The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-03-02; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 307; Parking in the Village Redevelopment AreaHOUSING ANO REDEVELOPMENT COMMkSlON -AGENDA BILL AB# 307 TITLE: MTG. DDE? PARKING IN THE VlLiAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA - 3 REPORT ON PARKING FiNDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACCEPT the Parking in fhe Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area report as presented by staff. ITEM EXPLANATION: 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. Since completion of the Vi//age Master Plan and Design Manual in 1995-96, 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”. Executive Summarv of the Parking Reoort The primary purpose for the attached report was to provide the information necessary for 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. This determination will allow for immediate implementation of the Parking /n-Lieu Fee Program, as described within the Vi//age Master P/an 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 $11,240 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 /n-Lieu Fee Program can be initiated and made available as an option for satisfying an on-site parking requirement for eligible property/business 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. I Parkina Caoacitv. 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 AB# 303 Page 2 parking proximify 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 his/her 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 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 staff’s 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 within 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 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. This recommendation will be formally presented to the City Council for approval, following acceptance of the attached parking report. 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. AB# 367 Page 3 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 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 his/her 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 Parkinq 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 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, and/or 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, 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. AB# 307 Page 4 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 Vi//age 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 spacerequired and to be provided off-site within a public parking lot. 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 corner 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. 4. Authorize staff to develop and implement 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. 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. Staff Recommended Actions Staff is requesting that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission consider the information set forth within the attached parking report and then indicate its intent to take action on the proposed recommendations at a future meeting. AB# 397 Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Department completed the environmental review of the Vi//age Master P/an 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 the 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 Vi//age Master P/an 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 and/or 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 Agency/City is required to finance the construction through bonds or more conventional financing mechanisms. If the Vi//age 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 Agency/City may negotiate private developer financial assistance with the construction of parking facilities, if related to new commercial.development. 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 II. 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 campaign/program. These funds were generated from previously issued redevelopment bonds. Staff has recommended that a program be developed 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. 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 AB# 307 Page 6 consideration during the budget development process. EXHIBITS: I, Parking in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area - A Report on Parking Utilization, Programs and Recommendations for the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. - EXHIBIT 2 PARKING IN THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA A Report on Parking Utilization, Programs and Recommendations for the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area Prepared by City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department with Consultant Assistance from Linscott, Law and Greenspan January, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. SECTION 1. PARKING AND VISION FOR THE VILLAGE AREA 0 Village Vision l Goals & Objectives l Philosophical or Policy Statement on Village Parking l Purpose of Report 1 SECTION 2. PARKING ISSUES FOR THE VILLAGE AREA l Parking Utilization Studies l Types of “Parkers” l Additional Parking l Parking Time Limits l General Policy on Parking Time Limits l Traffic Commission Recommendations l Enforcement of Time Limits l Free vs. Paid Curb Parking 0 Issues Summary SECTION 3. OBJECTIVES OF PARKING REPORT l Primary Purpose of Report l Components of Report SECTION 4. EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS IN THE VILLAGE l Parking Utilization Ratio l Public Parking Lots Summary l 1996 Public Parking Lot Counts l 1997 Public Parking Lot Counts l 1998 Public Parking Lot Counts l Parking Duration Study SECTION 5. