HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/08/09 Agenda Packet
..1.
~
..
CORPORATION
(HULA VISTA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Paul Desrochers
Chris lel.\is
Rafaell\'1unoz
Doug P<.:1ul
Heelor Reves
C:hristopher Rooney
Salv.1dor Salas, Jr.
OFFICERS
David Garci", CEO
Mada Kachadoorian, CFO
A.nn Moore, General Counsel
Ann Hix, Secretary
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CHULA VISTA REDEVElOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC)
Thursday, August 9, 2007, 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
276 FOURTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Directors Desrochers, Lewis, Munoz, Paul, Reyes, Rooney,
Salas
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE
1.
SElECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the CVRC on any subject
matter within the CVRCs jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda.
State law generally prohibits the CVRC from taking action on any issue not
included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the CVRC may schedule the topic for
future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three
minutes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items(s) have been advertised as public hearings as required by
Jaw. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak'
form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the Clerk prior to the meeting.
2. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN EXTENSION OF
SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUPO-07-01 FOR THE
CONTINUATION OF AN AUTO DISMANTLING AND
RECYCLING BUSINESS AT 850 ENERGY WAY
The applicant, Ecology Auto Parts, Inc., has submitted an
application for the extension to March 31, 2020 of an
existing Special Use Permit for the continued operation of an
auto dismantling and recycling business at 850 Energy Way.
The proposed permit extension is for the existing business and does not include
changes or expansions to the current operations.
Staff Recommendation:
That the CVRC adopt the following resolution:
A. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVElOPMENT CORPORATION
APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUPO-07-01
UNTIL MARCH 31, 2020 FOR ECOLOGY AUTO PARTS, INC. LOCATED AT
850 ENERGY WAY
ACTION ITEMS
3. CONSIDERATION OF TWO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENTS FOR SITES
WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT AREA
Staff is proposing two Exclusive Negotiating Agreements (ENAs) for review and
consideration by the CVRe. Although these are considered Nnew" ENAs in the Third
Avenue area, staff has been working closely with these developers during the past two
years, examining potential development sites in the Third Avenue Village as the Urban
Core Specific Plan was in process. Each developer previously had ENAs for other
development sites on City/Agency-owned parking lots. The details of those ENAs and
why the ENAs are being proposed for different sites are described in this report.
Staff Recommendation:
That the CVRC adopt the following resolution:
A. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
APPROVING AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH
CITYMARK DEVELOPMENT LLC FOR CITY.QWNED PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LANDIS AVENUE AND DAVIDSON
STREET
Staff Recommendation:
That the CVRC adopt the following resolution:
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
APPROVING AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH VOYAGE,
LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH STREET AND DAVIDSON
STREET NORTHWEST SITE
Page 2 of 4 CVRe - Agenda - 08/09/07
4. DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT MANAGEMENT STUDY
Chula Vista's only parking district was established in 1963 and now provides more
than 1,700 public parking spaces through surface parking lots, on street metered
spaces, and one parking structure. Revenue and staffing for the District have
fluctuated over the years and the District's assets are in decline. Parking lots are in
need of repairs, meters are outdated, many are inoperative, and there is inadequate
revenue to pay for these capital improvements due to extremely low meter and
parking fine rates. Although the District has been in place nearly 45 years, the City
has never raised meter rates, which are some of the lowest in San Diego County.
Staff Recommendation:
That the CVRC:
1. Accept the Downtown Parking Management Study; and
2. Recommend that the City Council
a. Accept the Downtown Parking Management Study;
b. Approve the Downtown Parking Interim Action Plan; and
c. Direct staff to prepare a Downtown Parking Management Plan.
5. PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW FOR BAYVISTA WALK RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF (765-795)
PALOMAR STREET AND INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD IN CHULA VISTA
At the request of the applicant, the BayVista Walk project is being brought to the
CVRC for a preliminary design review. The project is anticipated to come back on
September 13, 2007 for final recommendations on the design, zoning and
environmental document. The applicant will provide a presentation on the project,
and staff will provide a synopsis of the August 2nd Redevelopment Advisory
Committee ("RAC") meeting.
Staff Recommendation:
That the CVRC review and provide comment on the proposed design
6. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTS
8. DIRECTORS' COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation will adjourn to their regularly scheduled
meeting on August 23, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.
Page 3 of 4
CVRe - Agenda - 08/09/07
In compliance with the
AMERICANS WITH D1SABIUTlES ACT
The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or
participate in a CVRC meeting, activityl or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five
days for scheduled services and activities. Please contad the Community Development Department for specific information at (619) 691-
5047, or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5655. California Relay SelVice is also available for the hearing
impaired.
Page 4 of 4
CVRC - Agenda - 08/09/07
-."'...
II
..
l ~ -.':= L ' i
CORPORATION
(HULA VISTA
CVRC Board
Staff Report - Page 1
Item No. 1-
DATE:
August 9, 2007
FROM:
CVRC Board Directors . . ~ U
David R. Garda, Chief Executive Officer ~QJ ~
Scott Tulloch, Assistant City Manager S T
Ann Hix, Acting Community Development Director ~
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN EXTENSION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT
SUPO-07-01 FOR THE CONTINUATION OF AN AUTO DISMANTliNG
AND RECYCliNG BUSINESS AT 850 ENERGY WAY
Project Area: Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area
Agreement: None
Developer/Applicant: Ecology Auto Parts, Inc.
Project Site: 850 Energy Way
Project Type: Conditional (Special) Use Permit
Project Description: The applicant, Ecology Auto Parts, Inc., has submitted an
application for the extension to March 31, 2020 of an existing
Special Use Permit for the continued operation of an auto
dismantling and recycling business at 850 Energy Way.
The proposed permit extension is for the existing business and
does not include changes or expansions to the current
operations.
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Ecology Auto Parts, Inc., has submitted an application for the extension to
March 31, 2020 of an existing Special Use Permit for the continued operation of an auto
dismantling and recycling business at 850 Energy Way.
ol-\
Staff Report - Item No. "1.,-
August 9, 2007
Page 2
The proposed extension. to the Special Use Permit (SUP) is to allow the continued
operation of an existing automobile dismantling and recycling facility located at 850
Energy Way, currently doing business as Ecology Auto Parts, Inc. The existing SUP will
expire on March 8, 2008. The applicant is requesting an extension to their existing SUP
from March 8, 2008 until March 31, 2020. N9 other operational changes or additional
physical construction activities are proposed at this time.
The proposed permit extension is for the existing business and does not include changes
or expansions to the current operations.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed application has been reviewed for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and it has been determined that it qualifies for a
Class 1 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the State
CEQA Guidelines because the proposed permit extension includes no changes or
expansion to the existing operation. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation adopt a resolution
approving the extension of the Special Use Permit SUPO-07-01 to March 31, 2020 for
the continuation of the auto dismantling and recycling business at 850 Energy Way,
subject to the list of conditions in the CVRC Resolution (attached).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
None applicable.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICTS
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the CVRC Board and City Council members
and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property
which is the subject of this action.
~- J..
Staff Report - Item No. 'L,..
August 9, 2007
Page 3
DISCUSSION
Permit Description and Backqround
The proposed extension of the Special Use Permit (SUP) is to allow the continued
operation of an existing automobile dismantling and recycling facility located at 850
Energy Way, currently doing business as Ecology Auto Parts, Inc. The existing SUP will
expire on March 8, 2008. The applicant is requesting an extension to their existing SUP
from March 8, 2008 until March 31, 2020. No other operational changes or additional
physical construction activities are proposed at this time.
The existing use on the site originated pursuant to Conditional Use Permit # PCC -73-
27, which was originally issued on December 12, 1973. The permit was subsequently
extended, on December 8, 1992, for a period of 13 years until 2005 by the
Redevelopment Agency, pursuant to a Settlement Agreement between the City Council,
Redevelopment Agency and the applicant relating to the formation of an assessment
district for the widening of Otay Valley Road. (Note: Due to the establishment of an
interim tolling ordinance related to outdoor storage uses in 2001 (Council Ordinance
No. 2836-A) and its subsequent expiration, the Agency granted an automatic extension
of the permit for a period of 2 years and three months, putting the effective expiration
date for this permit to March 8, 2008).
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the City of Chula Vista was to issue a SUP
conditioned only by code-required off street parking; landscape planting and irrigation;
and fencing and other appropriate comparable cost screening measures to ameliorate
adverse visual impacts. The Agreement further states that the applicant is not required to
deviate substantially from the plans previously submitted, reviewed, and recommended
for approval. The Settlement Agreement contemplates (but does not require) the possible
continuation of this use on the property until December 31, 2017. If a permit extension
is denied by the City during this period, the applicant would have the right to rescind the
agreement and recommence the original litigation. The applicant's only remedy would
be to void their obligation to pay any remaining assessments for their share of road
improvements.
Site and Surroundinq Land Use Desiqnations
North Limited Industrial Jl
Zonin Desi nation
General Industrial
Precise Plan I P
Generollndustrial
Existino Uses
Auto dismantling and
rec din
Auto dismantling and
General Plan Desionotion
Site limited Industrial (IL)
)./" }:;
Staff Report - Item No. V
August 9, 2007
Page 4
Precise Plan (IP) recycling/open
storaQe uses
East limited Industrial {Ill General Industrial Auto dismantling and
Precise Plan f1Pl recvclina
South Limited Industrial {Ill General Industrial Vacant Land
Predse Plan f1Pl
West limited Industrial (Ill General Industrial Auto dismantling and
Precise Plan (IP) recycl i ng
Analvsis
Extension of the permit for Ecology Auto Parts. Inc. involves consideration of several
elements that serve as a basis to determine whether the extension should be granted.
Among those elements are the following: the benefits of automobile dismantling and the
recycling of auto parts; the physical conditions in which the site is maintained by the
operator; compliance with conditions of approval of existing permits; and the extent to
which the auto recycling sites may be developed with higher and better industrial uses. It
should be noted that in 2001 this criteria was applied to another separate permit
extension for similar auto dismantling and recycling operations conducted by Ecology
Auto Parts, Inc. at their other properties located at 800-834 and 825 Energy Way. A
permit extension for those facilities was granted until the year 2017 (with an automatic
extension of the permit until the year 2020 due to the interim tolling ordinance on open
storage uses). Following is a brief discussion of each of these elements.
The benefits of auto recycling of end life vehicles (EL Vs) are typically realized in cost
savings in recycled parts, parts availability, reduction in abandoned vehicles, raw
material supply, and reduced insurance rates via reducing costs of repairs and providing
a market for totaled vehicles. In addition, Ecology Auto Parts, Ine. is an approved
location as an authorized State of California and City of Chula Vista oil-recycling center,
which provides an added benefit to the community independent of the sale of used auto
parts. The administration of the "Old Vehicle Buy Back program" for the County of San
Diego/Air Pollution Control District occurs here.
Review by City staff of the proposed application for the subject permit extension, as well
as an inspection of the site by Code Enforcement and the Fire Department, indicates this
operation sets the stondard locally for this use for storm woter filtration, fire suppression
measures, as well as hazardous waste extraction, and storage and handling of vehicles.
In addition, Ecology Auto Parts, Ine. has complied with the Redevelopment Agency
02-.L\
Staff Report - Item No. ....1L-
August 9, 2007
Page 5
conditions of the 1992 permit in terms of maintaining designated off-site parking,
fencing and landscaping along the property's frontage.
As an extension of an existing permit that has a history of over 30 years, the use is and
has been supported by the Chuta Vista General Plan and the former Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Plan. Currently, the City's " Zoning Ordinance allows automobile
dismantling and recycling uses through the issuance of a conditional use permit. This
acknowledges that auto recycling is a necessary and beneficial land use for a region. As
discussed above, the existing Settlement Agreement relating to uses on this property
contemplates (but does not require) possible continued auto wrecking uses on this site
until at least December 31,2017.
At the same time, auto recycling uses have been identified as contributing to blighting
conditions in the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area because of the storage
and dismantling of inoperative vehicles on large tracts of industrial land. It has been
anticipated that these uses would eventually be phased out and that these sites could be
used for higher and better industrial uses in the long term, as the economic dynamics of
the city and region change.
In 2002, Keyser Marston Associates (KMA), Inc. completed a feasibility study for the
redevelopment of auto recycling land uses along Energy Way. The report concluded that
there is a current surplus of available industrial lands that did not warrant the immediate
conversion of the Energy Way lands for industrial park uses. The report also recognized
that the auto recycling industry is a necessary land use. The report recommended that
the auto recycling uses be phased out over several years in coordination with the
remaining lifespan of the adjacent Otay Landfill (2024). At that time the study found that
there was an ample supply of industrial lands that could be absorbed during this
transition period and that the relocation of the recyclers, the remediation of the
properties, and marketing of the Energy Way area would require a transition period.
However, since the publication of the KMA report there has been a reduction in the
overall supply of industrially zoned land through both absorption and land use revisions,
both in the City and the south bay region. Further, there are several proposed reductions
to industrially zoned land in the region that would significantly alter the availability of
industrial land. Because of these recent and proposed changes, City staff will soon
conduct an updated analysis to examine the supply and demand of industrial land, as
well as the demand for auto recycling uses in the Chula Vista community.
A~
Staff Report - Item No. 1/
August 9, 2007
Page 6
Conclusion
Based on the above analysis, staff believes that the requested permit extension is
warranted for a period of 12 years, which is consistent with the potential timeframe
contemplated by the Redevelopment Agency in 1992. As discussed above, the
dismantling and recycling of automobile parts, as well as other related programs
operated by the applicant, is a necessary land use within the community at this time; and
Ecology Auto Parts, Inc. operation has been consistent with the conditions imposed by the
Agency's 1992 extension. Therefore, staff recommends that the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Corporation approve the extension of the permit to March 31, 2020,
subject to the conditions listed in the resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT
The extension causes no changes to revenues now realized by the City/Agency because
no new operations, equipment or construction are proposed.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Locator Map
2. Photo Survey of Site's Frontage Landscape Area
PREPARED BY:
Miguel Z. Tapia, Senior Community Development Specialist
v~
Attachment 1
r
~
o
MOin S~
County of San Diego
.... ....... .... ..... .... I. ..... ...
II ......
PROJECT
lOCATION
City of Chula Vista
.............................~
City of San Diego .
.
.
.
.
.
~-l
.
.
.
.
~...............
I C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
'.OCATOR PROJECT PROJECT OESCRIFTlON:
C) APPUCAHr. Ecology Auto Parts, Inc. SPECIAL USE PERMIT
PROJECT 850 Energy YVay Request Extension to an existing conditional use permit to
ADDRESS: operate an auto recyding and dismanUing faclTlty.
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale SUPO-07-01 Related caSl!S: 1S-ll7.Q24
J:\olannina\carlos\locators\suDo0701.cdr 02.27.07
Attachment 2
ECOLOGY AUTO PARTS
850 ENERGY WAY
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY
* STREET SCENE
* STORMWATERBMP'S
SUBMITTED TO
CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
(SUPO - 07 - 01)
(IS - 07 - 024)
:J- -- r
..
.
". 't
I-
(f)
ct:
ill
I
l-
=>
o
(f)
<D
Z
~
o
o
....J
$
ill
>
;L-~
I-
(j)
w
S
I
I-
:J
o
(j)
(9
Z
~
o
o
--1
S
W
>
k-j b
<..~'t'17~,-:-:'<.
. · ~'.-!~.~<-fu:,:~;:~,'
. t'il'f;,,:..:.:t~.
~ :I.V"'~~i;I;'~'.
... """"'~" .:'."<>,
--
",
"
.,
:.~
F"~;""
f..
i\
I
...
.-
CJ)
~
w
(!)
z
-
~
o
o
..J
~
W
-
>
.-
w
w
n::
.-
CJ)
).-1 \
,I
. .
.
.. . ".l: ~
.\... '.
<.'~
'\~) li:
,.....,........~
.
,-
.-
(f)
<(
W
I
.-
:J
o
(f)
(9
Z
~
o
o
...J
~
>
;L~ I .~
. .
t-
oo
<(
W
J:
t-
~
o
00
(9
z
-
~
o
o
...J
~
W
>
)0-
0::
t-
Z
W
I
I
J-~/)
CVRC RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF THE SPECIAL
USE PERMIT SUPO-07-01 UNTIL MARCH 31, 2020 FOR
ECOLOGY AUTO PARTS, INC. LOCATED AT 850 ENERGY WAY
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2007 the City of Chula Vista received an application from
Ecology Auto Parts, Inc. ("Applicanf') for an extension of an existing Special Use Permit,
SUPO-07-01, until March 31, 2020 ("Project'') for the site at 850 Energy Way, which is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A and is incorporated into this resolution by this
reference ("Project Site"); and
WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit #PCC-73-27, effective date December 12, 1973
originally allowed the automotive recycling facilities located at 850 Energy Way: and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula
Vista, and the applicant entered into a Settlement Agreement relating to the Otay Valley Road
widening on December 8, 1992, which resulted in the extension of the previously mentioned
permit until December 8, 2005; and
WHEREAS, due to the establishment of a temporary tolling ordinance, the Special Use
Permit was automatically extended for an additional period of two years and three months to
March 8, 2008; and
WHEREAS, review of the project indicates that all conditions of the previously issued
permit have been met; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project was reviewed for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and it was determined that the project qualifies for a Class 1
categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA
Guidelines because the proposed permit extension is for an existing facility that contemplates
no changes or expansion. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, a hearing time and place was set by the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation for consideration of the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its
purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its
mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the real property that is
the subject of the hearing at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider said Application at the time and place as advertised, namely July 26, 2007
at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Corporation to consider public testimony, and said hearing was thereafter
closed; and,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Special Use Permit SUPO-07-01 is hereby
APPROVED with an expiration date of March 31, 2020 according to the following findings and
subject to the conditions contained herein:
~'A- - \
FINDINGS
A. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable
to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of
the neighborhood or the community.
The proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a
service or facility which contributes to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community in that the recycling of End Life Vehicles (ELVs) results in cost savings in
recycled parts, energy conservation, parts availability, reduction in abandoned vehicles
and land filling, raw material supply, and reduced insurance rates via reducing costs of
repair and providing a market for totaled vehicles. Ecology Auto Wrecking also acts as
an approved oil recycling center.
B. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the
health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity since the land use is part of a larger
complex of auto wrecking facilities, auto auctioneers, contractor's yard, construction
material recycling, and the landfill. The use is considered an interim use and is
regulated for safety and health concems via local and state agencies. In
addition, conditions of this pennit require adequate offstreet parking, landscaping, and
screening of potential visual effects.
C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in this title for such use.
The proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the
Municipal Code for such use in that the use is a conditionally permitted use by the
Zoning Ordinance, and conditions have been attached that will make the use comply
with the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance.
D. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the
general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The granting of the special use pennit extension will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any govemmental Agency since
the General Plan land use designation is "Industrial" and the Zoning Ordinance
identifieS auto dismantling and recycling as a conditional use.
CONDITIONS:
1 . Required off street parking shall be maintained in a manner consistent with the
Chula Vista Municipal Code.
2. Landscaping and irrigation shall be maintained in a manner consistent with the
Landscape manual.
.2'f\-~
3. Fencing and other appropriate comparable-cost screening measures to
ameliorate adverse visual impacts shall be maintained.
4. Applicant shall continue to apply state of the art storage, safety, and
conservation measures, including, without limitation, drainage improvements, fire
suppression devices, and hazardous fluid collection. A list of such measures
shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Corporation, to be attached hereto.
5. Applicant shall comply with any and all federal, state, and local laws and safety
standards.
6. The applicant shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and
hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and
representatives, from and against all liabilities, losses, damages, demands,
claims, and costs, including court costs and attomey fees (collectively, liabilities)
incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from a) City's approval and
issuance of this Special Use Permit extension, b) City's approval or issuance of
any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non discretionary, in
connection with the use contemplated herein, and without limitation, any and all
liabilities arising from the operation of the facility. Applicant shall acknowledge
their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Special Use Permit
where indicated below. The applicant's compliance with this provision is an
express condition of this permit and this provision shall be binding on any and all
of the applicant's successors and assigns.
EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines
provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each
read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this
document shall be recorded with the County Recorder's Office of the County of San Diego, and
a signed, stamped copy retumed to the Community Development Department. Failure to retum
a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within ten days of recordation to the
Community Development Department shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that
the Project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license,
be held in abeyance without approval. Said document shall also be on file in the Community
Development Department's files.
Signature of Property Owner/Applicant.
Date
Signature of Property Owner/Applicant
Date
CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
?-A-- 3
If any of the forgoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms to be
implemented and maintained over time, and any of such conditions fail to be so implemented
and maintained according to their terms, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation shall
have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition
issuance of future building permits; deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute,
litigate, or compel their compliance; or seek damages for their violations. Applicant or
successor in interest gains no vested rights by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
approval of this Resolution.
INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation that its adoption of this
Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision, and
condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or
conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or
unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and
of no further force and effect ab initio.
PRESENTED BY
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
Ann Moore
General Counsel
Ann Hix
Interim Director of Community Development
;);Ps -- "1
..
..
;.;! E\TL OP\'tENT
CORPORATION
CHULA VISTA
CVRC Board
Staff Report - Page 1
Item No. -3-
DATE:
August 9, 2007
CVRC Board Directors, 11
David R. Garcia, Chief Executive Officer j~~
Scott Tulloch, Assistant City Manager r;--
Ann Hix, Acting Community Developm~irector ~
Eric Crockett, Redevelopment Manager I'IfJ ~ ~
Consideration of Two Exclusive Negotiating Agreements for Sites
within the Town Centre I Redevelopment Area
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Project Areas: Town Centre I
Agreement: Exclusive Negotiating Agreements
Developers: CityMark Development LLC and Voyage LLC
Project Sites: (1) Church and Davidson Northwest and (2) Landis and Davidson
Northeast
Project Types: Mixed-Use and Residential
Project Descriptions: To Be Determined
BACKGROUND:
Staff is proposing two Exclusive Negotiating Agreements (ENAs) for review and
consideration by the CVRC. Although these are considered "new" ENAs in the Third
Avenue area, staff has been working closely with these developers during the past two
years, examining potential development sites in the Third Avenue Village as the Urban
Core Specific Plan was in process. Each developer previously had ENAs for other
development sites on City/Agency-owned parking lots. The details of those ENAs and why
the ENAs are being proposed for different sites are described in this report.
~- \
Staff Report - Item No. 1?J
Page 2
The new ENAs proposed are as follows:
Developer Site Action
CityMark Development LLC Landis and Davidson Northeast New ENA
Voyage LLC (Public) Church and Davidson Northwest New ENA
The following staff report provides information about ENAs in general, why one of the
previous agreements was allowed to expire and the other was terminated, a brief review of
the downtown parking study findings and recommendations, and a description of the two
ENAs.
RECOMMEN DA liON:
Staff recommends that the CVRC adopt the following resolutions:
a) Resolution approving an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the CVRC
and CityMark Development LLC regarding the redevelopment of the Landis arid
Davidson Northeast Site; and
b) Resolution approving an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the CVRC
and Voyage LLC regarding the redevelopment of the Church and Davidson
Northwest site.
DISCUSSION:
Exclusive Negotiating Agreements
Purpose
An ENA is a roadmap for the evolution of a redevelopment project. ENAs establish
a predictable and agreed upon process, timeline, and parameters for developers and
the staff to cooperatively design and process redevelopment proposals that meet the
goals and objectives of both parties. The ENA process strategically evolves a
proposal from initial concept to a defined project that is consistent with City and
Agency plans and policies (e.g., General Plan, UCSP and redevelopment plans),
creating greater opportunities and incentives for private investment and community
benefit.
3-~
Staff Report - Item No. ~
Page 3
Structure
As crafted, the ENA generally describes the proposed development site, establishes
a timeline for milestones and public participation, defines the negotiation period,
and establishes a deposit amount.
An important component of the ENA is the timeline, which is an attachment to the
ENA. This document provides clear completion dates for various predevelopment
tasks. Two main objectives that this timeline facilitates are:
1. The preparation and completion of market studies, site plans and elevations,
financing and development analysis, and public outreach and input
2. The establishment of a framework for negotiations to reach business deal
points and terms for entering into a Disposition and Development
Agreement (DDA)
Previous ENAS and Parking Study
As noted above, both CityMark's and Public's previous ENAs were on land used for public
parking, at Landis and Davidson Southeast (CityMark) and at Church and Madrona
Northwest (Public). Prior to entering into Disposition and Development Agreements
(DDAs), the City, through the recent completion of a comprehensive downtown parking
management study, determined that there would be a potential impact to redeveloping
those particular parking lots, possibly requiring replacement parking elsewhere in the
urban core.
Parking Study Findings
In October 2006, the City of Chula Vista Community Development Department
initiated a comprehensive parking study to look at the management and supply of
public parking in the urban core. The results of that study, as well as staff's
recommendations, are being presented to the CVRC on August 9, 2007. The
parking study findings showed that CityMark's site (referred to as Lot 3 in the study)
was highly-utilized, and Public's site (Lot 6) was well-utilized. The preliminary
recommendation from the parking consultant was to maintain the public parking on
Lot 3. Based on staff's analysis of the findings and preliminary recommendations in
the parking study, as well as public input from a series of eight community
meetings, the two lots will be maintained for public parking.
CityMark
CityMark Development LLC entered into an ENA on July 19, 2005 with the Agency
to develop a one-acre property made up of eight City- and Agency-owned parcels
on Landis Avenue just south of Davidson Street. The 300-day timeline for that ENA
was tied to the adoption of the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP). The ENA was
P-.~
Staff Report - Item No. ~
Page 4
amended twice - once in August 2006, and again in March 2007 - in accordance
with the anticipated approval of the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP). The UCSP
was ultimately approved on April 26, 2007, around the same time that staff was
analyzing the findings and preliminary recommendations from the parking study.
The findings showed heavy parking utilization of Lot 3, and recommended
maintaining public parking facilities on those parcels. Additionally, adjacent
property owners and businesses, including several medical office uses, weighed in
during community presentations to recommend against redevelopment of the
parking lot. Staff concurred with the consultant's and the public's
recommendations, and on June 6, 2007, the ENA on the property was allowed to
expire, with the intent of proposing a new ENA on an alternate site at the northeast
corner of Landis Avenue and Davidson Street.
Public
On May 11, 2006, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation (CVRC) approved
an ENA with Public for a two-parcel Agency-owned property on the northwest
corner of Church Avenue and Madrona Street in the urban core, currently in use as
a public parking lot. Like CityMark, Public's 300-day ENA timeline was linked to
the adoption of the UCSP. In March 2007, the ENA was extended administratively,
and on April 26, 2007, the same night the UCSP was approved, the Agreement was
amended again, making minor adjustments to the timeline and lengthening the
negotiation period. Analyzing the parking study findings and recommendations,
staff found that the lot was heavily used. During community presentations, staff
heard from local restaurant and business owners who were vocal about their
concerns regarding loss of the 30 parking spaces provided on the lot. As a direct
result of public input, staff recommended maintaining the lot for public parking.
After discussing the recommendation with the developer, the ENA was terminated
on July 6, 2007, with the intent of proposing a new ENA on an alternate site at the
northwest corner of Church Avenue and Davidson Street.
New ENAs
Both CityMark and Public are well-qualified and interested developers, capable of
implementing the vision of Chula Vista's General Plan, Town Centre I Redevelopment
Plan and the UCSP. Both developers were diligent in their efforts to move their projects
forward under their previous ENAs.' As such, staff is proposing a new ENA for an alternate
property in the urban core for each developer.
, The previous ENA schedules for CityMark and Public were linked to the approval of the UCSP, which took
effect June 14, 2007. Throughout the negotiating period, CityMark and Public worked cooperatively with
staff to make the necessary amendments to their respective agreements, and would have gone forward with
the projects as planned, had it not been for the results of the parking study.
~-~
Staff Report - Item No. l
Page 5
City Mark
CityMark is proposed to enter into an ENA with the CVRC on the three City-owned
parcels at the northeast corner of Davidson Street and Landis Avenue. The site is
just over half an acre and is currently used as a public parking lot, but it was not
identified in the parking study as being significantly utilized. The site is located in
the V-3 subdistrict of the UCSP. The developer is proposing a mid-rise building in
conformance with the regulations in the adopted specific plan.
Public
Public has created a new development entity, Voyage LLC, through which it will
enter into an ENA with the CVRC. The subject property is the two City-owned
parcels at the northwest corner of Church Avenue and Davidson Street. The
approximately one-third acre site is also currently used for public parking, but it was
not identified as being significantly utilized. The site is located in the V-l
subdistrict of the UCSP. The developer is proposing ten condominium units, two of
which will be live/work units, in conformance with the regulations in the adopted
plan.
Market
The success of Chula Vista's redevelopment activities is highly dependent upon the City's
efforts to time projects to take advantage of market opportunities and to respond quickly to
the needs of investors when markets are strong. Although the market is presently soft,
putting the proposed agreements in place and starting the entitlement process now will lay
the groundwork for these projects to be completed as the cycle starts to improve again.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT:
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the CVRC Members and has found that CVRC
Board Member Salas has a conflict that exists within 500 feet of the boundaries of the
Church and Davidson site, which is one of the subjects of this action. No conflicts exist
for the Landis and Davidson site.
CONCLUSION:
Since the approval of the original two ENAs with CityMark and Public, the economy and
market have begun to shift, which has been reflected in rising interest rates, increased
construction costs and the slowing in the absorption of new units. Due to the financial
complexity of urban infill projects, a change in any of these variables has an especially
drastic impact on redevelopment and on Chula Vista's revitalization activities on the west
side. The uncertainty of the market has been compounded for these two developers by the
delays in approving the UCSP and the long-awaited results of the parking study. As stated
above, both developers are well-qualified and interested in developing in Chula Vista. It is
therefore important that the CVRC expeditiously capture and take advantage of the
3~
Staff Report - Item No. l
Page 6
opportunity to plan effectively, implementing strategic redevelopment tools through the
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement.
A IT ACHMENTS:
A. CityMark Development LLC Profile
B. Voyage LLC (Public) Profile
C. Map of ENA Sites
D. ENA with CityMark Development LLC
E. ENA with Voyage LLC
PREPARED BY: Janice Kluth, Senior Community Development Specialist
~-- LR
---~---_.~-~~-~ -~
~'Jl
CITYHADK.
_ 1M'-u..-.ut
LANDIS AVENUE NORTHEAST
Site Descri ption
Located in the heart of Chula Vista's downtown village, the
Landis Northeast site is situated in an ideal location for the
creation of residential densities to support and reinvigorate
the Third Avenue business district. Development at this
location will also present important opportunities to create
enhanced linkages and pedestrian access to and from local
residences, Third Avenue businesses, neighboring parks, and
local community centers.
CityMark Development LCC, is interested in developing a
proiect on the Landis Northeast site within the Agency's Town
Centre I Redevelopment Project Area. The subject property
consists of eight parcels located on the northeast corner of
Landis Avenue and Davidson Street (Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 568-044-0900, 568-044-1000, 568-044-1100)
and totals approximately 29,319 square feet in area.
ATTACHMENT A
Existina Uses & Ownership
The site is owned by the City and is currently used as a
metered parking lot. Landis Avenue is a secondary street
between E and F Streets that is characterized by a mixture of
older and unique residences, many of which have been
converted to professional office and multifamily residential
uses. The site is located in the Urban Core Specific Plan's
West Village V-3 Subdistrict, which allows FARs between 2.0 and 4.5, heights between 18'
and 84', primary land use maximums of 100% residential, 10% retail, and 10% office.
