HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-06-08; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 309; Parking in the Village Redevelopment Areag ‘Z 2 5 .- 3 .- E E s
6-c Em
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL b@
\B# 309 TITLE. -- PARKING IN THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA - ATG. 618199 PARKING FINDINGS AND PROGRAM APPROVALS
IEPT. H/RED
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPT. HD.
CITY ATTY. 6%
CITY MGR.
ADOPT Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 309 approving the
implementation of the parking programs as set forth in the Parking in the Carlsbad Vi//age Redevelopment
Area Report with revisions as recommended for approval by the Design Review Board.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Since completion of the Vi//age Master P/an and Design Manual in 199596, 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 report entitled
“Parking in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area”.
The report was presented to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on March 2, 1999 for
information purposes and further direction on how to proceed. At that time, the Commission referred the
report to the Design Review Board for consideration, additional input, and recommendations. As
instructed by the Commission, the Board hosted an “open house” and then followed it with a public
hearing to receive testimony on the parking programs recommended by staff. The open house and public
hearing were both held on Monday, March 22, 1999 in the City Council Chambers.
Notices of the open house and public hearing were mailed to all business and property owners within the
Village Redevelopment Area. In addition, notices were hand-delivered to employees and residents within
the Village Area by members of the City’s Retired Senior Volunteer Police Patrol. A total of 2000 notices
were either hand-delivered by the volunteers or mailed directly to business/property owners, residents and
employees within the Village. To inform the public at large, paid advertisements were placed in the North
County Times to announce the day and time for the open house and public hearing. These newspaper
advertisements were displayed on March 12” and March 18’h. Also, Daniels Cablevision made public
announcements regarding the meetings.
With each of the mailed or hand-delivered meeting notices, a summary of the recommendations on
parking was provided together with a survey to be completed for public input purposes. The public was
invited to attend the public hearing to provide comments and/or to complete the survey form to indicate
support or opposition to the staff recommendations: A total of 50 written surveys were returned to the
Housing and Redevelopment Department. The comments provided within those surveys are summarized
in Exhibit 2. A total of 25 persons attended the open house and public hearing on Monday, March 22”d to
receive the staff presentation, and IO of those attending provided formal input to the Design Review
Board. The public testimony received is summarized in Exhibit 3.
Desian Review Board Recommendations
After obtaining public testimony from all of those persons wishing to speak on March 22”‘, the Design
Review Board adopted a recommendation (4-1, Marquez - no) to the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission to approve the programs set forth within the Parking in the Carlsbad Vi//age Redevelopment
Area Report, with the exception that the fee for the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program be set at $5,328, rather
than the proposed $11,240. The votes on the individual program recommendations were as follows:
I
1.
AB I# 304
Page 2
Recommendation #I: Implement the Village Parking In-Lieu fee Program by making a determination that
there is adequate parking at this time to accommodate additional private development, and by setting the
fee for the program at $5,328 per parking space required and to be provided off-site within a public
parking lot. Vote: 3-2 (Marquez & Marois - no)
The staff recommendation was to set the fee at $11,240, which is based on the estimated cost of
constructing a parking space within a parking structure and maintaining it for 30 years. However, the
Design Review Board felt that the fee was too high and would actually discourage development or
expansion of desirable businesses. Therefore, the Board recommended that the fee be set at $5,328,
which is based on the estimated cost of constructing a parking space within a parking structure with no
share of the maintenance cost included in the fee.
Members Marquez and Marois were supportive of the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program in concept. However,
they did not wish to vote in favor of the program and related fee until they received additional information
on how much revenue could be generated from a Parking or Business Improvement District, or other fee
sources.
Recommendation #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 as set forth within the subject
report. 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. As an additional action, authorize staff 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). It is recommended that 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. Vote: 3-2 (Marois & Forsyth - no)
Members Marois and Forsyth were supportive of the short-term time limits for parking on the streets and
within the three public parking lots. However, they preferred 3 hours over 2 hours as the time limit. All of
the members were supportive of providing 2 or more spaces with 30 minute time limits for the Convention
and Visitors Bureau.
Recommendation #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 as set forth within the subject report. 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. Vote: 5-O.
Recommendation ##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 as set forth within the subject report. Vote: 5-O.
Recommendation #5: Authorize staff to take actions to prepare for the future expansion of public parking
facilities (structures) 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. Vote: 5-O.
AB# ?JO~
Page 3
Recommendation #6: Coordinate study of tourist impacts on the Village Redevelopment Area with
development of the City’s Integrated Transportation System as set forth within the subject report.
As noted above, the Board ultimately approved (4-1, Marquez - no) Design Review Board Resolution No.
267 recommending approval of implementation of all of the above recommendations as noted. The
executed resolution is included within the attached Design Review Board Staff Report.
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. Following is a discussion on each of the recommended actions as related to fiscal
impact:
Village Parkina In-lieu Fee Program: If the recommendation of the Design Review Board is accepted, the
fee (or payment amount) for the Parking /n-Lieu Fee (or Parking Payment) Program will be set at $5,328
per parking space required and to be provided off-site within a public parking lot. Participation in the
program is subject to the eligibility criteria set forth within the Vi//age Master P/an and Design Manual and
approval of an appropriate agreement by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
By accepting the subject Parking Payment, the Redevelopment Agency and City must also accept the
obligation to provide public parking to meet the need of the approved private development(s). Per the
Vi//age Master P/an, the parking is to be provided on a shared use basis within existing public parking
facilities, and/or within newly constructed public parking facilities to be provided at some later date. Under
the existing program description, the revenue raised through the subject parking payments may be used
to 1) improve or maintain existing public parking lots, and/or 2) may be set-aside to be used at a later date
for construction of new parking facilities.
In accepting the obligation to provide public parking to meet development needs, it is critical to note that
the Redevelopment Agency and/or City also assumes a substantial financial responsibility. The
construction and maintenance of parking facilities, specifically parking structures, is costly. The subject
parking payment is based on the costs of constructing and maintaining two public parking structures for 30
years, with a net increase of 250 spaces, which is estimated to be $13,820,700. The proposed parking
payment, however, represents only one-third of the capital cost of constructing a single, new space within
a public parking structure. This payment amount, as recommended for approval by the Board, includes no
share of maintenance costs for the proposed structured parking space. If development occurs and if there
is participation in the program as staff has anticipated, it is currently estimated that revenue generated
from parking payments will amount to approximately $4.3 million over the next 6 years. However, there is
3
AB# 369
Page 4
no absolute guarantee as to how many developers or property owners will choose to participate in the
program or the timing of that participation. The estimate of revenue is based upon a number of
assumptions which can change over time.
If the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program is implemented as recommended, it must be understood that the
revenue raised through the program will not be adequate to construct and maintain parking structures.
Even if the program is successful and the maximum revenue of $4.3 million is actually received, a gap will
still remain in the construction and maintenance financing which is currently estimated at $9.5 million. At
this time, no guaranteed financing mechanism has been identified to “bridge the gap” to allow for
construction of one or more new parking facilities. Staff will need to present a comprehensive financing
plan at a later date for consideration and action if a decision is made to pursue the construction of parking
structures in the Village Area.
Parking Time Limits and Enforcement: 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 total 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.
Public ParkinolMarketina Campaign: 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/refinanced redevelopment bonds.
Redesign of Private Parkinn Facilities Prooram: 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 consideration at a later date as part of the annual budget development
process.
Prepare for the Expansion of Public Parkinn Facilities: The Design Review Board has recommended that
the Redevelopment Agency and City begin to prepare for the addition of public parking within the Village
Area either 1) through preparation of plans for expansion or improvement of existing parking lots, or 2)
preparation of plans for construction of new parking facilities. Because the Village Vision indicates that it is
more important to construct interesting buildings rather than pave land for surface level parking lots, both
staff and the Design Review Board believe that if new parking facilities are eventually required they should
be constructed in the form of parking structures.
As stated previously, a need has not yet been demonstrated for, nor is funding available to, construct
additional public parking within the Village. However, in order to be prepared, the Design Review Board
has recommended that staff proceed with plans to study possible funding sources for the future
development of parking facilities and to provide a comprehensive financing plan for consideration and
approval at a later date. I
AB # 309
Page 5
Studv of Tourist Impacts on the Village: Because this is a city-wide issue, this program has already been
incorporated into the scope of work for development of the City’s Integrated Transportation System. The
consultant fee for this work has been incorporated into the total cost of the subject project which is
$85,406. These funds have already been appropriated from the Council’s Contingency Fund.
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 309 , approving Parking Programs
and Recommendations for the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
Summary of Written Surveys on Parking in the Village Area.
Summary of Public Hearing Testimony on Parking in the Village Area, including written
correspondence from the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce and the Carlsbad Village Business
Association.
Design Review Board Staff Report, dated March 22, 1999, with copy of complete Parking in the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area Report as an exhibit.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 309
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE
PROGRAMS OUTLINED WITHIN THE PARKING IN THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENTAREA REPORT.
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency has studied various issues related to parking
within the Village Redevelopment Area and set forth its findings and recommendations related to parking
needs and demands within a report entitled “Parking in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area”; and,
WHEREAS, the findings and recommendations set forth within the “Parking in the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Area” Report have been reviewed and considered by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission has accepted the findings of the
‘&Parking in the Car&bad Village Redevelopment Area” Report; and,
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission referred the subject report to the
Design Review Board for additional public input and recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did hold a public hearing on March 22, 1999 to receive
public testimony and approved recommendations to the Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission has accepted and considered the
recommendations of the Design Review Board as well as any additional public comments on the
recommendations set forth within the subject parking report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of
the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. The above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission accepts the “Parking in the Village
Redevelopment Area” Report, dated January, 1999, which was prepared to document the
findings and recommendations related to parking within the Village Redevelopment Area.
3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission authorizes Redevelopment Agency staff to
proceed with the programs outlined within the subject report, and set forth herein, to address
various parking issues within the Village Redevelopment Area.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HRC Resolution No. 304
4. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission has determined that there is adequate
public parking available within the Village Redevelopment Area to accommodate additional
private development, and to implement the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program according to
the program description and requirements set forth within the approved Village Master Plan
and Design Manual, and reiterated within the subject parking report.
5. That the fee for participation in the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee shall be set at $11,240 per
parking space required and to be provided off-site within a public parking lot, and shall be
subject to annual review by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
6. It has been determined that the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee represents one of several options
provided to a private developer within the Village Redevelopment Area for satisfying an on-
site parking obligation and shall be paid via an agreement between the Redevelopment
Agency and the individual property and/or business owners. Because fees collected pursuant
to agreements with redevelopment agencies are not considered to be a “Development Impact
Fee”, the Parking In-Lieu Fee is not subject to the regulations set forth within Government
Code Section 66000(b) for “Development Impact Fees”.
7. The fee set forth in Paragraph #5 above shall become effective sixty (60) days after the
adoption of this resolution.
8. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby authorizes the Executive Director or
his designee to proceed with processing of an Ordinance to expand implement three (3) hour
parking within the core Village Area for all streets and public alleys within the designated
boundaries which currently allow for parking, to be effective Monday through Saturday from
7:OOam to 6:00pm, excluding holidays.
9. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby authorizes the Executive Director or his
designee to proceed with actions to implement three (3) hour time limits within three of the
existing public parking lots as designated within Exhibit 4 of the Parking in the VilIage
Redevelopment Area Report, dated January, 1999, with the exception that two (2) parking
spaces within the South Depot Parking Lot shall be further restricted to thirty (30) minutes for
exclusive use of visitors to the Carlsbad Convention and Visitors Bureau Office.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HRC Resolution No 309 .-
10. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby authorizes the Executive Director or his
designee to strictly enforce the existing and future parking time limits as set forth in
Paragraphs #8 and #9 above, following complete implementation of a public relations
program to broadly promote and clarify the intent of the parking enforcement efforts.
11. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby authorizes the Executive Director or his
designee 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.
12. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby authorizes the Executive Director or his
designee 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.
13. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby authorizes the Executive Director or his
designee to take appropriate actions to pursue acquisition of property, or control of a parking
structure site, as identified within the Parking in the CarIsbad Village Redevelopment Area
Report as opportunities are presented and according to applicable Redevelopment Agency
policies and procedures.
14. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby authorizes the Executive Director or his
designee to proceed with actions to develop preliminary financing and conceptual design
plans for construction of one or more parking facilities within the Village Redevelopment
Area, as deemed appropriate.
illfll
I/II/l
I///l
‘Ill/t
w//t
‘Ill/l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HRC Resolution No 30Y .-
15. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby instructs the Executive Director or his designee
to complete semi-annual parking studies of the public parking lots located within the Village
Redevelopment Area to ensure that any increase (or decrease) in parking demand is properly recorded
and calculated into any future need for additional public parking facilities.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 8th day
of June ,1999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard, and Kulchin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hall
ABSTAIN: None
-
LAUDE A. LEWIS, Chairman
RAtiOND R PATCJFIETT,
Secretary
EXHIBIT 2
VILLAGE PARKING RECOMMENDATIONS
SURVEY SUMMARY
Total Number of Completed Surveys: 50
1. Implement the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and set the Fee at %11,240?
Yes - 23 No-16 Undecided - 11
(Fee to High - 10)
(Won’t help - 3)
2. Expand the Boundaries for 2 hour parking and implement strict enforcement?
Yes - 24 No-23
(3 hr - 3)
(4hr - 2)
(Not in lots - 2)
(Employees &
Owners Need to
Park - 9)
Undecided - 3
3. Develop and Implement a Public Relations Program to encourage pedestrian
traffic and better utilization of existing public parking lots?