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS l Parking Count Summary l Implementation of the Village In-Lieu Fee Program l Public Perception about Parking SECTION 6. VILLAGE PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM l Program Description 0 Premise of Program l Key Features of Program l Shared Parking Concept SECTION 7. PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION l Participation Limits within Zone 1 l Participation Limits within Zone 2 l Findings to Allow Participation in Program l Actions Required to Implement Program l Finding of Adequate Parking 2 15 16 18 8 - TABLE OF CONTENTS -. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. SECTION 8. SETTING THE PARKING IN-LIEU FEE l Fee Setting Policy l Consultant Comments on Fee Policy l Calculation of Fee Amount - Parking Structures l Calculation of Fee Amount - Surface Level Parking l Economies of Scale l Benefits 19 SECTION 9. FUTURE PARKING PROJECTIONS/NEEDS l Future Parking Demand l Tourist Impact on Parking SECTION 10. NEW PARKING OPPORTUNITY AREAS l Commuter Parking l Parking Structures l Increase in Public Parking l Concerns about Parking Structures l Better Management or Design of Private Parking SECTION 11. FACILITY COSTS AND FINANCING MECHANISMS l Building New Parking Facilities l Costs of Building Parking Facilities l Parking In-Lieu Fee and other Financing Mechanisms l Bond Financing and Paid Parking 25 27 34 SECTION 12. TRANSITION OF AGENCY ASSESTS AND LIABILITIES l Expiration of Village Redevelopment Area l Time Limit for Establishing Loans, Advances & Indebtedness l Transition of Redevelopment Funds to City 37 SECTION 13. RECOMMENDATIONS l Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program l Short-Term Parking Time Limits l Campaign to Encourage Use of Public Parking Facilities l Facilitation of Better Design of Private Parking Facilities l Site Control & Plan Development for Public Parking Structures l Tourist Impacts on Parking in the Village 38 SECTION 14. CONCLUSION TO REPORT 45 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. SECTION 15. REPORT EXHIBITS l ‘Locator Map for Two Hour Parking Zone l Locator Map for Public Parking Lots l Summary of Parking Counts l Locator Map for Two Hour Time Limits for Public Parking Lots l Parking Zones for In-Lieu Fee Program l Cost Estimates for Construction of Parking Spaces l Revenue Generation Comparison l Future Public Parking Needs l Locator Map for Future Public Parking Structures I and II l Locator Map for Additional Public Parking Structures Sites l Parking Structure Cost Analysis - Structures I and II l Parking Structure Cost Analysis - Structures A-D l Surface Level Parking Cost Analysis 47 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 fur fhe J-Wage and then to develop goals and objectives which create a roadmap to the Vision. Village Vision. The new Village Master Plan and Design Manual 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 C$s$~$~~$a& R$e~~~~p&ntArea. ..‘:I ,,____ ‘( ” ! ‘pi’,‘,,, ,: ,‘,a i_ __ s, ,_! ,~ ,_ $$,;:f ,” +:l: ~, :, ., ,_ , s ,i ,/, ,, ,,,, , I< t.<’ L( 2: .:;>, . ,: _,.,, ? :__, y _‘,*_ .‘_I .:.;:,+ :‘_ ,~:,:;;qrrr:: :,:__j’_ ;_ 1. :!I:__ ,‘.,;‘$ ;, : ‘*I: .: : ,, _‘, I$’ ‘L ” .,::,<, ‘ ,, ,, ::y ,l: ,.I:>;,- @ ;& ~p&&./al idkntit;~~~~;m~~~it;oi;i;e.an~ atiem‘orab,e place ~i~:ihentI~abl~,an~~~s. ,’ *c ‘, i ; ; y;, 8 .‘~,~~i~~~~~~~lih~~~cellende ;‘ ~ti$x$$$$k-, : ~tial&& ~_,j&~&&igned p~i~~S~;,:l,d~~e’“prne”t ’ ?$fis. ,Fjc t > ,7; -: I .j : j ,: ::lmprovemen f&i’& ,1, ‘A .! ‘::k ‘-” ,,, *” ,!:;&,. *.:&,.~i: ; ..z:i,:, ,‘,!_ ,,,1 ; : :j;;41s, j ,< _. ‘,,,f. ,. .,, 2 !. ,,) r& -:t , ,;, ‘?Y’iB”-“:i” &+<“,, ,$*_ ,,,<:: ‘I”‘. )_ ,_ “$y$?:~~~+.~~ ,::$!‘l, :__ ‘,,:!jj :T! 2 .I: ; ~,,;;:l:$5i~~~~i~~,,:,~ ‘f ;;:$j!i”;‘;ig& :, ,$~‘e~~*: ‘_ ;’ ) :*,, ::! x ” ,,-, ,I.,~~@, 1 ““\“, _‘% 1 8 I‘Ilia~~~~bi~~~~~lde~r~g~;of~~~!IIs~ and alsd‘lerves:as .a specialtji’taair~~t~~;fo)~,)h~~,~~~~~~,~;: ,“$jJ Y‘* yy 8.:. ~9iap$fg 1,: 2; ““$“;:r;:;.$ 1 A;; : ‘. :; :Q”‘, &, ;:!:: >dgjg+&; f’,+~, ...~~r,~i;g:,.!“. i,rc,,:,,;: I .,y;p~~~~i.,, ong:.clvic .Icharacte~liand,.~r~vxde~al~placei”forlpeopl~ “$? ‘&$e;:‘t8? bei+a.. par@~~$&x~rt&~~ ‘: ~&$&$&$r~~~~~, !<yi; :;‘,*_i ,{;:;:i ;jg :,;;;;i?’ 1 .:&~;4j?:1:;i”:1-py ,,::,,,:!i~~“‘.~:~~~~,~, ~~,lpii:;r~~~~,~ ‘; _ ;;aE31”:,;iF.,,.y -: ‘s ;$$;:, : ” i 1 i ” .:: ;:$y,:::; ,‘:A :$g$:;;G!;2: )* ‘:;:;;‘,“ : il;i,;:, :_‘ $?;l’ii:,?, : ~>I_; ,:‘,&:;;$ i’ ,i,!;. __ 1, :+*.. .> ,.“_ ,,l’:,,?