Surrounding land uses include several medical office buildings and other miscellaneous
commercial retail, service, and office uses.
Developer Qualification & Owner Participation Process
CityMark Development LLC was selected through a Request for Proposals and
Qualifications process for another City/Agency-owed site in the vicinity, and the
Redevelopment Agency entered into an ENA with the Developer on that property in July
2005. In mid-2007, a City-commissioned parking study recommended against
redevelopment of the property. The ENA was allowed to expire, with the intent that the
developer would enter into a new ENA on an alternate site.
Developer Profile. Historv. and Qualifications
CityMark Development is an urban residential and mixed-use development company
based in San Diego and founded in 2000. CityMark primarily develops low-rise and
J2,-l
ATTACHMENT A
mid-rise residential projects, including condominiums and mixed-use developments
incorporating retail and office space. CityMark's portfolio and business plan include lofts,
town homes, flats, and live/work residences.
Notable completed CityMark projects in the San Diego region include:
D CitvMark at Cortez Hill. 16 two- and three-bedroom townhouse units in the
Cortez Hill District of the City of San Diego near the newly renovated EI Cortez
Hotel.
D Doma. 121-unit mixed-use development in Little Italy consisting of 66 eight-story
lofts, 40 four-story townhouses, and 15 four-story flats with almost 60 distinct floor
plans.
D Paseo. 18 townhouses and live/work residences in the historic downtown district
of the City of La Mesa.
D M2i. Seven-story, 230-unit condominium project in the Ballpark District of the City
of San Diego consisting of townhouses, flats, and live/work units.
D Farenheit. Seven-story, 77 -unit loft project in the Ballpark District of the City of
San Diego that will incorporate ground floor "shopkeeper" units.
D Eavptian. Seven-story, 80-unit mixed-use project in the Hillcrest area of the City of
San Diego.
CityMark's Cortez Hill and Doma projects were the recipients of multiple awards at the
2002 and 2003 San Diego Building Industry Association's Sales, Advertising, and
Merchandising Awards, including Best Attached Housing Project Award.
CVRC-Developer Partnership
In addition to their experience and depth as an urban residential developer in San Diego
County, CityMark is composed of a small and very close development team that has
emphasized their desire and commitment to creating close partnerships with staff, the
CVRC, and the community to create product types and designs that complement the
character and charm of Chula Vista's downtown village. CityMark's commitment to local
partnerships was a key factor in their selection during the RFP/Q interview process.
~-1:
Voyage LLC (Public)
CHURCH AND DAVIDSON NORTHWEST
Site Description
Located on Church Avenue in Chulo Vista's downtown
village, this site offers on excellent opportunity for
showcasing the type of residential density intended by the
Urban Core Specific Plan and Updated General Plan.
Development at this location will complement Third Avenue
businesses, and benefit from neighboring parks, and local
community centers.
Voyage LLC, a Limited Liability Company and subsidiary of
Public, a California General Partnership, is interested in
developing 0 project on Church Avenue within the Agency's
Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area. The subject
property consists of two parcels located along the western
side of Church Avenue, at the intersection of Davidson
Street (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 568-071-19-00 and 18-
00) and totals approximately 13,855 square feet in area.
Existina Uses & Ownership
The site is owned by the City of Chula Vista and is currently
used os a metered parking lot. Church Avenue is a
secondary street running parallel to Third Avenue and is
charocterized by a mixture of retail, office, multifamily and
single family uses. The site is located in the V-1 subdistrict
of the Urban Core Specific Plan, allowing FARs between 1.0
and 2.0, heights from 18' to 45', and primary land uses of
100% residential (with allowances for Live/Work uses).
Surrounding land uses include commercial, residential and
office buildings and a public parking lot.
ATTACHMENT B
Developer Qualification Process
In 2005, the Community Development Department received a Statement of Qualifications
from Public for another site in the urban core. The developer is well qualified, possessing
intimate knowledge and experience in urban residential developments. In addition to
developer's history, experience, and financial capabilities, there is a commitment to
creating positive partnerships and working relationships with CVRC staff, the local
community, and other development teams working with the CVRe.
Based upon staff's review of the developer's profile, history, and qualifications for this site,
the CVRC entered into an ENA with Public for the Church Avenue site in May 2006.
3-~
ATTACHMENT B
Although external conditions caused that ENA to be terminated earlier this year, staff
recommends that the CYRC enter into a new ENA with Public through its development
entity, Yoyage LLC, on an alternate property in the urban core.
Developer Profile. History. and Qualifications
Public is an urban residential architecture/development company based in San Diego and
founded in 1989. Public primarily develops low-rise residential projects, including mixed-
use developments incorporating retail and office space. Public's portfolio and business
plan include lofts, town homes, flats, and live/work residences. Typically the firm has
developed rental units, but is now expanding into the for-sale market. For the purpose of
developing the new residential product, Public created a Limited Liability Company,
Yoyage LLC, in September 2006.
Notable completed Public projects in or near the San Diego region include:
o Dutra Brown Buildina. Four-unit rental apartment building in the Little Italy District
of the City of San Diego -building materials and architectural elements were
reused from the original buildings on the site.
o Laurel Court. Twenty-unit modern residential project in West Hollywood. Homes
are grouped around a series of landscaped courtyards, reminiscent of older
residences in the area.
o Lee Residence. Single family home in La Jolla.
Notable current Public projects in the San Diego region include:
o South block. One hundred and six-unit mixed use building In downtown San
Diego, with apartments above and retail on the ground level.
o Siabee Row. Fourteen market-rate urban condominiums in the Barrio Logan
district of San Diego.
o Baltazar Residence. Single family home in La Jolla.
Public's Dutra Brown Building was the recipient of local, State and national awards by the
American Institute of Architects. The Lee Residence also received an AlA award. The firm
has been published in Architectural Record, San Diego Home and Garden and Dwell
magazine. Public was also short-listed for architectural firm of the year for the entire State
of California last year.
CYRC-Developer Partnership
In addition to their experience and depth as an urban residential developer in San Diego
County, Public is composed of a small and very close development team that has
emphasized their desire and commitment to creating close partnerships with staff, the
CYRC, and the community to create product types and designs that complement the
character and charm of Chula Yista's downtown village. Public's commitment to local
partnerships was a key factor in the decision to move forward with the ENA process.
~-- I ()
ATTACHMENT C
o 0.025 0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Miles
,
1lIIlI.'i<
-
Merged Bayfront (Town Centre I
Project Area
Merged Chula Vista
Project Area
I. 3rd & E Southeast Corner / A vion Developrnent
2. Church & Davidson Northwest! Voyage LLC
3. Landis & Davidson Northeast / CifyMark Developrnent LLC
4. 3rd & G Northwest / Intergulf-Mar (Park) Group
3- \ \
ATTACHMENT D
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT
This Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("Agreement"), dated as of this 9th day
of August, 2007 ("Effective Date"), is made by and between by and between the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Corporation, a California nonprofit, public benefit corporation ("CYRe"), on
behalf of and for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a public body, corporate
and politic ("Agency"), and CityMark Development, LLC, a California limited liability company
("Developer"), with reference to the following facts:
RECIT ALl>
In furtherance of the objectives of the California Community Redevelopment Law, the
Agency has undertaken a program for the redevelopment of certain areas within the City of
Chula Vista ("City"), and in connection therewith is undertaking and carrying out activities for
redevelopment in the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") pursuant to
and in furtherance of the redevelopment plan for the Project Area ("Redevelopment Plan").
The subj ect matter of this Agreement concerns that certain real property located
within the Project Area as depicted on Exhibit "A" hereto ("Property"). The Property consists of
three parcels encompassing approximately 29,319 square feet of territory located on the
northeast corner of Landis Avenue and Davidson Street in the City of Chula Vista (Assessor
Parcel Numbers 568-044-0900, 568-044-1000, 568-044-1100).
The Developer is proposing to develop an urban residential condominium
development ("Project") and desires to negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement
("DDA") with the Agency.
After a competitive Request for Qualifications/Proposal selection process conducted
by the Agency for the Property in 2005, the Agency selected the Developer as a qualified entity
with which to negotiate terms for an agreement for development of the Property. Based on those
qualifications, the CVRC desires to enter into this Agreement with the Developer with the
objective of determining the feasibility of the proposed project and consideration of entering into
a mutually acceptable DDA for the development of the Property consistent with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement at the earliest practical date.
The Developer anticipates that, following execution of this Agreement and through
the period of negotiation and preparation of a DDA with respect to the Project, it will devote
substantial time and effort in preparing plans, preparing proj ect pro formas, contacting fmancial
institutions, engaging appropriate consultants, and meeting with the Agency and various other
necessary third parties in connection with the proposed Project, and in negotiating and preparing
a DDA consistent with the basic terms and mutual understandings established in this Agreement.
The CVRC and the Developer ("Parties") desire to enter into this Agreement in order to
set forth the rights and duties of the Parties during the term of the Exclusive Negotiating Period.
~- \ 1.-
-1-
Now, therefore, the Parties mutually agree as follows:
I. GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS
A. CVRC and Developer agree (for the period stated below) to negotiate in good
faith pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, a DDA or other form of agreement or agreements
to be entered into between the Agency and Developer concerning the purchase and development
of the Property by Developer. CVRC agrees not to negotiate with any other person or entity
regarding development of the Property without the consent of Developer. Nothing in this
Agreement shall be deemed a covenant, promise or commitment by the CVRC, the Agency, the
City ofChula Vista, or any agency of the City, withirespect to the acquisition of property or the
approval of the development project. CVRC's acceptance of this Agreement is merely an
agreement to enter into a period of exclusive negotiations according to the terms hereof,
reserving final discretion and approval by Agency as to any actions required of it.
B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer acknowledges that Agency may
receive from time to time, unsolicited alternative proposals for the development of the Property.
Agency shall notify Developer within ten days after receiving an unsolicited development
proposal for all or any portion of the Property. Agency and Developer shall confer in good faith
to assess the benefits of the unsolicited proposal.
2. NEGOTIATION PERIOD
A. CVRC and Developer agree to negotiate for an initial period of three hundred
(300) days which shall commence on the Effective Date unless earlier terminated in accordance
with the provisions hereof ("Initial Negotiation Period").
B. If, upon the expiration of such Initial Negotiation Period, the Parties have not
each approved and executed a DDA, then the Chief Executive Officer of the CVRC ("CEO"), in
his or her sole discretion, on behalf of the CVRC, is authorized to extend, in writing, the term of
this Agreement for up to an additional ninety days (90) days ("Extended Negotiation Period")
provided that at the end of the Initial Negotiation Period, neither the CVRC nor the Developer
has exercised its right to terminate as provided herein and the Developer is in full compliance
with all terms and conditions hereof, the Developer concurs with such extension of the
negotiation period, and the CEO has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
Developer will agree to terms and conditions for the development of the Project on the Property
that Agency staff will be able to recommend approval of the DDA to the Agency prior to the
expiration of the Extended Negotiation Period.
C. If, after expiration of the Initial Negotiation Period, or after the Extended
Negotiation Period if this Agreement is extended, the Parties have not each approved and
executed a DDA, then this Agreement shall automatically terminate and Developer shall have no
further rights regarding the subject matter of this Agreement or the Property, and CVRC shall be
free to negotiate with any other persons or entities with regard to the Property.
2> --- {~
-2-
ATTACHMENT 0
3. OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPER
A. Schedule
CYRC and Developer agree and acknowledge that all submittals required by this
Agreement shall be submitted pursuant to the timeline attached hereto as Exhibit "B." Exhibit
"B" may be amended administratively by the CEO as needed and with the concurrence of the
Developer, provided the timeline does not exceed the Initial Negotiation Period or the Extended
Negotiation Period, if applicable.
B. Development and Design Plans
During the negotiation period, Developer shall submit development and design
plans for the Project as described in Exhibit "B." Developer shall also furnish such information
to CYRC regarding the proposed project as may be required by CYRC and/or City to perform an
environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). All fees
and expenses for engineers, architects, financial consultants, legal, planning or other consultants
retained by Developer to perform Developer's obligations set forth in this Agreement shall be the
sole responsibility of Developer.
C. Reports, Studies and Public Participation
Developer shall make written reports to the CYRC on the Developer's progress toward
meeting its obligations under this Agreement as requested by the CYRC, and if requested by the
CYRC, Developer shall make periodic oral progress reports on all matters and all studies being
made related to the acquisition of the Property and development of the Project and other matters
under negotiation to the extent that they do not include confidential matters. As CYRC deems
reasonably necessary or appropriate, presentations may be requested at public forums to solicit
input from citizens, businesses, stakeholders and relevant interest groups.
D. Financing
Developer shall, consistent with Exhibit "B," develop a program of financing that
provides the CYRC with reasonably satisfactory evidence that financing will be available for
acquisition and development of the Property.
E. Deposit
Developer previously deposited with the Agency in 2005 an amount of Twenty Five
Thousand Dollars ($25,000) in immediately available funds ("ENA Deposit") for project
analysis, following the execution of an ENA for the site known as Landis Avenue South
(Assessor Parcel Numbers 568-152-2300, 568-152-2400, 568-152-2500, 568-152-2600, 568-
152-2700, 568-152-2900, 568-152-0100, 568-152-0200, 568-152-0300) on July 18, 2005.
CVRC shall continue to utilize the remaining balance of the previous ENA Deposit to conduct
project analysis for this Agreement including, but not limited to, payment for third party
consultants, City/Agency stafftirne (at applicable full cost recovery rates), and other reasonable
3--\~
- 3-
costs incurred by the CYRC and Agency in conducting such analysis. CVRC shall request
additional deposits if the ENA Deposit is exhausted and CVRC determines further analysis is
required. CVRC may cease negotiations and all activities of third party consultants until such
time as ENA Deposit is replenished as reasonably requested by CYRC. Any deposit balance
remaining upon the termination of the Agreement shall be returned to Developer or shall be
applied to any deposit required by a subsequent DDA.
4. CYRC OBLIGATIONS AND DUE DILIGENCE
A. During the Negotiation Period, CYRC shall conduct a due diligence investigation
of the Developer's ability to purchase, own and/or operate the Project in a responsible manner.
If the CEO determines in his or her sole discretion that Developer does not have the ability to
successfully purchase, own, and/or manage the Project in a responsible manner, the CEO may
terminate this Agreement by delivering written notice thereof to Developer. CYRC's due
diligence efforts may include, without limitation, the following:
I. Assessment of the proposed financing and the capacity of Developer to
qualify for financing for the Proj ect; and
2. Assessment of the capacity of Developer and its principal staff to
effectively own and/or manage the Project, including the ability to carry out any ongomg
management oversight responsibilities.
B. CYRC agrees to cooperate with Developer in providing equity partner(s) and/or
lender( s) of Developer with appropriate and necessary information for the Developer to fulfill its
obligations hereunder, which information is not otherwise privileged.
C. CYRC shall also cooperate with Developer's professional consultants and
associates in providing them with any information and assistance, so far as such information is
not otherwise privileged, reasonably within the capacity, possession or control of the CYRC in
connection with the preparation of the Developer's submissions to the CYRC.
5. DDA
The Parties hereby acknowledge and agree that, during the Initial Negotiation Period and,
if applicable, the Extended Negotiation Period, the Parties shall use their respective good faith
efforts to negotiate and enter into a DDA which shall include (but not be limited to) the
following: (i) the design of the Project by the Developer, which design and any required permits
shall be subject to the approval by the CYRC and/or City, (ii) the construction of the Project by
the Developer in accordance with final plans and specifications to be provided by the Developer
and approved by the CYRC and/or City, pursuant to a detailed schedule of performance by the
Developer, (iii) the operation and management of the Project by the Developer in a good and
professional manner and subject to the covenants required by law, (iv) the maintenance of
landscaping, buildings, and improvements in good condition and satisfactory state of repair so as
to be attractive to the community, (v) the operation of the Project by the Developer in
compliance with all equal opportunity standards established by federal, state and local law, (vi)
provision by each contractor and/or subcontractor (as the case may require and as appropriate)
performing work on the Project of the requisite performance bond and labor and materials
yo
- 4-
ATTACHMENT 0
payment bond to assure completion of the Project free of mechanics' liens, (vii) the Project shall
be of a quality consistent with plans and renderings provided by Developer and approved by the
CYRC, (vii) the terms and conditions upon which Developer shall acquire the Property and (viii)
the terms and conditions upon which either party may terminate the DDA (e.g., the discovery of
environmental issueslhazardous substances on the Property, unexpected development or
construction costs).
6. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND OBUGA TIONS
A. Real Estate Commissions
Neither CVRC nor Developer shall be liable for any real estate commission or brokerage
fees which may arise herefrom except for a commission payable by Developer to V oit
Commercial Brokerage pursuant to a separate written agreement. CVRC and Developer
represent that they have not engaged any other broker, agent or fmder in connection with this
transaction and each party agrees to indemnify and hold the other party free and harmless from
and defend the other against claims for commissions or fees made through such party and against
any damage or expense the other party may incur by reason of the untruth as to the warranting
party of the foregoing warranty, including expenses for attorney's fees and court costs.
B. Each Party to Bear its Own Cost
Each party shall bear its own costs incurred in connection with the negotiation of a DDA,
and the implementation of this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided herein or
expressly agreed in writing.
C. Confidentiality
CVRC and Developer recognize that disclosures made by Developer pursuant to this
Agreement may contain sensitive information and that the disclosure of such information to third
parties could impose commercially unreasonable and/or uncompetitive burdens on Developer
and, may correspondingly, diminish the value or fiscal benefit that may accrue to the CVRC
upon the redevelopment of the Property by the Developer, if a future DDA is entered into by the
Parties. Developer acknowledges and agrees that CVRC is a public entity with a responsibility
and, in many cases, legal obligation to conduct its business in a manner open and available to the
public. Accordingly, any information provided by Developer to CVRC with respect to the
Property, the Project or Developer may be disclosed to the public either purposely, inadvertently,
or as a result of a public demand or order. With respect to any information provided that
Developer reasonably deems and identifies in writing as proprietary and confidential in nature,
CVRC agrees to exercise its best efforts to keep such information confidential. In addition, if
CVRC determines that it is required under applicable law to disclose any information identified
by Developer as proprietary and confidential in nature, CVRC shall notify Developer as least
three business days before disclosure of such information which will provide Developer the
opportunity to seek a protective order preventing such disclosure.
y-,LP
- 5-
D. Assignment
1. CVRC would not have entered into this Agreement but for Developer's unique
qualifications and experience. Therefore, Developer's rights and obligations under this
Agreement may not be assigned without the prior written approval of CVRC in its sole
discretion. Notwithstanding the foregoing, subject to the prior written approval of the CEO,
Developer may assign its rights hereunder to a new entity formed by the Developer for purposes
of developing the Project. Such new entity may include additional parties provided that the
Developer retains responsibility for fulfilling its obligations hereunder and Developer retains
management control and authority over the entity and the Project.
!
2. Upon the assignment sale or transfer, whether voluntary or involuntary, of more
than fifty percent (50%) of the membership, ownership, management or control of the Developer
(other than such changes occasioned by the death or incapacity of any individual) that has not
been approved by the CVRC, prior to the time of such change, the CVRC may terminate this
Agreement, without liability, by sending written notice of termination to Developer.
E. Nondiscrimination
Developer shall not discriminate against nor segregate any person, or group of persons on
account ofrace, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, disability, national origin or ancestry in
undertaking its obligations under this Agreement.
7. RETENTION OF DISCRETION
A. By its execution of this Agreement, CVRC is not committing itself or agreeing to
undertake any activity requiring the subsequent exercise of discretion by CVRC, Agency, or
City, or any department thereof including, but not limited to, the approval and execution of a
DDA; the proposal, amendment, or approval of any land use regulation governing the Property;
the provision of financial assistance for the development of any public or private interest in real
property; the authorization or obligation to use the Agency's eminent domain authority; or, any
other such activity.
B. Developer understands and agrees that the CVRC, Agency, and City, in their
respective legislative roles, reserve the right to exercise their discretion as to all matters which
the CVRC, Agency, and City are by law entitled or required to exercise such discretion,
including but not limited to, entitlements or permits for the development of the Property and
adoption of any amendments to policy documents (including the General Plan, Urban Core
Specific Plan, and Redevelopment Plans). In addition, Developer understands and agrees that
the entitlements and any other documents shall be subject to and brought to the CVRC, Agency,
or City, as appropriate, for consideration in accordance with applicable legal requirements,
including laws related to notice, public hearings, due process, and the California Environmental Quality Act.
C. Developer acknowledges that any plans processed for the Property will be based
upon the current General Plan and Zoning Code of the City.
~-r\
- 6-
ATTACHMENT 0
D. This Agreement does not constitute a disposition of property or exercise of
control over property by CVRC and does not require a public hearing. CVRC execution of this
Agreement is merely an agreement to enter into a period of exclusive negotiations according to
the terms hereof, reserving [mal discretion and approval by Agency as to any proposed DDA and
all proceedings and decisions in connection therewith. The parties understand that Agency has
the complete and unfettered discretion to reject a DDA without explanation or cause. The risk of
loss of all processing, design and developmental costs incurred by the Developer prior to DDA
approval shall be absorbed entirely by Developer except unless expressly assumed, by the terms
of this Agreement by the CVRC. As to any matter which the CVRC and/or Agency may be
required to exercise its unfettered discretion in ad,vancing the Project to completion, nothing
herein shall obligate the CVRC and/or Agency to exercise its discretion in any particular manner,
and any exercise of discretion reserved hereunder or required by law, shall not be deemed to
constitute a breach of CVRC duties under this agreement.
8. TERMINATION RIGHTS
Notwithstanding the Initial or Extended Negotiating Periods hereinabove set forth, either
party may terminate this Agreement if the other party has materially defaulted in its obligations
herein set forth, and the terminating party has provided defaulting party with written notification
of such determination, and the defaulting party has refused to cure same. The written
notification shall set forth the nature of the actions required to cure such default if curable.
Defaulting party shall have 30 days from the date of the written notification to cure such default.
If such default is not cured within the 30 days, the termination shall be deemed effective. Any
failure or delay by a party in asserting any of its rights or remedies as to any default shall not
operate as a waiver of any default or of any rights or remedies associated with a default. Each
party shall also have the right to terminate this Agreement in the event that CVRC or Developer
determines that: (a) the Project is infeasible or not in the public interest; or (b) the parties reach
an impasse in their negotiation of the DDA which cannot be resolved after good faith efforts.
9. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Address for Notice
Developer's Address for Notice:
CityMark Development, LLC
70 I B Street, Suite 11 00
San Diego, California 92IOl
Attention: Mr. Richard V. Gustafson
Telephone: (619) 231-1161
Fax: (619) 235-4691
And
yl1
- 7-
Hecht Solberg Robinson Goldberg & Bagley LLP
600 W. Broadway, Eighth Floor
San Diego, California 9210 I
Telephone: (619) 239-3444
Fax: (619) 232-6828
CYRC's Address for Notice:
City of Chula Yista - CYRC
Community Development Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Yista, CA 91910
Attn: Director of Community Development
Telephone: (619) 691-5047
Fax: (619) 476-5310
Copy to: City Attorney
B. Authority
Each party represents that it has full right, power and authority to execute this Agreement
and to perform its obligations hereunder, without the need for any further action under its
governing instruments, and the parties executing this Agreement on the behalf of such party are
duly authorized agents with authority to do so.
C. Counterparts
This Agreement may be executed in multiple copies, each of which shall be deemed an
original, but all of which shall constitute one Agreement after each party has signed such a
counterpart.
D. Entire Agreement
This Agreement together with all exhibits attached hereto and other agreements expressly
referred to herein, constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to the
subject matter contained herein. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings,
representations, warranties and statements, oral or written, are superseded.
E. Further Assurances
The parties agree to perform such further acts and to execute and deliver such additional
documents and instruments as may be reasonably required in order to carry out the provisions of
this Agreement and the intentions of the parties.
?r\~
.8-
ATTACHMENT 0
F. No Third Party Beneficiaries
There are no other parties to this Agreement, express or implied, direct or indirect.
CYRC and Developer acknowledge that it is not their intent to create any third party
beneficiaries to this Agreement.
G. Exclusive Remedies
I. In the event of default by either party to this Agreement, the Parties shall have the
remedies of specific performance, mandamus, injunction and other equitable remedies. Neither
party shall have the remedy of monetary damages against the other; provided, however, that the
award of costs of litigation and attorneys' fees shall not constitute damages based upon breach of
this Agreement where such an award is limited to the reasonable costs of litigation incurred by
the Parties.
2. Each party acknowledges that it is aware of the meaning and legal effect of
California Civil Code Section 1542, which provides:
A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect
to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him would have
materially affected his settlement with debtor.
California Civil Code Section 1542 notwithstanding, it is the intention of the Parties to be
bound by the limitation on damages and remedies set forth in this Section 7G, and the Parties
hereby release any and all claims against each other for monetary damages or other legal or
equitable relief related to any breach of this Agreement, whether or not any such released claims
were known to either of the Parties as of the date of this Agreement. The Parties each waive the
benefits of California Civil Code Section 1542 and all other statutes and judicial decisions of
similar effect with regard to the limitations on damages and remedies and waivers of any such
damage and remedies contained in this Section 7G.
H. Indemnity
Developer shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless CVRC and Agency, its
elected officials, employees and agents from and against any and all challenges to this
Agreement, or any and all losses, liabilities, damages, claims or costs (including attorneys' fees)
arising from Developer's negligent acts, errors, or omissions with respect its obligations
hereunder or the Property, excluding any such losses arising from the sole negligence or sole
willful misconduct of CVRC or Agency or the conduct of third parties outside the control of the
Developer. This indemnity obligation shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a third party challenge to the validity of this
Agreement, Developer shall have the option to terminate this Agreement in lieu of its indemnity
obligation.
~- }-D
-9 -
1. Time is of the Essence
Time is of the essence for each of Developer's obligations under this Agreement.
[NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE]
,
,
3->\
-10-
ATTACHMENT D
Signature Page
To
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as ofthe
date set forth above, thereby indicating the consent of their principals.
CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT CORPORA nON
CITYMARK DEVELOPMENT LLC
California Limited Liability Company
By:
By:
?
Chair
Richard V. Gustafson
President
Date:
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Ann Moore
General Counsel
Date:
ATTEST:
By:
Ann Hix
Secretary
y))=-
- 11-
ATTACHMENT D
f<e.€.'O€.<e.ICW'
EXHIBIT "A"
0 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
Miles
, Added Area Redev. Project Area
Town Centre I Redev. Project Area
. Town Centre II Redev. Project Area
.Y-n
o
Landis & Davidson Northeast Corner
CityMark Developrnent LLC
ATTACHMENT D
EXHIBIT "B"
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT
SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES
Preliminary Design
RAC #1
Draft Terms Sheet
Cnnceptual
Financing Plan
CVRC Technical
Input #1
RAC #2
Draft DDA
CVRC Technical
Input #2
DDA
Submittal of preliminan- design concepts and drawings for City~lark
staff re\~ew and comment, including site plnns and
elevations.
Presentation of preliminary design concepts and drawings Citv~lark
to the Redevelopment ,\dvisory Conunittee for early public
input on design.
Submittal of drafts of pro fom,a, development schedule, Citv.\lark
and terms sheet cont,lining preliminary deal points.
Within 60Days of Draft Terms Sheet
Submittal ,md review of conceptual flll,mcing plan with Staff & City~ lark
Staff.
Presentation of preliminary design and deal points to Staff & CityMark
CYRC Board of Directors for early teclmical input and
C0111111ent.
Witlilil CillDaysof<::yRC Techni~al Input#1
Presentation of revised design concepts and drawings to the CityMark
Redevelopment ,\dvison- Committee for review, comment,
and advisory reconunendation.
Collaboration between Staff and City.\lark to develop a Staff & CityMark
Draft Disposition and Development ,\greement (DD_\).
Presentation of Draft DD_\ to CYRC Board of Directors CityMark
for early technical input and c01runent on DD_-t stnlCture
,md conceptual financing plan.
Withili 60 Days of CVRe Technical Input #2
Re\-iew ,md consideration of Disposition ,md Dewlopment Staff & CityMark
,\greement by CYRC and Redevelopment ,\gency. DD,\
to include perfonnance schedule for Urban Core
Development Permit (UCDP) and project completion.
?J )~
ATTACHMENT E
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT
This Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("Agreement"), dated as of this 91h day of
August, 2007, ("Effective Date") is entered into by the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation, a nonprofit, public benefit corporation ("CYRC"), on behalf of and for the City of
Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, a public body, corporate and politic ("Agency") and
Voyage, LLC, a California Lirnited Liability Company ("Developer"), with reference to the
following facts:
RECIT AL~
In furtherance of the objectives of the California Community Redevelopment Law,
the Agency has undertaken a program for the redevelopment of certain areas within the City
of Chula Vista ("City"), and in connection therewith is undertaking and carrying out activities
for redevelopment in the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area")
pursuant to and in furtherance of the redevelopment plan for the Project Area
("Redevelopment Plan").
To assist in the carrying out of planning and redevelopment activities the City of
Chula Vista created the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation ("CYRC"). Pursuant to
Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.55, the CVRC is authorized to enter into this
Agreement on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency.
The subject matter of this Agreement concerns that certain real property located
within the Project Area as depicted on Exhibit "A" hereto ("Property"). The Property is
situated on two parcels at the northwest comer of Church Street and Davidson Street, known
as the Church and Davidson northwest site (APN 568-07-119, 568-07-118). The site totals
approximately 13,856 square feet in area.
Agency has received an unsolicited proposal for the redevelopment of the
Property from a qualified and interested developer. Therefore, the CYRC desires to enter
into this Agreement with the Developer with the objective of determining the feasibility of the
proposed project and consideration of entering into a mutually acceptable DDA for the
development of the Property consistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement at the
earliest practical date.
The Developer is proposing to develop ten (10) residential for-sale homes
("Project") and desires to negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA") with
the Agency.
The Developer anticipates that, following execution of the Agreement and
through the period of negotiation and preparation of a DDA with respect to the Project, it
will devote substantial time and effort in preparing plans, preparing project proformas,
contacting financial institutions, engaging appropriate consultants, and meeting with the City
and various other necessary third parties in connection with the proposed Project, and in
~--1S
-1-
K:\Currenl Projects\248 Church\Exclusive Negotiation AgTeementlENAlExclusive Negotiating Agreement. Draft to Atty_doc
ATTACHMENT E
negotiating and preparing a DDA consistent with the basic terms and mutual understandings
established in this Agreement.
The CVRC and the Developer ("Parties") desire to enter into this Agreement in order
to set forth the rights and duties of the Parties during the term of the Exclusive Negotiating
Period subject to the Owner Participation rules and regulations established for the Project
Area
Now, therefore, the Parties mutually agree as follows:
1. Good Faith Negotiations
A. CVRC and Developer agree (for the period stated below) to negotiate in
good faith pursuant to the terms of this Agreement a DDA or other form of agreement or
agreements to be entered into between the Agency and Developer concerning the
purchase and development of the Property. CVRC agrees not to negotiate with any other
person or entity regarding development of the Property without the consent of Developer.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed a covenant, promise or commitment by
CVRC, the City ofChula Vista, or any agency of the City, with respect to the acquisition
of property or the approval of development. CVRC's acceptance of this Agreement is
merely an agreement to enter into a period of exclusive negotiations according to the
terms hereof, reserving final discretion and approval by Agency as to any actions
required of it.