Yes - 41 No-6 Undecided - 3
4. Develop and Implement a Private Parking Redesign Program?
Yes - 41 No-5 Undecided - 4
5. Prepare for the expansion of public parking facilities within parking structures?
Yes - 40 No-4 Undecided - 6
- -
XUllaggePax?BdnggReooxn.xn endat*ons
SurweyResults
BUSINESS/PROPERTY
OWNER NAME (OR RESIDENT)
A World of Travel
(Hope Wrisley)
Geoffrey Bell, DDS.
Dean Stubblefield
Bendix Mintex North America
[Louis Luera)
Booth & Suarez, Architecture
(William Booth)
Golden Key Properties
(Ned & Dorothy Patterson)
Chanel’s for Hair & Nail
(Andrea Sodetwood)
John Jones (Resident)
Eva Graber
Judith Shester, LCSW
Dominic’s Restaurant
(Tore Trupiano)
Roosevelt Center, Inc.
(John Yelland)
Janika Designs
Homelife Village Realtors
(Gary Nessim)
Scanlon Apartments
(James Scanlon)
Carousel Properties
(Kelly Zaun)
#I
?
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
?
Yes
Yes
No
RECOMMENDATIONS RESPONSE
#2 #3 #4 #5 COMMENTS
Yes Yes Yes Yes See Attached
No No No ? See Attached
Yes No ? Yes See Attached
No No No Yes See Attached
Yes/No Yes Yes Yes See Attached
No Yes Yes Yes See Attached
Yes Yes Yes Yes See Attached
Yes Yes Yes Yes See Attached
Yes Yes Yes Yes None
Yes Yes Yes Yes None
Yes Yes Yes Yes None
Yes Yes Yes Yes None
? Yes Yes ? None
Yes Yes Yes Yes None
Yes Yes Yes Yes See Attached
No Yes Yes Yes See Attached
1
BUSINESS/PROPERTY
OWNER NAME (OR RESIDENT)
North County Capital
(Mark Handley)
Kamar Builders, Inc.
(Marty Rombotis)
Maurice Tauzin
The Alley (Kristine Wilks)
Victoria’s (Pets)
Vicki & Joie Mazzotta
Park’s Properties
(Gloria Rombotis)
Russ Skinner Realtors & Assoc.
Barbara Stewart, D.C.
Law Office of
Thomas Gniatkowski
Classic Mortgage
(Bill Jencks/Regina Ross)
Be Ready Books & Gifts
Al’s Cafe in the Village
NLB Properties (Nancy Boyce)
?
Antique Junction (Evelyn Curtin)
Pine Avenue Apartment Building
(Les Momthei)
Postal’s Antiques
(Bob & Marilyn Postal)
Rosboro House
(Barbara Hurwitz)
T
?
Yes
?
Yes
NO
Yes
Yes
?
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
?
Yes
REC
#2
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
(YeS13L.)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
IMMENDATION!
#3 #4
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes ?
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
? ?
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
RESPONSE
#5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
3 L
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
COMMENTS
See Attached
See Attached
See Attached
None
See Attached
None
See Attached
See Attached
See Attached
None
See Attached
See Attached
None
See Attached
None
See Attached
See Attached
See Attached
2
- -
RECOMMENDATIONS RESPONSE
BUSINESS/PROPERTY ##I #2 #3 #I4 #5 COMMENTS
OWNER NAME (OR RESIDENT)
Beanstalk’s
(Marsha Lilly)
Carisbad Beauty Supply & Salon
(LeeAnn Lilinthall)
PDG Designs
(Paul Gamache)
State & Grand Properties
(Tom Betz)
Joseph E. Spano
Bergmann’s Fine Jewelry
Phil Mulloy/The Village Corner
(Mulloys Estate & Fine Jewelry)
Archie Henderson
(Henderson Jewelry)
Janet Venable (Cavalea Trust)
Tom & Judy McMahon
(Carlsbad Village Theatre)
Bob Ladwig
Dr. John Slawson
(Adjust Chiropractic)
Helen G Williams
Lucinda Vaught
(Lucinda’s)
Richard Madama
John Grant (Grant Family Trust)
Owner: Denny’s & Motel 6 Prop.
Josh Ritter
(Carlsbad Village Camera)
Yes No No Yes Yes
No
No (Yes 3 Hr.) No Yes No
No
Yes (In Lots-Yes) Yes Yes Yes
No
No (Yes 4 Hr.) Yes Yes Yes
No No No No No
Yes No Yes No Yes
No No Yes Yes Yes
Yes No Yes - ?
Yes No Yes Yes Yes
No - Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes ?
No No - No Yes
Yes -
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No Yes Yes Yes No
See Attached
See Attached
See Attached
See Attached
See Attached
See Attached
See Attached
See Attached
See Attached
See Attached
None
See Attached
See Attached
See Attached
None
See Attached
3 I3
-.
SUMMARY OF SURVEY COMMENTS
1. Implement the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and set the fee at $11,240?
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
What is justification for this amount? (Hope Wrisley)
What justifies this fee? (Geoffrey Bell)
You’ll drive all Mom & Pop Shops out of Carlsbad (Dean Stubblefield)
Short Term Fix and should be avoided (Louis Luera)
Adds $37.47 per SF to actual cost of construction of all space built with in-lieu
parking stalls. If rent is increased 15% above competition, payback does not happen
for 17 years! ( William Booth)
Would not solve existing problem (Vicki & Joey Mazzotta)
Too expensive (Thomas Gniatkowski)
There is no more room for parking currently (Erica Cabawagan)
Penalizes established businesses as well as new development ( Al Wanamaker)
Why so high?
Fee is too high. Businesses can’t afford. New builders should provide a minimum # of
parking spaces on-site to accommodate employees. (Kelly Zaun)
Cannot render a decision as not enough information was provided to determine
“adequate parking determination”. (Les Momthei)
Fee way too much for small business - $5,000 a much better number - maybe sliding
scale to stimulate business. (LeeAnn Lilinthal)
Too expensive and will discourage development in the Village. (Tom Betz)
Private enterprise could provide parking at lower cost and keep property on tax rolls.
(Joseph Spano)
I understand this is for new construction/remodel/expansione etc. ? (Phil Mulloy)
I can’t afford $11,240 per year for parking - I pay 0 now! (Archie Henderson)
Yes, subject to annual review of the impact on development in Village. Also, spread-
out the fee payment over time (5 years). (Tom & Judy McMahon)
Prefer the adoption of a program to allow a future agreement to be signed - pay when
a structure is built - not use $ for maintenance of surface parking. (Bob Ladwig)
This must be appropriate for business - not residential. (Helen Williams)
This does not gain any additional spaces for public parking. The City Council could
build multi-layered parking structures to gain many additional spaces. $11,240 is a
great burden on small businesses which most are here. (Lucinda Vaught)
As tax payers, we have already paid for the parking lots. (Josh Ritter)
$11,240 would have a chilling effect on the development in the downtown area.
Agree with concept and think that some fee does need to be collected. Fee should be
paid when parking structure is to be constructed using Future Development
Agreements. City should continue to maintain parking lots at its cost, not include in
fee. (Chamber of Commerce)
2.
0
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
0
l
l
Expand the Boundaries for 2 hour parking and implement strict enforcement?
Yes, if there are signs indicating closest unlimited parking lots. (Hope Wrisley)
Parking for people who work in the Village - ie need 8 hr parking is already too
limited. (Geoffrey Bell)
Short term fix and should be avoided. (Louis Luera)
Yes expand area; no, never have strict enforcement in a “village” retail area during
daylight hours. (William Booth)
No, until #‘s 3,4, and 5 (below) are fully implemented/explored, or more accessible
public parking provided in our area - 2700 block Roosevelt Street. (Ned & Dorothy
Paterson)
Yes, but give parking stickers to owners of Carlsbad village so they can park in 2
hour spaces for longer amounts of time (4 to 6 hours). (Andrea Soderwood)
Keep 2 hr/no 3 hr. (John Jones)
These limits would restrict the people who work in the downtown area. They would
have to move cars every 2 hours & that is a real pain. (Russ Skinner Realtors)
The 3000 block of Madison is business/residential. It is not an area for tourists and
there is currently ample parking. A 2 hour limit would be an inconvenience for the
residents & business owners. (Barbara Stewart)
No, getting to be like downtown SD or LA. (Thomas Gniatkowski)
No, we have to park near our stores to get inventory into the building and it’s too far
to carry heavy boxes - esp if there are many of them. We also have to park while we
and our employees work! (Erica Cabawagan)
No, we need minimum of 3 hr pkg. Strict enforcement (ie ticketing) is not “shopper
friendly”. (Al Wanamaker)
Yes, but include the 2 hour parking limit on both sides of Madison, otherwise these
spaces on the east side of Madison will be filled with all day parkers thereby
preventing residents who live on the east side of Madison from parking in front of
their residences between 7am and 6pm. (James Scanlon)
Believe we should have 4 hr in parking lots with 2 hour on street. As property
manager, can’t keep moving vehicles. Need at least 4 hour in parking lots.
Suggestions: Issue parking permits for merchants to be allowed to park in public
parking lots beyond time limits at a fee, perhaps $25 per month. Identify 1 lot where
merchants can park with a permit (& maybe make them pay per month). (Kelly Zaun)
No, for my location, the biggest problem is “coaster” riders parking all-day in the 3
lots noted on the map. This forces me, a local business owner, to have to rotate my
car. What about? Business owners have permits to exempt from 2 hour limitations?
(Mark Handley)
No, adverse impact on affected properties. (Maurice Tauzin)
No, adjacent apartments, etc have limited parking due to construction prior to current
requirements for parking. Tenants that park on street (or employees) would be forced
back into ever more crowded areas. (Les Momthei)
Yes, but would prefer to see 3 hour parking. Would be better for customers. (Bob and
Marilyn Postal)
l
l
l
l
l
No, I am afraid this will encourage the public to use private parking - also to eat
lunch & walk the area takes more than 2 hours. (Barbara Hurwitz)
No, I park in the lot south of Carlsbad Village Drive/off & west of State St. for seven
hours 6 days a week. As a business owner, I could not move every 2 hours. (Marsha
Lilly)
No, 3 hour parking with 20 minute slots on each side of all cross walks. Strict
enforcement in problem areas only - example, around coaster area. We do not want to be another Oceanside - giving tickets 5 minutes past time limit. (LeeAnn Lilinthall)
I do not agree with time limits in lots at this time. I support 2 hr on streets indicated.
(Paul Gamache)
The feed-back I get from my tenants is that 4 hours is better. I recommend you try 4
hour parking in the 3 parking lots. At least try 4 hours in the lot north of the old
depot/CONVIS. (Tom Betz)
No, this is not a problem in Village, except at RR Station. (Joseph Spano)
No, make a dedicated merchant parking lot enforced with annual dues & window
decals! (Phil Mulloy)
No, where will the merchants park? (Archie Henderson)
No, in order for people to really lunch & shop, they need to have time to linger &
browse - spending money takes time. (Janet Venable)
No, 2 hour parking is too restrictive for Village patrons. It must be at least 3 hours or
more. (Tom & Judy McMahon)
No, people need more than two hours to shop and eat. Continue 2 hour limit where
currently applicable but not in the Village Free Parking Lots. (Lucinda Vaught)
Residents (home not business) should have car sticker or pass or pay $25 per year
such as Arcadia, Pasadena, etc. Residential property owners should not be included in
this unfair parking restriction. Why are we being penalized? Shouldn’t we be able to
drive up and park in front of our own homes? (Richard Madama)
I really do not know what is best concerning the parking, but I do want to urge you to
do what you do very carefully. There is something very special and very fragile about
our “little village”. There is a warmth and friendliness that visitors notice and respond
to. I hear it day in and day out, from tourists and locals alike. I hear very often that
this is a real small town, like stepping back in time. We have something here in our
little town worth preserving. (Beryl Lamb)
In a mixed-use area (residential and commercial), residents should be given
preference as to the parking. This can be achieved by providing to the resident, a
parking sticker. When a home is located in the Village Area, it is very inconvenient to
have to move your vehicle every 2 to 3 hours. Don’t forget, the homes were her
before any commercial sites were. Residents should not be penalized because the
zoning was changed! (Evelyn Rozance)
No, want 3 hour parking on street and in 3 parking lots. Would like spaces on either
side of all cross walk on State Street to be 20 minute parking. Additional 20 minute
spaces could be placed around the Village (Roosevelt, Grand, and Carlsbad Boulevar)
to accommodate quick access to businesses in the area. Nee to perform at least semi-
annual parking surveys, including on-street parking. (Village Business Association)
3.
l
l
4. Develop and Implement a Private Parking Redesign Program?
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
5.
0
Develop and Implement a Public Relations Program to encourage pedestrian
traffic and better utilization of existing public parking lots?
No - What is cost? Who is going to profit? Who is going to implement and measure
results? (Geoffrey Bell)
No, waste of money. (Dean Stubblefields)
Short term fix and should be avoided. (Louis Luera)
Coaster riders should park in coaster lots or have to pay parking fee. (Mark Handley)
No, I don’t believe a public relations program could have much effect on the above.