- ,,, ‘1 1, j __ ( +&s,, 4 “i+ 9, .‘Ir~,~~a:C~~~~~~l”l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~~~~~.~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~ ‘% ” ,, s ‘a*“” :g> ‘%(Bii,l,. :I_(, __‘>“.’ ,’ -2 y!j!& :;’ ,_ _:)/ ; p, >a’,* $9 &d, ~~,~,:.:&w~~ ‘_i ‘,& Ii,,.:, _>. ,<:, “__ , _,__,I I, 19 ‘. :,~~m~~‘s~~es~~~~~lcomUlg; amtudel:and:~~2i~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~,to~ “e~;.bu”‘~~~~~~“~~:id~~elppers;~~~ ::l’i_jl,l*li,;:. ,_‘_/j’:-q j_ ___ :~_ I j ,, i:ai:r j $,;.;>, “_ __:t_ : :’ ’ “:“;:‘“‘~~d., “~,.?‘“i~~Til;‘~~,...,~~;~‘~~j~,~~~ ‘:‘“;3, : %I@;;;&, ,, :,,,< ,> )I ‘_ : ,;,:,, L ,I ‘_ _. “ar&&%%ted ti.beco,mmg a part:of,li~~~~~~~~o~n~ _ ” ‘~‘w,?~:‘:! I__ !_’ .:_;_ ;,r.;,;;z,:,:I:; ‘_ i I I” I$i:f*,: ‘;:Y, ‘;;“& __ ,; ; ,*, jq: pL*.‘.(‘.’ ),lG,,, ,,i (,, 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 Village. An objective within this goal is to: establish a parking program which allows off-site parking 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 l/99 Page 1 e 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 Village 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 ViZZage 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 owners 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 l/99 Page 2 mm public parking space capacity problem in the core downtown area. However, there may be a parking proximitv 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. Types of “Parkers”. In an article entitled “How to Market a Parking Space” (April, 1996), the author, Richard Sipes, 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 l/99 Page 3 6b 13 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. h-r 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. Parking 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 l/99 Page 4 e!sb 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 Policy on Parking; 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 Council/Housing and Redevelopment Commission during preparation of the Village 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 Car&bad’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, hit 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 tum- 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 l/99 Page 5 e staffs parking enforcement with a Community Services 0fJicer 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 limits 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 parking, 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 l/99 Page 6 du3 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 serious 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: l 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. l 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 l/99 Page 7 e 17 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 Summarv. 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 “parking problem ” 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. Primary Purpose 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 l/99 Page 8 et? locations for future public parking resources and to establish a strategy for implementing that plan when deemed appropriate and necessary. Components of Revort. 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: l Evaluations of existing utilization of off-street public parking resources. l Projections for future public parking resource needs. l Identification of possible locations for additional public parking resources. l Parking Time Limits in public parking lots and on the street. l Public Relations Program to encourage better use of public parking lots, and to encourage more pedestrian activity within the Village Area. l Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. l 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 VilZage 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 l/99 Page 9 a%@ in an unnecessary expense to both the private and public developer. Shared parking, parking generation and other references generally suggest that parking requirements he 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 count/studies are summarized below. Public Parkinn Lots Summary. 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 railroad 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:OOpm, 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 occupied1236 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 80%, or less than the full utilization ratio of 85%. The Washington Street/Village Faire lot had a 96% occupancy and the parking lot to the north of the Depot Parking Program Report, Revised l/99 Page 10 6b had a 97% occupancy. The peak weekday occupancy for all ten lots was 72% (387 occupied/l53 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 occupied/295 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, 12:00 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 Street/Village 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 l/99 Page 11 e (365 occupied/l20 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 occupied/l 19 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/l 