B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer acknowledges that Agency may
receive from time to time, unsolicited alternative proposals for the development of the
Property. Agency shall endeavor to notify Developer within ten days after receiving an
unsolicited alternative development proposal for all or any portion of the Property.
Agency and Developer shall confer in good faith to assess the benefits of the unsolicited
proposal.
2. Negotiation Period
A. CVRC and Developer agree to negotiate for an initial 300 days which
shall commence on the Effective Date unless earlier terminated in accordance with the
provisions hereof ("Initial Negotiation Period").
B. If, upon the expiration of such Initial Negotiation Period, the Parties have
not each approved and executed a DDA, then the Chief Executive Officer of the CVRC
("CEO"), in his or her sole discretion, on behalf of the CVRC, is authorized to extend the
term of this Agreement for up to an additional 90 days ("Extended Negotiation Period")
provided that at the end of the Initial Negotiation Period, the CVRC has not exercised its
right to terminate as herein provided, the Developer is in full compliance with all terms
and conditions hereof, the Developer concurs with such extension of the negotiation
period, and the CEO has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
Developer will agree to terms and conditions for the development of the Project on the
y ).."-f
-2-
K:\Current Projects\248 Church\Exclusive Negotiation AgreemenllENAlExclusive Negotiating Agreemern - Draft to Arty_doc
ATTACHMENT E
Property required for the development of the Project that Agency staff will be able to
recommend approval of the DDA to Agency prior to the expiration of the Extended
Negotiation Period.
C. If, after expiration of the Initial Negotiation Period, or after the Extended
Negotiation Period if this Agreement is extended, the Parties have not each approved and
executed a DDA, then this Agreement shall automatically terminate and Developer shall
have no further rights regarding the subject matter of this Agreement or the Property, and
CVRC shall be free to negotiate with any other persons or entities with regard to the
Property .
3. Obligations of Developer
A. Schedule
CVRC and Developer agree and acknowledge that all submittals required
by this Agreement shall be submitted pursuant to the timeline attached hereto as Exhibit
"B." Exhibit "B" may be amended administratively by the CEO as needed and with the
concurrence of the Developer, provided the timeline does not exceed the Initial
Negotiation Period or the Extended Negotiation Period, if applicable.
B. Development and Design Plans
During the negotiation period, Developer shall submit development and
design plans for the Project. Developer shall also furnish such information to CVRC
regarding the proposed project as may be required by CVRC and/or City to perform an
environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). All
fees and expenses for engineers, architects, financial consultants, legal, planning or other
consultants retained by Developer to perform Developer's obligations set forth in this
Agreement shall be the sole responsibility of Developer.
C. Reports, Studies and Public Participation
Developer shall make written reports to the CVRC on the Developer's progress
toward meeting its obligations under this Agreement and oral progress reports on all
matters and all studies being made related to the acquisition and development of the
Project and other matters under negotiation to the extent that they do not include
confidential matters, as requested. As CVRC deems reasonably necessary or appropriate,
presentations may be requested at public forums to solicit input from citizens, businesses,
stakeholders and relevant interest groups.
y).l
- 3-
K:\Current Projects\248 ChuTchlExc1usive Negotiation Agreement\ENAlExclusive Negotiating Agreement. Draft to Attydoc
ATTACHMENT E
D. Financing
Developer shall, consistent with Exhibit "B," develop a program of financing that
provides the CYRC with reasonably satisfactory evidence that financing will be available
for acquisition and development of the Property.
E. Deposit
Developer deposited $25,000 ("ENA Deposit") with Agency in May 2006 for a
previous ENA, which has since been terminated, on a site known as Church and Madrona
northwest (APN 568-351-04-00 and 568-351-0~-00). CYRC shall continue to use the
remaining balance ($25,000) of the previous ENA deposit to conduct project analysis for
this Agreement, including but not limited to paying for third party consultants,
City/Agency staff time (at applicable full cost recovery rates), and other reasonable costs
incurred by the CYRC and Agency in conducting such analysis. CYRC shall request
additional deposits if the ENA Deposit is exhausted and CYRC determines further
analysis is required. CYRC may cease negotiations and all activities of third party
consultants until such time as ENA Deposit is replenished as reasonably requested by
CVRC. Any deposit balance remaining upon the termination of the Agreement shall be
returned to Developer or shall be applied to any deposit required by a subsequent DDA.
4. CYRC Obligations and Due Diligence
A. During the Negotiation Period, the CYRC shall conduct a due diligence
investigation of the Developer's ability to purchase, own and/or operate the Project in a
responsible manner. If the CEO determines in his sole discretion that Developer does not
have the ability to successfully purchase, own, and/or manage the Project in a responsible
manner, the CEO may terminate this Agreement by delivering written notice thereof to
Developer. CYRC's due diligence efforts may include, without limitation, the following:
1. Assessment of the proposed financing and the capacity of
Developer to qualifY for financing for the Project; and
2. Assessment of the capacity of Developer and their principal staff to
effectively own and/or manage the Project, including the ability to carry out any ongoing
management oversight responsibilities
B. CYRC agrees to cooperate with Developer in providing equity partner(s)
and/or lender(s) of Developer with appropriate and necessary information for the
Developer to fulfill its obligations hereunder, which information is not otherwise
privileged.
C. CYRC shall also cooperate with Developer's professional consultants and
associates in providing them with any information and assistance, so far as such
information is not otherwise privileged, reasonably within the capacity, possession or
control of the CYRC in connection with the preparation of the Developer's submissions
to the CYRC. y )., (
-4-
K:\Current Projects\248 Church\ElCclusive Negotiation Agreement\ENA\Exclusive Negotiating Agreement - Draft to Atty,doc
ATTACHMENT E
5. DDA
The Parties hereby acknowledge and agree that, during the Initial Negotiation
Period and, if applicable, the Extended Negotiation Period, the Parties shall use their
respective good faith efforts to negotiate and enter into a DDA which shall include (but
not be limited to) the following: (i) the design of the Project by the Developer, which
design shall be subject to the approval by the CYRC and/or City, (ii) the construction of
the Project by the Developer in accordance with final plans and specifications to be
provided by the Developer and approved by the CYRC and/or City, pursuant to a detailed
schedule of performance by the Developer, (iii) the operation and management of the
Project by the Developer in a good and professiqnal manner and subject to the covenants
required by law, (iv) the maintenance of landscaping, buildings, and improvements in
good condition and satisfactory state of repair so as to be attractive to the community, (v)
the operation of the Project by the Developer in compliance with all equal opportunity
standards established by federal, state and local law, (vi) provision by each contractor
and/or subcontractor (as the case may require and as appropriate) performing work on the
Project of the requisite performance bond and labor and materials payment bond to assure
completion of the Project free of mechanics' liens, (vii) the Project shall be of a quality
consistent with plans and renderings provided by Developer and approved by the CYRC,
(viii) the terms and conditions upon which Developer shall acquire the parcel(s), (ix) the
terms and conditions upon which either party may terminate the DDA (e.g., the discovery
of environmental issueslhazardous substances on the Site, unexpected development or
construction costs, inability to acquire parcels), (x) the terms and conditions upon which
Developer may have a first right of refusal to purchase property at 250 and 354 Church
A venue.
6. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS
A. Real Estate Commissions.
Neither CYRC nor Developer shall be liable for any real estate commission or
brokerage fees which may arise herefrom. CYRC and Developer represent that they have
engaged no broker, agent or finder separately in connection with this transaction and each
party agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the other against claims for
commissions or fees made through such party.
B. Each Party to Bear its Own Cost.
Each party shall bear its own costs incurred in connection with the negotiation of
a DDA, and the implementation of this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly
provided herein or expressly agreed in writing.
C. Confidentiality.
CYRC and Developer recognize that disclosures made by Developer pursuant to
this Agreement may contain sensitive information and that the disclosure of such
'?)- 1-- ~
- 5-
K:\Current Projects\248 Church\Exclusive Negotiation AgreementlENA\Exclusive Negotiating Agreement _ Draft 10 Any,doc
ATTACHMENT E
information to third parties could impose commercially unreasonable and/or
uncompetitive burdens on Developer and, may correspondingly, diminish the value or
fiscal benefit that may accrue to the CVRC upon the redevelopment of the Property by
the Developer, if a future DDA is entered into by the Parties. Developer acknowledges
and agrees that CVRC is a public entity with a responsibility and, in many cases, legal
obligation to conduct its business in a manner open and available to the public.
Accordingly, any information provided by Developer to CVRC with respect to the
Property, the Project or Developer may be disclosed to the public either purposely,
inadvertently, or as a result of a public demand or order. With respect to any information
provided that Developer reasonably deems and identifies in writing as proprietary and
confidential in nature, CVRC agrees to exercise jts best efforts to keep such information
confidential.
In addition, if CVRC determines that it is required under applicable law to disclose any
information identified by Developer as proprietary and confidential in nature, CVRC
shall notify Developer at least three business days before disclosure of such information
which will provide Developer the opportunity to seek a protective order preventing such
disclosure. Notwithstanding the above, CVRe's failure to provide said notice shall not
constitute a breach of this agreement or grounds for a claim or cause of action of any
nature against the CVRC as a result of the release of said claimed proprietary or
confidential information.
D. Assignment
1. CVRC would not have entered into this Agreement but for Developer's
unique qualifications and experience. Therefore, Developer's rights and obligations
under this Agreement may not be assigned without the prior written approval of CVRC in
its sole discretion. Notwithstanding the foregoing, subject to the prior written approval of
the CEO, Developer may assign its rights hereunder to a new entity comprised of the
Developer for purposes of developing the Project. Such new entity may include
additional parties provided that the Developer retains responsibility for fulfilling its
obligations hereunder and Developer retains management control and authority over the
entity and the Project.
2. Upon the occurrence of any change, whether voluntary or involuntary, in
membership, ownership, management or control of the Developer (other than such
changes occasioned by the death or incapacity of any individual) that has not been
approved by the CVRC, prior to the time of such change, the CVRC may terminate this
Agreement, without liability, by sending written notke of termination to Developer.
E. Nondiscrimination
Developer shall not discriminate against nor segregate any person, or group of
persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, disability, national
origin or ancestry in undertaking its obligations under this Agreement.
y3D
- 6-
K:\Currenl Projects\248 Chureh\Exclusive Negotiation AgreementlENAlExclusive Negotiating Agreement _ Draft to Any,doc
ATTACHMENT E
7. RETENTION OF DISCRETION
A. By its execution of this Agreement, CYRC is not committing itself or
agreeing to undertake any activity requiring the subsequent exercise of discretion by
CYRC, Agency or City, or any department thereof including, but not limited to, the
approval and execution of a DDA; the proposal, amendment, or approval of any land use
regulation governing the Property; the provision of financial assistance for the
development of any public or private interest in real property; the authorization or
obligation to use the Agency's eminent domain authority; or, any other such activity.
B. Developer understands and agrees,that the CYRC, Agency and City, in
their respective legislative roles, reserve the right to exercise their discretion as to all
matters which the CYRC, Agency and City are by law entitled or required to exercise
such discretion, including but not limited to, Entitlements for the development of the
Property and adoption of any amendments to policy documents (including the General
Plan, Urban Core Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plans). In addition, Developer
understands and agrees that the Entitlements and any other documents shall be subject to
and brought to the CYRC, Agency or City, as appropriate, for consideration in
accordance with applicable legal requirements, including laws related to notice, public
hearings, due process and the California Environmental Quality Act.
C. Developer acknowledges that any plans processed for the Property will be
based upon the current General Plan, Urban Core Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan
of the City ofChula Vista.
D. This Agreement does not constitute a disposition of property or exercise of
control over property by CYRC and does not require a public hearing. CYRC execution
of this Agreement is merely an agreement to enter into a period of exclusive negotiations
according to the terms hereof, reserving final discretion and approval by Agency as to
any proposed DDA and all proceedings and decisions in connection therewith. The
parties understand that Agency has the complete and unfettered discretion to reject a
DDA without explanation or cause. The risk of loss of all processing, design and
developmental costs incurred by the Developer prior to DDA approval shall be absorbed
entirely by Developer except unless expressly assumed, by the terms of this Agreement
by the CVRC. As to any matter in which the CYRC and/or Agency may be required to
exercise its unfettered discretion in advancing the Project to completion, nothing herein
shall obligate the CYRC and/or Agency to exercise its discretion in any particular
manner, and any exercise of discretion reserved hereunder or required by law, shall not
be deemed to constitute a breach of CYRC duties under this agreement.
8. TERMINATION RIGHTS
Notwithstanding the Initial or Extended Negotiating Periods hereinabove set
forth, either party may terminate this Agreement if the other party has materially
defaulted in its obligations herein set forth, and the terminating party has provided
defaulting party with written notification of such determination, and the defaulting party
Y-J \
-7 -
K:\Current Projects1248 ChUTl:;hlExdusive Negotiation Agreement\ENAlExclusive Negotiating Agreemenl- Draft to Atty.doc
ATTACHMENT E
has refused to cure same. The written notification shall set forth the nature of the actions
required to cure such default if curable. Defaulting party shall have 30 days from the
date of the written notification to cure such default. If such default is not cured within the
30 days, the termination shall be deemed effective. Any failure or delay by a party in
asserting any of its rights or remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of
any default or of any rights or remedies associated with a default. Each party shall also
have the right to terminate this Agreement in the event that CVRC or Developer
determines that (a) the Project is infeasible or not in the public interest; or (b) the parties
reach an impasse in their negotiation of the DDA which cannot be resolved after good
faith efforts.
9. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Address for Notice.
Developer's Address for Notice:
Voyage, LLC
444 I Park Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92116
Attention: James Brown
Telephone: 619-682-4083
Fax: 619-682-4084
CVRC's Address for Notice:
City ofChula Vista - CVRC
Community Development Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: Director of Community Development
Telephone: (619) 691-5047
Fax: (619) 476-5310
Copy to: City Attorney
B. Authority.
Each party represents that it has full right, power and authority to execute this
Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder, without the need for any further
action under its governing instruments, and the parties executing this Agreement on the
behalf of such party are duly authorized agents with authority to do so.
C. Counterparts.
y~)..
- 8-
K:\CUrTclll ProjeCls\248 ChurchlExclusive Negotiation AgreementlENAlExclusive Negotiating Agreement _ Draft to Any_doc
ATTACHMENT E
This Agreement may be executed in multiple copies, each of which shall be
deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one Agreement after each party has
signed such a counterpart.
D. Entire Agreement.
This Agreement together with all exhibits attached hereto and other agreements
expressly referred to herein, constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties with
respect to the subject matter contained herein. All prior or contemporaneous agreements,
understandings, representations, warranties and statements, oral or written, are
superseded.
E. Further Assurances.
The parties agree to perform such further acts and to execute and deliver such
additional documents and instruments as may be reasonably required in order to carry out
the provisions of this Agreement and the intentions of the parties.
F. No Third Party Beneficiaries.
There are no other parties to this Agreement, express or implied, direct or indirect.
CVRC and Developer acknowledge that it is not their intent to create any third party
beneficiaries to this Agreement.
G. Exclusive Remedies.
I. In the e"ent of default by either party to this Agreement, the parties shall
have the remedies of specific performance, mandamus, injunction and other equitable
remedies. Neither party shall have the remedy of monetary damages against the other;
provided, however, that the award of costs of litigation and attorneys' fees shall not
constitute damages based upon breach of this Agreement where such an award is limited
to reasonable costs oflitigation incurred by the Parties.
2. Each party acknowledges that it is aware of the meaning and legal effect
of California Civil Code Section 1542, which provides:
A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or
suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him
would have materially affected his settlement with debtor.
California Civil Code Section 1542 notwithstanding, it is the intention of the
Parties to be bound by the limitation on damages and remedies set forth in this Section
7G, and the Parties hereby release any and all claims against each other for monetary
damages or other legal or equitable relief related to any breach of this Agreement,
whether or not any such released claims were known to either of the Parties as of the date
3~~
- 9-
K:\Currenl Projects\248 ChurchlExclusive Negotiation AgreementlENA\Exclusive Negotiating Agreement _ Draft to Atty,doc
ATTACHMENT E
of this Agreement. The Parties each waive the benefits of California Civil Code Section
1542 and all other statutes and judicial decisions of similar effect with regard to the
limitations on damages and remedies and waivers of any such damage and remedies
contained in this Section 7G.
H. Indemnity.
Developer shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless CVRC and Agency,
its elected officials, employees and agents from and against any and all challenges to this
Agreement, or any and all losses, liabilities, damages, claims or costs (including
attorneys' fees) arising from Developer's negligel't acts, errors, or omissions with respect
its obligations hereunder or the Property, excluding any such losses arising from the sole
negligence or sole willful misconduct of CVRC or Agency or the conduct of third parties
outside the control of the Developer. This indemnity obligation shall survive the
termination of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a third
party challenge to the validity of this Agreement, Developer shall have the option to
terminate this Agreement in lieu of its indemnity obligation.
1. Time is of the Essence.
Time is ofthe essence for each of Developer's obligations under this Agreement.
[NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE]
y~
-10-
K:\Current Projects\248 Church\Exclusive Negotiation Agreement\ENA\Exclusive Negotiating Agreement _ Draft to Any_doc
ATTACHMENT E
Signature Page
To
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
date set forth above, thereby indicating the consent of their principals.
CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
VOYAGE, LLC
A California Limited Liability Company
By:
By:
James Gates
Managing Partner
Insert Name
Chair
Date:
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Ann Moore
General Counsel
Date:
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow
City Clerk
......--
~- J/::>
ATTACHMENT E
EXHIBIT "A"
o 0.0125 0.025
0.05
0.075
01
Miles
YO~
~
Merged Bayfront / Town Centre I
Project Area
Merged Chula Vista
Project Area
o
Church & Davidson - Northwest
Voyage, LLC
ATTACHMENT E
" jag', LLC
EXHIBIT 'B"
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Timeline
\1IlESTONE DES( RIPTION
Within 30 Days of ENA Execution
Title Report Agency issues a Preliminary Title Report on the subject Property to the Developer.
Within 60 Days of EN A Execution
Pre-submittal Developer coordinates with city departments on initial project submittal to address
Meeti ng with staff issues and objectives as preparation for RAC #1.
RAC#l Developer presents preliminary design to the Redevelopment Advisory Committee
for public input. ,
Within 90 Days of ENA Execution
Full Project Submittal/ Developer submits full project proposal (in accordance with established guidelines in
Completeness Check Urban Core Development Permit User Guide), based on pre-design review with staff
and public input received at RAC #1.
Initial Pro Forma Developer submits initial pro forma evaluation for the proposed development.
Project Development Developer submits projected timeline and schedule for the construction of the
Schedule proposed development.
Site Adequacy Developer provides written determination of whether the subject Property is
physically suitable for development taking into account regulatory and environmental
conditions that are deemed relevant.
Within 45 Days of Full Project Submittal/Completeness Check
RAC #2 Developer presents revised development proposal to Redevelopment Advisory
Committee.
Within 90 Days of Full Project Submittal/Completeness Check
Final Site Plans and Developer submits final development proposal.
Elevations
Final Pro Forma Developer submits revised proforma based on any changes to development proposal.
Development Partners Developer submits letter identifying investment partners.
and Structure
Funding Partners and Developer submits letter identifying lenders and proof of ability to obtain financing.
Structure
Within 120 Days of Full Project SubmittaUCompleteness Check
CVRC Presentation (developer may participate) of final development proposal and revised
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) for review and consideration.
CVRC approves/entitles project and adopts advisory recommendations for Agency
and/or Council consideration on DDA.
Within 45 Days of CVRC Hearing
Redevelopment Presentation of DDA to Agency and/or Council for final review and consideration.
Agency / City Council
y~J
1
CVRC RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE ClillLA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION APPROVING AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT WIlli CITYMARK DEVELOPMENT LLC FOR
CITY-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF LANDIS AVENUE AND DAVIDSON STREET
WHEREAS, it is the role and responsibility of the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation ("CVRC") and the Redevelopment Agency of the City ofChula Vista ("Agency") to
promote economic vitality, create market confidence, encourage environmental health and
remediation, create public benefits and amenities, and facilitate the development, reconstruction,
and rehabilitation of residential, commercial, industrial, and retail uses in the City of Chula
Vista; and
WHEREAS, an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENA") is an important
redevelopment tool to the Agency to establish a legal and contractual framework for negotiations
and provide a defined timeline for completion ofpredevelopment activities with a developer on a
potential redevelopment project; and
WHEREAS, CityMark Development LLC ("Developer") is interested in developing a
residential development project on City-owned property located at the northeast corner of Landis
Avenue and Davidson Street, consisting of Assessor Parcel Numbers 568-044-0900, 568-044-
1000, and 568-044-1100 ("Property"), located in the Agency's Town Centre I Redevelopment
Project Area; and
WHEREAS, CVRC support staff has determined that Developer is qualified to design
and develop a high quality project at the proposed development site that is consistent with the
goals of the Agency's adopted Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre I Redevelopment
Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation ("CVRC") became a legal
entity on June 15, 2005, and became operational on February 23, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the CVRC is authorized under Chapter 2.55.060 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code ("CYMC") to approve exclusive negotiating agreements within redevelopment
project areas on behalf of the Agency; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and the City
of Chula Vista for the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation to execute and enter into an ENA
with Developer for the proposed development site based on Developer's qualifications; and
WHEREAS, approval of the ENA is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
3A-\
CYRC Resolution No. 2007-
Page 2
WHEREAS, state law and locally-adopted owner participation rules provide for the
extension of owner participation rights to all property owners who would be affected by the
proposed development; and
WHEREAS, no owner participation process is required as the Property is owned by the
City of Chula Vista.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation does hereby approve the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with CityMark
Development LLC for City-owned property located' at the northeast comer of Landis Avenue and
Davidson Street, and authorizes the Chair to execute said Agreement.
Presented by:
Approved as to fonn by
Ann Hix
Secretary
Ann Moore
General Counsel
?> 11 ... ~
eYRe Resolution No. 2007-
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
of the City ofChula Vista, this 9th day of August 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
Directors:
NAYS:
Directors:
ABSENT:
Directors:
ABSTAINED: Directors:
Insert Name, Chair
ATTEST:
Ann Hix, Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
)
)
)
I, Ann Hix, Secretary of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City ofChula Vista,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing CYRC Resolution No. _ was duly passed,
approved, and adopted by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation at a regular meeting of
the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation held on the 9th day of August 2007.
Executed this 9th day of August 2007.
Ann Hix, Secretary
JA~~
CVRC RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION APPROVING AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT WITH VOYAGE, LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
THE CHURCH STREET AND DA VInSON STREET NORTHWEST
SITE
WHEREAS, It IS the role and responsibility of the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation ("CVRC") and the Redevelopment Agency of the City ofChula Vista ("Agency") to
promote economic vitality, create market confidence, encourage environmental health and
remediation, create public benefits and amenities, and facilitate the development, reconstruction,
and rehabilitation of residential, commercial, industrial, and retail uses in the City of Chula
Vista; and
WHEREAS, an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENA") is an important
redevelopment tool to the Agency to establish a legal and contractual framework for negotiations
and provide a defined timeline for completion of pre development activities with a developer on a
potential redevelopment project; and
WHEREAS, Voyage, LLC ("Developer") is interested in developing a residential project
on City-owned property located at the northwest corner of Church Street and Davidson Street,
consisting of Assessor Parcel Numbers 568-071-19-00 and 568-071-18-00 ("Property"), located
in the Agency's Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area; and
WHEREAS, CVRC support staff has determined that Developer is qualified to design
and develop a high quality project at the proposed development site that is consistent with the
goals of the Agency's adopted Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre I Redevelopment
Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation ("CVRC") became a legal
entity on June 15, 2005, and became operational on February 23,2006; and
WHEREAS, the CVRC is authorized under Chapter 2.55.060 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code ("CVMC") to approve exclusive negotiating agreements within redevelopment
project areas on behalf of the Agency; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and the City
of Chula Vista for the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation to execute and enter into an ENA
with Developer for the proposed development site based on Developer's qualifications; and
WHEREAS, approval of the ENA is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
JfJ-\
CYRC Resolution No. 2006-020
Page 2
WHEREAS, state law and locally-adopted owner participation rules provide for the
extension of owner participation rights to all property owners who would be affected by the
proposed development; and
WHEREAS, no owner participation process is required as the Property is owned by the
City ofChula Vista.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation does hereby approve the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Voyage, LLC for
City-owned property located at Church Avenue and Davidson Street Northwest and authorizes
the Chair to execute said Agreement. '
Presented by:
Approved as to form by
Ann Hix
Secretary
Ann Moore
General Counsel
~6-~
CVRC Resolution No. 2006-020
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
of the City ofChula Vista, this 9th day of August 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
Directors:
NAYS:
Directors:
ABSENT:
Directors:
ABST AINED: Directors:
Insert Name, Chair
ATTEST:
Ann Hix, Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
)
)
)
I, Ann Hix, Secretary of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City ofChula Vista,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing CVRC Resolution No. _ was duly passed,
approved, and adopted by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation at a regular meeting of
the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation held on the 9th day of August 2007.
Executed this 9th day of August 2007.
Ann Hix, Secretary
3 p- 2:>
fl.
..
F\f.:
CORPORATION
CHULA VISTA
CVRC Board
Staff Report - Page 1
Item No. ?\
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 9, 2007
CVRC Board Directors , N\l
David R. Garcia, Chief Executive Officer ~
Scott Tulloch, Assistant City Manager ~'/' ~
Ann Hix, Acting Community Development Director
Eric Crockett, Redevelopment Manager~v
Downtown Parking District Management Study
BACKGROUND:
Chula Vista's only parking district was established in 1963 and now provides more than
1,700 public parking spaces through surface parking lots, on street metered spaces, and
one parking structure. Revenue and staffing for the District have fluctuated over the years
and the District's assets are in decline. Parking lots are in need of repairs, meters are
outdated, many are inoperative, and there is inadequate revenue to pay for these capital
improvements due to extremely low meter and parking fine rates. Although the District
has been in place nearly 45 years, the City has never raised meter rates, which are some of
the lowest in San Diego County.
To examine and assess the level and impact of these deficiencies, the City has been
engaged in a comprehensive study of the downtown parking management and operations
during the past six months. The Study provides a foundation for the development of a
Downtown Parking Management Plan. The creation of a long-term Parking Management
Plan will better assist staff and the public in understanding the dynamics of parking as part
of a larger multi-modal transportation system and to address common parking
misperceptions, including parking demands and the potential development of certain
public parking lots. This examination process involves three phases:
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Preparation of the Parking Management Study
Adoption and implementation of the Interim Action Plan
Adoption of a Downtown Parking Management Plan
To launch Phase I, a Request for Proposals for the preparation of the parking management
study was released in May 2006. A Parking Consultant Selection Committee comprised of
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 2
City staff and representatives of the Third Avenue Village Association (TAVA) was
established, to set common goals and establish selection criteria. The Committee jointly
selected Rich and Associates (RICH), an experienced parking study consultant, to prepare
the Downtown Parking Management Study.
The four primary objectives of the Downtown Parking Management Study are to:
. Analyze the current and future parking needs and review the current parking system
policies and procedures;
. Formulate recommendations for addressing parking needs, including parking
management, shared use opportunities and transportation modality;
. Provide data necessary for developing a parking management plan that efficiently
and effectively utilizes parking resources in a growing community where land
values are at a premium; and
. Provide education and information to the public about public parking, including the
cost of provid'ing and maintaining parking.
The Study began in December 2006 with the first of a series of four community meetings,
fieldwork and data collection. The consultant also conducted stakeholder interviews,
employee questionnaires, and additional fieldwork that resulted in the RICH Downtown
Parking Management Study Draft Report.
The purpose of this staff report is to present RICH's Downtown Parking Management Study
Draft Report (Phase I) and propose an Interim Action Plan (Phase II) for review and
consideration by the CVRC. Staff will continue working with stakeholders and local
business organizations to begin the final phase of this process, which is crafting the
Downtown Parking Management Plan.
In preparing the Interim Action Plan, staff used the information presented in the RICH Draft
Report, input from downtown business and community members and considered the role
and impact on City services and staff. The actions proposed are based upon a common
desire to enhance Chula Vista's Downtown Parking District in a way that will provide
infrastructure that is attractive to new businesses, customers and visitors.
RECOMMEN DATION:
Staff recommends that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation:
1. Accept the Downtown Parking Management Study; and
2. Recommend that the City Council
a. Accept the Downtown Parking Management Study;
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 3
b. Approve the Downtown Parking Interim Action Plan; and
c. Direct staff to prepare a Downtown Parking Management Plan.
DISCUSSION:
Parking is an integral part of the community's and City's efforts to improve the viability of
downtown Chula Vista and is part of a transportation system that includes multi-modal
opportunities, such as bicycling, public transit, and walking. Providing convenient access
for employees, residents, shoppers and visitors requires supplying more than just parking
spaces. It requires an effectively managed system that addresses the parking supply,
operation and demand for parking.
This staff report will include the following information:
. History of the Downtown Parking District
. Background regarding the Exclusive Negotiating Agreements on public parking lots
in the District
. Description of the Parking Study process
. Proposed Downtown Parking District Interim Action Plan
. Fiscal impact analysis
PARKING DISTRICT HISTORY
In 1963, in response to a citizen-initiated petition and pursuant to the provisions of the
Parking District Law of 1951 (Part 4, Division 18, of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California), the City Council created Parking District No.1 (Attachment 1). As part
of that action, the Council agreed to install and maintain parking meters on certain streets
and parking lots within the District from revenue generated through meter fees and parking
fines. Certain City-owned parcels within the District were designated as public parking
(Ordinance 829) and non-City-owned land was authorized for purchase as public parking
(Ordinance 847).
To provide parking within the District, the City Council, via Resolution 3115, committed
to issue a bond in the sum of $360,000 for land acquisition and improvements. This bond,
however, was not issued. Instead the City Council approved an as-needed allocation not-
to-exceed $320,000 from the General Fund to be used as seed money for the District.
In July 1963, the City Council also established the Parking District Commission (Resolution
3164). On September 24, 1985, Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 2.40 was repealed to
merge the Parking Commission with the Town Centre Project Area Committee (TCPAC)
(Ordinance 2129). The TCPAC continued to act in this capacity until it was formally
dissolved on October 26, 2006. No new Parking District Commission was established
after dissolution of the TCPAC.
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 4
In 1980, the City Council adopted the in-lieu parking fee policy to relieve developers from
having to provide on-site parking in cases where doing so would render the project
economically infeasible. The in-lieu parking fee is only available in Sub-area 1 of the
Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area, which has slightly different boundaries than
parking District NO.1 (Attachment 1). The in-lieu parking fee payments, including interest,
resulted in total available funds of approximately $510,000. These funds were used to
purchase additional land for public parking and to make improvements to existing public
parking lots. In 1987, for the purpose of modifying the in-lieu parking fee, the City
Council approved an increase in the fair market value of land from $16 per square foot to
$20 per square foot and authorized staff to adjust the fair market value figures on an
annual basis. However, the fee has not been adjusted since 1987 and no in-lieu parking
fees have been received since 1999.