(Marsha Lilly)
No, signage only. (LeeAnn Lilinthall)
No, public parking lots will only be used if their location is practical. (Joseph Spano)
Yes, need sign post where they are better than now. (Janet Venable)
Yes, this is a nominal cost common sense program that should not require council
approval. (Tom & Judy McMahon)
This conflicts with the proposed two hour limit in Item No. 2. (Lucinda Vaught)
We feel that improvement in signs and maps pointing out where parking exists, and
indicating where shops are located, would have significant beneficial impact. (Village
Business Association)
Yes, but would have to see it first before I could support. (Hope Wrisley)
Why don’t you limit the conversion of space to higher use occupancy? Why did we
reduce the parking requirements? They should be increased. Why don’t you try to get
more quality development rather than parking intensive bars, restaurants, etc.?
(Geoffrey Bell)
What is this? (Dean Stubblefield)
Short term fix and should be avoided. (Louis Luera)
No, inadequate parking is part of the village concept. Adequate parking is a shopping
center concept. (Joseph Spano)
No, La Jolla has done this, and it runs potential customers away. Unless - like #2. (
Phil Mulloy)
Yes, subject to the inclusion of public on-street spaces and lots where there are many
oversized spaces and/or lost space opportunities. (Tome & Judy McMahon)
No, move the City Street Dept. to a different location which would free up a large
area that can be put to better parking use. Offer shuttle ride by private company.
(Lucinda Vaught)
Prepare for the expansion of public parking facilities within parking structures?
It is unreasonable to expect the Village to remain a sleepy/quaint town forever
particularly with developments underway off Palomar Airport Road. Make the hard
(perhaps unpopular) decision to expand public parking through additional site
acquisitions or redesign of existing sites (3 to 4 story parking structures). (Louis
Luera)
l No, a yes vote on this would be tantamount to signing our own death certificate!!
(Bob and Marilyn Postal)
l No, look at &l alternatives. (LeeAnn Lilinthall)
l No, counter productive to village concept. (Joseph Spano)
l Yes, free public parking. (Phil Mulloy)
l Under ground only - above ground is really ugly. (Janet Venable)
l Yes, subject to the inclusion of surface parking lot opportunities as interim or long-
term solutions. (i.e., any NCTD R.0.W in Village, the City’s Maintenance yard and
the relocation of the church on CVD and Washington Street). (Tome & Judy
McMahon)
l This makes sense. Don’t forget to use the airspace. (Lucinda Vaught)
l Bauer Lumber should have been (a parking lot). (Richard Madama)
In addition to the above comments on the surveys, staff received a couple of verbal
suggestions to consider parking by “robotics”. This is a newly patented technology for
automated parking. They are cheaper than conventional garages. Rather than the $16,000
per space to build a conventional garage, robotic parking garages are estimated to cost
$12,000 per space. These type of garages use half of the space that conventional garages
use. The design is comprised of individual pallets on a rail system which move several
different directions at once and are controlled by a computer system.
- EXHIBIT 3
PARKING PROGRAM PUBLIC HEARING
MARCH 22,1999
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
Charles Garner: Why was “Structure D” included as a potential site for a parking structure? The
proposal does not allow for adequate development of commercial on this private property. Why
was this decision made on this lot? Is it too late to change that decision?
Note: The property identified by Mr. Garner is related to the Town Square Center on Carlsbad
Boulevard. Staff explained that the proposal is a concept, and does not represent a final decision
or a “taking” of the property. The site was simply identified as a potential site for a future
parking structure because the owners of the property (which includes Mr. Garner) had previously
expressed interest in a joint venture to produce public and private parking for a new commercial
center at the site.
Jack Henthorn: Supports all of the staff recommendations and encouraged the Design Review
Board to recommend approval of the parking programs. Mr. Henthorn also wanted the Board to
recommend to the Commission that consideration be given to increasing the distance for
participation in the in-lieu fee program at the maximum extent from 600 feet to 800 feet, or at
least allow some flexibility in the distance requirement. He has a client who is approximately
615 feet from the nearest public parking lot which would make her eligible to pay a fee for only
25% of her parking requirement rather than 50% of her requirement. Flexibility in the distance
requirement would help his client. He supports the fee as recommended by staff ($11,240).
Tom McMahon: He believes that the vacant parking in the Commuter Rail Lot is filling up fast.
He indicated that he is on the Parking Committee for the Village Business Association and
regularly counts spaces available within the Commuter Rail Lot. Mr. McMahon also indicated
his support for 3 hour rather than 2 hour parking time limits. He stated that 2 hours is not long
enough. He supports the construction of public parking structures, but believes more surface
parking is required in the interim. (Completed a Survey)
John Jones: Mr. Jones stated that the City should stick with 2 hour parking time limits, not 3
hours. He also believes that the parking time limits need to be strictly enforced. Business owners
and employees should not park in front of their own business. He supports the construction of
parking structures. Mr. Jones also stated that there is a parking problem at Dragmaster on State
Street. He suggested that the “no parking” restriction behind Dragmaster be removed and
“business only” parking be established - no commuter parking should be allowed. (Completed a
Survey)
Pete Ritter: He owns the camera store on State Street (near the Oak Street Yard). He wants to
know what type of retail is being proposed to be added to the Village Area. He also wanted to
know why a new fee was being established for parking when the City already has one. An
additional question related to parking requirements. Mr. Ritter wanted to know how much space
he could add before he had to provide parking. His remaining two questions were related to
funding. What happens to the money collected? And, isn’t it true that existing parking is funded
by taxpayers? Mr. Ritter had a final comment related to Oak Yard Employees parking in the
public parking lot rather than their own secured lot. Mr. Ritter indicated that 10 parking spaces
could be provided for customer parking if City employees would park in their own lot.
(Completed a Survey)
Note: Mr. Ritter’s questions were answered during the hearing.
Bill Booth: Mr. Booth expressed appreciation for staffs work on the proposed parking programs
and indicated that he needs the parking in lieu fee program implemented to develop a project for
one of his clients. Mr. Booth provided the Board with numbers to support his concern about the
parking in lieu fee amount. He indicated that the fee is too high. Per Mr. Booth, you will only get
an additional 300 square feet of gross floor space for each parking space you can buy off-site.
Based on his calculations, with 100% occupancy and a 15% increase in rent, it would take 8
years for a developer/builder to break even. He stated that an owner would need to get $1.50 per
square foot in rent, but most renters are only willing to pay $1.20 per square foot and want
smaller spaces. Mr. Booth indicated that a $4,000 to $5,000 fee would be more acceptable.
(Completed a Survey)
Carolyn Preska: She has an office across from the post office, and does not have a problem with
2 hour parking. She did indicate that she believes the in lieu fee is too high and would be very
difficult to handle up front. She stated that she would like to look into the fee much more. Ms.
Preska thought it would be valuable to spend some time on trying to get more surface level
parking using existing lots provided by private owners. She stated that she would not walk from
the existing public parking lots to her office because she does not feel safe. She is nervous to
walk across town. She believes the area needs more lighting and security. She reminded the
Board that it is important to consider the needs of employees as well. Employees use the parking
resources in the area as well.
Garv Nessim: He believes that the Washington Lot next to Village Faire needs to have limited
parking (2 hours) as well. He supports parking structures which incorporate retail into them. The
Village needs to grow with buildings not more parking lots. He suggested that the Parking In
Lieu Fee program be implemented and then assess how it works. He also stated that the fee needs
to be implemented permanently. He said the program should not be terminated simply because
there is not adequate parking. He does not believe that the City can stay ahead of the need for
parking, but also doesn’t believe it matters. He believes the City should just continue to add
spaces and continue to let people pay. He believes either 2 or 3 hour parking is line. He doesn’t
believe it really makes a difference. Responding to a question from the Board, he stated that he
does not believe that people will pay a fee for parking if they are not required to do so.
John Gordon: He agreed with previous speaker on the issue of focusing on buildings over
parking. He had two questions on parking structures. First, what is development time for a
parking structure? Second, where will access be for the parking structure on Roosevelt Street?
Note: Staff indicated that a parking structure is estimated to take approximately 18 months to 2
years to design and construct. Staff indicated that the parking structures have not been designed.
Therefore, the access hasn’t been determined.
Bob Ladwig: Mr. Ladwig indicated that he was representing the Chamber of Commerce. He
stated that the proposed parking in-lieu fee is too high at $11,240. The Chamber agrees with the
concept but feels that the fee should be less. Also, he wanted to suggest that the Board consider
Future Development Agreements so that the fee could be paid at a future date. This is done
elsewhere in the City and should be acceptable for the parking in-lieu fee program. The Chamber
believes that the City should continue to provide for parking maintenance and should not include
this amount in the fee calculation. The fee should not be collected and used for improvements or
maintenance of existing parking lots. Responding to a Board question, Mr. Ladwig indicated his
support for the cost of new facilities to be spread out among all businesses in the Village Area.
(Chamber submitted a letter. Mr. Ladwig also completed a survey)
21
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
March 22, 1999
Debbie Fountain
Director
Housing and Redevelopment
2965 Roosevelt, Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: PARKING IN THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
Dear Debbie:
Thank you for providing the Chamber with a copy of the report dealing with the proposed parking
for the Village Redevelopment area. The Chamber’s Issues Committee met on Friday along with
several members from the Carlsbad Village Business Association to discuss the report. The Business
Association has submitted a separate letter to the City addressing their main concerns.
Our Issues Committee has reviewed the report and would like to comment on the parking in lieu
program as proposed; We, are concerned that the $11,240 per parking space could have a chilling
effect on the development in the downtown area. We agree with the concept and think that some fee
does need to be collected for those new developments or expansions within downtown area that
cannot meet their onsite parking requirements.
The staff currently recommends that the parking in lieu fee be paid at the time of development or
expansion of businesses. As an alternative, we would like to suggest that rather than pay the fee, the
landowner agree to pay the fee at such time as the parking structure would be constructed. Currently,
the City does require some development to sign future agreements for public improvements. This
same concept could be used for the parking in lieu fee and would be implementing a procedure that
is currently being used by the City.
With new development agreeing to pay the fee in the future when it is needed does assure the City
that the fees can be collected and at the same time does not put the up-front burden of paying the fee
on the development. The City also uses similar agreements for establishing fees for major arterials
where the exact fee is not known. Developers sign an agreement agreeing to pay the fee at some
point in the future when the precise costs are known. We think this would be a more equitable
solution and allow the City to be assured that the dollars will be there when needed. This also allows
small developments to proceed without significant up-front costs for offsite parking requirements.
The City currently provides the parking lot maintenance downtown. We would encourage this
practice to continue as the City’s contribution to free parking for our Village.
CC’
. Debbie Fountain - L March 22, 1999
Page 2
Thank you for considering our request. We would be happy to answer any questions.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Ladwig
Chairman, Chamber Issues Committee
RCL:lb.fountain.OOl
3 2J
Carlsbad Village Business . Association
(CVBA)
P. 0. Box 1460
Carlsbad, CA 920 18
Web:http://www.carlsbad-village-ca.org
(760) 434-266 1
March 18, 1999
Mrs. Deborah K. Fountain
Housing and Redevelopment
City of Carlsbad
2965 Roosevelt St., Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Director
Re: Parking in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area
Dear Debbie,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the January 1999 Report on Parking Utilization
Programs and Recommendations for the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
As you are aware, I did some unoccupied parking space counts at the Coaster Station (Lot “J”)
for the Carlsbad Village Business Association’s (CVBA) Downtown Parking Committee in
April/May 1998 (Exhibit “A” - Memo to Hope Wrisley, May 4, 1998).
I also did some follow-up unoccupied space counts at the Coaster Station (Lot “J”) for CVBA
since receiving the above referenced report.
Date
Day of
Week Time
Long Two Parallel
Term Hour Alley Total
2-22-99 Monday
2-23-99 Tuesday
2-24-99 Wednesday
2-25-99 Thursday
2-26-99 Friday
3-l-99 Monday
3 -2-99 Tuesday
3-3-99 Wednesday
3-10-99 Wednesday
9:07 a.m. 30 10 4 44
9:27 a.m. 8 11 3 22
9:44 a.m. 27 9 4 40
857 a.m. 40 11 3 54
8:44 a.m. 34 11 4 49
9:28 a.m. 49 9 5 63
9:43 a.m. 22 8 4 34
11:04 a.m. 27 6 4 37
9:52 a.m. 17 11 2 30
The above survey of the Coaster Train Station Parking Lot (“J”) included the southerly portion of
the lot (2Hour Parking Area) AND the parallel parking spaces along the alley that typically
< . -
‘Mrs. Deborah K. Fountain
Housing and Redevelopment Director
City of Carlsbad
March 18, 1999
accommodates 26 cars. The grand total of spaces surveyed was 337 (311 spaces in Lot “I” plus
26 spaces along the alley).
Even though the City’s August 1998 survey of Lot “I” did not count the parallel parking spaces
along the alley, a casual review of our current Lot “I” survey counts indicates that the utilization
of this particular lot has increased significantly during the past year. I do not know the cause of
this increase other than the likely increase in ridership on the Coaster.
In view of the trend indicated by the surveys of the Coaster Station (Lot “I”) enclosed and cited,
we recommend that your department perform more frequent surveys (i.e. at least semi-annually)
as opposed to the annual parking surveys recommended in your report.
Thank you again for your cooperation in this matter.