59 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 91% to 98% occupancy. The peak Friday occupancy of all ten lots combined was 75% (366 occupied/l 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 3 11 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 l/99 Page 12 e 22 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/l 8/98) counts indicate that the average weekday occupancy of all ten lots was 62% (410 occupied1256 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 Street/Village 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 occupied/219 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 occupied/258 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 Washington Street/Village 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 occupied/222 available) and it occurred primarily during the lunch period from 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 occupied/266 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 Street/Village 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 occupied/202 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 l/99 Page 13 da9 23 - - 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 Peak Weekday Occupancy 1996 1997 1998 56% 69% 61% 72% 75% 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 (180) 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 full 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 Viliage Faire/Washington Street (adjacent to Rotary Park). These lots are all maintained and provided by the Redevelopment Agency and/or 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 7:3Oam to 5:3Opm. The results of this parking duration study are as follows: South Devot 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 Devot 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 l/99 Page 14 2Y 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 8.5%. 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 DepotKONVIS 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 Redevelopment/Engineering 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 employee/business owner parking. This determination would allow the City Council, acting as the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, to approve implementation of the ViZlage 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 l/99 Page 15 mB _- - 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 Agency/City 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 his/her parking requirement off site. The other options are for the Developer to provide for all of his/her 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, and/or 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 a 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 I/99 Page 16 e 26 parking is a concept supported by the Village 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 shared 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 will be shared resulting in better utilization and relatively lower costs in comparison to.the cost of exclusive on-site private parking. Shared Parking Concept. 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 l/99 Page 17 e and never be required to move his/her 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 #l 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 (100%) 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 within 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 l/99 Page 18 28 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 appropriateness 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 Village 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 I/99 Page 19 e 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 ViZZage 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 redevelopment/revitalization 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. 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. 2. Construction of an underground/subterranean 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 underground/subterranean 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 l/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 full 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 his/her 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 payment/fee 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 410 public parking spaces, with a net increase of 250 public parking spaces, is estimated to be $13820,700. 