Until the recent completion of the Downtown Parking District Management Study, the
only evaluation of the parking district occurred through a 1985 parking study conducted
by Berryman & Stephenson Inc., which evaluated and addressed operations but did not
consider or address management of the District. It should be noted that many of the
findings contained within the 1985 study support the conclusions presented in RICH's
study completed in May 2007. Following are some of those key findings:
. Park Plaza Parking Structure showed a significant surplus of parking spaces with
peak occupancy of 42% and virtually the entire third floor remaining vacant.
Recommended improvements included the installation of directional and
informational signs, modifications to the internal circulation and installation of
additional lighting.
. The District had a surplus of parking with average occupancy of 57% and was more
than able to support demand
. The parking meter rates were low in comparison to other Southern California Cities.
Most of the City's 1,700+ parking spaces were constructed for public use by the early
1990's. To accomplish this, the City and Redevelopment Agency expended nearly $1.2
million for land acquisition, improvements and maintenance of public parking.
The table below provides a brief summary of the publicly controlled parking supply in the
Downtown Parking District, including parking lots and on-street metered spaces.
Public Location Number
Parking of
Parking
Spaces
Lot #1 E Street and Landis South 14
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 5
Lot #2 North Landis and Davidson 75
lot #3 South Landis and Davidson 118
Lot #4 Park Plaza 633
Lot #5 Church and Madrona South 44
Lot #6 Church and Madrona North 27
Lot #7 Center Street 70
Lot #8 Church and Del Mar 54
Lot #9 Church and Davidson South 30
Lot #10 Church and Davidson North 34
Lot #11 E Street and Church 30
On-Street District 600
TOTAL 1729
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENTS (ENA)
The Redevelopment Agency recently considered development of several public parking
lots within the District. The motivation behind this decision was to better utilize existing
assets, attract new developers, provide housing opportunities in downtown, and generate
tax increment revenue to the Agency and revenue to the Parking District for capital
improvements. A desire to understand the potential impacts of replacing public parking
lots with residential development, coupled with concerns expressed by adjacent
businesses and neighbors, were important factors in the initiation of the Downtown
Parking Management Study.
In 2005, the Redevelopment Agency entered into Exclusive Negotiating Agreements (ENA)
with various developers for certain public parking lots (#2, #3, and #6) within the
downtown parking area. The following year, the Agency amended certain ENAs to extend
the negotiation timeline. Based upon discussions with the developer, the Agency also
modified one of the ENAs by transferring the developer from parking lot #2 (North Landis)
to lots #9 and #10 (Church and Davidson). Since that time, the Agency and Developer
have mutually agreed to terminate the ENA for Lots #9 and #10. The only ENAs currently
in place are for Lots #3 and #6, although as a separate action this evening, the CYRC will
be asked to consider transferring the current ENA sites from Lot #3 to Lot #2 and from Lot
#6 to Lot #10.
Please refer to the above table for a description of the lots contemplated for development.
PARKING STUDY PROCESS
To assist downtown business owners, residents, staff and decision makers in understanding
the current dynamics of the downtown parking area, the Study addresses parking in the
context of creating a vital and vibrant downtown. Using an analysis of current parking
conditions, input from stakeholders, and an assessment of issues and conditions specific to
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 6
downtown Chula Vista, the study provides recommendations and guidance for changes to
parking policies, structure, operations and management. The findings of the Study have
provided valuable information to City staff and the public about the necessity of creating a
more efficient and organized management system as part of a fully functioning and
effective parking system. The following approach and related tasks were used by RICH to
complete the four primary objectives of: analyzing the current and future parking needs,
providing recommendations for addressing parking needs, providing data necessary for
developing a parking management plan that efficiently and effectively utilizes parking
resources, and providing education and information to the public:
I. Parking Demand Analysis: Rich quantified and qualified the parking needs in the
study area (Attachment 2) through field research and data collection, resulting in parking
projections that analyze the current demand, future demand, and projects future parking
needs for a period covering current to 10 years in the future. This culminated in a
Findings Report that provides preliminary field research findings and analysis of the
parking system.
The major components of the fieldwork occurred during December 2006 when the
consultant conducted two days of weekday turnover and occupancy counts in the Study
Area. The counts were conducted from 9 am to 7 pm. Turnover is defined as the number
of vehicles that occupy a parking space in a particular period of time and is important
because it's an indicator of whether or not the space is occupied by employees or
customers. The consultant determined that Chula Vista has a low turnover rate of 2.3
compared to the average of most downtowns of 4. This could indicate that employees and
not enough customers are using the available parking. Occupancy is 'the length of time that
the parking space is occupied by a vehicle and is an important measurement because it
helps define how parking demand fluctuates throughout the day. Within the Study Area,
the consultant concluded that the average occupancy is 57 percent, which translates into
43 percent of parking spaces unoccupied at any given time of the day.
In February 2007, the consultant also conducted a permit occupancy survey in each of the
ten public parking lots with ten-hour meters. Ten-hour meters are the only areas where
permit holders are allowed to park. The results showed that the average occupancy of all
ten-hour spaces was 79 percent, with only 29 percent of these being permit holders.
However, lots #9 and #10 during certain points of the day, had 100 percent occupancy,
and in Lot #10, 80 percent of these were permits. This data is important because it
demonstrates how the location of permit parking can impact the availability of parking for
customers.
At the March 2007 community meeting, several business owners expressed concern
regarding the results of the turnover and occupancy figures. They indicated that since
December is generally the slowest time of year for downtown retail, the findings would be
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 7
lower than normal and therefore inaccurate. To address this concern, RICH conducted a
one-day limited occupancy count in March. The data collected in March supported the
December findings.
Based on the data collected, some of the following key findings were presented in RICH's
Findings Report:
. Overall the Study Area has more parking than currently needed. On average 43%
of the available spaces are unoccupied.
. An average of 15 percent of the vehicles observed stayed longer than the 2-hour
time limit, and many of these vehicles did not receive a ticket.
. The District is not functioning at its highest capacity and requires more cohesive
management and attention.
. There is not enough revenue being generated to keep up with necessary
maintenance and repairs.
. RICH calculated a parking generation rate of 2.37 spaces per 1,000 so for all land
uses, which supports the UCSP rate of 2.0 spaces per 1,000.
. The Park Plaza Parking Structure is severely underutilized (peak occupancy of only
42 percent).
. The Agency has approved Exclusive Negotiating Agreements to redevelop two
public parking lots (#3 and #6). The study concluded that Lot #3 is not suitable for
development due to high occupancy rates and its strategic location within the
District. The Consultant determined that development of Lot #6 would have
minimal impact on parking availability.
II. Community Participation and Education: RICH conducted seven community
meetings, one presentation to the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, and
Owner/Manager Interviews and Employee Surveys with local businesses and downtown
employees. The Consultants' primary goals were to provide information to staff,
stakeholders and the community on the effects of not properly managing parking, the
current and potential parking conditions in downtown Chula Vista, the importance of
enforcement, and the potential future costs of parking.
The process of preparing the Downtown Parking Management Study presented an
important opportunity to further the City's goal of establishing an open and collaborative
dialogue with community members and organizations. A significant amount of outreach
was conducted to ensure that every interested member of the community had the
opportunity to provide input and be apprised of the work that the City was engaged in.
A series of community meetings were held at Community Congregational Church. Both
morning and evening workshops were held to ensure the greatest opportunity for input
and participation by both the business and residential community. In addition to
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 8
participating in the community meetings, staff made presentations to several local
organizations, including the Third Avenue Village Association, Chula Vista Chamber of
Commerce, Northwest Civic Association and Walk San Diego. More than 100 businesses
owners, tenants, residents, and community stakeholders actively participated and provided
valuable input, insight and comment throughout the process.
A brief summary of the purpose and focus for each community meeting is provided below:
December 12, 2006
The focus of the first community meeting was for the Consultant and staff to sol icit input
about the management and operations of the Downtown Parking District. This dialogue
included a discussion about the goals and parameters of the Parking Study, the Agency
development proposals, the Urban Core Specific Plan, downtown parking, in-lieu parking
fees, the maintenance of parking lots and comments about other influential factors such as
the types of businesses locating in the downtown.
February 15, 2007
This meeting was an educational presentation about the parking principles the Study
would apply in its review and assessment and a description of how the parking data would
be utilized to develop findings and recommendations.
March 8, 2007
The findings presented to the community were largely based upon the fieldwork
conducted in December 2006, which determined that overall there is a surplus of parking
within the study area and that peak occupancy occurs during daytime hours. The overall
average occupancy for the Study Area is 57 percent. RICH was also able to confirm,
through their review of City documents, that revenue from meter funds and the in-lieu
parking fee were spent on parking related activities within the District. All of the findings
provided an important basis for understanding the recommendations that would be
presented to the community in April.
April 12, 2007
At this meeting draft recommendations were unveiled to the public. Certain assets, such
as the Park Plaza Parking Structure and the many paseos leading from the alleyways to
Third Avenue were identified as seriously underutilized assets. There were also a number
of recommendations presented to address the lack of organizational structure for the
management of parking, and several deficiencies were identified including lack of
cohesive signage and lack of revenue to make needed improvements due to a combination
of low meter rates, low parking fines and significant overhead costs.
July 26,2007
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 9
The purpose of this meeting was to present the Draft Downtown Parking District Interim
Action Plan to the public, solicit input and feedback and engage in dialogue about the
proposed process. Overall, the group supported meter rate increases but not increases to
the expired meter fine or the permit fee. There was significant concern expressed with
lack of consistent enforcement.
July 31, 2007
This community meeting was organized and requested by downtown businesses. Staff
presented the Draft Interim Action Plan and engaged in a very positive interaction with the
attendees. Overall, there was support for meter increases, but like the previous
community meeting; businesses are not in favor of increasing the expired meter fine or the
permit fee. There was support for increasing all other fines, but the business owners felt
that an increased expired meter fine would be a disincentive to customers and visitors.
Community Meeting Summary
The dialogue with meeting participants and business organizations has proven invaluable
in understanding the concerns of stakeholders and the issues that must be addressed within
the Downtown Parking Management Plan. The success of the Plan is dependent on not
just dialogue with the community but active listening and a earnest effort to find solutions
that benefit the customers, visitors, businesses, residents and community in our joint efforts
to revitalize our downtown.
III. Parking Improvement Program: RICH developed strategies for short and long-term
parking and traffic improvements that combine parking system and management
improvements along with capital improvements. This consists of a review of the existing
organizational practices and policies, analysis of existing facilities, researching of parking
rates in surrounding communities, review of existing downtown parking areas, and
preparation of a proforma analysis to measure the sufficiency of the current parking
operations and rate structure to produce the amount of revenue needed to meet current
and projected operating requirements and capital improvement investments for a 10 year
period.
Through the combination of data collected, interviews with stakeholders, surveys from
business owners, employees and feedback received at community meetings, the consultant
has prepared findings and recommendations to address deficiencies within the District.
The Study also draws on standards developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) and the Urban Land Institute (ULI). This Study, and ultimately the recommendations,
considers proposed redevelopment projects, the types of surrounding uses, and the
planned development of residential units in the area.
A significant conclusion of this Study was that the lack of effective management and
policies for the downtown parking area hindered its ability to generate revenue necessary
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 10
to support the Downtown Parking District. The following are key recommendations from
the RICH report:
.
Meter rates
revenue for
meters.
One City staff person needs to be designated as Parking Manager to coordinate
parking functions and interface with the community.
Parking enforcement needs to be consistently enforced to be effective.
Revenue generated within the District should remain with the District and be
utilized for capital improvements.
and parking fine rates need to
necessary capital improvements,
be increased to generate adequate
such as the replacement of parking
.
.
.
These recommendations are the basis for staff's proposed Downtown Parking Interim
Action Plan and development of the Downtown Parking Management Plan
IV. Final Report: RICH developed near-term, mid-term and long-term improvement
recommendations, which consider and address how to improve the perception of parking,
increase the parking supply through improved efficiency, parking generation rates, parking
system space allocation, review of parking policies, analysis of existing parking lots,
parking system management and operations improvements, and parking mitigation
strategies and implementation.
The Downtown Parking Management Study Draft Report, prepared by RICH, incorporates
overall management goals and considers the best practices of other cities and the parking
industry. These goals include staffing required to develop and operate an effective parking
management program and parking enforcement enhancements. As part of developing a
comprehensive parking program, the Study also considers and makes recommendations
regarding parking operations, facilities, and current and future demand. For a complete
listing of findings, recommendations, implementation timeframes and financial impacts,
please refer to the Downtown Parking District Recommendation Summary (Attachment 3).
The information contained within the RICH Downtown Parking Management Study Draft
Report (Attachment 4) is the basis for the actions proposed in the Downtown Parking
Interim Action Plan described below.
DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT INTERIM ACTION PLAN
The Downtown Parking District Interim Action Plan primarily focuses on changes to
management and operations, addressing significant operational changes that will provide
opportunities to generate revenue to finance future improvements within the Downtown
Parking District. Most of the actions contained within the Interim Action Plan carry
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 11
minimal financial impact to the City and instead are designed to assist in generating
additional revenue to offset proposed future improvements within the District.
Developing parking management guidelines was a fundamental step in the process to
provide a context for the recommendations being made in the Interim Action Plan. The
following are some of those guidelines:
>- Effectively manage downtown parking resources to meet current and future
need
>- Support downtown economic growth and development by providing for an
adequate and balanced parking supply for visitors, customers, and employees
>- Use time limits, rates, and enforcement to efficiently manage the parking supply
>- Manage the demand for employee parking in prime parking spaces through
programs, policies, permits, increased rates and designated areas
>- Make parking safe, secure, convenient and attractive
>- Operate City-owned parking in a financially sound manner
>- Promote alternative forms of transportation, including walking, bicycling and
public transportation
All the recommendations suggested in the Interim Action Plan, described below, are
essential in providing a management structure for oversight of the District and are
necessary to implement the Downtown Parking District Management Plan. Future
recommendations will include improvements currently estimated at $550,000 to
$800,000, depending upon the degree to which the City addresses the District's existing
deficiencies. These projected costs include new tools for enforcement, more enforcement
staff, new on and off-street meters, marketing, signage, improvements to paseos and
installing new equipment to encourage bicycling in the downtown area. The
implementation of the Action Plan is the second critical component in the City realizing an
effective and functioning Downtown Parking District.
These recommendations and the action time may differ from what RICH proposed in their
Draft Report based upon other notable factors such as the surrounding mix of uses and
concerns expressed by the community. The following is the Interim Action Plan:
#1 MAINTAIN THE DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT
Finding: The Parking District's obligations to maintain metered parking
and utilize the revenue for only District expenditures ended in
1999. Many of the District's assets are in disrepair and require
significant expenditure to be updated.
Recommendation: Maintain the Downtown Parking District. Implement effective
management and operation strategies that will result in
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 12
Implementation:
additional revenue for capital improvements within the
District.
Work with staff and the community to develop a Downtown
Parking District Management Plan including a timeline for
capital improvements in the District.
Fourth Quarter of 2007
Action Time:
#2 PARKING FUND
Finding:
The District has no obligation to continue to use funds
generated by parking meter revenue and fines on parking-
related activities (i.e. maintenance, repairs and capital
improvements) within the District.
Consistent with the Parking District Law of 1951, continue to
maintain a separate fund, place all revenue generated from the
Downtown Parking District into this fund, and direct that these
monies only be utilized for improvements within the District.
No changes required at this time.
Third Quarter of 2007
Recommendation:
Implementation:
Action Time:
#3 DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Finding: The boundaries of the District and the in-lieu parking fee area
are inconsistent and do not include enough of the area that is
or may be impacted by parking issues. The Downtown
Parking District needs to have the same opportunities (i.e. in
lieu parking fee program) available throughout.
Recommendation: Change the boundaries (E Street to the north, Del Mar to the
east, Garrett to the west and H Street to the south).
Implementation: in accordance with California Streets and Highways Code
Section 35270, a Notice of intention will be published,
pursuant to Government Code Section 6066 in the Star News
and will specify a time for hearing objections to the proposed
change, which will not be less than 20 days after the first
publication of the notice. A copy of the notice will also be
mailed to each affected landowner. At the conclusion of the
hearing, if no majority protest is on file and if all protests and
objections have been overruled and denied, then the City
Council may adopt an ordinance declaring that the Parking
District is formed and describing the acquisitions and
improvements to be made.
Action Time: First Quarter of 2008
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 13
Recommendation:
#4 PARKING MANAGEMENT
Finding: There is no single point of contact for the public or for City
staff involved in parking. There are several City departments
with direct or indirect involvement in parking. There should
be one designated city employee to organize parking functions
for the Downtown Parking District and work with the public.
Appoint an Interim Parking Manager from existing City staff.
This staff person will dedicate a portion of their time to the
Parking District for at least one year. This position should be
re-evaluated during the annual review period.
The City Manager will assign an Interim Parking Manager.
Third Quarter of 2007
Implementation:
Action Time:
#5 PARKING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Finding: Parking is an issue that involves the City, local organizations,
downtown businesses, residents, customers and visitors.
There is no formal mechanism in place that provides an
opportunity for ongoing and direct input and participation in
the decision-making process on Parking District-related
activities.
Recommendation: Form a Downtown Parking Advisory Committee (DPAC)
consisting of representatives from the downtown business
community, business organizations, property owners and City
staff. The PAC will advise the City Council on the
development and implementation of the Downtown Parking
District Management Plan and review ongoing operations.
Implementation: The Interim Parking Manager will draft and present proposed
selection criteria and operating guidelines for the DBAC to the
City Council for consideration.
Action Time: Fourth Quarter of 2007
#6 PARKING ENFORCEMENT
Finding: The District requires more consistent parking enforcement.
One full-time position of 40 hours per week has been funded
from the Parking District Account, which is inadequate since
the enforcement hours are Monday through Saturday from
9am to 5 pm, a total of 48 hours per week. Downtown
businesses and organizations have expressed concern that
there is not adequate enforcement in the downtown area.
Recommendation: Ensure that all of the posted hours of enforcement are being
actively enforced in the District.
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 14
Implementation:
The Interim Parking Manager will coordinate with the Police
Department to prepare a route and schedule including
coverage Monday through Saturday from 9am to 5 pm and a
2-hour circuit of the District. Ongoing coordination and
review will occur to determine if additional enforcement is
required. The Interim Parking Manager will work with the
Finance Departmerit to ensure adequate funding for
enforcement hours.
Fourth Quarter of 2007
Action Time:
#7 PARKING METERS AND EQUIPMENT
Finding: The on-street and off-street meters need to be replaced. There
are three types of meters being used in Chula Vista, with the
majority of the meters more than 30 years old. There appear
to be many non-functioning meters. This causes numerous
problems particularly since the public does not receive
consistent or clear direction as to the regulations related to
broken meters. It appears that tickets are issued to vehicles
parked at broken meters even when a note is attached to the
meter stating that it is broken. This creates a sense of confusion
and frustration from customers and visitors.
Recommendation: The City should purchase new individual meters for on-street
parking spaces and multi-space machines for public parking
lots in the District. The individual and multi-space meters can
accept coins, tokens and value or smart cards, making the
parking transaction easier for the parker. The meters should be
electronic, which will allow rates and time parameters to be
more easily changed. Additionally, the reporting of income
and use by each meter can be downloaded by a handheld
machine which will assist in revenue analysis and
accountability. Ideally, the system would also be wireless and
solar powered.
Implementation: Staff will prepare specifications and will work with the parking
equipment vendor to negotiate the purchase and installation of
new individual and multi-space meters. The Parking District
would borrow funds from the Redevelopment Agency and
would repay the funds with Parking District revenues.
Projected costs for the replacement of all the existing meters is
$380,000 including installation, software and equipment.
Based upon the proposed meter increases, the District should
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 15
Action Time:
be able to repay the Agency within 2 years from the date of
installation of the new meters.
Fourth Quarter of 2007 to prepare specifications
First Quarter of 2008 for installation of equipment
#8 PARKING METER RATES
Finding: The parking rates in the Downtown District are too low. They
do not deter people from parking beyond the posted time
limits and do not provide the District with adequate funds to
make needed repairs and improvements.
Recommendation: Increase meter rates as described in the table below. From
2002-2006 the revenue from parking meters averaged
$239,479.00 annually. With the proposed increase the
projected revenue is estimated to increase by over $300,000
annually to over $540,000. These funds will greatly enhance
the District and help create a self-sufficient and thriving
Downtown Parking District.
Time Limit Current Rate Proposed Rate
On-street 30 minute meter $0.05 per 10 minutes $0.25 per 30 minutes
Token oer 10 minutes
$0.10 per 20 minutes
$0.25 per 30 minutes
On-street 2 and 3 hour $0.05 per 10 minutes $0.25 per 30 minutes
meter
Token per 10 minutes $0.50 per 60 minutes
$0.10 per 20 minutes
$0.25 per 50 minutes
Off-street 4 hour meter $0.05 per 30 minutes $0.25 per 30 minutes
$0.10 per 60 minutes $0.50 per 60 minutes
$0.25 per 150 minutes
Off-street 10 hour meter $0.05 per 30 minutes $0.25 per 60 minutes
Token per 30 minutes
$0.10 per 60 minutes
$0.25 per 150 minutes .
Implementation:
The Interim Parking Manager will initiate revisions to Chula
Vista Municipal Code Chapter 10.56.020 modifying the stated
meter rates and providing additional language allowing further
modification upon City Council approval.
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 16
The Interim Parking Manager will work with other City
departments, TAVA, the Chamber of Commerce and local
businesses to prepare a marketing campaign advertising the
parking meter increase. This information will be published in
local newspapers, letters will be mailed to the area included
within and directly surrounding the District, email
communiques will be distributed and a Parking District
website will be established. The marketing campaign will
advertise the effective date of the increase at least one month
ahead of implementation.
Second Quarter of 2008
Action Time:
#9 PARKING FINES
Finding:
Recommendation:
Implementation:
Action Time:
The City's parking fines are too low and do not discourage
parkers from knowingly violating parking regulations.
Increase the expired/overtime meter fine from $12 to $25.
This proposed rate increase is lower than the $50 fine
recommended by the Parking Violation Penalty Schedule,
which was prepared in 2005 by a consortium of San Diego
County Cities. Staff is recommending this lower fine increase
to address the fact that the current fine is too low to deter
people from knowingly violating parking regulations but
acknowledging the concerns voiced by businesses and
property owners within the District.
The Interim Parking Manager will work with other City
departments, TAVA, the Chamber of Commerce and local
businesses to prepare a marketing campaign advertising the
parking fine increases. This information will be published in
local newspapers, letters will be mailed to the area included
within and directly surrounding the District. Email
communiques will be distributed and a Parking District
website will be established. The marketing campaign will
advertise the effective date of the increase at least one month
ahead of implementation.
The handheld ticket writers, used for enforcement, will have to
be reprogrammed to reflect the new pricing in any parking-
related citations issued.
Second Quarter of 2008
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 17
#10 PASEOS
Finding:
Recommendation:
Implementation:
Action Time:
#11
Finding:
The paseos provide access for customers from the public
parking lots to Third Avenue retail shops but many are
unmarked, and require improvements such as landscaping,
painting and lighting. These paseos are an integral part of the
parking system, espeCially when downtown blocks are long.
They help cut down on the distance customers and visitors
have to walk to and from parking to their destination.
Develop budget for improvements, which could be $10,000 to
$100,000 depending upon the types of improvements made.
Install signage to identify and direct customers to the paseos to
enter Third Avenue. Make improvements to the paseos, such
as murals and landscaping, to create a more inviting walking
experience to and from the parking lots to businesses on Third
Avenue. PBID should allocate some monies to be used for
beautifying these areas since this will benefit the District as a
whole.
Staff will work with TAVA and the PBID to discuss
opportunities for making improvements to the paseos,
including identifying funding, preparing a budget, and
assigning responsibilities for the coordination, development
and implementation.
First Quarter of 2008
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENTS
Public parking lots #3 and #6 are identified as possible
development sites. Lot #3 (South Landis Avenue) has high
occupancy rates, provides a large supply of parking due to
larger size of the lot and is central to businesses on Landis and
Third Avenue. This lot should be maintained as public
parking. Lot #6 (Church and Madrona) has high occupancy
but lower capacity and is hampered by difficult ingress and
egress. The loss of parking on this site will have a minor
impact on surrounding businesses as there are other parking
areas that can make up for the loss of parking, but many
surrounding businesses have expressed concern regarding the
potential loss of this parking.
Maintain Lots #3 and #6 as public parking.
Based upon the Parking Study findings and staff's
understanding of the impacts of development, redevelopment
Recommendation:
Implementation:
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 18
Action Time:
staff has been re-evaluating existing Exclusive Negotiating
Agreements (ENA) working with developers to negotiate
modifications to the agreements. New ENAs are being
presented to the CVRC as a separate action item to introduce
staff's proposal to transfer the development opportunity for
CityMark Development LLC from Lot #3 to Lot #2 and Voyage
LLC from Lot #6 to L6t #10. Therefore, Lots #3 and #6 will be
maintained as public parking.
Third Quarter of 2007
#12 CONDUCT ANNUAL REVIEW
Finding: There has been no system established to review the
management and operations of the District. This has led to a
lack of direction regarding how the District should function.
Recommendation: Conduct an annual review and prepare a report to the City
Council on the status of parking operations in the District.
This report should cover income and expenses, details on
number of tickets written, fees collected and accounting of
funds collected from meters and permits.
Implementation: The Interim Parking Manager and Parking Advisory Committee
will work to establish criteria and processes for an annual
review. A staff report, including a status of the previous year's
activity, analysis of District performance and any
recommended changes will be presented at a community
meeting and to the City Council on an annual basis.
Action Time: Third Quarter of every year, beginning in 2008
#13 REPORT OUT TO COMMUNITY
Finding: There is public distrust about how parking funds are utilized,
and there has been a lack of information shared between the
City and stakeholders. There is no organized process or
requirement for reporting out parking district operations to the
community.
Recommendation: Establish a Downtown Parking District website, linked to the
City's website, that provides information about the District,
including meter rates, parking fine rates, hours of enforcement,
contact information, processes and procedures, etc. Develop a
clear process to report back out to the community through
established organizations such as the Third Avenue Village
Staff Report - Item No. 4
Page 19
Implementation:
Association and the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce and
direct contact, such as community meetings and direct
mailing.
Staff will work with TAVA and the Chamber of Commerce to
develop a Community Outreach Program. Staff will also
create a Parking District website that will include valuable
information such as 'contact information, meter rates, public
parking area map, etc.
Fourth Quarter of 2007
Action Time:
CONCLUSION
The completion of the Downtown Parking District Management Study is a significant
milestone in the City's efforts to revitalize and rejuvenate the downtown area and has
helped initiate collaborative efforts between local commerce, business organizations,
community members and the City. Understanding how parking impacts businesses and
potential development is crucial to developing a clear and achievable plan that addresses
both management and operations of the District. Parking is an important component of a
thriving transportation system that includes many modes of transportation such as walking,
bicycling and public transit and should be addressed as a component of this system
envisioned for Chula Vista. Realizing a District that is effectively managed, generates
revenue for capital improvements and maintenance, and successfully provides convenient
and reasonable parking opportunities for customers, visitors and employees are the
eventual objectives of this process.
The approval and implementation of the Downtown Parking District Interim Action Plan
provides ihe first opportunity to create significant changes in the District by addressing
outdated parking practices and inefficiencies. This lays the groundwork for a
comprehensive Downtown Parking District Management Plan that will outline additional
actions necessary for achieving an efficient parking system.
DECISIONMAKER CONFLICT
Based upon information available to staff, it appears that Director Salas may have a conflict
of interest based upon ownership of property within 500 feet of the Parking District. No
other directors appear to have a conflict of interest.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Parking District currently generates enough revenue to pay for staff time associated
with management and enforcement of the District, and the District should continue to pay
for these staff costs.
Staff Report - Item No.
Page 20
Based upon Interim Action #7, there will be a financial impact of approximately $380,000
to the Redevelopment Agency to install new parking meters. The monies expended for
new equipment for the District will be repaid to the Agency through the Parking Enterprise
Fund with new revenue generated. Staff anticipates that the Agency will be repaid within
two years from the date of disbursement.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Parking District and In-Lieu Parking Area Map
2. Downtown Parking District Study Area Map
3. Downtown Parking District Recommendation Summary
4. RICH Downtown Parking Management Study Draft Report
PREPARED BY:
Diem Do, Senior Community Development Specialist
Attachment 1
DOWNTOWN
CHULA VISTA
PUBLIC
PARKING
L 14 SPACES
2. 78 SPACES
3. 121 SPACES
4. 700 SPACES
S. 46 SPACES
6. 29 SPACES
7. 70 SPACES
8. 54 SPACES
9. 30 SPACES
10. 34 SPACES
11. 29 SPACES
SUBTOTAL LOTS:
1,205 SPACES
SUBTOTAL ON-STREET:
509 SPACES
SOURCE'
Third Avenue Village Associabon
OtyolChulaVi5ta
ResollJtlon9943
Legend
Town Centre I
In-Lieu
Parking Area
c===J Downtown
Parking
District
N
..
. .
W E
. .
s
1 inch equals 150 feet
Map Note:
This map 15 intended for study only and should
not be used for any other purpose. Information
on this map is also subJect to dlange (or revision)
per1odically. The City of OlUla Vista does I'lOt
guarantee the ao::....acy of Information contained
on this map and Cilulions against the use of this
dilta in making land use decisions
All rights reserved. No part althis map or data
may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any rneans, electroniC Or mernanical,I""luding
photocopying and re<:ording, Or by any information
storage or rett1ev,,1 system, excep;: as expressly
permitted in writing by the City of Chula Vista.
a
1I1VOf
U1ULAVISTA
P:\Pmjects\ComDev\Parklng\Parking,mxd
12.11-06
___ DEL MAR AYE
L_~_._[~~_]ll_ -~- - u~- -~-~- -~"r' j~ ~ _1 ~-- - - - - - - - - - - --
~ 'I _____n_ I~I------~ I - '
l----~---~--:l-3~~~A~~---J ~-~__1 0 Jr _ @ j @ t__0
] [~---_~~~___J [--~-~-~__-:
~ 1________ - LANDIS AVE
J L--~-~~~~Ji-_-~-~~~:]
GARRETT AVE. -
e
~
'"
I
e
'LL~
c
~
g
~
~I
__~_ I
I
I
I
! I
I
I
I
I
---
-- - ---l
I
I@
I
; I
II
I L__
1 .
-------t
I .
i I
I Ie
~
Ii
I~
~
--------I
@
@
- - -"-----, f
I,
I
,
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
@
---~-------~-------~
. I'
1-: I'
I ,.I
II l:nl
,:,~ q
I~I
!~'I.
I~ !~I
1--_"___1,__-
e
~
I
Alta, .lent2
PARKING STUDY
FOR THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
----... forking cu",un.n"
:=s:: Archll<<". Enlln..'.
.-....:'Ill Pl.nn.... ~,," ,""
-~ ,,,.,,
RICH''",',''',,,,
.ASSOCIATES ._."",,~,,~
OWQ. lTTt.E:
STUDY AREA
MAl'1
LEGEND
o BLOCK #
_ _ _ Sll.IDYAREA
BOUNDARY
DATE,OI-o<l-01
~BT_6I't';,
FILE.