Tom McMahon
CUBA - Downtown Parking Committee
Carlsbad Village Business Association (CVBA), P. 0. Box 1460, Carlsbad, CA 92018 (760) 434-2661
- -L
Tom McMahon
4028 Park Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 720-2460 Bus.
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 4,, 1998
To:
From:
Hope Wrisley
Tom McMahon
Re: “Coaster” Parking Lot Survey
In view of the parking problems in the Village area and the concerns expressed by several
Carlsbad Village Business Association members, I toured the northerly end of the Coaster parking
lot on the dates shown below an noted the following unoccupied spaces:
DATE DAY TIME
UNOCCUPIED
SPACES
4/27/98 Monday 9:oo am 134
4/28/98 Tuesday 9:30 am 112
4/29/98 Wednesday 8:30 am 126
4/3 O/98 Thursday 8:40 am 130
5/l/98 Friday 8:35 am 130
5/4/98 Monday 8:30 am 123
It should be noted that the unoccupied spaces, if any, immediately south of the station that are
marked for “2 Hour” parking were not included in the above count. Typically, there were 3-5
spaces unoccupied in this particular “2 Hour” limit area.
It should also be noted that the total Coaster parking lot north of Grand Avenue and west of the
alley has approximately 3 10 spaces. There are approximately 27 more parallel parking spaces
along the west side of the alley for a grand total of 337 parking spaces.
This parking area (area “I”) had 130 spaces according to the City’s “Location of Village Parking
Lots” in August 1997, prior to its expansion this spring
26
CARLSBADVILLAGEBUSINESSASSOCIATION
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 staff 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 rhree be modified to reflect the concerns expressed in this letter.
Thank you for your support.
AGENDA ITEM #
ct Mayor
City Council Co-chair Co-chair
City MaIWW
city Attorney
Ci# Clerk4Q
snn &Dir
Carlsbad Village Business Association
* P.0. Box 1401 l Carlsbad, CA 92018
November 6, 1997
Mayor Claude “Bud” Lewis City Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: parkina Time LbitatioL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the discussion regarding parking limits in the Village. As you know, the Village
serves many members of our community including visitors, shoppers, and businesses. The reasons for visiting the Village can range from picking up a quick lunch, shoe repair, prescription or card at a pharmacy, to a three hour perm and hair color at one of our
33 beauty salons-, or a leisurely meal and shopping experience. In light of the variety of uses and parking needs in the Village, we propose the following parking plan:
THREE HOUR 'PAkKING LIHIT IN THE VILLAGE with a number of 20 minute spaces’designated at each side'of the cross walk in the middle of State Street. Three of the four businesses in the immediate State Street area agr(ee wifh this plan. Additional 20 minute spaces could be placed-around the Village (Roosevelt, Grand and Carlsbad Blvd.) to accommodate quick access to businesses in the area.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our views on this subject. We appreciate the City's support and participation.
April 7,1999
Debbie Fountain
Housing and Redevelopment Director
2965 Roosevelt Street Ste B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Debbie,
Reference the debate about 2 hour Vs 3 hour parking in the Village.
#LB yam, # 1El Piritor Information Center in the Old Santa Fe Depot, most and
frequently an ef@r(llsl)paces on the south side of the building are filled by 7 am
each day by people rl&ll&#l@~r. All spaces have been fiM# every day this week,
for example.
This problem could easily be solved by putting a time limit on the parking lot. Even a six
hour parking limit would solve the problem. The Village Fair shopping center solves the
problem with a four-hour limit,
I believe a 2-hour limit is overkill. The message it conveys to the visiting tourist is “you
can stay here long enough to eat lunch and look in a couple of stores, but if you plan to
browse in the Village, you will be ticketed.” The message seems a bit stringent. We
prefer the 3-hour limit.
I hope the decision is made soon. It severely hampers our ability to serve the visitors to
Carlsbad.
-. Executive Director
Carlsbad Convention 81 Visitors Bureau P.O. Box 1246 0 Carlsbad, CA 92018-1246 (760) 434-6093 l Fax (760) 434-6056
www.carlsbadca.org 29
y.’ ;
$, i
?
%: ‘, :..
:.. .: .;,, :
Y”.._ .,_11 -.--.-, - ~.
Companies, plans a ovation
of the property, which was con-
structed in 1960. The complex
consists of one- and two-bedroom
units in a two-story building.
The transaction was financed
with a $560,000 loan from
Washington Mutual Bank
through Andrew Gilligan Patty
McHugh at Stewart Title &
Trust handled escrow and title
services.
The sellers of the property
(assessor’s parce1452-363-261
were John Claus and Goldie Claus
as trustees of a family trust. In
December 1993, the complex. was
sold for $785,000.
The buyers and seller repre-
sented themselves in the transac-
tion.
Source Code: 990222tdba
HOMBBUYERS
(Editor’s Note: Information pre-
sented in The Homebuyers column
is .available in handy monthly
booklets and computer diskette for-
mats. FOF details, call the
Circulation Department, 232-
4381.) ’
l The house at 5723 Sunny View
Drive, B&i@ 91992, was sold by,
Igpacio Gavaldon G. and Nair Von
+ej ,‘Cusi’ .tb, Agtistiq; a*
Cunningham. Tax ‘Valud
Gj $t315,qoO.
z
l ’ The condo at 305 Ranch0
Drive #-A, Chula Vista. 91911, was
sold by Gary D. Overstreet to
L
Fernando de la Torre. Tax Value
$82,090.
$ ‘_...
Q ‘.
Q
l The house at 5033 Keeney
Courb, La Mesa, 91941, was sold by
Dorothy E. Thompson-Hayes to
Debra L. Vick. Tax Value
$200,000.
l The house at 4021 Paula St.,
La Mesa, 91941, was sold by John
E. and Sharon E. Southward to
Lee D. and Kathleen A. Hall. Tax
Value $i49,000.
Bartell has proposed the altema-
tive concept . to .Centra City Developm& ~. Cd& for‘ & “r&K
municipal parki& garages down-
town, and to Padres development consultanta for the clubs parking
requirements for its new ballpark rtiobotic parking garages use half
of the space that conventional
garages use, because there are no
parking ramps, no open areas for
ventilation, lower ceilings and less
space between cars,” Bartell said.
The new technology is cheaper to
build because the garage yields more
parking spaces for the land value, he
added.
l The house at 6907 Adams
Ave., La Mesa, 91941, was sold by
Deborah Hawthorne to Kathleen
A. La Gamma. Tax Value
$146,000.
l The house at 8235 Adams St.,
Lemon Grove, 91945. was sold by
Maria Torres to Elba Arballo and
Serafin Paredes. Tax Value
$145,000.
Robotic parking garages are also
cheaper to build because the design
is modular, comprised of individual
pallets on-a rail system that can be
built off-site in parts. Furthermore,
facilities can be disassembled and
reassembled in another location if
necessary.
l The house at 434 Q Ave.,
National City, 91950, was sold by
Nancy S. Martin to Arturo G. and
Norma A. Romo. Tax Value
$120,000.
What distinguishes robotic park-
ing from earlier automated technolo-
gies is the system’s ability to move
numerous cars in different directions
at the same time. Unlike a conveyor
system similar to a dry cleaner belt,
robotic parking systems allow for
eighteen separate mechanical move-
ments - whether up or down, tum-
ing, and back and forth - that can
Please Turn to Page 5C Phse Turn to Page 2C
Parking By field, said _ spokesman. &tt -Van f ., w. I - “:“.’
i y So far, no businesses have made Robotics 3 ‘~~~~~~~~~yS open
at least 12 hours a day, st&ed by 27 Pitched Here : ~;~=-~~~fullfire-
By KATIE RUEHNER-HEBERT Son Diego Daily Tron~eript
The developers of ‘robotic park-
ing,” the newly patented technology
for automated parking, are hoping to
build garages in San Diego and else-
where that. are both cheaper than
conventional garages and.up t.c 300
percent faster than earlier automat-
ed technologies.
Robotic Parking Ind. has built a
demonstration garage in Leetonia,
Ohio, and is building a lO,OOO-
square-foot facility in Hoboken, N. J.,
for the Hoboken Parking Authority.
In Southern California, company
representative Mel Bar-tell is hoping
to turn developers as well as govem-
mental agencies onto the concept, as
space for parking increasingly is
coming at a premium in the region.
“Conventional garages cost
$16,000 per space to build, but robot-
ic parking garages cost $12,090 per
space,” Bartell said.
And - to the further aggravation
i
of c&cs - MidAmerica is already
spending money on upgrades.
i Last year, the county approved
L requesting $2.5 million. for improve-
ments ’ that include higher runway
; lights and a fence to keep deer away.
Cars can& handled at once.: __ .:,
.’ ~%+j&i parking garage3 +operate
up to 309 percent faster than older
technologiw,“Bartell said. -
‘f&~~arages are controlled,by a computer system : that’ imm-+i- ;
ately detects maintenance prob-
lems .so they can, ‘be quickly
: ,.’ repaired,‘: reducing downtime,
Bartell said. If’ the comp$tsr fails, operators c&r override the
’ system manually. ,. “,.; __.
qobotic parking -garages -are
; I ‘I- pllse#~*.~~~~.fb~~?; ..&.ive&W & ‘&de& .,,&enr. && ’
i -their cars in, the .park.ing iiai,
reducing chances for per&al
injury, and, the cars qmairi isolat-
. ed-on the pallets, reducing chances for nicks or scratches. The pallets
also collect any oil and .water that
may leak from parked cars, pre-
venting substances from leaking
onto the cars below.
Xscause of all these factors~ the’
cost for liability insurance is much
lower,” Bartell said.
Architecturslly, the design of the
garage’s exterior can be quite flexi-
ble, as there is no need for open-ven-
tilation areas or parking ramps. The
garages also can be configured to
accommodate sites with unusual
dimensions.
T think tbefll be popular here,
especially in downtown, where it’s
hard to find parking,” Bartell said
‘You can park twice as many cars on
a site with robotic parking than you
could in a conventional garage.
‘I hate waste,” he added. ‘We tear
down a building and pave a parking
lot. Then a developer wants to build
a building on the site. and says,
Where’s the par- h&ert@sddtcom
Source Code 999222tdb
- EXHIBIT 4
IBe City of Carfsbad Rousing & Redevelopment Depatment
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1 Sta# DEBBIE FOUNTAIN I Housing h Redevelopment Director
DATE: MARCH 22,1999
SUBJECT: VILLAGE PARKING REPORT
I. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Design Review Board ACCEPT the Parking in the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Area Report and APPROVE Design Review Board Resolution No. 267 recommending
approval of the programs set forth in the subject report and authorizing staff to proceed with
implementation of the approved’parking programs.
II. PROJECT BACKGROUND
The issue of whether or not there is a parking problem within the Village Redevelopment Area has been
a hot topic of debate for several years. There has been no disagreement that the increasing popularity of
the Village Area has had a definite impact on both private and public parking areas. However, there is
disagreement as to whether or not that impact is positive or negative, and to what extent a parking
problem really exists within the Area. This question regarding parking is not unique to the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Area. Many older downtown areas have struggled with the issue of parking and
how to best manage parking resources for years. Even if there are plenty of parking spaces available,
people may argue that there is a parking problem if the available spaces do not meet their individual
needs.
As a result of the controversy, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission requested a report on
parking issues within the Village Area and recommendations on how to best address these issues. As
requested by the Commission, Staff has been researching the issue of parking within the Village Area,
and exploring the opportunities and challenges created by parking demands. The findings and
recommendations of staff are set forth within the attached report entitled “Parking in the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Area”.
On March 2, 1999, the City Council, acting as the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, received
the parking report noted above. Staff reviewed the report contents with the Commission and requested
instruction as to how to proceed with implementation of programs recommended within the report. The
Commission referred the report to the Design Review Board for review, additional public input, and
recommendations. As instructed by the Commission, an “open house” will be held on March 22, 1999
AB#
Page 2
followed by a formal public hearing before the Design Review Board to receive testimony and to give
consideration to the recommended actions. The purpose of the open house is to allow the public to
receive information and make inquiries in an informal setting. The public hearing will provide for a
formal presentation by staff and allow an opportunity for public input to be recorded and considered by
the Design Review Board. The Board is asked to make a recommendation to the Commission as to how
to proceed with implementation of the programs set forth within the report following the public
testimony and related discussion.
111. ITEM EXPLANATION
The primary purpose of the Parking in the Village Redevelopment Area report was to provide the
information necessary for the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to make the determination that
there is adequate public parking available within the Village Redevelopment Area at this time. This
determination will allow for immediate implementation of the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, as
described within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. As set forth within the report, Staff has
determined that there is adequate parking remaining within the area to accommodate additional
development. In addition, staff has made a recommendation to set the in-lieu fee at $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 In-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.
Parking Canacitv.
Public parking utilization studies, as well as observations by Police, Engineering and Redevelopment
Staff, indicate that there is not currently a public parking space capacity problem in the core downtown
area. In other words, there is not a shortage of public parking in the Village. However, there may be a
parking proximity problem. The parking issue in the Carlsbad Village mirrors that of many cities with
older downtown areas. There is plenty of parking, but people do not use it all. This may be due to a
variety of reasons, one of which may be that people simply do not know where the public parking is
located, or they do not like the locations of the parking.
The report identifies two types of “parkers”-occasional and regular. The occasional parker may come to
the Village once or twice a month, and will make 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
AB#
Page 3
will use it far more often. For regular parkers, the closest parking space is generally considered the best
parking space. According to relevant parking literature, a two block walk is as far as most regular
parkers consider acceptable. For the Village Redevelopment Area, this would represent approximately
800 feet.