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 II 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 l/99 Page 2 1 e how this would be applied, if a property/business 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 $112,400. The property/business 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 property/business 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 property/business 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 level 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 and Procedures Manual 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 l/99 Page 22 e 32 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 property/business 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 is 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 parking 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 l/99 Page 23 eh The following chart provides a summary of the various fee calculations noted above: Parking Assumption Total Cost Structure w/ 30yr. Maint $13,820,700 Structure w/o 30yr. Maint $6,553,700 Surface w/ 30 yr. Maint $6,423,000 Surface w/o 30 yr. Maint $5,083,000 Per Space Cost $33,709 $15,985 $25,692 $20,335 Payment $11,240 $5,328 $8,500 $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 property/business owner (and perhaps the Agency and City) in harticipating in the parking in-lieu fee program is that he/she will ultimately be able to build a larger building, if all of the parking 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 property/business 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 l/99 Page 24 6b 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 payment/fee 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 Parking 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 PZan 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 l/99 Page 25 e 35 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 De1 Norte and Avenida Encinas will realize the greatest impact and/or 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 l/99 Page 26 @B 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 l/99 Page 27 37 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 Street, 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 l/99 Page 28 ebb 38 property owners in an effort to facilitate development of public parking together with commercial development on the subject site. Parking Structure II - Carlsbad Village 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 Parking. 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 1199 Page 29 6b 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: l Maintenance of 90 parking spaces for Village Faire to assist in the satisfaction of the retail center parking requirement. l The City or Redevelopment Agency will be able to purchase, or obtain a long term lease, for the subject property at a reasonable cost. l 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 l/99 Page 30 40 - 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 and/or 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 public/private parking structure at this location. However, no specifics have been discussed as of this date, and no project has been submitted for review. Exhibit 10 identifies the location of the additional (potential) parking structures proposed by staff and described above. 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 A/B: 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 Village Drive Size of Property (Square Feet) East: 32,879sf W9st: 19,350sf Approx. 25,lOOsf Approx. 70,850sf Spaces Possible Spaces Possible at at 320 sf per stall 400 sf per stall 200 165 120 96 (2 level) (2 level) 230 (3 levels) 190 (3 levels) 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 nublic nkg spaces 374 (assume 100 spaces for private development; net 274 public pkg spaces) 306 246 (2 levels (2 levels underground + 68 underground + 54 surface level) surface level) 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 l/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 Parkinp 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: 1. 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 Tra$f?c 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 Tra$?c 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 I/99 Page 32 em9 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 Sukeillance 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 future sites of public parking structures. However, much more consideration is required before construction may begin. Parking Program Report, Revised l/99 Page 33 e 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 owners/businesses 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 helpful 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 l/99 Page 34 e basis. Before the Agency/City 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. Vehicular 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 construction 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 II, 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 II. 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 and/or 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 l/99 Page 35 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 & II) which summarizes a potential financing plan for the proposed parking structures with a sample phasing/timing 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 II, 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 $11,240 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 from private property owners participating in a joint venture for parking with the Redevelopment Agency/City 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; and/or 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 from “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: l Revenues collected through charges for public parking. l City of Carlsbad General Funds. Parking Program Report, Revised l/99 Page 36 e l Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Funds. l Special Assessments. 