~
SC..,u,KT5
PAGE' 1-4
CATEGORY
3.1 PARKING
MANAGEMENT
3.1 .0 Downtown
Parking DIstrict status
and Boundaries
3,1.1 Parking staff
3.1.2 Parking
Enterprise Fund
3.1.3 Parking
Education
3.2 Parking Pallcles
3.2.0 City Parking
Pallcles
3.2.1 In-Ueu Fee
3.2.2 Valet Parking
Chula VIsta Downtown Parking S1udy Recommendation Summary
FINDING
The Downtown Parking District was
formed in 1963 to provide meters,
generate revenue, fund
improvements and help control
parklnQ.
The management of the parking
system is not effective.
The District has fulfilled its obligation
to continue to use funds generated
by parking meter revenue and fines
on parking-related activities.
There is a general lack of awareness
of parking facts.
Other than the in-lieu fee, there are
no policies for parking
The in-lieu fee pOlicy was
implemented in 1980. The formula
for calculating the fee is confusing
and outdated.
Valet parking is not currently used
RECOMMENDATION
IMPLEMENTATION TlMEFRAME ESTIMATED CAPITAL
COSTS
Maintain the District and modity the boundaries
to E Street (north), Del Mar (east), Garrell (west) Third Quarter of 2007
and H Street (south)
Form a Parking Advisory Commillee (PAC) and
appoint an existing staff person ftom the City's F rt Q rt f 2
. au h ua er 0 007
Community Development Department to act as
the Parking Director
Create one Parking Enterprise Fund and place
all tevenue generated from the Downtown
District into this fund. Continue to designate Fourth Quartet of 2007
these funds for parking-telated activities within
the District.
Develop an educational program that
continually sttesses the costs of parking,
enforcement regulations, transit options and Fourth Quarter of 2007
the vision of a walkable community. Present
the information on a continual basis.
Parking policies need to be developed and
updated as the downtown evoives. Policies
should be established for overtime parking,
enforcement strategies, parking allocation and
parkinQ rates.
Retain the program but revise the formula so
that the cost per patking space be indexed to
the cost at constructing one parking space in a
parking structure.
City should develop a valet parking policy to
regulate how valet operations would run.
Fitst Quarter of 2008
Fourth Quarter of 2007
First Quarter of 2008
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Attachment 3
ESTIMATED
REVENUE
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Difficullto project.
Based upon
development.
$0
Chula VIsta Downtown Parking study Recommendation Summary
3.2.3 Residential Thete is no residential parking permit Evaluate the impact of parking needs on
Parking Permit in place. surrounding residential areas and implement a First Quarter of 2008 $0 $0
residential parking permit program if necessary
There has been a lack of information Ptepare an annual repart to be presented to
3.2.4 shared between the City and the City Council and community on an annual Annually $0 $0
shareholders. basis.
3.3 PARKING
OPERATIONS
3.3.0 Parking Parking revenues have been eltatic, Prepare a Parking District Operating budget
Revenues and particularly from 2002 to present that projects appropriate costs tor Annually $0 $0
Expenses maintenance ot the District.
Develop an ongoing and budgeted parking $15,000/yr for
There is no ongoing marketing marketing program. Coordinate with TAVA to First Quarter 2008-developed
3,3.1 Marketing campaign for the Parking District. implement under the direction of the Parking Ongoing-implementation ditect marketing $0
Advisory Committee. costs
The City is lacking in a Develop a sign program that includes four
3.3.2 Slgnage comprehensive and coordinated types of signage: direction, location, Second Quarter 2008 $10,000-$50,000 $0
sign program. identification and pedestrian wayfinding.
Fourth Quarter of 2007-
3.3.3 Condition of The majority of the parking lots are in Make lighting, painting, signage, landscaping Analysis of Facilities
City Porklng Lots need of capital improvements and resurtacing improvements as necessary. First Quarter of 2008-Bid Not yet determined $0
Second/Third Quarter of 2008-
Implemenfation
Fourth Quartet of 2007-
3.3.4 ExIsting Parking Generally, the design and layout of Remove the one-way restriction in the alley to Analysis ot Facilities
Area Configuration the parking lots is efficient except tor allow legal access into lot 6 and/or create an First Quarter of 2008-Bid Not yet determined $0
lot 6 entry ftom Madrona. Second/Third Quarter of 2008-
Implementation
Downtown Chula Vista has a number Install slgnage to better identity paseos. $10,000-$100,000
of paseos connecting parking lofs to Consider using lighting, murals and depending upon
3.3.5 Paseas Third Avenue. Many of them need landscaping to create a more inviting walking First Quarter 200B the types of $0
imptovements to make them more experience. improvements
attractive and inviting. made
3.3.6 Validation The Disttict does not curtenlly have a Institute a parking validation system that
System validation system in place. businesses can use to offer free patking to Third Quarter 2008 $3,000-$5,000 $0
customers.
3,4 PARKING
ENFORCEMENT
3.4.0 Parking
Enlorcement staffing
3.4.1 Handheld
TIcket Wrllers
3.4.2 Overtime
Parking Fine
3.4.3 MUlllple TIckets
3.4.4 Courtesy TIcket
3.5 PARKING AND
REVENUE CONTROL
3.5.0 On-street
Parking
3.5.1 Off-street
Parking
Chula VIsta Downtown Parking Study Recommendation Summary
The Parking Enforcement Program is
not functioning at optimal efficiency.
The enfotcement officers do not just
enforce parking within the District.
The handheld ticket writers are not
being used to their full potential.
Dedicate enfotcement personnel to the District.
The officer must cover a consistent route and
enforce during the entire enforcement period
of Monday through Saturday 9 am to 5 pm.
Upgrade the system to allow the handheld
ticket writers to recotd and track license plates,
provide information about outstanding tickets
and number of tickets received and data
regotdlng stolen vehicles and warrants.
Third Quarter 2008
First/Second Quarter 2008-
Ptepare specifications and
issue Request for Proposals
Third Quarter 2008- Enter into
contract and upgrade system
The overtime parking fine of $12.00 is I th rt' k' f' f $12 00
t h' h h t d' ncrease eave Ime par Ing Ine rom .
no Ig fenoug 0 Ilscourlatge to $50.00 consistent with the parking Violation Third Quartet 2008
potkers rom knOWing y via a Ing P Ity S hed I
ki I t. ena c ue
par ng regu a Ions.
Chula Vista curtently issues multiple
tickets for same day violations of
expired meters.
Chula Vista does not currently issue
courtesy tickets.
Meters need to be replaced. Many
are non-functioning. This causes
enforcement issues.
The off-street parking lots have
individual metets that are difficult to
maintain for both collection and
maintenance.
Continue this policy of issuing multiple tickets Currenlly in place
Issue courtesy tickets for a first offense of a non- Third Quarter 2008
permit vehicle.
Purchase new individual on-street metets that
can accept coins, tokens and smart cards.
Ideally the system would be wireless and solot
powered.
Install multi-space meters in lots #2, #3, #5
and #7. These machines can accept coins,
tokens and smart cards and should be wireless
and solar powered. The remainder of the lots
could be upgraded to new individual meters.
First Quarter 2008-Prepare
specifications and Bid
Second Quarter 2008-lnstall
First Quarter 2008-Prepare
specifications and Bid
Second Quarter 2008-lnstall
$70,000 fot an
additional full-time
position
$40,000
$0
$0
Loss of revenue
from parking ticket $0
$160,000
$210,000
$81,550 in
average annual
revenue Increase
based upon
current fine and
collection rates
$75,500 in
average annual
revenue
$67,975 in
average annual
revenue inctease
based upon same
number of
citations issued
$0
$0
$0
Chula Vista Downtown Parking Sfudy Recommendation Summary
$194, 175/yr in new
The parking tates do not deter Increase the parking rates for metets and revenue for on-
people from parking beyond the permits to $0.50/hr at 30-minute and 2, 3, and street meters,
3.5.2 Parklng Rates pasted limits nor do the rates 4 hour meters. Increase to $0.25/hr at 10-haur Second Quarter 2008 $0 $144,805/yr in new
promote the use of the Park Plaza metets. Increase permits to $120/qtr in alllats revenue from off-
Parking Structure. except #2 and #3 whete the increase should stteet meters, and
be $180/qtr. $57,600 in permit
fees
The 2-hour parking should be the dominant
3.5.3 Parking The District has two different types of duration for on-stteet parking. Individuals $5,000 for slgnage
on-street meters: 30-minute and 2- requiring more than 2 hours should be directed Second Quarter 2008 $0
A1locatlan hour to off-street parking areas. For Lots #2 and #3 changes
convert to 3-hour time limits
3.6 PARKING
FACILmES
3.6.0 Park Plaza The parking structure is critically Upgrade signage, imptove lighting, re-stripe
Parking structure underutilized with average the parking floors, conduct a canditions study Fourth Quarter 2007 Not yet estimated $0
occupancy projected at 40%. and complete needed structural and cosmetic
3,6.1 Meter Calar The existing meters are not marked Designate a color to represent each time limit
Coding to indicate the time limit. which is then paint the pole to identify the meter. Second Quarter 2008 $ s.oOO $0
confusing tor parkers.
Street curbs should only be painted for no Fourth Quarter 2007 -Analysis
The street curb painting is parking where required and for fire hydrate
3.6.2 street Curbs inconsistent. locations. Curbs should not be painted to Fitst Quarter 2008-Work Not yet estimated $0
reflect the type of parking available. completed
3.7 BICYCLES AS
ALTERNATE MODE OF
TRANSPORTATION
3.7.0 Bicycling as an
There is a need to promote bicycle us Fourth Quarter 2007
Alternative ta DrMng Consider creating a bike route to the downtown
Install new bicycle racks and institue a
Chula Vista does have bicycle racks,
3.7.1 Bicycle Parklng marketing program to promote the new Second Quarter 2008
although they are difficult to find. locations.
Not yet estimated
$0
$10,000-$75,000
depending on
number and style
of racks
$0
Chula VIsta Downtown Parking S1udy Recommendatfon Summary
3.8 PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR
CURRENT AND FUTURE
3.8.0 Traffic Impacts There are currently no noted issues Continue to monitor traffic flow within the downt, Ongoing $0 $0
with respect to traffic.
Directing cusfomers and visifors to park in Park
Overall, there is a surplus of Plaza should alleviate the parking demand
3.8,1 Currenf Parking approximately 1 ,103 parking spaces issues on blocks 2,3 and 12. The deficits on
within the Study Area. However, blocks 9 and 10 should be reduced when the Fitst Quarter 2008 $0 $0
Analysis there are several blocks (2,3,9, 10 Social Secutity office relocates and more
and 12) that have a deficit. people become aware of free parking in Park
Plaza.
RICH reviewed lots 3,6,9 and IOta
determine the impact to the Disfrict if Maintain lot 3 as public parking. Developing
3.8.2 Pofenflal these sifes were developed. All of lots 6,9, and 10 should have minimal impact,
Parklng Impact 01 the lots had moderately high buf if the surrounding parking ateas cannot Ongoing $0 $0
occupancy levels, buf lots 6, 9, and absorb fhe loss of parking consider entering
ENAs 10 had more available surrounding into shared use agreements with existing
parking to alleviate ony impact due parking lots or develop new parking.
to the loss of parking.
The luture parking needs will depend greatly
3.8.3 Potential Fulure The Urbon Core Specilic Plan may on tedevelopment in fhe downtown area. If
Parking Neesd w1fh hasten redevelopment along Third ENA sites are developed, utilize ptoceeds from
the sale of parking lots for necessary copital Ongoing $0 $0
Redevelopmenl 01 Avenue, causing changes to the improvements. The City will need to
Third Avenue parking demand. continually monitor development and parking
needs.
There is currently no need to
3.8.4 Possible construct additional parking. Monitor parking needs and consider identified
Parking struclure Although, RICH did consider sites for possible development of parking Ongoing $0 $0
Sites potentiol parking structure slles if sttuctures in the future, if necessary.
needed in the futute.
Attachment 4
T 1.3\.....
~/rt
....../~
,
ING DISTRICT
.." ~/
~
"""-'<.
.~.' .
Rich and Associates, Inc.
Parking Consultants - Planners
www.richassoc.com
l:tjedCcl e "
executive Summary
SEC110N 1 - Parking study OvervIew
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 Scape of Services ...............................................,.......................................................... 1-3
1.4 Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 1-5
Map 1: Study Area
1.5 Community Outreach and Participation ........................................................................ 1-6
1.6 History of Parking District................................................................................................. 1-7
1.6.1 Establishment of District......................................................................................... 1-7
1.6.2 In Lieu Fees........................................................................................................... 1-7
1.6.3 Park Plaza Parking Structure............................................................................... ...1-9
1.6.4 Urban Core Specific Plan...........................................................................1-9
SECl1CN 2 - Analysis
2.1 Introduction........................... ......... ................ ........................... .......... ........................... 2-1
2.2 Parking Inventories................................. ........................................ ......... ....................... 2- 1
Map 2: Parking Supply Map
2.3 Turnover and Occupancy Study .................................................................................... 2-2
2.3.1 Turnover and Occupancy Analysis ....................................................................... 2-3
Map 3: December 14, 2006 Peak Hour
Map 4: December IS, 2006 Peak Hour
2.3.2 Turnovet Results..........,......,..............................................................,.................,. .2-5
Table 2B and 2C Turnover Summary Results
2.3.3 Occupancy Results............................................................... ............................... .2-6
2.3.4 Occupancy Conclusions....................................... ......................... .... ................. .2-7
2.3.5 Permit Occupancy............................................. ...................................... .2-8
Map 5 Permit Occupancy
~
~
mH!
Rich and Associates, Inc.
Parking Consultants - Planners
Ie-I
811/2007
2.4 Parking Demand Calculation... ............ ... ........ ........... ... ... ..... ..................... ........2-9
Map 6: Current Sutplus Deficit
2.4.1 ENA Development Parking Demand............................................................2-11
2.4.2 UCSP Parking Demand .............................................................................2-11
Map 7: ENA Development Sites
2.5 Parking Operations and Enforcement......... ...... .......... ........... ............... ...... .........2-12
Table 2J: Parking Tickets Issued
2.5.1 Parking Petmits.......... ................. ...... .... ................. ......... ...... ... .......... ......2-13
2.5.2 Regional Surveys.......................... ... ......:... .................... .... ............ ........ ...2-14
Table 2K: Current Parking Rates
Table 2.5.3 Chula Vista Parking Rates
Table 2L: Mefer Parking Rates in Chula Vista
Conclusion."........,.,..,........"..,..........................................,...,.,.,...,....,..,............ ..2-15
SEC110N 3 - Findings and Recommendations
3.1 Parking Management ....................................................................................................3-1
3.1.0 Downtown Parking District Status and Boundaries................................................. 3-1
Map 8: Downtown Parking District Recommendation
3.1.1 Parking Staff .......................................................................................................... 3-2
3.1.2 Parking Enterprise Fund.........................................................................................3-3
3.1 .3 Parking Education...................................... ........................................................... 3-4
3.2 Parking Policies............... ............................................................................................. 3-4
3.2.0 City Parking Policies......................................... ................................. .................... 3-4
3.2.1 In-Lieu Fee .... ...... .............. ....... ........................................................ ..................... 3-5
Table 3A: In Lieu Fee Reconciliation
3.2.2 Valet Parking........................................................................................ ....3-7
3.2.3 Residential Parking PermiL....... ...... ........ ...... ............ ............. ........... .........3-8
3.2.4 Reporting to Community............................................................ .............. ...3-9
3.3 Parking Operations........................................................................................... .3-9
3.3.0 Parking Revenues and Expenses...... .... ......... ......... ....................... ...... .........3-9
Table 3B: Historical Parking District Parking Revenue and Fees
3.3.1 Marketing.... ........ ... .......... ,...... ...... ........ ............ .......... ........ .... ...... ..........3-1 0
3.3.2 Signage............. ....................................... ......................................... ..... .3-11
3.3.3 Condition of City Parking Lots......................................................................3-16
Table 3C: Parking Lot Condition Assessment
3.3.4 Existing Parking Atea Configuation..............................................................3-19
~
~
~lfll
Rich and Associates, Inc.
Parking Consultants - Planners
tc-2
8/1 /2007
3.3.5 Paseos... ......... .... ... ..................... ........ ......... ................ ........... ...... .........3-19
3.4 Porking Enforcement...................................................................................... ...3-22
3.4.0 Porking Enforcement Staffing..................................................................... .3-22
3.4.1 Handheld Ticket Writers......... ......... ............. ...... ...... .................. ... .....,........3-22
3.4.2 Overtime Porking Fine...... ......... ......... ... .......... ........ .......... .................... ....3-24
3.4.3 Multiple Tickets...................................................................................... ..3-25
3.4.5 Courtesy Ticket..........................................................,........................... ..3-25
3.5 Parking and Revenue Control............ ......... ............ ............ ...... .......... ............. ..3-26
3.5.0 On-Street Porking.................................:................................................ ...3-26
3.5.1 Off-Street Parking................ ........ ......... ... ................ ........ .......... ...... ...... ...3-28
3.5.2 Porking Rates............................................................................... .......... .3-29
3.5.3 Porking Allocation.................................................................................. ..3-31
3.6 Parking Facilities............................................................................................. .3-32
3.6.0 Park Plaza Parking Structure......... ...... ............ ....... ..... ......... ........................3-32
3.6.1 Meter Color Coding........ .................... ..... ............... .... ...... ........ ...... ..........3-35
3.6.2 Street Curbs............................................................................................ .3-35
3.7 8icycles as an Alternate Mode of Transportation.....................................................3-36
3.7.1 8icycle Porking... ... ... ......... ... ...... ... ...... ................... ........ ............. .............3-36
3.8 Porking Requirements for Current and Future.........................................................3-39
3.8.0 Traffic Impacts........................................................................................ ..3-39
3.8.1 Current Parking Analysis.... ............................................ ... ...... ....... .......... ....3-39
3.8.2 Potential Porking Impact of Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Sites................. ...3-40
3.8.3 Potential Futute Parking Needs with Redevelopment of Third Avenue.................3-41
3.8.4 Possible Porking Structure Sites... ......... ........................................................3-43
Map 9: Potential Porking Structure Sites
Site Selection/Design Matrix
Exhibits
~
~
!i!S;l!
1 . Community Presentation Powerpoints
2. Table 2A-Porklng Supply Summary
3. Table 2D-December 14. 2006 Occupancy Count Results
4. Table 2E-December 15, 2006 Occupancy Count Results
5. Table 2F-Permit Occupancy Results
6. Table 2G-Chula Vista Current Parking Demand Projection
7. Table 2H-future Porking Demand with ENA Sites Developed
8. Table 21-Parking Demand Projections and Surplus or Deficits for UCSP Model
Rich and Associates, Inc.
Parking Consultants - Planners
tc-3
811 /2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Rich and Associates (RICH) was retained by the City of Chula Vista to prepare a
parking management study for the downtown. The four primary objectives of the
study were to:
. Analyze the current and future parking needs and review the current parking
system pOlicies and procedures;
.
Prepare recommendations for addressing parking needs, including parking
management, shared use opportunities and transportation modality;
.
Develop a parking management plan for efficiently and effectively utilizing
parking resources, and
.
Provide education and information to the public about public parking,
including the cost of providing and maintaining parking.
Rich and Associates staff began the study in December 2006. This included a
complete inventory of existing parking supply and building land uses, parking turn-
over and occupancy counts for on-street and off-street parking, and one public
meeting to discuss the purpose of the study and then listen to comments and
concerns from stakeholders.
There were additional stakeholder meetings in January 2007: review of Best Practices
presentations to stakeholders in February, presentations of findings to stakeholders in
March and presentations of recommendations to stakeholders in April.
The following is a summary of a few of the best practices applicable to Chula Vista:
. Strong parking management requires a designated leader and a parking
committee made up of stakeholders and City representatives involved with
parking.
. Parking generation rates are moving towards requiring parking maximums as
opposed to minimums. Codes based upon individual land uses are moving to
a form based generation rate in which one parking ratio (generally per 1 ,ODD
square feet of area) for all land uses.
. Parking signage is necessary to introduce customers and visitors to the parking
system, There need to be signs prior to getting to the downtown, then similar
signage that directs parkers to the parking areas and names or identifies the
parking area and applicable parking rates and finally signage that directs the
parker to major destinations and streets once they have exited their vehicle.
. A parking system should be self-sufficient. This means that revenues are
sufficient to pay for operating expenses, capital maintenance and a reserve
fund for future projects. In general, this requires revenue generated within the
District remain in the District.
. Parking enforcement must be consistent. The enforcement officers must be
assigned only to parking enforcement duties. Hand held technology should
be used to write tickets and to enforce vehicles that are in violation.
. Consistent marketing of the parking system is key and includes branding the,
newsletters, web sites, maps etc.
. In a parking district there is a charge for all parking, and in general, the on-
street is priced higher than the off-street.
The overall findings and recommendations are:
A. Manaaement and Ooerations
1. In order to address potential parking needs of future restaurants and
entertainment establishments, the City should consider an ordinance
controlling how valet parking should operate.
2. The in lieu fee program should be maintained, though the cost should be
based on a reasonable percentage of the most recent estimate of
construction cost of a structured parking space.
3, Stakeholders had questions monies that had gone into the in lieu fund and
expenditures from the fund. There appeared to be no irregularities with either
the monies going into the fund or expenditures trom the fund.
4. Communication between the City and stakeholders needs to be consistent with
respect to the revenue and expenses of the parking system and the in-lieu
fund. An annual report should be prepared the details revenue received from
all sources of parking and then expenses. For the in lieu fund; revenue taken
in and expenditures from the fund should be reported.
5. Parking management is disjointed with no single point of contact. Rich and
Associates recommend a two-phase approach. The first phase is to form a
Parking Advisor Committee, appoint someone from the City's Community
Development department as the parking director, and treat parking as an
enterprise fund. The second phase once the parking system matures is to
consider hiring outside parking management.
6, The Downtown Parking District expired in 1999 but has continued to operate as
a district since that time. Rich and Associates recommend that the parking
meters remain to control parking use and to generate funds to improve the
parking system.
7. Marketing of parking is a crucial element in parking operations and must be
consistent. This includes for example consistent messages to employers and
employees on the importance of reserving the two and three-hour spaces for
customers and visitors.
8. The length of stay rules for Lots 2 and 3 should be modified trom two to three-
hours and permit sold specifically for parking in these lots and should be
priced higher than permits in other lots.
9. Parking rates at the meters and permit rates need to be increased to assist
paying for improvements. Stakeholders expressed an opinion that rates
needed to be increased, Meter rates itlcreases vary with the meter length of
stay. Permit rates would increase from $54.00 per quarter to $120.00 per
quarter in all lots except for lots 2 and 3. These lots would have permits sold
specifically for use in these lots and the quarterly rates are recommended to
be $180.00 per quarter.
10. Signage is an important element is marketing parking and for level of service
provided to parkers. Parking signage that direct people to different parking
areas, gives information about the type of parking available and identifies the
name of the lot are necessary. Parking signage in the downtown needs to be
updated and improved.
11. The paseos are resource since the majority of the off-street public parking
along Third Avenue is behind buildings. The paseos need to be better
identified on both the Third Avenue and lot side and then improved with
murals and additional lighting to make them inviting and interesting
12. Bicycle parking needs to be improved and promoted. This is consistent with
the UCSP vision. This should include improved bike racks with signage,
marketing of this amenity to the public to enhance bicycle use and if a new
parking structure is developed; including facilities in the parking structure for
bicycle storage, lockers and possible showers.
B. Parkina Enforcement
1. Enforcement is not consistent within the district. There needs to be
enforcement from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. using routes that are covered every
two hours. This may require two parking enforcement officers.
2. Parking fines should increase to $50.00, which brings Chula Vista's fines in line
with recommendations from the Parking Violation Penalty Schedule as
prepared by the San Diego Parking Penalties Executive Committee in June
2005. In addition, issue courtesy tickets to first time offenders that identity
where longer term parking, such as the Park Plaza parking structure, is
available,
3. The handheld ticket writers used by enforcement should be upgraded so
that they can be used to enter in plate numbers to track vehicles moving from
two-hour space to two-hour space during the day and to track vehicles with
unpaid parking tickets.
C. Parkina and Revenue Control
1. On-street meters are in poor condition and need to be replaced. In four
parking lots, multi-space meters are recommended instead of individual
meters.
D. Parkina Facilities
1. There are several parking lots that need resurfacing and other minor repairs.
Overall, signage within the parking areas needs to be improved. Lighting in
several lots needs to be repaired and upgraded. landscaping needs to be
maintained so that it does not provide a place for people to hide.
2. The Park Plaza parking structure is an underutilized asset. In order to make it
more attractive to parkers the signage and lighting needs to be improved, a
study made of the conditions of the facility and then physical repairs made to
the structure and possibly an elevator added to the north side.
E. Parkina Reauirements
1. Rich and Associates developed parking generation rates for land uses in Chula
Vista based on surveys of businesses and employees and on the results of the
occupancy studies. It was determined that a formed based parking
generation rate was consistent with the land uses in the study area and with
best practices.
2. Rich and Associates' analysis of parking spaces required for individual land
uses supports the formed based parking generation factor of 2.37 spaces per
1,000 square feet for all land uses. This finding supports the 2.0 formed based
parking generation rate identified in the UCSP.
3. Currently there is an overall parking surplus in the district, though there were
several blocks that did show deficits. With the changes proposed in the report
such as better utilization of the Park Plaza parking structure, there is sufficient
parking today,
4. Currently there is a surplus of parking in the district. The possibility of
development of ENA sites will eliminate parking in the district.
a. ENA development on lot 3 will eliminate existing parking spaces that
have a high occupancy rate and are central to many businesses on
landis and Third Avenue. Maintain lot 3 as a public parking lot if the
occupancy continues to be high after the recommended changes to
the lot and to the Park Plaza parking structure.
b. ENA development on lot 6 the City should pursue the Baptist Church
parking lot next to Lot 6, since the development planned would not
allow for replacement public parking to be developed on the site.
c. ENA development of lot 9 or 10 will require displaced parkers to use
Lots 8 and 11.
5. With maximum build-out of Third Avenueein the future based on the UCSP. there
is a potential shortfall of about 500 parking spaces although a significant
amount of new square footage could be developed without negatively
impacting the amount of available parking.
6. Three sites were identified for patential parking sites if required in the future:
. Site 1 Block 6: The vacant lot on the east side of Third between G and
Alvarado Streets.
. Site 2 Block 4: Baptist Church lot in combination with lot 7.
. Site 3 Block 1: West side of Church between E and Davidson Streets.
For any of these sites the City should consider a mixed-use facility that would
include ground floor commercial uses and possible housing above the parking
structure.
In summary, the parking in Chula Vista needs to be operated as a parking system.
There is positive momentum in the downtown. and as projects develop there will
be the need for stronger parking management and enforcement. There needs to
be a collaborative effort between the City and stakeholder with respect to the
overall parking planning, operation and communications. In order to monitor the
parking system and to fine tune the recommendations contained herein. we
strongly recommend that the study be updated every two years to monitor
changes in land uses and densities, parking utilization. enforcement and
communications.
Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study
Section One - Parking S1udy Overview
1.1 Background
This study. prepared for the City of Chula Vista's downtown, serves to examine
the existing parking system from both a qualitative and quantitative
standpoint. The City of Chula Vista contracted RICH (Rich and Associates) to
prepare a parking planning study wl1ich would inventory and review the
existing parking and make recommendations regarding the development of
potential future parking. A number of issues were examined including
operations, management, in-lieu of parking fees. enforcement, current and
future parking demand. development scenarios. and future parking needs.
For this project, RICH initiated the process with a field study, meetings and
stakeholder interviews. Data collected as background material was analyzed
using methods that involve statistical analysis and survey feedback from user
groups. The study drew on standards developed by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Urban Land Institute (ULI). which were
modified as necessary according to the survey results from Chula Vista in order
to suit the unique circumstances present in the downtown. Considerations for
this study include levels of development/redevelopment, the number of
restaurants and banquet halls, speCialty retail stores and the planned
development of residential units in the downtown.
Within the primary study area. which encompassed the parking district plus
additional area, the parking supply consists of a mix of on-street and off-street
parking. The on-street spaces are primarily metered with a small number of
spaces signed with time restrictions. The off-street parking supply consists of a
mix of surface parking and two parking structures; one public and one
privately owned. The majority of the parking supply within this area is publicly
provided by the city with several smaller lots privately controlled by individual
businesses.
1.2 Best Practices
RICH presented information on Parking Best Practices and Strategies to the
community at the February 2007 public meeting. This presentation
represented the most effective practices that other communities have
9 Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
1-1
811/2007
Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study
successfully planned. implemented and managed to address their parking
needs.
In summary, the most relevant Best Practices applicable to Chula Vista are:
. Strong parking management requires a designated leader and a
parking committee made up of stakeholders and City representatives
involved with parking.
. Parking generation rates are moving towards requiring parking
maximums as opposed to minimums. Codes based upon individual
land uses are moving to a forrn based generation rate in which one
parking ratio (generally per 1 ,000 square feet of area) for all land uses.
. Parking signage is necessary to introduce customers and visitors to the
parking system. There need to be signs prior to getting to the downtown,
then similar signage that directs parkers to the parking areas and
names or identifies the parking area and applicable parking rates and
finally signage that directs the parker to major destinations and streets
once they have exited their vehicle.
. A parking system should be self-sufficient. This means that revenues are
sufficient to pay for operating expenses, capital maintenance and a
reserve fund for future projects. In general, this requires revenue
generated within the District remain in the District.
. Parking enforcement must be consistent. The enforcement officers must
be assigned only to parking enforcement duties. Hand held
technology should be used to write tickets and to enforce vehicles that
are in violation.
. Consistent marketing of the parking system is key and includes
branding the, newsletters, web sites, maps etc.
. In a parking district there is a charge for all parking, and in general, the
on-street is priced higher than the off-street.
~
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
1-2
811/2007
Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study
1 .3 - Scope of Services
Phase One of developing the Downtown Parking Management Study involves
quantifying and qualifying the parking needs in the study to determine the
parking demand for the study area. This was done through fieldwork,
utilization studies, surveys and a series of public and stakeholder meetings.
The flow chart below details the process.
Parking Supply
Determme by
cond uctlOg
on-street & off-
street
Inventones
Land Use
Determme by
conductmg
bUIlding Inventory
for each block
Utilization
Determine
geographic
dlstnbutlon of
parkmg
utilization levels
User Surveys
To obtain parking
characteristics
unique to Chula
Vista
Parking needs analysis
Parking needs detennination
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
1-3
811/2007
Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study
Phase Two of the Downtown Parking Management Study involves reviewing the
current parking system, the existing parking facilities. parking policy, parking
signage, wayfinding, and enforcement. RICH then develops
recommendations for short and long term parking improvements that combine
the parking system and management improvements, with capital
improvements as needed. The flow chart below details the process.
Preliminary Program
Site Analysis
Design Analysis
System Analysis
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
1-4
811/2007
Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study
1 .4 - study Area
The study area, as determined by the City of Chula Vista and RICH, is
illustrated in the Map 1 (study Area Map) located on the following page.
RICH evaluated the parking conditions, supply and activity of the 15-block
study area. The study area was divided into a primary area (the blocks north
of "G" street) as well as a secondary study area, which are the blocks between
G and H Streets.