Due to the concentration of businesses and the location of the Village Commuter Rail Station, the most
heavily impacted public parking lots are those located at, or near, the intersection of Grand Avenue and
State Street. The impacted parking lots include those located at the corner of State and Grand (Fountain
Lot), to the North of the Old Depot Building/CONVIS Office, and on Washington Street at Rotary Park
(east of the Village Faire Shopping Center). These three parking lots represent approximately 10% of the
total amount of off-street public parking within the Village Area and are fully impacted through regular
parking use, most likely by commuters. The average occupancy for the remaining seven public parking
lots (or 90% of the parking) is 56%. At peak occupancy, the remaining seven public parking lots have a
66% utilization ratio.
Many business and property owners believe that the City of Carlsbad and/or Redevelopment Agency
needs to build additional public parking lots to address the “parking problem” within the Village Area.
If, however, the City or Agency constructs additional public parking spaces that are not any closer to the
business or service points than those which currently exist, but are underutilized, how do we solve the
perceived “parking problem”? Before proceeding with the construction of additional parking facilities, it
is staffs opinion that an attempt first must be made to facilitate a change in parking behaviors within the
Village. An effort needs to be made to encourage regular customers, business owners and employees,
and other visitors to better utilize the existing public parking lots, which may require them to walk a few
more blocks to reach their destination.
Parking Time Limits
An issue related to parking supply in the Village is parking time limits on the street and within certain
public parking lots. Currently, prime customer parking is being consumed both on-street and 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 previously recommended that the boundaries of the existing two hour
limited parking (on-street) be expanded, and all areas within the boundaries be appropriately posted for
enforcement purposes. In addition to expansion of the boundaries for the two hour parking time limit,
staff is recommending that two hour time limits be implemented within the public parking lots located in
close proximity to the Commuter Rail Station. Exhibit 4 within the attached report identifies the parking
lots to be posted with two hour parking limits.
For time limits to be effective in providing the desired turnover in parking spaces for customers, they
must be strictly enforced. The Police Department has indicated that it would be very difficult to strictly
enforce time limits within the Village Area without additional staff. Currently, the Police Department
has only one parking enforcement officer for the entire City. This person is already very busy responding
to complaints regarding abandoned vehicles and other parking issues throughout the City. Therefore, if
AB#
Page 4
voluntary compliance can not be obtained and strict enforcement of the time limits is necessary, it is
anticipated at this time that additional staff will be required for parking enforcement purposes.
In addition to staffing issues, parking time limit enforcement raises concerns about public relations. No
matter how pleasant or helpful the parking enforcement officer may be in the performance of 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 Parking Facilities
As indicated previously, staff is proposing that actions be taken first to increase utilization of existing
public parking lots. Once a need is demonstrated, new parking facilities may then be constructed. Within
the attached report, staff has identified seven (7) locations that are potential sites for future public
parking structures. Although staff is not recommending construction of a parking structure at this time,
staff is suggesting that activities be pursued to place the City and/or Agency in a position to obtain
control over one or more of the identified sites in an effort to be prepared for future development. It is
very unlikely that the Redevelopment Agency would pursue construction of all seven (7) parking
structures noted within the attached report. It was staffs intent to simply identify possible locations for
parking structures. This would allow staff to pursue opportunities as they are presented for future
development. It is anticipated that the Redevelopment Agency would first pursue construction of parking
structures on the property located on Roosevelt Street, between Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand
Avenue, and within the existing parking lot for the Commuter Rail Station (off of State Street).
It is estimated that each space within a parking structure will cost approximately $33,709 to construct
and maintain for thirty years, which means that a 100 space parking structure would cost approximately
$3.4 million. This cost, however, can vary due to soil conditions, special features, architecture, land
costs, etc. At this point in time, staff has not developed a complete financing plan for all of the potential
parking structures identified within the report. If parking structures are pursued, further action will be
required to identify specific funding sources for the capital construction costs and on-going maintenance.
Potential funding sources identified within the report are: redevelopment tax increment, developer
equity, Business Improvement District Funds (if BID is formed), Traffic Impact Fees or Gax Tax Funds,
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.
AB#
Page 5
When and where possible, the ideal situation would be to construct parking facilities in conjunction with
private development.
For a complete understanding of the issues identified above and the various components of the parking
program, the attached report should be read in its entirety. The above provides only a brief summary of
the issues raised within the report and the staff conclusions.
Recommendations on Parking
Within the attached report, staff has made five (5) recommendations on parking-related issues. These
recommendations are outlined below. It is important to note again, however, that the report contains
much more detail on each of these recommendations. The report also contains a “pros and cons” analysis
for each recommendation.
The parking recommendations are as follows:
1. Implement the Vdlage Parking In-Lieu Fee Program by making a determination that there is
adequate parking at this time to accommodate additional private development, and by setting the fee
for the program at $11,240 per parking space required and to be provided off-site within a public
parking lot. This program offers one option to property owners who are required to satisfy a parking
requirement in order to expand an existing use, or construct a new building. It is currently available
for properties east of the railroad tracks and located within the Village Area. It is a voluntary
program.
2. Authorize staff to proceed with the processing of an Ordinance to expand the boundaries for two (2)
hour parking time limits within the core Village Area. The time limit is proposed for all streets and
public alleys within the designated boundaries which currently allow for parking. All existing “no
parking” areas will remain in effect. The hours in which the two hour time limit would be in effect
are 7:OOam to 6:00pm, Monday through Saturday. The time limits are not proposed to be in effect on
Sundays or Holidays. A map of the boundaries for the two hour parking is provided in Exhibit 1 of
the attached report. As an additional action, staff is recommending that staff be authorized to proceed
with actions to implement time limits within three of the existing public parking lots. The lots
include those located on the north and south side of the old depot/CONVIS Office and the one
located on the northwest comer of State Street and Grand Avenue (known as the Fountain Lot). A
map of the three public parking lots is provided as Exhibit 4 within the attached report. Staff is
proposing the two hour time limits be implemented within the noted three public parking lots, with
the exception that two (2) parking spaces within the south depot lot shall be further restricted to
thirty (30) minutes for CONVIS visitors. These time limits are proposed to be effective for the same
hours and days as noted above for the on-street parking - 7:OOam to 6:qOpm, 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.
AB#
Page 6
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.
In addition to the above, staff has also recommended that a study be completed to determine the
projected impacts of Legoland or other future tourist activity on parking in the Village Area if this is a
concern. The option is to take a “wait and see” attitude and determine the impact through parking counts
at a future date.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Department completed the environmental review of the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission Policies and Procedures Manual pursuant to
the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental
Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration was
issued for the project by 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 Village Master Plan and Design
Manual and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission Policies and Procedures Manual, and were
considered under the previous CEQA review. No new programs have been recommended which would
expand the scope of the initial project. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required to prior
to accepting this report and implementing the programs outlined within this report. If the construction of
parking structures is in fact pursued at a later date, each parking construction project will require
subsequent CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed recommendations will have a financial impact on the Redevelopment Agency 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 Village Parking In-
Lieu Fee Program is implemented, staff is estimating that this program will provide two-thirds of the
funding ($9.2 million) required for the construction and maintenance of the subject parking structures if
the fee is set at $11,240 per parking space. The remaining one-third of the costs ($4.6 million) of
construction and maintenance will need to be provided by the Redevelopment Agency, City of Carlsbad
or other sources. Staff has anticipated that North County Transit District will also provide some funding
for the project(s). In addition, the Agency/City may negotiate private developer financial assistance with
the construction of parking facilities, if related to new commercial development.
AB#
Page 7
To implement time limits on the street and within certain public parking lots, there will be a cost
associated with the manufacture and installation of the required regulatory signage. At this time, staff
does not have an estimate of that cost. It will be dependent upon the number of signs that will ultimately
be required for enforcement purposes. An assessment of the signage costs will be completed at a later
date. For strict enforcement of the time limits, the Police Department anticipates that additional staff will
be required. Parking enforcement is currently staffed with a Community Services Officer 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
consideration during the budget development process.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Design Review Board take action to hold a public hearing to receive
testimony from all interested persons and then take action to recommend approval of the recommended
programs set forth within the Parking in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area report.
EXHIBITS:
1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 267 , accepting the subject parking report and recommending
approval of program implementation as set forth within the report.
2. Parking in the Car&bad Village Redevelopment Area - A Report on Parking Utilization, Programs
and Recommendations for the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 267
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA ACCEPTING THE PARKING IN THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENTAREA REPORT AND RECOMMEDING TO THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION THAT STAFF BE AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED
WITH THE PROGRAMS OUTLINED WITHIN THE REPORT.
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency has studied various issues related to parking
within the Village Redevelopment Area and set forth its findings and recommendations related to parking
needs and demands within a report entitled “Parking in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area”; and,
WHEREAS, the findings and recommendations set forth within the “Parking in the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Area” Report have been reviewed and considered by the Design Review Board;
and,
’ WHEREAS, the Design Review Board has accepted the findings of the “Parking in the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Area” Report; and,
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board has accepted and considered public comments on the
recommendations set -forth within the subject parking report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad
as follows:
1. The above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Design Review Board accepts the “Parking in the Village Redevelopment Area”
Report, dated January, 1999, which was prepared to document the findings and
recommendations related to parking within the Village Redevelopment Area.
3. That the Design Review Board recommends to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
that Redevelopment Agency staff be authorized to proceed with the programs outlined within
the subject report, and as set forth herein, to address various parking issues within the Village
Redevelopment Area.
. . . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DREI Resolution No. 267
4. That the Design Review Board finds that there is adequate public parking available within the
Village Redevelopment Area to accommodate additional private development, and
recommends that the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program be implemented according to the
program description and requirements set forth within the approved Village Master Plan and
Design Manual, and reiterated within the subject parking report.
5. That the fee for participation in the ViIlage Parking In-Lieu Fee be set at $5,328 per parking
space required and to be provided off-site within a public parking lot, and shall be subject to
annual review by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
6. That the Design Review Board finds that the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee represents one of
several optionsprovided to a private developer within the Village Redevelopment Area for
satisfying an on-site parking obligation and shall be paid via an agreement between the
Redevelopment Agency and the individual property and/or business owners. Because fees
a collected pursuant to agreements with redevelopment agencies are not considered to be a
“Development Impact Fee”, the Parking In-Lieu Fee is not subject to the regulations set forth
within Government Code Section 66000(b) for “Development Impact Fees”.
7. The Design Review Board recommends that appropriate City Staff be authorized to proceed
with processing of an Ordinance to expand the boundaries for two (2) hour parking within the
core Village Area for all streets and public alleys within the designated boundaries which
currently allow for parking, to be effective Monday through Saturday from 7:OOam to
6:00pm, excluding holidays.
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/ DRJ3 Resolution No. 267
8. The Design Review Board recommends that appropriate City Staff be authorized to proceed
with actions to implement two (2) hour time limits within three of the existing public parking
lots as designated within Exhibit 4 of the Parking in the Village Redevelopment Area Report,
dated January, 1999, and attached hereto, with the exception that two (2) parking spaces
within the South Depot Parking Lot shall be further restricted to thirty (30) minutes for
exclusive use of visitors to the Carlsbad Convention and Visitors Bureau Office.
9. The Design Review Board recommends that Redevelopment Agency staff be authorized to
proceed with actions to ensure strict enforcement of the existing and future parking time
limits as set forth in Paragraphs #7 and #8 above, following complete implementation of a
public relations program to broadly promote and clarify the intent of the parking enforcement
efforts.
10. The Design Review Board recommends that Redevelopment Agency staff be authorized to
develop 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.
11. The Design Review Board recommends that Redevelopment Agency staff be authorized 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.
12. The Design Review Board recommends that Redevelopment Agency staff be authorized to
take appropriate actions to pursue acquisition of, or control of, property for a parking
structure site, as identified within the Parking in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area
Report as opportunities are presented and according to applicable Redevelopment Agency
policies and procedures.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRl3 Resolution No. 267
13. The Design Review Board recommends that Redevelopment Agency staff be authorized to
proceed with actions to develop preliminary financing and conceptual design plans for
construction of one or more parking structure facilities within the Village Redevelopment
Area, as deemed appropriate.
14. The Design Review Board recommends that Redevelopment Agency staff be instructed to
complete parking studies of the public parking lots located within the Village
Redevelopment Area at least twice each year to ensure that any increase (or decrease) in
parking demand is properly recorded and calculated into any future need for additional public
parking facilities.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 22nd day of March ,
1999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Compas, Savary, Forsyth, Marois
NOES: Marquez
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
BILL COMPAS, Chagman
ATTEST:
JJ&, /q&h) I N
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Housing and Redevelopment Director
Historical Dey
Building - CO
Carlsbac
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.
Viliage Drive
I
I
I
Oak Avenue
2 Hour Parking
Restrictions (Proposed)
Public Parking Lots
Exhibt 4
42
LEGEND
- 2-HOUR PARKING BOUNDARY
EFFBWON 1
MADISON ST. I
. .
STATE ST.
i F
L J L J \
i
IALROAD
ii! Q q I E 9 2 r s s iz t; 5
B
CARLSEAD E BL PD.
/ ------l-m I1’7l7
'ROJECT NAME: RECOMMENDED TWO-HOUR PARKING TME EXHIEIIT
RESTRlC77ON BOUNDARY IN THE CORE VLLAGE AREA
.-
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
l Issues Summary
2
SECTIoN 3. OBJECTIVES OF PARKING REPORT
l Primary Purpose of Report
l Components of Report
8
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
9
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
15
16
18
-
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 II. 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
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
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 for the FWzge and then to develop goals and objectives
which create a roadmap to the Vision.