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. Exniration of Village Redevelonment 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 after 1994 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 AB 1290. Any debt incurred by the Redevelopment Agency prior to 1994 is not 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 l/99 Page 37 e The following recommendations are provided by Staff in the order of priority for implementation purposes (as determined by Staff): Recommendation #l - Implement VillaPe Parking In-Lieu Fee Proplram. 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 property/business owner, it has been determined that the fee is not a “Development Impact Fee”. Per Government Code Section 66000(b), “Development Impact Fee” does pot 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 property/business owner has several options for satisfying his/her on-site parking requirement. The Parking In-Lieu Fee is only one of those options. If a property/business 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 “pros” and “cons” associated with implementation of the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program: Parking Program Report, Revised l/99 Page 38 e+B 46 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 pedestrian/vehicular 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. As proposed, 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 uarkinn. 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 participation in the program. Recommendation #2 -‘Short Term Parkiw 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:OOpm, Monday through Saturday. This matter requires final approval by the City Council of the appropriate City Ordinance to implement this recommendation. Village 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 l/99 Page 39 6b parking lots closest to the Commuter Rail Station require short-term 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 his/her 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 l/99 Page 40 e 56 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 tourists/visitors 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 Redevelopment Dept. may 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 - Campah to Encourage Use of Public Parkiw 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 l/99 Page 4 1 em@ 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”. 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. 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: Increased utilization of all public parking lots, and people walking-around the Village rather than driving. Identify reasons visitors to the area, or business owners/employees, are not currently using the public parking lots, and make improvements to correct situation. Implement a fun and informative marketing camuaign for the Village Area. Increased utilization of all public parking 1 lots which may require new parking facilities to be constructed sooner than may be quite difficult (and perhaps impossible) in some cases. Recommendation #4 - Facilitate Better Design of Private Parking: Facilities. Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency take a proactive approach to encouraging property owners/businesses 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; and/or, Parking Program Report, Revised l/99 Page 42 6b 2. Assisting private property owners and/or businesses to develop and execute appropriate agreements to allow for shared private parking facilities, as appropriate. 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. 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: 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. 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. 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 l/99 Page 43 e 53 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 plans 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 nroblem. 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 l/99 Page 44 e Recommendation #6 - Study of Tourist Impacts on Parking: 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 differing 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 future 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 II). To be successful in developing these two parking structures at a future 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 construction/maintenance 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 II 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 l/99 Page 45 e!9% 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 Commission/Council for consideration. The costs of producing additional public parking (beyond Parking Structures I and II) within the Village Redevelopment Area will need to be shared by several parties. Existing businesses and/or 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 Agency/City 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 and/or 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 $a “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 l/99 Page 46 e 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. Locator Map of Two Hour Parking Zone in the Village. 