Though not in the study area, the transit focus areas (H and E Street stations)
were evaluated as part of the turnover and occupancy analysis since they are
part of the transit operation. RICH reviewed transit usage based on
statistics provided by the City.s Transit Division. In general, over the last year
there has been a five percent increase in ridership counts on Third Avenue
between E and H Streets. This increase in ridership is a positive indicator that
the goal to promote other modes of transportation as envisioned by the UCSP
is achievable. This is a factor that was considered by RICH when formulating
the formed based parking generation factor discussed in Section 2.4 of this
report. This information is important since one of the goals of the city is to
enhance alternate modes of transportation and promote the use of other
available modes of transportation such as buses. trolley, bicycling and
walking. The bus and trolley lines are fundamental options for customers and
visitors to the downtown that decrease the need for driving and parking.
The study area consists of a mix of land uses including residential, retail,
restaurants, small homes that have been converted into businesses, a
government use (Social Security Office), medical and dental offices. The stUdy
area also includes several larger commercial buildings at the southern end
and several storefronts that have been converted into banquet facilities along
the Third Avenue corridor. This mix of land uses is fairly typical in medium sized
downtowns with the exception of the banquet facilities. The banquet facilities
are important since in general their
In addition to the existing land uses. RICH considered the 24 Hour Fitness
facility. expected to open in Summer 2007, in the former theater location on
Third Avenue. Based on our experience, the peak demand for this type of
facility is early morning and evening. This should not significantly impact
Chula Vista's parking availability since this is typically when parking demand
for the District is lower. The existing and future mix of uses was evaluated and
considered in our assessment of the overall District and Study' Area.
~
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
!:'lfB Parking Consultants - Planners
1-5
811/2007
- -
..
.L
s; ~
z
~ ~ 5 ,
lL -- <
H. ~! . w>-
>- 0 i ""
Ihli!ll! << e} ~
0 ~~ () " ~~
~ < ~ ~
- W 0
OCJ) <( a:
" w :> ~ (((~ ~! <( I , ~
F= ~ >-
Z j :5 0 e I ! .
>2 1I:::l ~ ~ ~ , h
II: ::l I ~
< ~13 I Ul
ll... ()
".is "H.
,. - - -~-I- - - - - - - -.,
I
I
18
I
I
I
I
I
:@
I
I
I
I
I
~ :8
".is 9.;3}Jd):::> I
Ie
I
I
I
:@
I
~
< @: e ~
< I <
I 0
I .
I
I
@Ie
".lSOClVoS'V^'''''
@
,s
.,
"l<;.3"
".is ~3.LN:::J?
-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"1 .L l31\3S00~
@
@
II ~
.
I
I
I
I
I
@ I
I
I
I
I
--
.
I
I
@ I ~
~ I@
"
. I ~
6 I
z .
. < <
" I .
I
I
I
@ I@
I
I
I
.
'.LS).~Vd
'u--rFlFl
J
Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study
1.5 Community Outreach and Participation
RICH conducted a series of four community meetings where input and
information regarding parking issues was gathered. In addition, there were
individual and group meetings between members of RICH staff and local
organizations and stakeholders to discuss parking issues. RICH also
conducted a business manager sut\ley and an employee survey. This
provided RICH with information from businesses in Chula Vista that was then
used to calculate parking generation rates specific to Chula Vista and not just
based on a national. average.
Following is a summary of the meetings that were held and the subjects
covered:
Community Meetinas
. December 12, 2006: Morning public meeting to present the project
approach, schedule and to gather comments by community and
stakeholders on specific parking issues.
. February 15, 2007: Presentation of an overview of Parking Best Practices
for parking to community and stakeholders in a morning and evening
meeting.
. March 8, 2007: Presentation of findings from fieldwork and investigation
to community and stakeholders in a morning and evening meeting.
. April 12. 2007: Presentation of preliminary recommendations to the
community and stakeholders in a morning and evening meeting.
Stakeholder Meetinas
. Week of December 11, 2006: Meetings with individual stakeholders in
two public meetings to discuss the study process and to gather
comments on parking issues.
. January 11 and 12, 2007: Meetings with specific stakeholder groups
including Third Avenue Village Association (TAVA), Chula Vista Chamber
of Commerce. and Landis properly owners to discuss specific issues that
these groups have and understand their perspectives.
A copy of each of the Power Point presentations distributed at the community
meetings is included as Exhibit 1 (Powerpolnt Presentations).
~
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
1-6
811/2007
Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study
1.6 History of Parking District
1.6.1 Establishment of a District
(cited from information provided by Diem Do. City of Chula Vista)
In 1963. in response to a citizen-initiated petition, the City Council created the
Downtown Parking District (DPD) under provisions of the California Parking
District Law of 1951. The goal was to, promote the development of public
parking in the core downtown. The DPD encompasses an area surrounding
Third Avenue, roughly from E Street to G Street and one and a half blocks east
and west of Third Avenue.
It was at this time that parking meters were installed on some streets in the DPD.
Certain city owned properties as well as privately owned properties that were
acquired for parking were designated for parking development.
Funding for the DPD came from a transfer of $320,000 from the City.s general
fund. This was used to establish a Parking District NO.1 Acquisition and
Improvement Fund (PDAIF).
In forming the DPD, the City agreed to maintain parking meters for 36 years or
that portion of 36 years that there is remaining interest or principle on the
bonds. Though bonds were never issued, but the initial allocation of General
Fund money was approved by ordinance to act as the bond issuance. The
DPD did function as it was intended. although there was no assessment levied
to property owners and no bonding of District monies. Technically. the DPD's
obligation to maintain meters and designate funds generated within the
District for parking-related expenses expired in 1999. The City has continued
to maintain the district and utilize revenue for administration and
maintenance.
1.6.2
In-Lieu Fees
In 1980 the City adopted in-lieu fee policy for Sub Area 1 of the Town Centre 1
Project Area. The Town Centre 1 Project Area has different boundaries than
the Parking District, although it encompasses a great deal of the DPD. Please
refer to the map located on the following page for a comparison of the District
and In-Lieu Fee Policy boundaries.
The in-lieu policy states that instead of providing on-site parking. developers in
Sub Area 1 have the option of paying a fee. which relieves the developer from
~
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
1-7
811/2007
Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study
providing the required on-site parking. The fee was not intended to guarantee
anyone specific parking areas or spaces within those areas.
The in-lieu fee is based upon the number of required parking spaces for the
development multiplied by 350 square feet and then multiplied by 25% of the
fair market value of the land all divided by four. The formula is:
Number of soaces reauired x 350 x 25% of fair market value
4
The fees collected under this policy are to be used for the purchase or
development of parking sites which benefit the Sub Area. The land value
figure currently utilized in this calculation is $20.00 per square foot.
In 1987, the City granted the Redevelopment Agency the ability to use the in-
lieu fee revenue to acquire or develop land for publiC parking.
~
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultonts - Planners
1-8
811/2007
Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study
1.6.3 Park Plaza Parking Structure
Around 1984 the City constructed the Park Plaza parking structure located at
the intersection of F Street and Third Avenue. The structure contains
approximately 633 parking spaces and is free to the public and provides
parking for the adjacent property owners. Under an agreement with the
adjacent property owners, the City paid for all of the construction and finance
costs on the condition that the property owners pay the City defined flat rates
and percentage payments for the use of the parking structure. Payments
were established for a period of 33 years. The property owners are
responsible for the general maintenance/housekeeping of the parking
structure and the City is responsible for the capital repairs.
1 .7 Urban Core Specific Plan
(CiIed from a document prepared by Diem Do. City of Chula VISIa)
The Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) is a zoning document that was adopted
recently by the City that follows the general direction of the City's General
Plan. It establishes a detailed vision, guidelines and regulations for the Urban
Core. The adopted UCSP contains parking standards, similar to those of other
communities where increased mobility by all modes is encouraged.
The UCSP contains guidelines concerning parking and transit that focus on
creating a more pedestrian oriented downtown core. The UCSP proposes
changes that will increase densities, widen sidewalks, reduce traffic lanes and
institute bike lanes. thus creating a pedestrian oriented core with intensified
transportation routs linking people to the downtown. Once a person is in the
downtown core walking becomes the preferred method of transportation,
rather than driving and parking to each destination. thereby fulfilling the "Park
once shop twice" mentality.
Foundational to the UCSP is promoting the pedestrian first, then bicycles. transit
and automobiles. The USCP places a strong significance on a transportation
plan that is well linked to multiple modes of transportation. This plan places
importance on H Street serving as the transportation node to pedestrian
movement on Third Avenue. This approach takes the priority from the car and
places it on the pedestrian thus changing the number of single vehicle trips,
slightly reducing the number of parking stalls needed in the downtown, and
creating a more pedestrian oriented downtown core.
~
=~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
1-9
811/2007
Chula Vista Parking Study
Section Two - Analysis
2.1 Introduction
Analyses were performed to determine the current and future parking
demands and general parking needs for the study area considering the Urban
Core Specific Plan. Also, work was done to determine how the parking was
being operated and how elements relqted to parking were being used. The
data collected and compiled by RICH included;
. An inventory of on and off-street parking supplies in the study area
. Turnover and occupancy studies for public and private on and off-street
parking areas
. Permit parking occupancy study for off-street public parking areas
. Block-by-block analysis of the square footage and use of every building in
the core study area. The footprint of each building was scaled and
estimated from an aerial photograph and cross referenced with RICH field
notes regarding land use and the number of floors per building to
determine an approximate gross floor area for each building. It should be
noted that this methodology does not result in precise reporting of square
footage of land use
. Review of the conditions of each parking area
. Review of signage. graphics and way finding
. Meetings with City staff and stakeholders to discuss parking operations and
policies
2.2 Parking Inventory
Based on RICH and Associates' research we believe that if a city is going to
successful manage a parking program that it is desirable to have public
control of at least 50 percent of the parking supply. This allows the city to
effectively manage the parking in terms of allocation and market pricing. City
control of over half of the parking also allows the parking to be enforced with
greater efficiency. Therefore, within both the total study area and within the
primary stUdy area, the city meets or exceeds the control criteria.
~
~ Rich and Associates, Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
2-1
8/1/2007
Chula Vista Parking Study
City control of over half or more of parking in the downtown also allows the
parking to be enforced with more efficiency when properly performed. With
management and enforcement, parking can also be used as an economic
incentive. This allows the city to respond to use changes in the downtown and
work with development proposals more effectively.
In the Study Area, there are a total of 3.361 parking spaces, and of these, 600
are on-street, 1,158 are public off-street and 1.603 are private off-street
parking. The on-street parking consists ,of 12 different types of spaces. These
include unrestricted parking, metered spaces ranging from 15-minute time
limits to ten-hour time limits and one or two-hour time limit free parking.
Within the total study area, the City of Chula Vista controls 52 percent of the
parking in the downtown. Within the primary study area. which includes the
blocks north of G Street. the number of spaces the city controls rises to 80
percent.
On the following page is Map 2 (Parking Supply Map), illustrating the existing
parking supply in the Study Area. For details on the actual parking supply in
the downtown study area refer to Exhibit 2 (Table 2A-Parklng Supply Summary).
The information contained in Exhibit 2 is based upon atual counts by RICH
staff. In most cases, the parking spaces could be definitively counted. In
some cases though, the number of parking spaces was estimated, especially
where spaces were not well marked.
2.3 Turnover and Occupancy Study
Initially, turnover and occupancy counts were undertaken in the downtown
study area over the course of two consecutive business days to compare and
contrast how parking varied. This was followed up by a specific analysis of
permit parking in city off-street lots, and then a one day limited occupancy
count in March to assure RICH that the original counts that were conducted in
December were not underestimating the parking usage.
The turnover portion of the analysis, where license plate numbers were
recorded, applied to city controlled on-street and off-street spaces with time
limits less than ten-hours to determine how long individual vehicles where
parked in certain spaces and if they were moving their vehicles to avoid
being cited for overtime parking. In the ten-hour metered spaces and in
private off-street spaces, the number of parking spaces occupied was
observed during each two-hour circuit. The turnover information also yields an
~
3S: Rich and Associates, Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
2-2
8/1/2007
'I '--c_ _,'
c'
. "
,
.'.f -~
. '.".
J .,-,'..1
...._,.. ~;l,
~l-j-~l;- ,~~-~'~'-.--r r...:&.1'
'i ; '1- __.'~.~- - ~?- >>-4-
-j . .... ,_. , ':;-~II~,:: 'i'~ ~'t 'y.
I ' -- It..,~~~:. ~~~':.ll-l~:,J" ,
~ _ ____ ~ J'- .~ --T~'-"&""
I i..;:.ijtj-'~'; ~:~:l ,1,i t..l'
~~~~r": <1!111 -'~~~"',:,~ .';'".,...:;.:
J .' 1';.:'1 Hl1.~, . 'LCJ"
i....-- ~ ~
.... -----.. ~
, . '.; J~l' .
,c. .': atc.c'
c_-J.:.""_"~'" _,~ ....-.'7 ___~_...J_,..;.:...___ (
R;;t~ .15~t!jlJ~tl~iI1]:
... ' . ,,-- '." '. -~~. ~
-,' ......... fiI' .'"
-:t. .;::~,-'.. \......~..,..~...... -- -...
,'ec.- . II' t.&. ," I
, , '"II .P....'~... ~L
~' j,,~l 'It. ~Cc."_."c~ ~1'-7
~.... . . Q~' ,'" "t. ,~~,,: .;--.. '-.-. J"j-; -.
..;JOc.1 . '.'.,' "11 "."'"
, ~~_... ....... . 1.'70-: '. '.'l> <. _ ~ ... ._~~ ~
'._~.. . -,.,. ,- ,', ."
\1...., '. ". '. . .1 '
r- c"" 'u" ~
.1;:' ,..~ ..
....0.-',' '.' 'c' '11 '.' ,
'.,., 1: . ~; . -+ ,
~ .' I' ......~
~ ~-"" ......~
'W 'UA' . -; ''''. '
'~lII"lll l'IS' .!!h}'........"'....1
j.--~ ~ 'II; '111151 "-::,1' .."....,;. _._' '~;",,- . Z\t8' -." c.~..'.
0.;'.: :..:-=-'-h1~!!;..~D. ~llr;..)}! -: .~ ""9
~..,'-.....-.- mf< - tt.)l., ~."" '.
.....~.: ),".,. I.i,--,..~ ""iI:. ~.
· ;'u' ;:-'.'. .. ~. - . _"~, k"/ . i,l
, cJW' .... ~J": t.~r.'\.....; - .,.
r.~ :'!CL_''''-"""""",\" .-'<"_1'< ~ {,_...t-O
. -O-""""",--y" ''''. Q- . . , .'1""' .
I -...."i.""'-'___..."~__,,~._- r........t, . ;.
. ,;-; '.""~;..." :,,,',L;, .:,,,~, ~ '~'? Ji
"-.~~i'" ':::;y::;' . '.\.; R~ -.,,- <- .. t -\.,
_."...., ~ ',1 .. ~'ll~ ~.
'. ::i~l~!i(, 0 ~ ~.J _,.;' p ",if'
'11-i~ Jrr~;~. r,r "1JJ -. )~:;;
__.-L._\._....:..l......~-,.....~.- -1 fL.
L~..,~:L~l.=::.'..~ii:;~.~. =y:(": .' -c - "-. ~ ..
KEY
iIlII PF<o'i.',TC;
...
.. b ~1~., 30 ~'I'i
_ LJNMARI<ED(tJ-)
_ 4 HR. METERED
""
- ''''
_ lOHR lMETF,RE{))
.._-.~-
. .."
.. "I oj
'n
,'" ~'
~./_. .
.~
.~;
, \:. ~
.).4:.1 ~,
. ~ 1:.. ..
,,0> ',~.
..' . ~
.i
-4'Jt~
.~.....
r:"" .'
,..
:~
~-
"'-"'T
":__i6
.. I ~; ,:.0.,.,...::
,,__.j I ,- _.. J;j ,..: ........... . .a
...... .,) !lUa.',.. -'.., ",' ~'''' """
'~i". ~..~:;:ll.;::;J ;~; ,<~ i l
,.-;31 . ~~' -;C~ ~jfo.fl' .. ~ - .u.,
~ ;-",;".'~c -i.~'~}-: '-';.' ..:" ... :~.
. i. -,....-~-'rJiiiL.. "I..,
- - .... ,.. .. -.. '" ,-
"., ... > ~U"'":'W.; --'':.i,- t- ~;
ill~Ji~.~"'~."";':"'~.L-. ---... "!it'
.._ . ,,'-c. . 0.....
-"
J.',
t..,,~ .~
. .'
"w.;':"''''''l.', 0
.' ~jl!:>....:::.,_ :1:
<--...
",~,.
of,-
. lJ "I
!'-.........\ -.1
:...... <I
.,
~
~l
,j ..~>
h.1.i: l~ ".
<i. , .....' J -, ' ..,.
.-, _-'0 I ' . ,
: -,~..Q\ . ..cto..':~J.,.
"" -.,. ~- , -.r -- I
:"""\ .0
~.'
l ~ ,....~_,
1:11-"
~ .. l:' \+'
,..".;;,j.l"'" "",--
! -': '----, ~ -.
i: -, -...... ,
~_.~: ~ ~:1. t- . " ,~. ........
~_' ,'t .. ,_."c' .
~':1 ~i, "
'~.... II.-- ~ , ~A.,... ~
, '. ...... . -, - ,.-./
~..: o::.-~~. i ,U' ?
-~~_~ =; .~__.~!___ ~ ~'~;_~.^'_~~l
'"
f~_'"
~. . lID c'
" -0
.. -2
C.
, . '-
~"1.1~
~ ".,., .~~ .-
<, i;'
PARKING STUDY
FOR THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
CHULA VISTA. CAUFORNIA
,r-
........ ."kln,ro",ul"""
~Archjl.<"'i:nJ!I".."
~"."...
......
RICH"'.'."""
AASWClATES _'Kh",~,.,,'
DWG.1TTl.E:
PARKING SUPPLY
MAP 2
LEGEND
(!) BL()G,K ~
~
filE,
~
S<:"'-E, ~_'5
PAGE' 2-4
Chula Vista Parking Study
occupancy results for the parking area and therefore for each circuit a
composite occupancy was derived.
Turnover is an indicator of how often a parking stall is being used by different
vehicles throughout the course of the day. Turnover is relevant to time periods
when parking meter limitations (or time limits for non metered spaces) are
being enforced and is most important to short-term customer and visitor
parking.
,
Occupancy is an important aspect of parking because it helps us to
understand the dynamic of how parking demand fluctuates thought the day.
Likewise. the occupancy can be used to illustrate how parking demand is
impacted by events in the downtown area. Overall, the occupancy data was
used by RICH to calibrate the parking demand model.
The following are definitions used for the turnover and occupancy analysis:
. Turnover - Turnover is the number of vehicles that occupied a parking
space in a particular period. For example. if a parking lot has 100
spaces and during the course of the day 250 different vehicles
occupied the lot, then the turnover is two and a half times (2.5).
. Occupancy - the length of time a parking space is occupied by a
vehicle.
. Circuit - A circuit refers to the two-hour time period between
observances of anyone particular parking space. For the turnover and
occupancy study, a defined route was developed for each survey
vehicle. One circuit of the route took approximately two hours to
complete and each space was observed once during that circuit.
. Block Face - A number was assigned to each block within the study
area. Each block is then referenced by its block number and by a letter
(A. B. C or D). The letter refers to the cardinal face of the block; with (A)
being the north face, (B) the east face. (C) the south face and (D) the
west face. Therefore, a block designated as 1A would refer to the north
face of block 1 .
2.3.1 Turnover and Occupancy Analysis
(December 14 and December 15, 2006)
~
~ Rich and Associates, Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
2-3
811/2007
Chula Vista Parking Study
. The turnover and occupancy analysis took place on Thursday,
December 14, 2006 and again on Friday. December 15, 2006
beginning at 9:00 A.M. with the final circuit beginning at 7:00 P.M. The
analysis covered public and private parking in and around Chula
Vista's downtown core.
. These typical business days were selected to look at turnover and to see
how employee-parking utilization was impacting the parking
operations.
. Turnover was recorded from 9:ob A.M. through 7:00 P.M. Although a
circuit began at 7:00 P.M., metered spaces are only enforced through
6:00 P.M.; therefore the final circuit recorded occupancy only. During
the turnover analysis, license plate numbers were recorded in virtually
all on-street spaces and the municipal lot spaces that were restricted to
less than ten-hour parking.
. From 5:00 P.M. until 7:00 P.M. public and private parking was counted
for an occupancy analysis only, no license plates were recorded.
Following are Map 3 (December 14. 2006 Peak Hour) and 4 (December 15.
2006 Peak Hour) illustrating the peak hour demand observed during the two-
day turnover and occupancy counts.
:=..
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
2-4
8/1 /2007
-j .. ..~. ,..
. j .... _ "oil: l__ -_~.t.:, ".~..
~.--_.' ~
I"~I'':-' O-:":'~' f';~' -7 ,.(
~.... .. .,.... ::---,:~..,-" 'J'" .... .... ....
~ . ."- -.." ..... ' , .. . -, , ~/ I'.
.' It........... .....,..,j..,
,j __...... _-, ~. . :!"' ~.-.".,.o.... ,~.L
I
~--" ....1
It)>
~~i
a k"
k. "LL;llt.!t.';
...,<~~.
I ..... .....r'..' .
'I ,~I~:~J~
....... ------;-
, .~. ,,,":; , .J ai . Wi
-....;. '.\.;,-~ ..~- _.~'-~.<-_....,., -~.......~----
;> Q'iJ . t1e'~t [j~.IHaB1
'"iT:: Iii -
- ;::':OJ: ~ ,":
-,'A':~
. t. ,.'
-...J l~ .-,;;7. JOi' i, .,.,.:..~ ,to ~ ~ r.~j-",
- ..~...\'oi.';..r"L-"l'I' I '-", - .....r'
" ',I......> ....L.!!f.. ~.. . ..J -
, j :.-,{",' -'~T l;"- :...--:~;.. -I.. ' ~. . ') .~;..;: (- >
..,.... ..a'll, Je.: ~, ,. ."_c'. I~ . ..... ,"."" ...-"..- .,... ~
'";il' Q~ .U"'ll';-,,~: :.;. ''''::''~.' .;;';:::' .:.' j);":'~:~~:-:.. :-:,~ ,-~
~ .. . ......', . ''''''" ""'" ' ,.a"
::. ~~...~... .. '''~''.V :-"9-"Jft~ rf'!' "t-:;f:_~__ ___~~: ,jt~ . .!:
_ --" "0" _ ..-, ..' -, . ~~. ..t~ ~p"a" lilt . ..l"..l. .;..: )., --j
II"..... . .,.,&:' Ill" "'''II j ," i ~. ,~....;..-,-.. . ..-.,-
rt;' ~'~./.~ " I V : [- "iiYi, --.~ r: :-
':~O~:V U,i /.' '~'~Jl .j~Jl'-h(~.~.~t.'~l '~ '=:~
C' fIIltl. ....~. : ,.;;,"q -~ _ ',0-;:
~;W&;; ~:m'~r;o'.~II-!:;~~~_:-~.' 'tJ ~L3
~~1.:.~ '-- ,.
." ,.........
.'.. .
...._ ....4'4
~~ .. ."..
~~ .
II
."
. \.~.
_'~~).t ,;JI.
,::-.: ~ /"f
,,., }"..",
/..
! Jill,
,r,.'
A,~',
,.-- ~ ". .j
-:
'I)," .,.-;,.,..;,. ,.. !l\.""J'(tl' n...;l' "'.......;!
. =., t it- .::,j l~, r 'iI~ ..~. ..aC1!11,..,,,
!~'.~.~fuo_.-J. tiIii-~,_
~."..,_.. .
); ,J i.~'~ ~..7t~ r ill P "'\ . _.
" .., '., -~""'--O:~~?-,Q;.'..' ~ i:
, . JJ.,' hl~ ,;-..,~.' ~'i1 ~. ~-'i: "...., _,_.
;_,~~i. .:=-,~ ft
!"7. -." -t.... ~*
. . '~I~i:'~.~. 1~.!,~' C ~:; ~tf 'J~."
,J 'c'" '." ~f. ,It Iii I
,'.~,}': -i.!r:1~:~"':' Q/f~'"
,__L...\'I._._,.__'lt=,- .>- '-'~ ._ilL.
""""1..-.....,~..............._. ..........
M"a...-;'--:-~.~""'~~~ :--...
"f'" ...'1. .i._ ,~ ~..' I.... ~ .
.
........---.,-.,..
'. ,
'.
it-',
';...,'1 ~,
~ j".. e;
".,..G',.'
,. -' ~ .
,.Ai
--..( - (~
. "'<< ....
.~;:;:.' "
....1!...
.. ....--
.!..-
. -.,-..,0i
~- --
· '..' >['j II Wi
",. n,,01it. ,
-.-....... . H .1.' '-4
...... l~. -.~
.....""!
ll.l: ..-'
-',.. r
'-'-"~~f '
.
~
~... .-'-
J: 1 I''''
l:' \,i.,
'''''1 ~:
I . _~~; ~
'.'-/'
~. 1iIU.
-0
-- -~~
=
~.~,
",-'..,_ 4 ~
>-,"..'
~~.. ':L.
,.fMM .'ll,
~~... L.- . ~ .. ._.&.; ._...~
, '. -"". . - I.....'
_'.... ._.... J.. _.'. ' _'::r
.-;:~~o ~':t ~'l}
. '" 1.. .;', ,., )'/'-'2
___~__.-I _._....~ .__-:'l._.._.. ._..~...~ _____--r:::
.
...'....M
. ~ -~
;i :t 1 ; j la-I!
~
'"
PARKING STUDY
FOR THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
.
~
CHULA VISTA, CAUFORNIA
'.
...... P"k;OI (omullan15
~A"hl'e<"'I.ngID""
:=s::: Plan"'''
.....
RICH ',,,."'~',,,
",A<SOClAns_"'''"M'O",
':~
DWG. TJ1LE:
r
PEAK HOUR
12-14-06 - noo am 10 1:00 pm
MAP 3
LEOEND
o BLOCK #
_ B5% - 100%
15% - B4%
_ 50%-14%
iuJ';;;~; 0 - 4'1%
~
~
~_N.T5
PAGE'
PARKING STUDY
FOR THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA
...-... Porki., (On'"'''"''
~ArChl<ec".Enllnc'"
~plonn."
.....
RICH \:::.,,",...
..~SSOCIATES ~.,,",,~""
DWG. TTTl.E'
PEAK HOUR
12-15-06 - 100 pm 10 300 pm
MAP 4
LEOEi'V
o BLOCK.
_ B5% - 100%
15% -Mil>
__ 5()%-14%
.''''........ 0 - 4'1%
-
~
~-'LE,".T~
PAGE:
Chula Vista Parking Study
2.3.2 Tumover Results
On-Street 2-Hour Spaces
There were 1,123 vehicles observed parking in two-hour on-street spaces on
the Thursday December 14, 2006, survey date. Of the vehicles observed, 14
percent of the vehicles parked at two-hour on-street meters were staying
beyond the legal limit on the Thursday survey date. It is possible that some of
the vehicles were observed twice in the same spot though they would not
have exceeded the time limit. This would have occurred if a vehicle parked
just before it was observed and then left just after the surveyor had passed the
second time. An acceptable rate for overtime parking is approximately three
percent.
There were 1,1 24 vehicles observed in on-street spaces on the Friday survey
date. The results of the Friday survey were very similar to the results found on
the Thursday survey for the two-hour spaces except that about 1 7 percent
stayed longer than two hours.
Another factor to consider is the turnover of spaces. Depending on
occupancy levels, we would normally expect a turnover rate of four for two-
hour spaces. For the Thursday count. the turnover rate was 2.41 times which is
reasonable. The on-street spaces on the Friday, December 15. 2006. survey
date had an average turnover of approximately 2.27 times.
Off-Street4-Hour Spaces
The four-hour metered spaces in off-street lots were also observed for turnover
as was the lot adjacent to Fuddruckers and the metered spaces off the alleys.
On the Thursday. December 14, 2006, survey date about 16 percent of the
vehicles parking at four-hour meters stayed longer than four hours. The
turnover in these spaces on the Thursday was 2.32 times, which was very close
to the on-street ratio observed. On the Friday survey only four percent stayed
longer than four hours. The 16 percent is higher than is typically acceptable.
Tables 28 (December 14, 2006 Tumover Summary) and 2C (December 15,
2006 Turnover Summary) provide a summary of the turnover count conducted
on December 14-15. 2006.For the complete results of the Turnover and
Occupancy counts, please refer to Exhibit 3 (Table 2D-December 14, 2006,
Tumover and Occupancy Table) and Exhibit 4 (Table 2E-December 15, 2006,
Tumover and Occupancy Table).
~
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
i\i2! Porking Consultants - Planners
2-5
811/2007
Chula Vista Parking Study
Table 28
Turnover Summary December 14, 2007
Parking Turnover Summary (by type) On-Street & Off-Street Parking Off-Street Parki ng
2hr oarkinq 4hr parkinq
Vehicles that remained 2 hours or less 964 (66%) 316 (73%)
Vehicles that remained betw'een 2 and 4 hours 106 (10%) 67 (15%)
Vehicles that remained between 4 and 6 hours , 30 (3%) 16(4%)
Vehicles that remained between 6 and 8 hours 12(1%) 19 (4%)
Vehicles that remained between 8 and 10 hours 9 (0.8%) 13 (4%)
Total number of vehicles analyzed 1,123 433
Source: Rich and Associates Field Observations, December 14, 2007
Table 2C
Turnover Summary December 15, 2007
Parking Turnover Summary (by type) On-Street & Off-Street Parking Off-Street Parkl ng
2hr oarkina 4hr oarkina
Vehicles that remained 2 hours or less 929 (83%) 468 (90%)
Vehicles that remained between 2 and 4 hours 121 (11%) 34(6%)
Vehicles that remained between 4 and 6 hours 29 (3%) 9 (2%)
Vehicles that remained between 6 and 8 hours 28 (2%) 6(1%)
Vehicles that remained between 8 and 10 hours 17(1%) 3(1%)
Total number of vehicles analyzed 1,124 520
Source: Rich and Associates Field Observations, December 15..2007
2.3.3 Occupancy Results
. The peak occupancy for all on-street parking in the stUdy area for
Thursday peaked at 64 percent between 3:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. For
the Friday survey the peak occupancy was also 64 percent but this
occurred at two time periods: the 1 :00 P.M. to 3:00 P.M. circuit and the
7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. circuit. For both survey days the average
occupancy during the daytime was about 57 percent.
. The publiC off-street parking peaked at 60 percent for the Thursday
survey (11 :00 A.M. to 1 :00 P.M.). For the Friday survey. the peak
occurred from 1 :00 P.M. to 3:00 P. M. with 54 percent of the spaces
occupied. Of particular note was the Park Plaza parking structure,
~
=~ Rich and Associates, Inc.
~LS\! Parking Consultants - Planners
2-6
8/1 /2007
Chula Vista Parking Study
which had peak occupancy of only 42 percent on Thursday from 11 :00
AM. to 1 :00 P.M. The average occupancy of this parking during the
daytime was only 34 percent. With a total of 633 spaces in the
structure. this represents an underutilized resource.
. The 11 :00 AM. to 1 :00 P.M. circuit was the peak occupancy period for
the private off-street spaces on the Friday survey date at 58 percent
occupancy. On the Thursday survey date, the 3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.
,
circuit was only slightly greater than the 11 :00 AM. circuit with 53
percent occupied.