Village Vision. The new Viflage 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:
Goals and Objectives. 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 Policv 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
6b
individual building/use. This is the policy statement set forth within the ViZZage 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
e
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.
Tvpes of “Parkers”. In an article entitled “How to Market a Parking Space” (April, 1996),
the author, Richard Sides, notes that there are two primary market segments - occasional
parkers and regular parkers. He states that “occasional parkers come to the area perhaps
once or twice a month, and make their initial parking decision ‘on the fly’. That parking
decision will be based on whatever a quick glance at the sign and facility can tell them. If
they have no reason to change, they will probably park at the same place on subsequent
visits because the parking choice is not viewed as significant enough to justify much
research. Their attitude is, ‘as long as it’s working, why change it?’ Mr. Sides continues
by stating that “the second market segment - regular parkers - work nearby and plan to be
parking in the area for some time to come. It is worthwhile for them to put more time into
the selection of their parking facility because they will be using the service far more
often.” In an effort to identify solutions to parking concerns, it is important to understand
the types of parkers in the downtown area. Mr. Sides indicates in his article that
occasional parkers are probably more willing to walk some distance, while regular
parkers may choose to park much closer to their destination. He explains “when
considering features such as distance from the place of business, an extra block isn’t too
important if someone only has to walk it once a month, but if it is going to be every day,
a block might make a big difference, -and therefore, closer is much better.” Mr. Sides
conclusion is that all other things being equal, the closest parking facility has the edge.
“Closer has the obvious advantage of requiring less walking for those who might be a
little lazy, but it also means that safety-conscious folks are not exposed to street dangers
as long”, says Mr. Sides.
Parking Program Report, Revised l/99
Page 3
eib
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. d 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 I/99
Page 4
eb
number of businesses are completely dependent upon on- and off-street public parking.
As “regular parkers”, business owners and employees have often parked in front of their
own or a neighboring business, which then reduces the amount of on-street customer
parking. Because of this behavior, many businesses competing for use of prime on-street
parking for customers have requested time limits, ranging from 20 minutes to 4 hours
over the past several years.
General Policv on 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 Carlsbad’s Traffic Commission for a recommendation to
the City Council to approve establishment, or expansion, of the two hour parking zone
within the core downtown area. The Traffic Commission approved the recommendation
with the understanding that the two hour parking would be effective between the hours
of 7am and 6pm, Monday through Saturday. There would be no time limits on Sunday or
on Holidays, which is the existing situation. If the parking time limit is ultimately
approved by the City Council, customers, employees and business/property owners will
be required to park in off-street parking lots if they intend to remain in the area for longer
than two hours. The two hour parking restrictions and the related enforcement may
ultimately increase the demand for public parking (off-street) resources. However, it is
important to note that many of the streets within the core downtown area of the Village
are already restricted to two hour parking. The approved policy was an action to expand
the existing two hour parking zone and fill in the gaps within the existing area.
Enforcement of Time Limits. For time limits to be effective in providing the desired 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 OfJicer II. At this time, the
anticipated annual cost for employing an additional officer to enforce time limits within
the Village Area is $43,150 (including salary, benefits and overtime).
The Police Department has indicated that they are reluctant to strictly enforce time limits
on a regular and ongoing basis within the Village due to the considerable strain it places
on public relations between the government agency (especially the police) and the
community (specifically business owners and employees). This is a very important
consideration. In attempting to enforce existing time limits, the parking enforcement
officer has witnessed numerous actions by business owners and employees to sabotage
enforcement efforts. For example, according to the parking enforcement officer, business
owners and employees have “wiped marks off their tires” or “moved their vehicles
slightly forward to cover the time mark”. If the time limits are desirable, the Police
Department and the Redevelopment Agency believe the business owners and employees
will need to assist in the enforcement effort by showing their support through voluntary
compliance.
If time .limits are to be strictly enforced, it must be understood that this action is generally
viewed as a negative form of parking resource management. Staff anticipates that strict
enforcement of the time limits will result in many negative reactions from business and
property owners, employees, customers and visitors to the area.
Free vs. Paid Curb Parking. An option to be considered as part of the program for
implementing time 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
esb
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
eh!P
Mr. Richard Rich is the Executive Director of parking planning for Rich and Associates.
He states within his article that “parking can have a far-reaching effect on everything
from quality of life to economic growth, and it can serve as a moneymaker or a drain on
resources, depending on how it is managed.” As indicated within this report, staff
believes we need to take actions to better manage the parking resources available within
the Village Redevelopment Area before we consider the addition of parking facilities.
One of these actions may be the installation of a system to collect fees for premium curb
parking.
Issues Summary. Although the utilization studies indicate that there remains plenty of
public parking for use within the Village Area, parking spaces near the Commuter Rail
Station are heavily impacted by long term, regular parkers. Many Village business and
property owners have requested, and even demanded at times, that the City or
Redevelopment Agency take some action to reduce the impact created by the long term,
regular parkers. The request, or demands, include 1) action to construct additional public
parking spaces within parking structures; and, 2) action to implement and strictly enforce
short term parking on the street and within three public parking lots located in the core
downtown area.
In order to solve any perceived ‘$arking 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
a+
locations for future public parking resources and to establish a strategy for implementing
that plan when deemed appropriate and necessary.
Components of Report. Sections 1 and 2 of this report provided an overview of the vision
for the Village Area, as related to key parking issues, The remainder of this report will
provide more specific information on the various components of this proposed
Comprehensive Parking Program for the Village. The components of the program
include the following:
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 Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program as well as other
potential parking policies or programs.
Parking Utilization Ratio. In considering whether or not there is adequate public parking
to support ongoing development activities with the Village Area, it is important to
consider what level of parking activity occurs frequently enough to justify providing
additional parking spaces, or simply maintaining the existing facilities. A balance is
required when determining the appropriate level of parking. It is not appropriate to build
for an average day but have insufficient supply for 50% of the days of the year.
Conversely, it is not appropriate to design for the peak accumulation that could
conceivably ever occur because this in effect will create too much parking. Often a peak
accumulation will occur for only an hour or so and does not require the same amount of
parking for the remainder of the day. Building parking facilities for a peak period results
Parking Program Report, Revised l/99 Page 9
in an unnecessary expense to both the private and public developer. Shared parking,
parking generation and other references generally suggest that parking
requirements be set using a design day at the 8Sh percentile of parking
accumulations.
In an effort to determine whether or not there is adequate public parking to initiate the
Parking In-Lieu Fee program, a consultant was hired to complete parking studies in the
Village Area. The consultant completed the studies in July of 1996. To confirm whether
or not those numbers were still accurate in August of 1997, City staff completed
additional parking counts in each of the public parking lots. Because this program report
was not complete by August of 1998, additional counts were conducted by staff for
further comparison purposes. The parking count information for the three year period
allowed staff to compare the utilization variations from one year to the next in the Village
Area. The results of the parking count/studies are summarized below.
Public Parking 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 6:00pm, Monday through Friday, and all day on Saturday,
Sunday and Holidays. Due to their limited availability, these spaces were not included in
the counts for public parking utilization purposes in 1997 or 1998.
1996 Public Parking Lot Counts. Existing public parking utilization counts were
conducted by Linscott, Law and Greenspan on Thursday, July 25, 1996 and Saturday,
July 27, 1996 at all ten public parking lots. Counts were recorded on an hourly basis
between loam and 8pm. These multiple hour counts were then analyzed to determine the
peak and average parking demands at each lot. Public parking lots at or above capacity
(which is considered to be 85% for full utilization) were identified.
The Thursday counts indicate that the average weekday occupancy of all ten lots was
56% (304 occupied/236 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
e
had a 97% occupancy. The peak weekday occupancy for all ten lots was 72% (387
occupied/l 53 available) and it occurred at 1 :OOpm. At the peak occupancy, six of the ten
public parking lots remained below maximum capacity. The Commuter Rail Station
parking lot and the three public parking lots in close proximity to the station had peak
occupancies of 98% or greater.
Summary of the Thursday counts indicate that Lot G, which is the parking lot located
north of the old Train Depot and immediately south of the Commuter Rail Station, was at
capacity during ten of the eleven hours counted. Lot H which is the public parking lot
located on Washington Street, adjacent to the Village Faire Shopping Center, was at
capacity during the entire count period. Lot I, the Fountain Parking Lot at State and
Grand, was at capacity from loam to 4pm. Lot J which is the Commuter Rail Parking Lot
was at capacity from loam to 5pm.
The Saturday counts indicate that the average occupancy of all ten lots was 35% (190
occupied/350 available). With the exception of Lot H, which is the lot located adjacent to
Village Faire, all of the public parking lots had an average occupancy of less than the full
utilization ratio of 85%. Lot H (Village Faire) averaged 96% occupancy during the
Saturday count.
The peak Saturday occupancy of all ten lots combined was 45% (245 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 2 1, 1997, Tuesday, August 26, 1997, and Friday,
August 29, 1997. The counts were made at approximately lO:OOam, 12:OO noon, 2:OOpm
and 4:OOpm. Again, the counts completed by staff indicate that there is overall capacity in
the public parking lots for more vehicles. A summary of the staff counts is provided
below.
Thursday (8/21/97) counts indicate that the average weekday occupancy of all ten lots
was 69% (333 occupied/l52 available). The counts reflect that six (6) of the public
parking lots had an average occupancy that was 80% or less, which is less than the full
utilization ratio of 85%. The Washington 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/l 80 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/l59 available). Five of the ten public parking lots had an average occupancy of
less than full utilization ratio of 85%. Lots F, G, H, I and J, which are those lots located in
close proximity to the Transit Station were at, or near full capacity with a range of 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 311 parking spaces at the Commuter Rail Station as the base number. In fact,
however, there are approximately 330 parking spaces, if we consider the spaces created
by NCTD along the alley way. These spaces were not counted because they are not
Parking Program Report, Revised l/99
Page 12
e
striped. Depending on the size of the vehicle and the manner in which the car is parked,
however, the alley spaces may provide a total of 15 to 19 additional parking spaces. In
addition, as noted previously, staff did not count the 35 parking spaces secured for use by
City employees during the week.
The Tuesday (8/l 8/98) counts indicate that the average weekday occupancy of all ten lots
was 62% (410 occupied/256 available). With the exception of the public parking lots on
Washington Street (at Village Faire), the small lot north of the old Train Depot building
and the fountain lot, the counts indicated that all of the public parking lots had average
occupancies which were less than 78%, which is less than the full utilization ratio of
85%. The Washington 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 91% 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
6b
-
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 (014 depot parking lot and the parking lot located to the
east of Village 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 Depot Parking Lot. From the data, it was found that a total of 65 vehicles parked in
the 43 parking spaces during the 10 hour time period. Calculations indicated that the
average length of time a vehicle remained parked (average parking duration) was 5.5
hours per vehicle. The parking turnover rate was .15 vehicles per stall per hour. This rate
indicates that a large number of vehicles are being parked for long periods of time during
the day.
North Depot 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
e
indicates that a large number of vehicles are being parked for long periods of time during
the day.
Fountain Parking Lot. From the data, it was found that a total of 19 vehicles parked in the
12 parking spaces during the 10 hour time period. Calculations indicated that the average
length of time a vehicle remained parked (average parking duration) was 6.1 hours per
vehicle. The parking turnover rate was .16 vehicles per stall per hour. This rate indicates a
large number of vehicles are being parked for long periods of time during the day.
Parking Count Summary. Although the total parking count varied from year to year, there
are some general conclusions that can be drawn from the parking statistics noted above.
First, at both non-peak and peak times, at least six to seven of the ten public parking lots
remain below a full utilization ratio of 85%. According to the parking counts, the only
public parking lots which exceed the full utilization ratio at any given time are: 1) the
Washington Street Lot, adjacent to Village Faire; 2) the North Lot at the Old
Depot/CONVIS Office; and 3) the Fountain Lot at the corner of Grand and State.
Although the South Lot at the Old DepotKONVIS was not fully utilized at all times
according to the parking counts, it is heavily impacted by long term, regular parkers per
the parking duration study.
Exhibit 3 summarizes the public parking facility counts made by the consultant and
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
Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program as it relates to the accommodation of developers or
property owners who would like to construct new projects, or intensify existing uses,
within the Village. This action would allow developers/property owners an option for
meeting their parking requirement through execution of a shared use agreement with the
Redevelopment Agency to provide parking within public lots.
Public Percention. Evenwith 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 I/99
Page 15
e
not to use the new spaces provided by NCTD because they are located farther away from
the Station than the existing spaces they are utilizing within the public parking lots
provided by the Redevelopment 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 east of the
railroad tracks. The California Coastal Commission did not agree to allow
implementation of the in-lieu fee program for any properties wt 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 l/99
Page 16
e
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.
