls, we often park in one
location and then walk the full length of the mall several times without considering the
action to be inconvenient. A professionally developed and enthusiastic campaign to
encourage la “walk about the Village” may be necessary to change the mind set of many
patrons to the area. This campaign will require participation by the Village businesses.
Also, through a cooperative partnership with the Village Business Association, the
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 46 eb
Redevelopment Agency may be able to identify additional parking programs or
alternatives which can assist in the continued effort to revitalize the Village Area.
Staff is proposing that the City Council, acting as the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission, accept the findings of this report and authorize the implementation of the
recommendations as set forth herein. Although the recommendations are ordered
according to perceived priorities, in practical terms they will all be implemented in a
nearly concurrent manner at various levels.
The following exhibits are provided for clarification as related to the information and
recommendations set forth within this Comprehensive Parking Program:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Locator Map of Two Hour Parking Zone in the Village.
Locator Map for Public Parking Lots
Summary of Parking Counts
Locator Map for Two Hour Parking Restrictions for Public Parking Lots
Parking Zones for In-Lieu Fee Program
Cost Estimates for Construction of Parking Spaces
Comparison of Revenue Generation - Building with Parking vs. Building without
Parking
Future Public Parking Needs
Locator Map for Future Public Parking Structures I and I1
10. Locator Map for Additional (Potential) Public Parking Structures
1 1. Parking Structure Cost Analysis - Parking Structures I & 11
12. Parking Structure Cost Analysis - Parking Structures A-D
13. Surface Level Parking Cost Analysis
Parking Program Report, Revised 1/99
Page 47
?
VILLAGE PARKING PROGRAM
EXHIBITS
1=13
LEGEND: - 2-HOUR PARKING BOUNDARY
1
Sf.
STAE ST.
f
u 00
I
I c 1
E
I
..
'ROJECT NAME: EXH181T
1 RECOMMENDED TWO-HOUR PARKlNG TIME RESTRICTION BOUNDARY IN THE CORE VILLAGE AREA
L3 CAT1 0 N
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION OF VILLAGE PARKiNG LOTS
I!
EXHIBIT
2
2
L BEECH
NOT TO SCALE
r GRAND
m l- 5
\
W
CARL SBA D
< OAK
GE
OAK
DR.
AYE.
P a
D
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 3
~ ~-
ENGINEERS
TABLE 2
CARLSBAD VILLAGE
PUELIC PARKING COUNT
THURSDAY, JULY 25,1996
NOTES: - Bold faced Ws indicate peak occupancy. - 'T.. $$%% Capacrty (2 85%)
EXHIBIT 3
ENGINEERS
TABLE 3
CARLSBAD VILLAGE
PUBLIC PARKING COUNT
SATURDAY, JULY 27,1996
NOTES: - Bdd faced #s indicate peak occupancy.
Capacrty (285%)
EXHIBIT 3
Historical Dep
Building - CO
--I
Carlsbac
I -
I
Village Drive
I
I
I
~ ~~ ~~
Grand Avenue - All Spaces will be restricted
for 2 hour parking.
All spaces will be restricted
for 2 hour parking, with the
the south end of the Depot
Building. These 2 spaces will be
designated for 3 0 minute
parking for CONVIS visitors.
Oak Avenue
2 Hour Parking
Restrictions (Proposed)
Public Parking Lots
Exhibt 4
P1 c z C N
I3
EXHIBIT 5
PARKING CONSTRUCTION COSTS
' SURFACE
SOURCE COST
ABOVE GRADE
Carl Walker, Inc.
Dealy
International Parking Design (Sherman Oaks)
International Parking Design (Oakland)
International Parking Institute
Kimley Horn & Associates
Leasy
Ninteman
iNaltry Design Group
PARKING
$5.0 O/s f
$2.50 - 3.50/sf
$7.00 - 10.00/Sf
$5.00 - 1 O.OO/sf
$5.00/sf
$7.00 - 10.00/Sf
$5.00 - 8.00/sf
$3.00 - 4.00/sf
$3.00 - 5.00/sf
$6.0 01s f
PARKING
$6,500 - 7,50O/stall
$4,000 - 8,00O/stall
$5,000 - 6,00O/stall
$5,500 - 7,50O/stall
$7,000/s t a I I
$7,000 - 10,00O/stalI
$5,400 - 7,20O/staII
$4,500 - 7,00O/staIl
$7,50O/stalI
$6.7 0 O/s ta I 1 YVERAGE
NOTES: Costs assume 300 - 320 square feet per parking stall.
Costs may vary due to soil conditions, special features, architecture, etc. of
the parking facility.
EXHIBIT 6
z
c 0
EXHIBIT 7
ENGINEERS
z 4 n
v) w -I
I-
m a
ooc CVWO be4
I
a, a, c
0) t W
.-
c- m
t a, a,
5:
6
t 1 > n
IT 8
c
SOURCE: Carlbad Village Master Plan 9
NO SCALE
E N C I N E E RS
CAREBAD VILuGE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
CARLSBAD VILLAGE PARKING
I - c
+
.- I
I
\I :.:.J:.:. ......
...
...... ...... P5#
1 PARKING STRUCTURE
i BEECH AYE
PARKING SIRUCTURE I 11
I
....... pi ........
'.'.'+~.'.'.
....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... :.:.Ft:.:. ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ....... ....... II' .:90:. I ........ .:.:.e:-:..
.'...26. ... ........
........ ........ ........ :.:.:r:.:.:. ....... ........ ........ ........ Ll ...a4 3::
I I 1 I
.......... .......... ......... .......... ! ::::;::E ...... -:-:*:. .......... .......... .......... u :.:.:..3g:.:.:
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
............. ...'...'.'C :..: :.' .............
IOTE: - Total supply: 790 spaces - m: Indicate parking structures.
:%& .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
.... .... .... ....
C"l VILLAGE DR
OAK AVE
NO SCALE
ENGINEERS
EXHIBIT 9.
FUTURE CARLSBAD VILlAGE AREA
PUBLIC PARKING SUPPLY
CARLSBAD VILLAGE PARKING
c
4
tructure D
' 2 to 3 story struct
et: 100 to 274 spa
Structure C
1- 2 to 3 story str
Net: 35 to 140 sp
i
I
I
I U
I a,
cd +
I
I tj
I
:ture I
es I
I
I
I
Structure A/B
1 or 2 Parking Structures
Net 143 to 200 spaces
Grand Avenue
Carlsbad Village Drive
-~ ~
Oak Avenue
Note: Total Potential Supply: 279 - 614 Additional Public Spaces
: Indicates location of potential structure
Potential Sites for
Additional Parking
Structures (A-D)
EXHIBIT 10
Parking Structure Cost Analysis
Structures 1 and 2 (410 spaces] _-
C0”ltNRlOn cost,
Eng. 8 Contingency
EXHIBIT 11
Parking Structure Cost Analysis
Additional Structures (924 spaces) -
EXHIBIT 12
I
Surface Parking Cost Analysis
(2 lots - 250 spaces) ,... 2/4/pg
Construction Cosls
I Sublnlal 1 2008 1 2009 I 2010 I 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 1 2016 1 Sublnlal
ICO*/S I I I I I I I I I I
Eng. & Contingency
tievanua I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I
Panlog k-L!eu Fee Sa500 per soacc (X21 5 4,250,000 S -s -5 -5
Tax Incremenl Funds f 1.700.000 5 -5 -5 -5
CIW FunasIOlner
(Total Revenue I I 5 6.173.000 15 450.00C
Prerenl Vatus I E?'. Olrco"nt(
EXHIBIT 13