. Using a composite of all parking areas. the Thursday survey day had
peak occupancy of 47 percent, which occurred from 3:00 P.M. to 5:00
P.M. The Friday survey day had a higher overall occupancy of 56
percent, which occurred from 11 :00 AM. to 3:00 P.M.
. Lot 5 achieved 1 00 percent occupancy on both survey dates. Lot 2
peaked at 88 percent occupied on the Thursday survey date and 86
percent on the Friday date. The nearby Lot 3 peaked at 81 percent of
the spaces occupied on the Thursday survey date and 74 percent on
the Friday date. Lot 9 peaked at 100 percent of the spaces occupied
on the Friday survey date during the 9:00 AM. to 11 :00 AM. circuit and
90 percent during the 1 :00 to 3:00 P.M. circuit on the Thursday date.
. Lot 8 saw peak occupancy of 87 percent on Thursday but only 67
percent on the Friday date.
. RICH also prepared an update to the occupancy counts on March 8,
2007 since it was believed that the counts taken in December would be
lower due to the holiday season. It was determined that the
occupancies were very similar between the December 14th and 15th
2006 counts and the March 8. 2007 count.
2.3.4
Occupancy ConclusIons
. The on-street spaces had varying peak occupancies on both survey
days.
~
~ Rich and Associates, Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
2-7
8/1/2007
Chula Vista Parking Study
. The municipal lots had slightly higher occupancy during the daytime
hours on the Thursday survey date compared to the Friday survey date.
On Friday. the evening occupancy was higher.
. The Park Plaza parking structure (identified as Lot #4 in the occupancy
results) is grossly underutilized. At peak time it only reached 42 percent
occupancy.
. Based on the occupancies that Vfere observed for the three count days
and Rich and Associates in other downtowns. we believe that there
would be a variance of approximately five percent to the overall peak
occupancy of 64 percent that was observed during the counts. This
means that we would expect occupancy of 69 percent to occur at the
non-special event or holiday peak time.
2.3.5
Permit Occupancy
The City of Chula Vista currently provides permit parking, which allows an
employer or employees to prepay for parking in designated areas, currently
10-hour meters. The benefit to maintaining this program is that it provides the
City with upfront revenue but a 10-hour meter is unoccupied, the parking
space can be used by another non-permit vehicle. This results in additional
revenue to the City on top of the guaranteed permit fee received.
A separate survey was undertaken specifically to examine permit occupancy.
This task was completed on Thursday, February 15. 2007. For this survey, four
circuits of each of the ten municipal lots that had ten-hour meters were
completed. A parking permit displayed In a vehicle allows holders to park at
ten-hour meters without paying the meter. Observers recorded the occupancy
of the ten-hour spaces as well as what proportion had permits.
The results of the analysis of 324 ten-hour meters showed that 77 percent of
the ten-hour meters were occupied during the two morning circuits with a
maximum of 32 percent of those occupied spaces having permits. The results
for the afternoon circuits peaked with 82 percent of the ten-hour spaces
occupied but only about 25 percent having permits. It should be noted that
the survey date coincided with the weekly Farmer's Markel.
Lots 9 and 10 had 100 percent occupancy of the ten-hour meters certain
points of the day. In lot 10, there was an average of 80 percent of these with
~
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
2-8
8/1/2007
Chula Vista Parking Study
permits. The average occupancy in the rest of the lots was between 80 and
90 percent. For the ten municipal lots included in the analysis, the average
occupancy of the ten-hour spaces was 79 percent during the four circuits.
with 29 percent (on average) of these being permit-holders.
On the next page is Map 5 (Permit Occupancy), illustrating the results of the
Permit Occupancy study conducted on February 15. 2007. The complete
results of the analysis are included as Exhibit 5 (Table 2F-Permlt Occupancy
Results Table). '
2.4 Parking Demand Calculation
This section of the report reviews the projections of current and future parking
demand in the study area. For the current condition, RICH completed a
building inventory and then estimated the amount of square footage by land
use for each block.
In order to calculate the parking demand for each block. different land uses
for each block are in general multiplied by a parking generation rate specific
for that land use. RICH completed this using parking generation rates that
were based on the results of the business manager and employee surveys in
Chula Vista, RICH's experience with parking studies, ULI data and ITE data. This
process yields a set of parking generation rates that are customized
specifically to Chula Vista.
The ultimate goal however, was to developed a form-based parking
generation rate for Chula Vista. The formed based parking generation rate is
one rate for all land uses that takes into account the existing parking
generation rates but then makes adjustments based on the fact that different
land uses have different parking needs based on the time of the day. As an
example, restaurants typically require more parking during the evening.
Conversely, offices need less parking in the evening when restaurants are at
their peak. These examples demonstrate how shared parking could serve two
different uses. Both of these adjustments are used to calculate the number of
parking spaces needed. In addition, the level of alternate mode is a factor in
the adjustment.
~
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
2.9
811/2007
PARKING STUDY
FOR THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
CHULA VISTA "CAUFORNIA
--... Parkin, CQnsullo.n....
~A"hlt."".ED,lnnro
.-;.'IilrlPl.n.....
-..."""..""".""",,"
--'"" ".""" .......' .""
~::::;~~i;l;~
RICH":":;;:'"''
.ASSOClATE< _lk'''..".~
DWG. l11lE
PERMIT OCCUPANCY
2-15-07 - 1100 am to 1:00 pm
UAP 5
LEGEND
(!) BLOGK.
_ t'J5)t,-IOO%
15% - 84%
... 50%-14%
Wl"J"\~' 0 - 4'1'"
-
@
!:GN..E, ~.15
PAGE'
Chula Vista Parking Study
The Urban Core Specific plan anticipated a formed based parking generation
rate of 2.0 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of land use. RICH determined a rate
of 2.37 spaces per 1,000 square feet for all land uses in our model. While the
ratio we determined was higher than the 2.0 rate proposed by the UCSP, we
believe that the results support the UCSP ratio of 2.0 spaces per 1 .000 square
feet.
Rich applied the 2.37 rate to all existing land uses on each block of the study
area. Map 6 (Current Surplus and Defte" Map) illustrates the block-by block
surplus or deficit of parking. Please consult Exhibit 6 (Table 2G-Chula VIsta
Current Parking Demand ProJection) for the Parking Demand Analysis matrix
table, which summarizes the parking demand calculated by block for the
study area.
Using the 2.37 ratio for the overall study area, there is a calculated surplus of
1,103 spaces. However. this conclusion is based on the entire study area.
Map 6 illustrates the surplus or deficit of parking on each block in the study
area. The map illustrates that there are two blocks with particularly large
surpluses: Block 8 has a surplus of 621 spaces (Gateway Office Development)
and Block 11 has a surplus of 518 spaces (Park Plaza parking structure). There
are specific blocks that have deficits. Those blocks are 2.3.9,10.12,100,200.
and 300. These blocks. in general, are adjacent to or within one block of
blocks with parking surpluses. As an example. blocks 2 and 3 are within one
block of the Park Plaza parking structure on block 11, which shows a surplus of
518 spaces. There are speCifiC recommendations that will assist or promote the
use of parking areas that have available spaces.
RICH compared the parking demand developed using the method above to
the occupancy counts conducted on December 14-15, 2006. Within the
"primary stUdy area" which considers just the blocks north of "G" Street. RICH
analyzed 95 percent of the available on-street and off-street parking supply
and found the occupancy to peak at about 58 percent. The calculated
parking surplus from the demand projections for only the "primary study area"
is +393 spaces. The parking surplus from the turnover and occupancy stUdy
from the "primary area only" was approximately 900 spaces. Based on this
comparison it appears that the demand model is not under-projecting
parking demand using the 2.37 factor. In fact, this further supports the 2.0 ratio
in the UCSP.
~
~ Richond Associates. Inc.
~,\! Parking Consultants - Planners
2-10
8/1 /2007
~
]
]
c
~
!u
P MAR AVE.
" < .
, .
Y, 0
"
.~ 8
~,,< .,
I
e -42 I
__ J
_330 _J
go.
~ 0
2
'b
$-
< ry,
~ a
;' 44
e -16
[m
@ I
I -41
'-------_____1
I~
6ARRETT AVE.
KEY
_ DEFICIT 6REATER THAN -100
t,~'t DEFICIT BETHEEN -51 AND -'1'1
DEFIGIT BETWEEN -I TO -50
SlIRPlLlS BETHEEN 0 AND 50
SURPU)5 6REA TER THAN 50
e
~
o
o
<
e
~
,
<
,
~
<
"
c
~
e
~
w
~
PARKING STUDY
FOR THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
e
~
'f
CHULA VISTA . CAUFORNIA
.-.... P.,k;OI Con",lt.o",
~A<Cbll'C"'ElI'in..,..
.........., ~,':.,n::T<'.'k,"''''''''
~,.."'~"'-~..;..",.."
~i;;;~tm_i'.":~
RICH :::'.,,-,~,-
&....OClATE' '_'Kh"~,'.~
DWG. TJTl..E:
SURPLUS - DEFICIT
(CURRENT)
MAP 6
L.EOeV
CD BLOCK.
DAlE,Q6-21<fT
~m.6I"<C-
FILE,
~
~,M.T5
PAGE'
Chula Vista Parking Study
2.4.1 ENA Development
There are four City parking lots that have been designated by the City as
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement sites. These sites are in Lots 3, 6. 9 and 10
and are shown on Map 7 (ENA Development SiteS).
RICH ran a parking demand and supply model for development of the ENA
sites. This model is included as Exhibit 7 (Table 2H-Future Parking Demand of
ENA Sites Developed). The model for, the entire study area reflecting the
development of the ENA sites shows that although there is still an existing
surplus of parking spaces that surplus is reduced from 1.103 spaces to 997
spaces. This was the result of the loss of existing surface parking spaces for the
developments. The demand for the study area did not change since it was
assumed that each development would self-park, meaning that it would
provide the required parking spaces on site.
2.4.2
Projected Parking Demand under the Urban Core Specific
Plan
RICH projected parking demand with a projected build-out of Third Avenue
based on the adopted UCSP. The projections assumed that each parcel
along Third Avenue would be developed to maximum build out utilizing the 2.0
floor area ratio (FAR) as identified in the UCSP. The floor area was then divided
allocated by land use; 40 percent residential. 40 percent commercial and 20
percent office space.
This model determined the following:
· With the projected build out there would be total square footage of
1.445.205. compared to the estimated 950.680 square feet currently.
. This resulted in a reduction in the parking supply from 3,507 spaces to
3,012, reflecting the maximum build-out on each parcel and the loss of
parking behind buildings
The parking demand with the UCSP build-out was projected to be 3.425
spaces compared to the estimated 2.258 currently. This would result in a
projected deficit of -506 spaces.
This projected deficit is at maximum build-out, as previously described. The
reality is that this density would never be achieved, therefore for planning
purposes, this should be considered an upper-limit parking deficit. For a
~
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
2-11
811/2007
LL
>-0
o
=>~<{
1--1-
mOm
Ow>
z:I:<{
;;Zl-...J
a::a::=>
<{OI
ll..iLO
.".l ~.' i....k: 'I. ~', i ',,"-1' .~: I~' --:;::'~1 &i~& 'I"
.. .). I ..,~\.,ili" ~'I1.U ' ~''''''~12
,i.. ;\, ;~Q :....._ . J ...;ro.r
~:r u~~et"( l~ "':::"",-~. II." r''''''''I'.' ,
~_;~T.r.;-. .-.{i';'.' ~~'" )." ~ f 11" '..;.:'::.':'
:. ;.' :1;" ':li! ; /.; 1~' ~ L '\,.1 r
!i r"-';;; 'h . ~i'" J :,t~l' 3; I":~.: G' .
"., ."'- tt,;;: ,~f :l;~~,O' 'I_~.' ~ !i,f' t.= ~<~ ~'t:.
::-) \.. ,j,,~ . ~ . N . ' ,- -" . II
-,,,,,,,~, (.-......'.._.O:'.....I""'.'....S.f"" .".., .....1.. fj,....' I
_ .... lIFE . "4.f'~ 'r/" ~
: . 'ff. '~'''''I'; .::;.,' .:: :i....z; '",',If II I ;, 1 '1' . .
. '. .. ... II" . ......... !.. --~"".; ~ /Ii!!! tl'
" ; ","'\, ,-. '",,' t.,...:..;. . v-, . !~. ,I ,
~;. ~. ''.\1. 0,
'1 ':"N 01 -.
:<<lI'~; /<~rE)
! >" ._~..., ~~, .
;.~~ ~ ,.,t' .'......:
;~I.:'L:Ia. .~~); ,. -,' ,
.' . . ll' .
. ,.
1"': !
". t"i'. - . - ..
.:.....~,. IIC~,;
'J L \., 1\1 ' ".......~~ I
. 'I"" ~~~ ".11 '.
. ....~_ ~,,! t ~;
.!~." .....,J.... ',' \,';.i'l~ j]Cat' ~3..;'.:'];:i:;t.... .."''[; ~'1"";. 'f.'
~:';.(;_' ~',~t ;.~": .;i.,."lii'.~~,:.~!tl'''., :'-,~ !1:f\
.,". .-:~'~,:,~.. ~I'~ . a.~'.i'::OI.'.,. JI
- i' .'~ ,,,'..o:..;..! '" ._1 ':1;" 1~~' ',,f i It;.
~:>!,. ~~ 10"1~~ ;' ."",1' .' ~ ~ ..1 ~'Il' ,
,. ~"'..'i'.. "!!" '. ,ii' ~ a . s::/, ,,' . . ~. (
"f" '-.,_...~-~;''''-.-.I.I :'<..... ........ \1~,..,._ilq1' ...~. ..._,~,:,4<" -.:J '.
:,,' ""';.' '~-i" . 'Iii,' '!l~~ ".'" ~,'l""! i "i , .'ii:.... ~I
J b" ';:" 'ri: ..;-. -'~l i:lU;~t' ..'L -:'. J .'~11 :ri~. !'';:.I~ t-"':'~>\I"~ ~
. . .'.... "'1"".,. -- ~ .-...... ::~" "~d"':\ "t" ,.........~. 11. I
. .""",..' ,- .... I ::.' '.- , .....r.....i'..; ':.<II!'''~ ..- i. r'''''
t, ~.. .~o\W', "".,1.3 Dl'JQ::..,..... '.....'l'.. ~~ ":-l ..-, 'f'
11 · t ..' '0 ..fi'. .a.-.' :,. 0" '.i~! ,v;;. 'I':..
I '. II.J l'.";~r:.':'. '. ~ .Il': 'C;:. r: !i~~! .'. :"'.' 111" it!:' '--1: r
,_.[ ..:r.'_( .' 1\"......./".;.....'1... "--;1,.
..J __,_~.ll ~1".:j ':1 I ll";';~ L.......l L i~.": i
:;!
i!!
it ""
~ III il!!:i I
(((a ~!
fC _<1i;-,,~' r~: ~;!~:,
'i.. ,Ab." ~?' I
" l'. ...:.t r".-:l" # " . Ia.....
· .. ' ~ ~.':I 1":.' ., At A!\'~ .
l "J; ","'..'
'.JIl~ :~ ~ ,.,. "1" 'I.r
...;il..c, , , ,., .' ,_ iI
~~ '.\>} ~~., -1~~
, ;. lit"';'; . .~~-;..; '.0..' .i.
I;'" ~ ,~...""~, i- .,' - i' ,":.lM
7,...:. " w, -:'-'. "!t'
".' I :~~f _ '.. .'.
'. :""">_.__. ~w. ." .
P":'; '. If::~, '. __..... '~""'."'C
'y;,,~. .- -~c.' '....;
=,i:;, 0 1iN;. I~!.t;~~j.....
,"" .If;1~. ;ii1.:....,..- ..!~~~
" .' "'-"~---
.
!z
w
::; ~
lL
0 "
...J 8
w ~
[jj
0(1) e
<(~,..
ifi en ~
~
~
e~
~ .
, ~
,
.
l ~
6 ·
. ; .
~ ~ ~
------
..'<
"._ 1 ""ai",I\-"'II( <I
~ '&:", ,.J. , .. - Jl
; l':\. ,f
~ '-"~....
'" I",--l,~, '~
, .
.,'i
f:
t-:
I r.
.:':-.'..-~.T:
Chula Vista Parking Study
complete analysis of the projected build-out based upon the UCSP zoning
standards, please refer to Exhibit 8 (Table 21-Parklng Demand Projections and
Surplus and Deficits for UCSP Model).
2.5 Operations and Enforcement
The parking operations in Chula Vista are primarily overseen by the
Finance Department. The Finance Department issues parking permits and
,
oversees parking and meter maintenance. The Police Department
oversees parking enforcement.
There are currently two Parking Enforcement Officers (PEO) for the entire
City. According to the Police Department. one PEO works Monday through
Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. The other PEO works Tuesday through
Saturday from 9 am to 6 pm. Enforcement is primarily reactionary versus
proactive because the first priority is to respond to citizen complaints, and
there is just not enough manpower to cover the whole City. There are no set
routes. but one controller is responsible for territory south of H Street and the
other is responsible for the area west of H Street (which is primarily downtown).
Signs are posted indicating enforcement hours are from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00
P.M. Monday through Saturday.
Table 2J below shows the number of tickets issued and the revenue for the last
three years. The table covers up to December 2006. The table shows a large
fluctuation in the number of tickets written. Generally, we would expect the
number of tickets written to be consistent form year to year even and possibly
increasing slightly.
Table 2J
City of Chula VIsta Parking Ticket StatIsIIcs
Year # Issued
2004 5,071
2005 1,988
2006 3,687
Revenue
$49,851
$42,185
$47,560
*Chula Vista Finance as of 02/07/2007
~
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
i\i9t Parking Consultants - Planners
2-12
8/1 /2007
Chula Vista Parking Study
2.5.1 Parking Permits
Permits are sold through the City Finance Department and cost $54.00per
quarter. Vehicles with permits can park in any of the City lots at ten-hour
meters. Money collected from the sale of permits goes into the parking
fund. Total revenue collected from the sale of parking permits for 2006
was $34.050.00. Below is the breakdown of number of permits sold per
quarter in 2006, based upon information provided by the Finance
Department
Permit Sales for 2006: January - March
April - June
July - September
October - December
179
177
158
158
2.5.2 Regional Surveys
RICH attempted to contact communities in the San Diego County area to
determine what these communities charged for parking, what there fines were
and how there parking was run. We received very few responses.
Table 2K (Parking VIolation Benchmarking) below shows a comparison of
parking fine rates for the communities selected; Encinitas. Escondido, La
Mesa, Carlsbad, Vista and Temecula. These fine rates are then compared to
the San Diego Countywide Uniform Parking Fine Schedule (SDCUPFS). The
SDCUPFS is a fine schedule that was established in 1995 that many San Diego
County municipalities have implemented. Overall, Chula Vista has the lowest
fine rates for expired meter or overtime meter parking.
In general, only the City of San Diego and La Mesa charge for parking. The
City of Coronado also charges for parking, though they were not part of the
RICH survey.
The City of San Diego has parking meter rates that range from $0.50 to $1.25
per hour depending on location and duration of meters. Parking time limits
range from four to nine hours. San Diego sells rechargeable parking meter
debit cards in the amounts of $10.00 to $40.00 that can be used at any meter
in the downtown (coins are still accepted at meters).
The City of La Mesa has parking meter rates that range from $0.50 to $0.75
per hour depending on location and duration of meters. Parking time limits
~
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
2-13
8/1/2007
Chula Vista Parking Study
range from two hour to four hours. Permit rates range from $40.00 to $60.00
per quarter depending on location.
In general. Chula Vista's hourly parking charges are significantly lower. The
highest hourly rate in Chula Vista is the 30-minute meter with a rate of $.25 per
half hour. At two-hour meters the hourly charge is $.30. These rates are about
25 to 50 percent lower than La Mesa.
Table 2K
Parking VIolation Benchmarking
San Diego
County Wide
Unformed
Chula San Parking Fine
Vista Carls bad Encinitas Escondido Vista la Mesa Diego Schedule
Expired meter $12.00 nla nla $25.00 nla n/a $25.00 $50.00
Overtime meter $12.00 n/a nla nla nla $25.00 $35.00 $50.00
Posted no parking $35.00 $35.00 n/a nla $50.00 $35.00 nla $50.00
Red. yellow. white curb $35.00 $35.00 $40.00 nla $35.00 $35.00 $65.00 $65.00
Time limit parking $25.00 $25.00 n/a $25.00 nla $25.00 nla $50.00
abled parking $330.00 $330.00 $335.00 $330.00 $421.00 $330.00 $440.00 $421.00
,formation from SDPPEC Parking Violation Penalty Schedule June 2005
2.5.3 Chula Vista Parking Rates
Enforcement hours begin at 9:00 AM. and end at 6:00 P.M. Monday thru
Saturday. Parking is free on Sundays and during holidays and special
events. There are several different types of meters with varying time limits
both on and off-street. There are five on-street meter time limits as well as
four types of signed free parking. The off-street parking has three metered
time limits, with two types of free parking.
When parking rates are low there is not an incentive to follow the requlations,
with respect to staying beyond the posted time, whether one feeds the meter
or not. Additionally. low meter rates generate less income to cover the
increasing costs of meter maintenance, parking lot maintenance and the
ability of the City to undertake parking capital projects. In general, the
current parking rates are low in Chula Vista, compared to downtowns of similar
size and composition. Concern regarding the low meter rates was expressed
by stakeholders on several occasions.
~
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
Jl.lfJ;! Parking Consultants - Planners
2-14
8/1/2007
Chula Vista Parking Study
Please refer to Table 2L (Meter Parking Rates In Chula VIsta) below for a
summary of Chula Vista's current parking rates.
Table 2L
Meter Parkin :] Rates In Chula VIsta
$0.05 per 10 minutes
On-street 30 minute
meters $0.10 per 20 minutes
$0.25 per 30 minutes
Token per 10 minutes
$0.05 per 10 minutes
On-street 2 and 3 hour
meters $0.10 per 20 minutes
$0.25 per 50 minutes
Token per 10 minutes
$0.05 per 30 minutes
Off-street 4 hour meters $0.10 per 60 minutes
$0.25 per 150 minutes
Token per 30 minutes
$0.05 per 30 minutes
Off-street 10 hour
meters $0.10 per 60 minutes
$0.25 per 150 minutes
Token per 30 minutes
* The last parking rates increase may have occurred in
1996.
Conclusion
In Section 2 Rich and Associates reviewed the fieldwork that was used to
establish the parking generation rate unique to Chula Vista and that was then
used to project the current and future demand. The turnover and occupancy
study identified parking areas on and off-street with low occupancies such as
the Park Plaza parking structure and parking areas that were well utilized. This
information was also used to confirm the parking generation rate used. This
study showed that there was a higher percentage of vehicles parking overtime
at a two-hour meter and four-meter than is acceptable. The study showed that
the City controls 52 percent of the parking supply which is the minimum that
Rich and Associates recommends so that the City can effect changes to
parking more effectively.
~
~ Richond Associates. Inc.
~1S;.!;! Parking Consultants - Planners
2-15
8/1/2007
Chula Vista Parking Study
Rich and Associates estimated a parking generation rate for the study area of
2.37 spaces per 1,000 square feet of land use for all land uses. This is called a
form based rate as opposed to a specific parking generation rate for each
land use. This supports the 2.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet in the UCSP.
There is currently no parking shortfall in the study area. though some blocks do
have deficits. These deficits can be alleviated by good parking system
management, consistent parking enforcement, and marketing of the parking
areas. '
~
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
2-16
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
Section Three - Findings and Recommendations
The findings presented in this Section are based upon the fieldwork, research and
review of Chula Vista's present parking dynamics culminating in
recommendations intended to enhance the existing supply of parking through
operation()l, management, configuration, parking pricing and allocation
changes aimed at increasing the effic;iency of the parking system. The
recommendations provide a holistic approach to improving parking downtown
today and plan for the future growth in the downtown.
3.1 Parking Management
3.1.0 Downtown Parking District Status and Boundaries
Finding: The Downtown Parking District was formed in 1963 based
upon a citizen-initiated request. The purpose of the District was to fund
improvements and provide meters on the street to generate revenue and
to help control parking. The obligation to maintain the meters and
continue to funnel revenue back into the District ended in 1999, although
the City has continued to utilize funds for parking-related activities. Our
research has determined that the revenue from the DPD has gone to
maintain parking areas, enforcement and other improvements.
While the obligation has been fulfilled, RICH recommends that parking
meters remain on- street and in the lots (along with multi-space meters).
Maintaining the meters helps to control employee or long stay parking at
short stay spaces and it generates revenue for the district to help fund
enforcement, maintenance etc,.
Recommendation: Maintain the District and modify the boundaries. The
north boundary of E Street would remain unchanged. The east boundary
should be extended to Del Mar and the west boundary extended to
Garrett. The south boundary should be extended to H Street. Since Del Mar
and Garrett do not run south through to H Street, the east boundary south
of G Street should be the alley east of Third Avenue and the west boundary
should run straight through blocks to H Street. Map 8 (Downtown Parking
District Recommendation) on the next page shows the proposed new
boundary.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
==:::: Parking Consultonts - Planners
!tIEl;!
3-1
8/1 /2007
lL
bO
F~<
cnO~
ow>
z:c<
:>21---,
a:a:::>
<O:C
Il..ILO
:S:
z
~
:J ~ c ~~
~ iil II!!!! 1
(((a ~i
j
~
o
z
S2 z
t ~
z Cl
:;: z
Of-W
!z~~
~~8~
Cl 0 ~~
~
"
~
ft~
W ~
e
~ ~
~ ~
,! -
~ ~ ~
Chula Vista
This expanded area will cover areas that may be impacted by changes to
the parking policy as well as including the Gateway project to the south.
Cost:
Zero
Additional revenue may be generated if the District
boundaries are modified.
Third Quarter of 2007
Revenue:
ActIon Time:
3.1.1 Parking Staff
Finding: The management of the parking system is not effective.
There is no head or director of parking and there are several City
departments that have direct or indirect involvement in parking such as
Finance, Police Department, Planning and Community Development.
There is not one primary point of contact for stakeholders. Having the
parking function handled by several City departments works well for small
communities with limited parking. However, Chula Vista's parking system is
becoming larger and more cumbersome to manage using the
interdepartmental approach.
This lack of management and a designated coordinator has resulted in a
lack of cohesive planning for parking and policies that have not
addressed the gamut of parking issues within the District.
It was also noted that there are several stakeholder groups that have an
interest in the parking both within the District and the City in general. These
groups are TAVA, Chamber of Commerce and the PBID.
Recommendation: Implement a two-phase approach for the management
of parking in Chula Vista.
Phase One should include the following:
1. Form a Parking Advisory Committee (PAC) consisting of members
of the business community, TAVA, Chamber of Commerce and
City staff. The PAC will advise city council on the implementation
of the parking plan, review proposals for parking improvements
and requests for changes to the systems such as time duration
limits, allocation of parking etc. As an option, include one city
council and one redevelopment member to the PAC. Though
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
f\l~k!
3-2
811/2007
Chula Vista
the majority of the parking issues are within the Downtown Parking
District. the PAC should cover all issues concerning parking in
Chula Vista.
2. Appoint someone from the City's Community Development
department as Parking Director. As Parking Director. this person
will be responsible for coordinating the various departments that
deal with parking such as Finance, Police, and Public Works. This
person would also be the coordinator of the PAC. Though this
covers parking outside the'Downtown Parking District, the majority
of the issues concern the District.
3. Establish a separate parking enterprise fund that would take in
the revenue from parking operations. There would be a separate
budget prepared for parking including normal operating
expenses. capital expenses. and projections of revenues from
parking meters. multi space meters. permits and fines. This would
include all of the parking in Chula Vista.
4. Incorporate TAVA into the marketing program.
Phase Two should consider and may include:
1. Transfer the management of the parking system from city staff to
an outside management firm or another organization such as
TAVA.
2. Continue the Parking Advisory Committee. A person from
Community Development should remain involved and be
responsible for directing the PAC.
Cost: Will involve city staff time that should be assigned to
the parking operations.
Revenue: None
ActIon TIme:
Establish Parking Committee in Third Quarter of 2007.
3.1 .2 Parking Enterprise Fund
Finding: The District has no obligation to continue to use funds
generated by parking meter revenue and fines on parking-related
activities (i.e. maintenance. repairs and capital improvements).
'4: Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
R!!;~
3-3
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
Recommendation: Treat the parking revenue as an Enterprise Fund and
place all revenue generated from the Downtown Parking District into this
fund and direct that these monies will only be utilized for parking expenses
and improvements within the District.
The City should put all net revenue from parking less what the general fund
will receive in 2007 into a parking fund. The General Fund would be
capped at the 2007 level and all additional net revenues would go into
the parking fund. This fund would be used for capital improvements to
parking.
Cost: Zero
Revenue:
Action Time:
None
Fourth Quarter of 2007
3.1 .3 Parking Education
Finding: As with many communities, there is a general lack of
awareness of parking facts within the Chula Vista community. This is
evidenced by the amount of overtime parking at short-term meters by
employees. In general. there needs to be an education campaign that
continually stresses the costs of parking, what the regulations are for
enforcement, transit options and the vision of a walk able community.
Without a continual education campaign, many of the recommendations
in this report will be difficult to successfully implement.
Recommendation: Incorporate the education program into the marketing
recommendations. This involves including information in mailers and print
ads to business owners/managers and employees and conducting
presentations to local organizations.
Cost: Zero
Revenue:
ActIon Time:
None
Fourth Quarter of 2007
3.2 Parking Policies
3.2.0 City Parking Policies
Finding: Other than the in-lieu fees, there are no parking policies.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
fiLS!:;!
3-4
811 /2007
Chula Vista
Recommendation: Parking Policies need to be developed and updated
as the downtown evolves. Policies should be established for overtime
parking, enforcement strategies, parking allocation and charges for
parking. The overtime parking should address "shuffling from one short
term space to another. Parking enforcement strategies could include how
routes are established, times meters are enforced and how rigorous
enforcement will be. Parking allocation policies could include the number
of permits sold, whether permits should be sold for specific lots, the time
limits for short term parking in various lots etc. Finally, policies on parking
charges could reflect variable parking rates based on location (concentric
parking charges that reflect lower rates for parking that is farther away etc)
and based on length of stay.
Cost: Zero
Revenue: None
Action TIme: First Quarter of 2008
3.2.1 In-Lieu Fee
Finding: The in-lieu fee policy has been in place since 1980. The
formula to calculate the fee is based upon a percentage of construction
costs. which is not standard. The formula is confusing to use. RICH
requested historical data from the City with respect to monies that were
taken in by the fund for the in-lieu fee and expenditures from the fund and
determined that the fees received were spent appropriately for the
development and maintenance of parking. There were numerous
concerns expressed by stakeholders about how the funds had been spent
and what.lhe total for fees that were collected.
Recommendation: The in lieu fee system should be retained. The cost per
space should be indexed to the cost of the construction of one parking
space in a parking structure as opposed to the present model. A per
space fee of 25 to 50 percent of the cost of a structured space at the low
end of today's cost ($15.000 per space on the low end) would range from
$3,750 to $7,500 per space.
At the end of each year a report should be prepared on the money
received in the in lieu fund, an accounting on how the money was spent
that year and the balance in the fund at the year end.