Kev 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
esh
65
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 Reouired to Imulement Propram. 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 l/99
Page 19
6b
66
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. Policv. With
adoption of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the City Council and Housing
and Redevelopment Commission approved a Policies and Procedures Manual which
established a policy for how to set the payment amount, or fee, for the Village Parking In-
Lieu Fee Program. The policy states that the In-Lieu Fee payment for each parking space
required to meet an on-site parking obligation for a private development shall be set at
one third of the estimated cost of producing a new public parking space within an above
ground parking structure. The justification for setting the payment amount at one third of
the cost of producing a new public parking space is 1) public parking is partly a
responsibility of the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency as a 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
e
67
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 $13,820,700. This total cost figure includes land
acquisition, construction and maintenance of the spaces within the parking structures for
a thirty year period. The cost per public parking space to be constructed and maintained
within the proposed parking structures I and 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
68
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 410 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
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
me
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
$llJ40
$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 &rticipating 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 ViZZage
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
e
As already indicated within this report, there is currently not a parking capacity problem
within the Village Redevelopment Area. Therefore, staff has proposed that the Parking
In-Lieu Fee Program be implemented by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
taking action to set the appropriate 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 Parkinp Demand. Linscott, Law and Greenspan calculated future parking demand
within the Village based on land uses, intensity, parking rates and projected new
development. Using the existing average number of available spaces to help
accommodate future development means that there may be future parking shortages
during any hour of the day that the actual demand exceeds the average demand. This may
occur mid-day during the week and all day and evening on Saturdays. Using this
assumption, the consultant created a chart, provided as Exhibit 8, which indicates that
420 additional off-site parking spaces will need to be provided in the future if no shared
parking arrangements are assumed and development occurs as anticipated by the
consultants who prepared the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. With a shared
parking assumption, there is a calculated need for about 250 additional (new) parking
spaces on weekdays and about 89 new parking spaces on Saturday. This need for
additional parking spaces is based on the assumption that new development will occur. If
no new development occurs, there may not be a need for additional public parking unless
utilization ratios increase within the existing public parking lots.
As indicated previously, the parking philosophy set forth for the Village Redevelopment
Area is that shared parking arrangements should be encouraged because the vision for the
Village is one which supports the development of interesting buildings rather than large
areas of asphalt parking lots. With a shared parking philosophy in mind, per the
Parking Program Report, Revised l/99
Page 25
6h
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
em9
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 indicatesthe 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
e
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
eke9
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 l/99
Page 29
e
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 I/99
Page 30
@h
71
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 Size of Property
Structure (Square Feet)
Location
A/B: East: 32,879sf
East & West Side West: 19,350sf
of RR Tracks, south of Carlsbad
Village Drive
fl
I
1 D:
Carlsbad
Boulevard, off
Garfield, between
Grand and
Carlsbad
Village Drive
Spaces Possible Spaces Possible at 1 Maximum # of
at 320 sf per stall 400 sf per stall ~ parking spaces
200 165
120 96
(2 level) (2 level)
230 190
(3 levels) (3 levels)
Approx. 70,850sf 306 246
(2 levels (2 levels
underground + 68 underground + 54
surface level) surface level)
200
120 I 320 Total
(120 spaces
existing in current
lots; net 200 public
pkg spaces)
230
(90 spaces in
existing private
lot; net 140 addtl
public pkg spaces
374
(assume 100
spaces for private
development; net
274 public pkg
spaces)
Approval of this report does not make a commitment to construct any of the parking
structures noted above. With further analysis and negotiations with the appropriate
property owners and other related parties, one or more of these parking structures may be
Parking Program Report, Revised 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 Parking Structures. In an effort to provide as much information at this
time for consideration of parking-related concerns in the Village, staff would like to share
some issues associated with the construction of parking structures. To ensure that a
parking structure meets community needs, it is important for consideration to be given to
the following:
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 Traffic Engineering Handbook, “Good dimensions and ease of
internal circulation are more important than trying to get a few additional spaces in a
facility. Better sight distance, maneuverability, traffic flow, parking ease, and circulation
are the result of a well-organized, adequately designed lot or garage.”
Each of the proposals noted above for potential parking structures will need to be fully
evaluated from a design standpoint to determine the most appropriate sites. Among other
factors, Parking Structure Design must consider the following:
1. Site Characteristics, such as size, shape, and topography.
2. Access points. The location of entry and exit points is more critical in the design of
a parking structure because of the increased number of spaces available.
3. Dominant type .of “parker”, short-term or long-term.
4. Number of floors and interfloor travel systems. In determining the number of
floors, the City or Agency will need to consider the height of adjacent buildings. In
the Transportation and TrafJic Engineering Handbook it is noted that “many drivers
develop a feeling of acrophobia in taller garages, particularly when they are driving
Parking Program Report, Revised l/99
Page 32
e
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
at a level above the rooftops of adjacent buildings.” Since there are many one story
buildings within the Village Area, this design feature will need to be given serious
consideration. The structure may need to be designed to limit the driver’s view of
surroundings while seated in the vehicle.
Structural System for the facility. There are basically four types of structural
systems: structural steel, poured-in-place concrete, precast concrete, and post-
tensioned concrete. To complete an analysis of the type of structural system to be
used, the City or Agency will need to consider building code requirements,
maintenance costs, availability of materials, shipping distance and costs, availability
of contractors experienced in each structural system, and environmental and
atmospheric conditions.
Lighting and Electrical Systems, Good lighting is necessary to aid safety of
movement and to discourage vandalism or acts of violence.
Drainage and Waterproofing. According to knowledgeable persons in parking
structure design and operation, water leakage through the floor slab is the main
unsolved long-term maintenance problem of parking structures. Parking structures
need to be designed to get the water off the floor and to be able to drain it quickly.
According to the professionals, without proper maintenance, a garage can be at the
point of structural failure within 10 to 15 years as a result of water leakage.
Safety and Skeillance 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 I/99 Page 33
&b
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 al
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 3.5
e a2
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
83
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
a%
The following recommendations are provided by Staff in the order of priority for
implementation purposes (as determined by Staff):
Recommendation #l - Implement Village Parkiw In-Lieu Fee Program. As stated
previously, based on the utilization studies for the public parking lots within the Village
Area, there is not a general capacity problem as related to the supply of public parking.
This means that there remains adequate parking supply to accommodate current public
parking demand and that related to future private development. Therefore, staff is
recommending that the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program be implemented with 1) a
determination that there is adequate parking at this time to accommodate additional
private development, and 2) by setting the fee for the program.
Staff is proposing that the fee for the program be set at $11,240 per parking space
required and to be provided off-site within a public parking lot. Although this fee is high,
staff believes it is appropriate in order to obtain adequate funds to actually construct and
provide for long term maintenance of new public parking facilities in the future. The fee
may be adjusted at a later date if it is determined to be inappropriate following full
implementation of the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program.
Because the fee is to be paid via an agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and
the individual 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 @ 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
85
Will provide an option to property/business
owners and developers for satisfying an on-site
parking recmirement.
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 parking.
Because the program can’t be implemented at
this time for properties west of the railroad
tracks, there may be a feeling expressed of
inequity or unfairness by others not eligible for
participation in the program.
Recommendation #2 - Short Term Parking Limits. Time limits both on-street and
within some of the public parking lots with strict enforcement has been requested by
businesses within the Village Redevelopment Area. As noted previously within this
report, the Village Master Plan and Design Manual set forth a policy statement indicating
that on-street parking within the core downtown area should be limited to 2 hours. The
public parking lots were all to remain available for “all day” parking, with no time limits.
For many years, most of the core downtown area has had a 2 hour on-street parking limit.
The Village Master Plan included a policy statement which confirmed that the 2 hour
time limit is desirable and expanded the area covered by the time limit. Attached as
Exhibit 1 is a boundary map for the 2 hour parking area. The Traffic Commission
recommended approval of 2 hour parking throughout this area between the hours of
7:OOam and 6:00pm, Monday through Saturday. This matter requires final approval by
the City Council of the appropriate City Ordinance to implement this recommendation.
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
e
86
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
issupporting 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 comer 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
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 - CamDaign 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
e
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:
lots, and people walking around the Village lots which may require new parking
rather than driving. facilities to be constructed sooner than
anticipated.
Identify reasons visitors to the area, or Attempting to change behaviors, which
business owners/employees, are not may be quite difficult (and perhaps
currently using the public parking lots, and impossible) in some cases.
make improvements to correct situation.
Recommendation #4 - Facilitate Better Design of Private ParkingI 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
e
-
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 Resistance to change, or resistance to
facilities within the Village Redevelopment shared parking for legal reasons. Fear that
Area, with perhaps an increase in the other parties would not comply with
number of private parking spaces. agreement and then have no effective form
of enforcement other than legal action.
Advancement of the shared parking Business concerns that private parking
concept into private parking facilities, would not be available for own employees
encouraging a more cooperative approach or customers if made available under the
to providing parking among the various shared parking concept.
business/property owners w/in the Village.
Enhance the “friendly neighborhood” The potential that no business or property
perception of the Village Area. owner would be interested in cooperating
with another to create shared parking
opportunities. .I
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
6b
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
problem.
If pursued, it is costly to build parking
structures. Also, on-going maintenance
costs are more expensive for parking
structures than surface level parking.
Parking Program Report, Revised l/99
Page 44
et9
C
Recommendation #6 - Studv of Tourist Impacts on Parkiw 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 dzJj%ring 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
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 5a “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
VILLAGE PARKING PROGRAM
EXHIBITS
l-13
LEGEND:
- Z-HOUR PARKING BOUNDARY
JEFFulSON J I ST J I 1
AfADISON ST.
STATE ST
J
AILROAD kORTHB?N SAN DIEGO R I I
1 I .
’ WASHlNCTON f 7 b
1
CARLSBAD fi , \ aL vn
I / :-11mr
PROJECT NAME: RECOMMENDED TWO-HOUR PARKNG T/ME EXHIEIIT
RESTRICT/ON BOUNDARY IN THE CORE VILLAGE AREA 1 96
LOCATION MAP
1 BEECH 1
A VE.
NOT TC! SCALE
J
E
L
I , ,
\
r GRAND A VE.
r CARSBAD GE DR.
OAK AVF / I OAK c AVF
PROJECT NAME 1 EXHIBIT
LOCATION OF VILLAGE PARKING LOTS
,M, ta-: scorr EVANS c~w8Au tN~itdEEt3~~ OLPPT.
.
4-7
r , \
P P
$
t
U
U
U
3
:
3
q
i
2
Ii
-
z N
-
t- c-
-
-
-
-
N
-
-
-
2
-
E
z . . u 7
-
-
E (v
-
c
-
%
-
%
-
z
-
N
-
ul 7
-
hl v
b T-
-
2
-
E a E +
-
-
-
2
-
b cu
-
%
z
-
‘p
-
k
-
3
-
8
-
b 7
-
E n
8 ti
-
-
F z.l
-
0 w
-
E
-
ze
-
t%
-
cl
-
ul r
E a
8 +
-
E $2 00 (‘)o& --a
s w&; NO 7
9 0 “0 *0 r
E
0,” w&f No E 7 cl N
s 5 9 8 .- ? 0 l- % is a” a”
F x
1
3 6 P d
EXHIBIT 3 48
CDs -Jcn% -0
0
4
C-.&Z -0 m
s& 00 *0* yr-4
EXHIBIT 3 79
1
1 -
1
II 1
2
3
4
5
6 -
7
8
1 / I
‘(
I
(
-
LOT
PARKING
SUPPLY
##OF
PARKING
SPACES
030 AM
1:OOAM
2:00 PM
:oO PM
:oO PM
:00 PM
:00 PM
100 PM
90 PM
:00 PM
:OO PM
AVERAGE
XXUPANCI
(all day)
PEAK
XCUPANC\r
TABLE 2
CARLSBAD VILLAGE
PUBLIC PARKING COUNT
THURSDAY, JULY 25,1996
55 ~:;+$-$;:~:;:;I 60 I,II(IIlf3~~:~:~:~:1 43
~
:;::g:::. ::::p::: 2 ;$j;r;;;;;$;;; 8 ’ :: __,_ _, 8 2
6 1 49 1:::. ,:: :::- ::: 20 1 30 1 42 1 38 1:::i?5:::1:::$&::1 9 t 34 = ~:::,‘. ‘::: I 1 :. :, :. :. :. ‘..,‘_‘. 2.. _.._...._... :::: .,.;__ :.y.:.: ._.,.,. . . . . . .
50% i;:;:;:q!?g:;:;I 41% /;;;i;j?$$;;: 55% .‘.‘.~.‘.‘.~.~.~.~,.~.~ ‘.‘.‘.~_~_‘_‘_‘.‘.‘.‘. :::.:::.: .,.,.,,,.,., ., .‘.‘,‘.‘.~_:, ..,.
2, 1 28 .;;#;;i$$;;; 33
NOTES: - Bold faced Ws indicate peak occupancy.
Capacity (2 8!Y%}
EXHIBIT 3 I@
-
‘TABLE 3
CARLSBAD VILLAGE
PUBLIC PARKING COUNT
SATURDAY, JULY 27,1996
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
Lo-r ;jl;y~~:::::
:;::‘.:.:
pm{NG ;~;;;;+;;;;;
SuppLy ::::::::::.:.::::::
.;_:_:::. ,:.::,
#OF :.:=:I: :_.;:. . . ..g.:.: .::-‘D
pARJ(lNG ;:;:$::‘;:tg
SPACES ‘;‘i&; iii% :.: .,_,.,. ,_
0:oo AM ;;;ji;:::: j;:$ ::: ‘_‘.‘,.
I:00 AM ;;ig$ ;::s . :.:.-
2:OO PM :.J$:.:. .:.a ;,._._. :.’ :.:.,_,
:OQ PM ;;G&: ;:g :.
:OU PM ;i;g;i; :;:g ‘...‘.
:_ :. .I_ :. ;. :. .‘. ::: :. :. 1:: :. 1:: ::: :. 1::
~
f;i ‘.’ r.: :. i;;
_‘. 8‘. :.
I;; I il:
:. i:: :. ;.: t::
;;; ‘.’
i.1 I'.
:.
I::
:..
i
.I.
:.: :_ :. :_ :.
i.1 '.'
:. :. :. ::: :_ :.
.::
:::
-
NOTES: - Bold faced Ws indicate peak occupancy.