2. Locator Map for Public Parking Lots 3. Summary of Parking Counts 4. Locator Map for Two Hour Parking Restrictions for Public Parking Lots 5. Parking Zones for In-Lieu Fee Program 6. Cost Estimates for Construction of Parking Spaces 7. Comparison of Revenue Generation - Building with Parking vs. Building without Parking 8. Future Public Parking Needs 9. Locator Map for Future Public Parking Structures I and II 10. Locator Map for Additional (Potential) Public Parking Structures 11. Parking Structure Cost Analysis - Parking Structures I & II 12. Parking Structure Cost Analysis - Parking Structures A-D 13. Surface Level Parking Cost Analysis Parking Program Report, Revised l/99 Page 47 et9 VILLAGE PARKING PROGRAM EXHIBITS l-13 I LEGEND: - 2-HOUR PARKING BOUNDARY EFFERSON I I ST. J MADISON ST, I STATE ST. c F AILffOAO I-KUJLLI NAML: RECOMMENDED TWO-HOUR PARKING T/ME RESTRICT/ON BOUNDARY IN THE CORE VLLAGE AREA - LOCATION MAP A VE. A VE. NO1 Tb SCALE I 0 0 r GRAND - GE I OAK cl r DR. L AVF CARLSBAD OAK AVF , I EXHIBIT 2 PROJECT NAME LOCATION OF VILLAGE PARKING LOTS - i c - s - 3 cv r- - N N - w - s - 0 r - iii 8 iri - - 5 - t- I- - 8 - z - E - co - L - k - G - & - E a 2 N - - ! - t- w - zi - % - z - N - In r - N r - \ Y - 2 - E a 8 ;t’ - - ! - : - z - % - 2 - h - k - xi - a - 2 - E n 8 ti 7 - 0 og= mo l3 7 9 w&q No r E a qN $“o cd WE N” EXHIBIT 3 1 1 co$ NaIJ Vrn’ 0 PJ$ ‘0’ T < ; 0 O$ -0’ - , $ ( ‘w 0 1 IN 0 ‘ 7 7 c T c T : 1 u IC 2 n k % - UY I\ - 0: t- - E 2 u I- ;; I.- i v I- - z - CII N - i-? - N 7 b r -I a’ -- A I :I I 7 cn r = 3 1 : i i ! E 0 P Eg,o -0) z ‘m$m$ cumcJm,% T-O-3-0 :: P (\ I- cr 0 x s N m 7 b 7 - 2 - co 7 - E ? * - 0 No&= s -o--o” r 7 04 Y- n P 2 - 2 -a. - s z z - z - E z . u I - - 1 E qn 0%: *0 T-s oi E I : % - b T- - - - E ? l-i I - 9 - - W 7 - 3 - F; - z - E ? 3 - 9 c.,S E %$ucuA Q--- u u a 1 a. $’ mo t- *i a a . . 6 F N z 2 -0 !! 3 c ENGINEERS TABLE 2 CARLSBAD VILLAGE PUBLIC PARKING COUNT THURSDAY, JULY 25,1996 LOT PARKING SUPPLY #OF PARKING SPACES IO:00 AM 11:oO AM 12:OO PM 2:OO PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 590 PM 6:oO PM 7:00 PM 890 PM AVERAGE OCCUPANCY , (all day) t PEAK OCCUPANCY .I, .‘. : :.. :. :. :. :. :.. :. 1:: :. :. _‘_ :_ .I. :. :_ :. .‘. ::: :. LL 1:: =? :.. 1:: _‘. :. .I. :. ‘.8 1:: .‘_ :. .I_ 1:: :. ::: :_ _‘_ :_ :_ :. :. :_ .I. ?z _‘. 1:: :. :_ _‘_ :. :_ : :. :. :. :. :. :_ :_ :. :. :_ _‘_ :.:a .‘_I i NOTES: - Bold faced Cs indicate peak occupancy. Capacity (2 85%) EXHIBIT 3 G3 ::. .,, ,I. :. PARKING ;:;:;~.&~~$f~ SuppLy :j:I::::::.:.::::::::: 55 .__... .~.‘_‘.-.-.~.‘,‘.~.‘.~ ..__... ..,....., .,_,__.~. .I. _:.:.: I :. ;.:: ‘_‘. :. I ._ TABLE 3 CARLSBAD VILLAGE PUBLIC PARKING COUNT SATURDAY, JULY 27,1996 #OF PARKING SPACES ho:00 AM :.:a.:., :_::.:.:_ .,.:a::. :.D-: =.;. .:.p’.’ .:.:-J.:.: ‘,’ a:.: ;.I.0 .,., :.:g.:. L-l ;$I;, ;y$:! :. :::::. I._. _‘. ._ .:.j:z::: 1::s:: 12:00 PM .._... jl:OO PM 32 I I”:” PM I 28 23 59 ifi . . ::::: ‘.‘.‘.‘.~.’ :. 15 40 ;;;$j;;;;i{f:&f 30 50 1;; ..,_. 15 40 t:::~::::j:::zJ6:::j 34 1 46 I:;:irj;:;:l:;:~jj:ff 12 1 3 .._.. ‘I’ 12 33 I::: . . . . . OCCUPANCY 1:1:1:~:1:1:::1:~:::I: r 24 I PEAK f:;;;::::9:l::l 65% riilill;-.l-ll~I .:.:.:QJ::::;: .~.~.~~~~‘~~~‘;~ 680/ OCC”pANCy ::::::::::j:j:;:;:;:I: 0 1~~~~1 67% 1 NOTES: - Bdd faced bs indicate peak occupancy. Capacity (2 85%) EXHIBIT 3 cl L - Historical Dep Building - CO Carlsbac Viliage Drive I 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 30 minute parking for CONVIS visitors. I -1 - Oak Avenue 2 Hour Parking Restrictions (Proposed) Public Parking Lots Exhibt 4 uea30 3gped cl + ii3 . EXHIBIT 5 G PARKING CONSTRUCTION COSTS SOURCE Carl Walker, Inc. Dealy International Parking Design (Sherman Oaks) International Parking Design (Oakland) International Parking Institute Kimley Horn & Associates Leasy Ninteman iNa1tr-y Design Group A,,Frn 1 AC COST . SURFACE ABOVE GRADE PARKING PARKING $5.00/sf $6,500 - 7,50O/stall $2.50 - 3.50/sf $4,000 - 8,00O/stall $7.00 - 1 O.OO/sf $5,000 - 6,00O/stall $5.00 - lo.oo/sf $5,500 - 7,50O/stall $5.00/sf $7,00O/stall $7.00 - 10.001sf $7,000 - 10,000/stall $5.00 - 8.00tsf $5,400 - 7,200tstall $3.00 - 4.00lsf $4,500 - 7,OOOtstall $3.00 - 5.00/sf $7,50Otstall A#% .TA,-r A#- vnn,-L-l, L\V&KAbC $b.UWST I go, / uu/stalI 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 t, I I I I . t ;; jI d ? i i I I 1 9 9 i ij 2 3 !? i E ; i = = J = z 6 L 6 I I 1 , I IC : : / T ic EXHIBIT 7 ~3. ENGINEERS BIT 69 8 SOURCE: Carlbad Village Master Plan NO SCALE CARLSBAD VILlAGE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES CARLSBAD VILLAGE PARKING 70 4 4 BEECHAVE BEECHAVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - :.:.;;).:. - :.:.;;).:. . . . . PARKING !STRUCTURE II PARKING !STRUCTURE II ::::. ::::. , GRANDAvE , GRANDAvE . . . . ::. . . ::. . . PARKING STRUCTURE I ,:*:*:*:* PARKING STRUCTURE I ,:*:*:*:* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ::. . ::. . . . . . . . . . :::: :::: :::: :::: :::: :::: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :::: :::: :::: :::: , . . . . , . . . . CANSBAD WGE CANSBAD WGE DR DR NOTE: - Total supply: 790 spaces - m: Indicate parking structures. NO SCALE EXHIBIT 9. FUTURE CARLSBAD VILLAGE AREA PUBLIC PARKING SUPPLY CARLSBAD VILLAGE PARKING 71 ltructure D - 2 to 3 story struct let: 100 to 274 spat Structure C l- 2 to 3 story strl Net: 35 to 140 sp; I I I I I I I 5 I Ji I Q) I s G I I ture; es 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) _ CTD Assistance !012 1 2013 1 2014 ( 2015 1 2016 ) Subtotal COSfS Property Purchase ConstNction costs Eng. &Contingency .__~__-.__--. .s”btolal 1 2017 ( 2018 1 2019 1 2020 1 2021 COIIJ I I I t Propmy P”rchars 545 pet 1wxe toot C0”luclii” co,,, 56700 sng. a conmgsncy NCTD Assistance EXHIBIT 11 73 Parking Structure Cost Analysis Additional Structures (924 spaces) _ 1997 1996 1999 20-N 2001 2002 2003 2004 1 2005 2006 TOW COSfS Not&Auumpf!cmr I Property Purchase I.5 Pa ,(“a” root s- s- s- s. s- 5. s- f- I- .$- 5 - Construction Costs woo Pa, ,,.tt I- s- s- a- s- s - I- f- s- s- s - Eng. (L contingency 1% 0, lhcd 4 Maintenance & Repairs s61 Construction Financing ~0.n Pmt Q Total Cc 1st Estimata I costs Property Pur chase 1 Subtotal ) 2007 1 2C 1 NahS/ASsumolims 1 1020 SPaces~ 1 ,320 I )06 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Subtotal , bacm (230 spacw (150 GPuMl (374 spacer) ,924 spaso, ~frspcrqu.r.(oot 1 S - (52.350.305 ( S - $1.129.500 s - 53.1aa.250 S - 16 - S - 5 - % 6.666.055 1% -1 S2.144.000 1 S - 51.541.000 J - 52.505.800 S - I - S - S - t 6.19o.aoo - 674 145 1 P ‘6 *no 575 4 . * StSd 1”R s c t s 1 WR R,R Eng. 8 Contingency CTD Assistance Eng. a Contingency Maintenance & Repai TDA Funds/Other s -0 -s -5 -I$ -f -5 -s _ 3 -s -5 -$ -f -s -3 -3 * f -s -a -5 -5 -s -5 -s _ f S _ 33.06483 Sl.224.600 S1.224.600 $ 1.224.600 $ 1.224.600 1.224.600 5 6,123.000 $45.332.463 EXHIBIT 12* 1 Surface Parking Cost Analysis (7. lots - 250 spaces) z/4/99 rcosis n 1999 1 2000 I 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Subtotal II 1 1 ) ) ) ) 1 I Nor*sJ/lAJs”mpmmr I I I ,,I!4 ,oaca,, I I ,IJam.ca.l I I I I ._-.--, Property Purchase St5 eer ¶q”PI* coat ((5 -1 (5 - (si,44a,ooo(s - ( S 2.160.000 ) S - 1 S - 1 S - 1 S 3.600.000 Construction Costs 12000perl~~ca02adF~chl 11 s - 1 s - 1 $ - ( $ 520,000 ) s - ( s 300.000 I$ Eng. 8 Conlingency I5% dh”d 6. CO”lmAxlO ~~. ,, - __.,““” _ Ma~nlenance B Repars s200 per space&r 11; -1; -1; .I$ -,$ 20s Total Cost Estimate II f - I 5 - 1 3 - [ s2.254,000 1 5 20,c Present Value *Kolrco”nl 5 - ( s . s - ) s 1.534,972 -s -5 -s 620,000 nc..t.IS - IS - IC . 1% so‘tnnnl% - (S 369,000 $ - 5 - 5 - s 663.000 100 1 s 20.000 5 50.000 5 50,000 s 50.000 f 190.000 100 1 $2.849.000 s 50,000 s 50.000 f 50,000 5 5.273.000 IIS 12.600 ( S 1.660.967 B 27,COO 5 25.000 S 23.150 Eng. 8 Cont!ngency EXHIBIT 13 qj CARLSBAD VILLAGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION Established 1977 P. 0. Box 1460 - Carlsbad - California - 92018 March 1, 1999 Mayor Bud Lewis and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Reference: Report on Parking Utilization, Programs and Recommendations for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Area Dear Mayor and Council: Thank you for providing the CVBA directors a chance to review the referenced report. Your stti has put much care and dedication into it and we agree almost completely with the recommendations. We request small, but important modifications in three areas. The most significant area regards the time limits to be imposed on parking in the downtown area. Given the nature of village business, our membership is convinced that the time limit should be three hoursinstead of two. This would allow shoppers and diners sufficient time to enjoy the village, but insure that day- parkers would seek space in lots and areas with no limits. The other two areas of concern are (1) the frequency of parking surveys and (2) a project to improve signage. Our membership feels that underlying forces are changing rapidly enough to warrant parking surveys every six months, at least during the next few years. Pressures on parking include the implementation of the parking plan, opening of Legoland, development in the North County and seasonal influences. We believe that these and other factors warrant more frequent surveys than the annually. The final area concerns signage. We feel that improvement in signs and maps pointing out where parking exists, and indicating where shops are located, would have significant beneficial impact. In summary, our association is very appreciative of the attention the city has given to the parking issue. We urge recommendations two and three be modified to reflect the concerns expressed in this letter. Thank you for your support. ct Mayor City Council City Wilier city Attorney Sincerely, Co-chair Co-chair-