Capacity (2 85%)
EXHIBIT 3 101
Historical Dep
Building - CO
Carlsbac
I
I
I
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.
Viiiage Drive
I
I
I
I
I
Oak Avenue
2 Hour Parking
Restrictions (Proposed)
Public Parking Lots
Exhibt 4
__ __ . _ -
3
Cl l a l
EXHIBIT 5 I?
PARKING CONSTRUCTION COSTS
SOURCE COST
SURFACE ABOVE GRADE
PARKING PARKING
Carl Walker, Inc. $500/sf $6,500 - 7,5OO/stall
Dealy $2.50 - 3.50/sf $4,000 - 8,00O/stall
International Parking Design (Sherman Oaks) $7.00 - 1 O.OO/sf $5,000 - 6,00O/stall
International Parking Design (Oakland) $5.00 - 10.00/&f $5,500 - 7,50O/stall
International Parking Institute $5.00/sf $7,00O/stall
Kimley Horn & Associates $7.00 - I O.OO/sf $7,000 - 1 O,OOO/stall
Leasy $5.00 - 8.00fsf $5,400 - 7,20O/stall
Ninteman $3.00 - 4.OOIsf $4,500 - 7,0001stall
Waltry Design Group $3.00 - 5.00/sf $7,50O/stall
AVERAGE $6.00/sf $6,70O/stall
NOTES: Costs assume 300 - 320 square feet per parking stall.
Costs may vary due to soil conditions, special features, architecture, etc. of
the parking facility.
EXHIBIT 6 Pi
r
/ i
:t 1
t
: I
t 7
4
t
c
.:
: t
1
t
r(
:
.!
‘E
E
d
I 1 I 1
i, . ’ I ,
I
1 i
:1 I
I
: I
i L
I
!
EXHIBIT 7
ENGINEERS
fg) 5g ?a ZQ c aI 3g - L
L B
!co 5% :- : fz I0 ;z
;z
1: 1 -Q 5 . I/)
SOURCE: Carlbad Village Master Plan Q
NO SCALE
CARLSBAD WUGE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNIT1ES
ENGINEERS CARLSBAD VILLAGE PARKING
- -
BEECH AVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I J,
-:::* GRAND AVE . . . . . . . .
PARKING STRUCTURE I *e**+*l** ::::. -:::. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . t * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :::: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. l . . . . . .
CARLSBAD WLLAGE DR
OAK AVE
NOTE: - Total supply: 790 spaces
- a: Indicate parking structures.
NO SG%E
ENGINEERS CARLSBAD VILLAGE PARKING
EXHIBIT 9.
FUTURE CARLSBAD VILLAGE AREA PUBLIC PARKING SUPPLY
-
r
I B
I cd
;j I
. I
Structure C
1- 2 to 3 story str
Net: 35 to 140 sp
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ I
I
I
I
I I
Structu:e Ail3
1 or 2 Parking Structures
Net 143 to 200 spaces
Grand Avenue
Carlsbad Village Drive
Oak Avenue
Note: Total Potential Supply: 279 - 614 Additional Public Spaces
: Indicates location of potential structure
Potential Sites for
Additional Parking
Structures (A-D)
EXHIBIT 10
Parking Structure Cost Analysis
Structures I and 2 (410 spaces)
EXHIBIT 11
Parking Structure Cost Analysis
Additional Structures (924 spaces)
Eng. &Contingency
5 -a-
-T- s -s - s -s -
t5.168,450 f 416,000
s -t-
I-
f ‘- 5 - s -s-
S3.487.075 t773.600
Construction Costs SSIW p*r rtrs
Eng. a contingency 15% 0, Iand 6 cm,nrlWdion s
Mainknance 8 Reoairs
EXHIBIT 12 Ill
Surhce Parking Cost Analysis
(2 lots - 250 spaces)
1 Subtotal 1 2008 ) 2009 ) 2010 ) 2011 ( 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 I 2016 1 Subtotal I I I I I I I I
Subtotal I 2017 1 201s 1 2019 ( 2020 ) 2021 1 2022 1 2023 ( 2024 1 2025 1 6”blola, OliO”3 I I I I I I I I I I I
5 3.600.000 5 . 5 . 3 .$ -5 -5 -5 -I -5 -5 3.600.000
1kn 5 s20.0-30 3 . 3 . 5 -5 -5 -5 -3 -5 -3 -5 820,000
En9 6 Conliogency IS% Of land 1 conrt. COIIS 5 663.000 5 - f - 5 -3 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 663.000
h4amenance & ReDal,. 5100 per SDacdyyr 5 640.000 3 M.000 5 M.000 5 M.000 5 50,000 3 50,000 5 M.030 5 50.000 5 so.coc 3 M.ocO 5 1.09O.OV.3
EXHIBIT 13 Iv-
CARLSBADVILLAGEBUSINESS
Established 1977
ASSOCIATION
P. 0. Box 1460 - Carlsbad - California - 92018
AGENDA ITEM # ,&@ a
Mayor Bud Lewis and City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
C: Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
city Clerk
April 26, 1999
Reference: Report on Parking Utilization, Programs and Recommendations for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Area
Dear Mayor and Council:
As the City Council takes up the matter of parking in the downtown Carlsbad area, the CVBA would like to take this opportunity to once again express the views of its members.
Although the Planning Commission voted for two-hour parking, the CVBA continues to believe that three-
hour parking is in the best interest of both businesses and customers. One objection to a three-hour limit
was that it would take an extra officer to enforce it. We feel that total enforcement of every spot on
everyday is not necessary. All that is needed is to create a deterrent effect for habitual long-term parkers.
This can be accomplished by enforcement of different streets on different days, in a random fashion. Another objection was the perceived lack of citizen interest, as measured by the survey conducted by the
City. We have conducted another survey with concentration on the merchants in the area and found overwhelming interest in having the limit be three hours. We therefore ask the Council to set the limit at
three hours.
Since our last letter on the subject, the “fee-in-lieu” program has received considerable comment from our
members. The feeling is that the “fee-in-lieu” program would stifle new business development in Carlsbad.
The need to put the money for the parking spaces “up front”, including 30-years maintenance on a
postulated parking structure would be very hard to do. Other plans which would make the payment over
time, or which would be contingent on the construction of the parking structure, would be easier for a start-
up business to manage. We realize that the “fee-in-lieu” program represents the City’s earnest desire to
sustain and improve the quality of life in Carlsbad and we recognized the knotty nature of the parking
problem. We only ask that the Council build in some flexibility so that the program does not stymie new
businesses from making a home in our community.
In summary, our association is very appreciative of the attention the City has given to the parking issue.
We ask that you consider the views of our members and make the minor improvements to the program
which reflect them.
Thank you for your support
Sincerely,
a-- ia errence J. Maher
Co-chair Co-chair
I.
. .
/-
.
*
CARLSBAD VILLAGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
Established 1977 P. 0. Box 1460 - G&bad - 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 tiyor and Council:
Thank you for providing the CVBA directors a chance to review the referenced report. Your statT 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 isconvinced 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.
Sincerely,
-w-Jd.mm T errence J. Maher co-chair co-chair
_-
lXO@m@W TRANSFERS
785 Grand Avenue, HO1 l Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 720-4200 . FAX (760) 729-5900
Honorable Mayor and City Council members
c/o City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca. 82008
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:
I am the owner of Escrow Transfers, an escrow company currently located in the Carfsbad Village
area. I recently acquired the property at 2928 Jefferson Street with the intent of constructing an office
building to house my company. The site currently contains a deteriorated single family residence and
associated out buildings. The remainder of the block has been redeveloped and contains a bank, a
professional office building and an optometrist’s office.
I anticipate investing over $700,000.00 in a 2 story office structure to be built over surface parking.
Due to the narrow width of the lot I am only able to get 12 spaces, or 50% of the required parking on
site. We have recently established that the property is 620 feet from the existing City parking facilities
on Roosevelt. This places the property in an area that would be eligible to satisfy only 25% of its
parking demand through payment of the in-lieu fee. This means that I would not be able to reach the
goal of constructing a facility that would adequately meet my projected office space demand.
The staff has been willing to explore altsrnative methods of resolving this issue. HOwBv8f, we have
been unable to find any flexibility in the 600 foot radius requirement provisions of the parking program.
We have thoroughly researched the locations of the 600 foot boundary line to find any unique item
relating to this site. It was discovered that the 2900 block of Jefferson was the only block where the
600 foot radius line crossed the center line of the street without touching immediately adjacent
properties.
Item number 4 resolution 309 determines that the parking in lieu fee program as outlined in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual is to be implemented as results of tonight’s actions. It is
requested that as a part of this action the Council include a provision that would extend the 50% in
lieu fee provisions of the program to areas where an entire City block of properties are adjacent to a
public street whose centerline falls within the 600 foot radius established in the program. ,. ”
the last, blighted, non conforming structure from an
appeal of the Village Area.
Carlsbad Village Business Association
(CVBA) P. 0. Box 1460
Carlsbad, CA 92018
Web:http://www.carlsbad-village-ca.org (760) 434-266 1
DATE: June 7,1999
To: Debbie Fountain, Director City of Carlsbad, Redevelopment Agency
FROM: Tom McMahon, Treasurer <-/hB?ff++- 2
Carlsbad Village Business Association . .- . . . .
REI: . . Survey ‘Parking TiieLiits in the Village Aream i: ( _ _ :
.’ As you are aware, the Carl&ad Village Business Association (CUBA) is, very concerned about the
parking time limits in the Village and has recommended to theCityCounci1 that a three hour @me
limit be adopted in previous correspondence. ’
Since the foregoing CVBA recommendation to the City Council, the CVBA has sunqed the downtown merchants, employees and property owners on their parking time limit preference. See the enclosed “Parking Time Limits in the Village” Survey (Exhibit “A”). There were 75
participants in the survey and their responses were as follows: \
2Hours - 4
3Hours - 70 4Hours - 1
Total 75
We found that the downtown merchants, employees and property owners were very concerned about an enforced two hour parking limit in the Village and the negative impact that would have
on their businesses.
Please accept the results of this CVBA survey as further support for CVBA’s recommendation for
the longer three hour parking time limit in the Village.
PLEASE RETURN TO
Carlsbad ViIlage Business Association VW P. 0. Box 1460 Carlsbad, CA 92018
Web:http://www.carlsbad-village-ca.org
(760) 434-266 1
PARKINGTIME LIMITSINTHEVILLAGEAFUZA
SURVEY
(Downtown MerchantsEmployees and Property Owners)
The Carl&ad City Council will review a recommended proposal to expand the boundaties of the
two (2) hour parking time limit areas within the Village and to pursue strict enforcement of such I :
timelimitsattheir . f+,prd5~199~~g3p . . . ( ; : _ . ',;
The Housing and Redevelopment Department, the TrafIic commission and the Design Review-.
Board ar& recommending approval of the two (2) hour parking limits as proposed.
The Carlsbad Viige Business Association is recommending that the parking time limit be increased to three (3) ho- for the Village area and has also made its recommendation to the City
council.
In view of the above, the CVBA would like your particular response to this issue (2 hrs vs 3 hrs) as Village Merchants/Employees and Property Owners. Please show your preference below.
RESPOSNE
NAME ADDRESS . (2hrsvs3hrs) .
The map delineating the proposed boundaries of the 2 hr. parking area is on the reverse (item 2).
A more comprehensive discussion of this particular Village parking issue and other related
recommendations can be found in the “Report on Parking Utilization, Programs and Recommendations for the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area” at the Housing and
Redevelopment Offices at 2965 Roosevelt St., Carlsbad, CA 92008.
4
1. implement the W//age Parkingh4ieu W Prugmm by making a determination that there
is adequate parking at this time to accommodate additional private development, and by
setting the fee for the program at $11,240 per parking space required and to be provided
off-site within a public parking lot. This is an optional program for satisfying an on-site
parking requirement for properties located east of the railroad tracks (an in the Village). It is
voluntary.
2. Process Ordinance to expand the
boundaries for two (2) hour parking time
limits with strict enforcement for ail
parking on the street or within public alleys
where parking is currently allowed and
located within the designated boundaries
(see map to the right). This includes the
parking adjacent to Rotary Park and Village
Faire (Washington Street). AH existing ‘no
parking areas will remain in effect. Time
limits would be in effect from 7am to 6pm,
Monday through Saturday; no time limits on
Sundays or Holidays. Staff is also
requesting authorization to implement time
limits within the 3 existing public parking lots I
located on the north and south side of the I
old depot/CONVlS Oftice and on the north-
west comer of State Street and Grand
Avenue (see map). The proposal includes 2
hour time limits within the noted 3 public /
parking lots, with the exception that 2 DashedLhereprpl~bolndary0ftfre2hour
spaces within the south depot lot shall be PiUhgTiiLhits.Aiiorrstreet parking-
further restricted to 30 minutes for CONVIS w/hthebomdarieswi~~postcdfor2hour
visitors. Parking lot time limits are proposed parking unless othemkenoted as ‘ho parking.
to be effective-for the same hours and days
as noted above for the on-street parking.
3. Develop and implement a public relations 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. Develop and implement a private parking redesign program to assist existing
property/business owners to provide more effective parking areas, and to encourage
cooperation between property/business owners in the use of these private parking facilities.
5. Prepare for the future expansion of public parking facilities within parking structures
within the Village Area by pursuing acquisition of property, or otherwise obtaining control of
a site, as opportunities are presented. Develop preliminary plans for financing and
construction of these facilities.