~ Rich and Associates, Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
!\J,~,tl
3-5
811/2007
Chula Vista
It needs to be stressed that the in lieu fee is not an entitlement to a
space, nor does it eliminate the need for the business to pay the normal
parking charges. This message needs to be consistently given.
Cost: Minimal cost, some staff time
Revenue: Additional revenue based on development
ActIon Time: Fourth Quarter 2007 to revise the policy
Review of policy and preparation of accounting to
occur annually ,
Table 3A (In Lieu Fee Reconciliation) shows the payments made into the
fund and interest income and expenditures paid from the fund. Based on
data provided by the City's search. RICH determined that there was a total
of $509.742.80 paid into the fund and $493,125.04 was paid from the
fund. The expenditures from the fund were made for land acquisitions and
construction of surface lots on those properties. Based on this, RICH
believes that the funds that were paid into the account were expended for
parking acquisition and improvements that benefited the District directly.
Based upon the information provided. there were no inappropriate
expenditures. There does need to be an annual reporting of the in-lieu fee
to stakeholders.
Table 3A
In Ueu Fee Reconciliation
Revenue From Fee In Ueu
FY 1983
FY 1984
FY 1985
FY 1986
FY 1987
FY 1988
FY 1989
FY 1990
FY 1991
FY 1 992
FY 1993
FY 1994
Payments
$7.025.00
$19,250.00
$B3,125.00
$21,875.00
$65.800.00
$0.00
$19,775.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$26,250.00
$150,500.00
Interest
Income
$0.00
$0.00
$6.072.94
$6,978.93
$7,895.12
$11 ,737.94
$12.463.34
$17.345.11
$5.397.69
$1,939.00
$0.00
$2.200.50
Total
$7,025.00
$19,250.00
$89.197.94
$28.853.93
$73,695.12
$11,737.94
$32,238.34
$17,345.11
$5.397.69
$1,939.00
$26,250.00
$152,700.50
=:~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
3~ Parking Consultants - Planners
~!S.ti
3-6
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
FY 1995 $28.379.16 $6,470.53 $34,849.69
FY 1 996 $3,500.00 $4,319.18 $7.819.18
FY 1997 $0.00 $461.43 $461 .43
FY 1998 $0.00 $457.73 $457.73
FY 1 999 $0.00 $524.20 $524.20
Total Revenues $425,4 79.16 $84.263.64 $509,742.80
FY 1994
Expendnures From Fee In Ueu Fund
FY 1984 $875.00 Refund of fees
FY 1990 $126.500.00 Centre Parking
$1 .660.00 Landis Parking
$103,326.91 Landis Parking
Church and
Center
Municipal
Parking
Church and
Center
Reimbursed to Other Agencies
$127,012.70
FY 1991
FY 1 992
$24.76
FY 1 996
FY 1997
$600.67
$134,000.00
Total
Expendnures
$493,125.04
Differences of Revenues over Expenses
$16,617.76
3.2.2 Valet Parking
Finding: Valet parking is currently not used in
Chula Vista.
Recommendation: The City should have a policy in place for regulating
how valet operations would be run and where vehicles are parked. This
policy should include using public parking areas and private off-street lots
as valet parking storage and on-street spaces for vehicle drop off and pick
up. The policy should specify rental charges for on-street parking stalls
used for pick-up and drop-off by valet operators so that the operator can
rent as many or as few stalls as they need for their operation.
Overall, the policy should specify valet operation standards. the use of and
design of permissible signs, on-street parking stall rental charges and the
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
mS:J;!
3-7
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
necessary parking area lease agreements with private parking owners or
with the City to provide the valet with evening parking privileges. Further to
that the policy, the agreement should specify penalties and or the revoking
of the valet operator's license for violation of the policy regulations.
Cost: Minimal
Revenue:
Benefit:
None projected
Tracks and regulates valet operations through a
comprehensive operating agreement and license
structure. Any' cost associated with administration
would be re-cooped through user fees and on-street
parking rentals.
Enact ordinance allowing and regulating valet services
First Quarter 2008.
Action Time:
3.2.3 Residential Parking Permit
Finding: There is currently no residential parking permit policy. With the
proposed increases to parking rates and the increase in enforcement of
parking, there is the potential that parkers, especially employees may
decide to park further away for free on-street parking. This could cause
increased parking in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Should
this occur. a residential parking permit program may be required.
Recommendation: The City should prepare a residential parking program
policy and possibly an ordinance if the need arises. The policy would
generally state that when residents notify the City of a parking problem, the
City will canvass the neighbors on one side or both sides of the affected
blocks or blocks and if a significant majority agree to the program, the City
would erect signs. give (or sell) permits to residents and allow for limited
guest parking based on additional input from the residents. Generally, two
hour parking is allowed within certain times and for visitors who will stay
longer, placards can be given (sold) to residents for their guest parking.
Cost: Minimal for supplies and staff time
Revenue: No net revenue projected
Benefit: Keeps employee parking out of residential areas yet
allows residents to park on-street
ActIon Time: First Quarter 2008- Prepare policy and/or ordinance
establishing procedure for residential parking permits
services
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
!}!,S;;\i
3-8
81112007
Chula Vlsfa
3.2.4
Reporting to Community
Finding: There is no established process for information sharing
between the City and stakeholders. This has led to mistrust and confusion
about parking policies and enforcement.
Recoml)'lendatlon: An annual report should be prepared for the
community on the status of the parking operation. The report should cover
and accounting of income and expenses. details on enforcement
including number of tickets written and fines collected. accounting of
meter and permit revenue and any management and policy issues.
Cost: Minimal cost, some staff time
Revenue:
ActIon TIme:
None
Report to be prepared annually
3.3 - Parking Operations
3.3.0 Parking Revenues and Expenses
Finding: Parking revenues in general have been erratic. reaching a
peak in 2004 but then dropping to only $298,066.00 for 2006. Parking
permit revenue rose from 2002 through 2005 but then dropped by about
23 percent. Meter revenue also rose every year from 2002 until 2005. In
2006 though there was a 17 percent drop in meter revenue.
Parking citations were about $83.000 in 2002 but dropped every year
thereafter and reached a low of about $47,000 in 2005. This is a about a
56 percent decrease. Parking citation revenues did rise in 2006 though by
about 22 percent. Expenses have also been up and down. Expenses
peaked in 2003 at $354,920 and hit the lowest point in the most recent
operating year (2006) with $231.540 in expenses. In general there was no
explanation for the variances in the trends in either revenues or expenses.
RICH received parking revenue and expense data from the City for the
DPD for the last five years. Table 38 (Historical Parking District Parking
Revenue and Fees) is the compilation of this data.
~ Rich and Associates, Inc.
S::: Parking Consultants - Planners
RLE\!
3.9
811 /2007
Chula Vista
Table 38
Historical Parking District Parking Revenue and Fees
2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
Revenue
Permits $27,402.00 $35.996.00 $33.015.00 $27.681.00 $26.154.00
Parking Citations $53.728.00 $46.939.00 $65.830.00 $69.067.00 $83.211.00
On-Street
Parking Meters $147,467.00 $176.527.00 $171.915.00 $158.150.00 $153.896.00
Off Street
Parking Meters $69,469.00 $88.314.00 $81.559.00 $75.616.00 $74,434.00
Total Revenue $298.066.00 $347.776.00 $352.319.00 $330.514.00 $337.695.00
Expenditures
Personnel Services $22.077.00 $39.351.00 $38,941.00 $87,487.00 $88.850.00
Supplies and Services $24,421.00 $38,450.00 $46.954.00 $54,484.00 $30.299.00
City Staff Services $185.042.00 $232.126.00 $215.904.00 $212.949.00 $194.512.00
Total Revenue $231.540.00 $309.927.00 $301.799.00 $354,920.00 $313.661.00
Recommendation: Prepare a Parking District Operating Budget that
projects appropriate operating and expenses for the District. An annual
report should be prepared for the community on the status of the parking
operation. The report would cover the income and expenses, details on
tickets written and collected, money collected from meters and permits
and then management and policy issues. In addition, the City should track
costs on a line item basis in order to establish trends for budgeting.
Cost: Minimal for supplies and staff time.
Revenue: None
ActIon Time:
Operating Budget and Report to be prepared
annually
3.3.1 Marketing
Finding: The City does not have a marketing program for the Parking
District. TAVA has provided limited marketing of the parking district.
Recommendation: RICH recommends that an on-going and budgeted
parking marketing program be developed. The program should be
funded by the parking system and could be implemented by the Third
Avenue Village Association under the direction of the Parking Advisory
Committee.
~ Rich and Associates. inc.
==::::: Parking Consultants - Planners
filS!'!
3-10
8/1 /2007
Chula Vista
The marketing plan should include direct mailings, brochures, maps. and
on-line web page as part of the City's web site or articles in magazines.
Parking information should be included in each TAVA newsletter. This would
repeat information on employee parking and reinforce that on-street and
short stay spaces in off-street lots are for customer/visitor use. Also. the
marketing effort would include bringing business on board for the parking
validation system and then marketing the availability of this system to the
public.
Information contained in the marketing material should include location,
up-coming changes. pricing, regulations, fine payment options and any
other information relating to the parking system.
Cost: Budget $15,000 per year for on-going marketing
efforts.
Revenue:
No revenue can be projected though the marketing
campaign should increase revenue.
Fourth Quarter of 2007 then ongoing
ActIon TIme:
3.3.2 Slgnage
Finding: The City is lacking overall in a comprehensive and
coordinated sign program. There are parking way finding signs in Chula
Vista though they are not all the same shape, color or text. The signs do
not lead all the way to the parking areas. The lots do not have
Location/Identification signs, telling where a parker he/she is in downtown
and what types of parking is permitted.
Recommendation: RICH recommends that a comprehensive sign program
be developed, including the four types of parking signage: direction,
location. identification, and pedestrian way finding. Examples of these are
shown on the following pages.
There are four fundamental signs for way finding beginning with
introduction signs that designate a symbol and color to look for when
seeking a parking area. The next level of signs assists people to find the
downtown area. Location. and directional signs direct people once
downtown to specific areas or districts. Districting or branding areas within
the downtown is an excellent method of achieving unique concentrations
of business types.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
R!~I!
3-11
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
Identification and location signs are used at the entrance to specific
parking areas to indicate the name of the parking area (all parking areas
should have a unique designation. such as a name and color to help
visitors and customers to orient themselves and remember where they
parked). Identification and location signs are commonly combined to
create one. sign thus reducing the number of signs. Parking area
identification should also include a concise description of who can park
there. how much it will cost and for how long they can park.
Way finding is the final sign type. Way finding can be thought of on two
levels, one for vehicles and the other for pedestrians. The signs described
above are directed at vehicle way finding. Pedestrian way finding is also
important, even in small urban areas, to provide individuals with a sense of
orientation and comfort in the downtown area.
Cost:
Revenue:
Action Time:
10,000 to $50,000 depending on signs. how many,
and design.
Additional revenue may be collected, but cannot be
projected at this time.
Second Quarter of 2008
Parking Sign Type Examples
::=;~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
=';:: Parking Consultants - Planners
~!s::.tl
3-12
8/1 /2007
Chula Vista
Identlllcatlon Sian
This identification sign has 4" text
lettering.
The parking symbol or identification logo
is approximately 26 inches in height.
~ Rich and Associates, Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
~lSI!
3-13
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
Wayftndlng Sign
""'t
f
This is an example of combining a vehicular and pedestrian way finding sign.
The use of a map for the pedestrian way finding is very beneficial.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
!m;~
3-14
8/1 /2007
Chula Vista
The general Qualities of good slgnage Include the following aspects:
. Use of common logos and colors.
· Placement at or near eye level.
. Use of reflective, durable material.
. All four types used in conjunction to guide motorist and pedestrian
activity.
. All entrances to the downtown need to have introduction signage.
,
. All parking areas need to have identification signage.
. All routes through the downtown need to have directional and
location signage.
. All pedestrian routes to and from major customer/visitor parking
areas need to have way finding signs.
. The identification signs located at parking areas need to convey
parking rates, hours of operation, maximum durations, and
validation availability.
Design specmc Crtterla Recommendations:
. In general. sign lettering should be four inches in height. Smaller
lettering may be difficult to see and cause traffic slow-downs as
drivers read signs before entering a parking area.
. Depending on the location for the signs. some may need State
Department of Transportation approval before installation. The City
Engineering Department will need to be consulted on specific
locations that fall under State control and the various regulations that
may need to be met.
. Logos and sign colors can be customized to suit the communities
desired design criteria. The important element is to be sure that
signs can be read easily by being a distinctive color that stands out
from background colors of adjacent buildings.
. The signs colors and logos need to be consistent for ease of
understanding and quick visual reference by drivers.
. Sign programs are usually best undertaken at a City.wide level to
include all the City's signs. The comprehensive nature of a large-
scale sign program helps ensure that all forms of way-finding signs
(vehicular and pedestrian) are taken into account.
~ Rich and Associates, Inc.
=~ Parking Consultants - Planners
fiLEt!
3-15
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
. Vehicular way-finding needs to be laid out initially in a coordinated
fashion to determine what the preferred entry points to the
community should be. Often directed traffic flow is a more efficient
option that allows the community to take advantage of planned
vehicle routes and entry points. A key 'rule of thumb' is that fewer,
well thought out and well placed signs are far better than too many
signs scattered randomly throughout a community.
,
. Vehicular way-finding should include direction arrows to key
destination places such as theaters, museums, shopping districts,
etc., used in conjunction with the parking direction signs to allow a
driver to quickly orient them selves to their destination and best
parking options. Arrows should always be oriented to indicate
forward, left or right movement. Reverse arrows or arrows indicating
that a destination has been passed should be avoided to reduce
confusion.
3.3.3 Condition of City Parking Lots
Finding: In general the parking lots need attention. There are several
parking areas that have broken or missing lights, and some that need
additional lighting. Parking stall striping, and signage in general needs to
be redone. In all cases the meters are in bad condition and the meter
poles need painting.
RICH reviewed each parking area and the findings from that review are
included in Table 3C (Parking Lot Condition Assessment) on page 3-18.
Recommendation: Make the following improvements.
. Lighting: Lighting needs upgrading in lots 2. 3, 4, and 11. In some
cases there is insufficient lighting and in lot 3 for example there are
missing lights.
. strIplng/Palntlng: Lots 1, 2, 5, 6. 9, and 10 need re-striping. In
general, the lots should be re-striped every year or every other year
as needed.
. 5lgnoge: Recommendations for signs are covered in more detail in
4.4.13. There needs to be lot identification signs to indicate that the
lot is a City of Chula Vista parking area and the type of parking that
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
:::::::: Parking Consultants - Planners
!}!f!;j
3.16
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
is available. Additionally, for the lots that have heavy
customer/Visitor usage. there should be way finding signs so that a
parker who has now become a pedestrian can find the destination
they are looking for and be able to find where they parked on their
return.
. Lot Surfaces: Lot 5 needs to be resurfaced and any depressions
filled and compacted. Lot 2 had several depressions that need to
be filled and that part of the 10t surfaced.
. landscaping: Landscaping needs to be maintained such that
shrubs and small trees are pruned so that someone cannot hide
behind them and possible attack a pedestrian.
Cost:
No estimates were made at this time. Additional
analysis must be completed to quantify and qualify
the improvements that are required.
None
Fourth Quarter of 2007-Analysis of facilities
First Quarter of 2008- Prepare specifications and bid
Second and Third Quarter of 2008-lmplementation
Revenues:
Action Time:
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
::::::::::: Parking Consultants - Planners
~!f.\;!
3-17
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
Table 3C Parking Lot Condition Assessment
lot # lights Striping Signage Surface landscaping Meters
1 No lighting needs 10 signage need Surface ok, had ok Paint poles or
painting improvements wheel stops add signs
surface has some
Only one pole. needs 10 signage need depressions that Paint poles or
2 may not be painting improvements , could be ok add signs
enough hazardous, overlay
surface
Some missing
lights with "Old 10 signage need surface ok. Paint poles or
3 Style" poles. ok ok
appears to be improvements curbing ok add signs
adequate
Needs exterior Concrete rehab
4 lighting needs ok and interior necessary, ok NIA
upgrade signage especially on roof
deck
Surface in bad
5 One light pole is needs 10 signage need condition. needs ok Paint poles or
sufficient painting improvements filling and overlay. add signs
curbs ok
6 No lighting needs 10 signage need Surface ok. ok NIA
painting improvements curbing ok
Has "Old Style "
10 signage need surface ok. Paint poles or
7 lighting, appears ok improvements curbing ok ok add signs
ok
Has "Old Style "
8 lighting. ok 10 signage need surface ok. Very well Paint poles or
appears improvements curbing ok landscaped add signs
ok
9 One light pole needs 10 signage need surface ok. ok Paint poles or
appears sufticient painting improvements curbing ok add signs
10 One light pole needs 10 signage need surface ok. ok Paint poles or
appears sufticient pointing improvements curbing ok add signs
Has "Old Style "
lighting. may not 10 signage need surface ok. Paint poles or
11 be sufticient ok ok
lighting due to improvements curbing ok add signs
I location of poles
~
~
!\lEtl
Rich and ASSOCIates. Inc.
Parking Consultants - Pianners
3-18
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
3.3.4 ExIstIng Parking Area Configuration
Finding: RICH reviewed the design and layout of each of the City's
parking lots. In general, all of the parking areas are laid out as efficiently
as possible. The exception is Lot 6 which due to the entry/exit configuration
causes parkers to enter the lot from Madrona and the alley going the
wrong way down the alley.
Recommendation: There are no recommendations at this time unless Lot 6
is not redeveloped, in which case the entry/exit issue should be explored.
One suggestion would be to remove the one-way designation in the alley
therefore increasing access through the alley or create an entry/exit off of
Madrona. although this would potentially reduce the capacity of the lot.
Cost: Zero
Revenues: None
ActIon TIme: None
3.3.5 Paseos
Finding: Some of the paseos need improvement. They can be dark,
are not well identified on either the parking end or the street end and some
are not inviting for pedestrian use. The paseos are a severely underutilized
asset for the District that need to be improved and then marketed to the
public.
Recommendation: These paseos are an integral part of the parking
system. especially when downtown blocks are long. They help cut down
on the distance customers and visitors have to walk to and from parking,
thus making the parking lots more viable and attractive.
Install signage to better identify the paseos (refer to signage
recommendation). It is important for a customer/visitor to quickly identify
their destination once they have parked their vehicle. Signage leading
from the parking area to the downtown will create a positive experience for
employees and customers especially new visitors in the downtown.
Consider using murals and landscaping in the paseos to create more
inviting walking experience from the parking lots to the businesses on Third
Street. These walkthroughs must be well lit and inviting for people to use
a::: Rich and Associates. Inc.
.:::::::.::: Parking Consultants - Planners
~lS'\;!
3-19
8/1 /2007
Chula Vista
them. There are some paseos in the downtown that have shops lining the
walkway. This makes the walking experience inviting and interesting.
Cost: Budget $10,000- $100.000 depending on landscaping. The
costs for changes to the paseos could be paid for by TAVA
and the Pbid.
Revenue: Additional revenue may be collected, but cannot be
projected at this time.
ActIon TIme: First Quarter of 2008
The picture on the right is an inviting well-lit paseo in downtown Chula Vista.
The paseo on the right is also downtown but needs lighting and art to create a more inviting space.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants. Planners
filS,I;!
3-20
8/1 /2007
Chula Vista
A good example of an inviting paseo with good lighting. landscaping and a mural.
3.3.6 Validation System
Finding:
There is currently no validation system in place.
Recommendation: As a part of the overall marketing plan, RICH
recommends that the City institute a parking validation system. This can
take several forms with the goal of giving businesses ways to offer free
parking to their visitors or customers. With the recommended electronic
parking meters and multi space meters, we have recommended a value
card option. The value card would be an inexpensive card that would
have a dollar amount installed on it that a business could purchase from
the City that they could then in turn give to their customers or visitors for
use on their next trip downtown. In addition, a rechargeable card could
be sold that could be recharged at any of the multi space meters and
City Hall.
Cost: Upfront costs of validations may run from $3.000 to
$5,000
Revenue:
No revenue increase can be projected though the
validation should help increase revenue
Begin Third Quarter of 2008.
Action Time:
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
=~ Parking Consultants - Planners
~!fB
3-21
811/2007
Chula Vista
3.4 - Parking Enforcement
3.4.0 Parking Enforcement Staffing
Finding: The Parking Enforcement Program in
downtown Chula Vista is not functioning at optimal
efficiency. The Parking Enforcement Officers (PEO) do
not just enforce parking within the District. They enforce
other parking regulations outside the District as well. The posted times of
enforcement are Monday through $aturday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.,
but the officers are not scheduled to enforce parking in the District during
this entire time. There do not appear to be set routes or beats for the PEOs
to follow every two hours, thus creating an inconsistent and sometimes
haphazard enforcement of parking.
Recommendation: Enforcement optimizes the efficiency of existing parking
and has the potential to increase fine revenue. For enforcement to
operate at optimal efficiency there needs to be personnel dedicated to
parking enforcement. It is a key component of enforcement that the
officers cover a route and consistently check vehicles. In all cases PEOs
should use a hand held ticket writer to conduct license plate checks and
monitor when vehicles are staying beyond the allotted time or shuffling
their vehicle to avoid receiving a parking citation.
Cost: Budget $70,000 per full-time position including salary
and benefits. This estimate is based upon the
estimated current cost to fund a full-time PEO at the
City of Chula Vista.
Revenues: Based on current fine rates and collection rates. the
fines are projected to be $63,700. With the proposed
increased fine rates the projected revenue is estimated
at $ 75, 100 for the first year and $88,000 for the second
year, based upon a projected increase of 15 to 20
percent in the number of tickets issued.
ActIon TIme: Third Quarter 2008
3.4.1 Handheld TIcket Writers
Finding: The Chula Vista Police Department uses handheld ticket
writers to issue parking tickets. Currently these devices are not being used
to their full potential. This results in less than optimal enforcement since
information is not readily available to the parking enforcement officers.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
3::: Parking Consultants - Planners
!\ls'\!
3-22
8/112007
Chula Vista
Handheld ticket writers can be used to enforce activities such as shuffling
from space to space, meter feeding and people not paying tickets. These
ticket writers can also record the number of tickets a vehicle has received
as well as any outstanding tickets. They can also be updated with
information such as stolen vehicles and warrant information. Properly used,
handheld ticket writers increase the efficiency of the overall parking
system.
To most effectively utilize the ticket writers. an enforcement route needs to
be established and followed every two hours during Chula Vista's
enforcement period of Monday through Saturday from 9:00 AM. to 6:00
P.M. The handheld ticket writers should be utilized to record the license
plate of each vehicle parked in short term parking and input into the
handheld. The enforcement officer can then use the handheld to
determine if a vehicle has moved or if the parking meter is being fed
beyond the two-hour time limit.
Recommendation: Upgrade the system used in the handheld ticket writers
to allow them to record and track license plates, provide information about
outstanding tickets and number of tickets received, and data regarding
stolen vehicle and warrant information.
Revenue:
Estimated at $40,000, although the costs need to be
determined based on a written specification of the
requirements that the supplier can review and respond
to with a cost.
The specific revenue increases that could be
anticipated from upgrading the software to accomplish
the different goals are projected to result in at least a
10% increase in the number of tickets written. Based on
current fine rates and collection levels, this would
increase the fine revenue to $52,300. With the higher
fine rates proposed in #3 below the projected fine
revenue could be $69,900 the first year and $81,100
the second year.
First and Second Quarter 2008- Prepare a specification
of what the system should provide and Issue Request for
Proposals
Cost:
ActIon Time:
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
:=::::: Parking Consultants - Planners
lYf.tl
3-23
811 /2007
Chula Vista
Third Quarter of 2008- Enter into contract with vendor
and have software changes completed
3.4.2 Overtime Parldng Fine
Finding: Chula Vista's overtime parking fine of $12.00 is not currently
high enough to discourage parkers from knowingly violating parking
regulations. During the turnover and occupancy study RICH observed
many vehicles staying beyond the, posted times both on-street and off-
street.
If violators knew that regular enforcement occurred in the District and
received tickets for infractions, an increased fine would aid in decreasing
the number of violators. Because enforcement is inconsistent, many
parkers are willing to violate the parking regulations because they know
that even if they receive a ticket the fine amount is still significantly lower
than buying a parking permit or consistently feeding the meter.
Encouraging patrons to use parking as designated by the parking
regulations and pay for their parking increases the efficiency of the system,
thus effectively providing more parking opportunities in the downtown
area. Fine income will increase and aid in updates to the parking system.
Recommendation: Increase the overtime parking fine from $12.00 per
'infraction to $50.00, consistent with the Parking Violation Penalty Schedule,
as prepared by the San Diego Parking Penalties Executive Committee in
June 2005. Most cities within the County have adopted this fee structure.
Additionally. the fine should increase from $24.00 to $75.00 if the ticket
remains unpaid within the thirty- day repayment period.
Cost: None
Revenue:
Assuming the percentage of tickets paid remains the
same. there are no more additional tickets written per
year (use 2006 as base), the estimated first year
revenue is projected to be $62,650 and second year
at $73.300. Assuming handheld updated software for
the ticket writers in # 1 above the fine revenue is
projected to be $69,900 the first year and $81,100
the second year.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
::::::::::: Parking Consultants - Planners
!}!5;!;!
3-24
8/1 /2007
Chula Vista
ActIon TIme:
Implement Third Quarter 2008
3.4.3 Mumple TIckets
Finding: Currently Chula Vista issues multiple tickets for the same day
violations of expired meters. This policy is consistent with the policies of
many other communities surveyed by RICH. Similar to graduated fines,
multiple tickets for the same infraction also aids in discouraging individuals
from knowingly violating parking reg,ulations as an alternative to paying for
parking. The use of handheld computer technology compliments this effort
as the software tracks license plate information and the infraction
particulars. The ticket writer can then identify were multiple infractions
occur and issue tickets accordingly.
Recommendation: This policy should be continued because it encourages
individuals to adhere to parking regulations. For example, a parker will not
park all day at a two-hour meter since he/she will receive multiple tickets.
resulting in fines. This ensures appropriate turnover rates and provides
more parking to customers and visitors
Cori: None
Revenue:
ActIon TIme:
No projected increase
Currently in place
3.4.4
Finding:
violators.
Courtesy TIcket
There is currently no courtesy ticket issued for first time
Recommendation: RICH recommends that from a publiC relations
standpoint Chula Vista should issue courtesy tickets for the first offense of a
non permit vehicle. With the recommended enhancements to
enforcements, customers and visitors who mistakenly stay beyond the
meters time length may be ticketed resulting in a negative image for the
downtown. The parker need to be informed of parking regulations as well
as parking areas that have longer stay meters or in the case of Park Plaza,
free parking.
This would require utilizing the handheld units currently used for
enforcement and the storage of data for a longer period of time. If a
vehicle (without a permit) at an expired meter has not received a ticket
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
--;;:: Parking Consultants - Planners
R!Et!
3-25
811 /2007
Chula Vista
during a specific period of time (say the last six months), then a courtesy
ticket could be issued that would first thank the parker for coming to
downtown Chula Vista and that their patronage is appreciated. Then the
courtesy ticket would go on to alert the parker to the fact that they were in
violation and then give the parker a map with alternatives to where they
can park for longer periods of time.
Cost: Loss of revenue from first ticket issued to an individual.
Will require software upgrades to handheld ticket writers
that are included, in #1 above.
Revenue: The projected loss of revenue is difficult to project at
this time.
Benefit:
Public relations is championed in Chula Vista and the
customers of the City.s businesses are less impacted by
more stringent parking enforcement or by other policy
and management changes that enhance parking
regulations.
Third Quarter 2008
Action Time:
3.5 Parking and Revenue Control
3.5.0 On-Street Parking
Finding: The meters need to be replaced. There are three types of
meters being used in Chula Vista, with the majority of the meters more than
30 years old. There appear to be many non-functioning meters. as noted
during RICH's fieldwork, which is likely due to the inability of the City to
repair meters due to their age, which has resulted in a lack of ability to
purchase parts and equipment for the meters. This causes numerous
problems particularly since the public does not receive consistent or clear
direction as to what the regulations are related to broken meters. It
appears that tickets are issued to vehicles parked at broken meters even
when a note was attached to the meter stating that it was broken. This
creates a sense of confusion and frustration from customers and visitors.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
!l!E!'!
3-26
811 /2007
Chula Vista
Duncan
Meter
Three different types of meters are us~d in downtown Chula Vista
Recommendation: The City needs to purchase new meters for the on-street
parking in the District. RICH recommends that the City purchase individual
electronic meters for on.street parking. The meters can accept coins,
tokens and value or smart cards, which could be sold to merchants. The
value cards could be used by merchants as a marketing tool by
distributing a card to customers for free parking on their next visit. The
meters should be electronic. which will allow rates and time parameters to
be more easily changed. Additionally. the reporting of income and use by
each meter can be downloaded by a handheld machine which will assist
in the revenue analysis and accountability. Ideally, the system would also
be wireless.
Several options were considered such as individual meters, multi-space
meters and pay-and-display machines.
. The mulit-space meter requires each on-street stall to be numbered with
the parker locating and walking to the meter's central location,
generally in the middle of the block, entering their stall number and
then depositing the appropriate amount of money required for the
duration of their stay. The multi-space machine can include credit
cards or value cards and can be networked. The downside of the
multi-space meter is that it requires the parker to find the central pay
location on the block. Enforcement is also a bit more difficult. With the
multi-space meter the enforcement person must check the machine to
see which spaces still have valid time. The PEO could not drive by each
space to see if there was an expired meter.
. The pay and display machine is also centralized on the block and the
parker deposits the amount of money for the amount of time they want
to park and then they receive a receipt that they then place in the front
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
~!S;B
3-27
811 /2007
Chula Vista
dashboard of their vehicle. The pay and display machine can include
credit cards or value cards and can be networked.
. The downside of the pay and display machine is that it requires the
parker to find the central pay location on the block. Enforcement is
also a bit more difficult. With the pay-and-display machine the PEO will
have to look in each dash to see if the vehicle has overstayed the time
printed on the receipt. The PEO could not drive by each space to see if
there was an expired meter.
Cost:
$160,000 for individual meters. Additional cost for
specifications and drawings is estimated at $10,000.
No additional revenue was projected by having new
meters though some increase may be expected.
First Quarter 2008- Prepare specifications and bid
Second Quarter of 2008-lnstall
Revenue:
ActIon Time:
3.5.1 Off-Street Parking
Finding: In the off-street lots there were several instances where there is
random placement of two-hour meter heads in a row of 10-hour meters.
RICH staff is not sure why this was occurring. though there were several lots
where this occurred.
Single space meter heads can be difficult to maintain, for both collection
and maintenance. They can also take significant time to empty and
enforce. There are several options such as the multi-space and pay and
display meters that would help make parking enforcement, collection and
maintenance more efficient.
The four-hour off-street parking is being used for long term parking by
employees however most employees are at work eight plus hours a day.
This would require an employee to feed the meter. It could be argued that
visitors who require more than two hours of parking are using this parking,
but the turnover study did not find this to be the case. There is no issue
keeping the four-hour meters. though it requires employees to feed the
meter if they park there and work more than four hours a day.
Recommendation: Install multi.space meters in off street lots #2, #3. #5
and #7. The remainder of the lots would receive new single space meters.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
=.:::: Parking Consultants. Planners
~!f^lj
3-28
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
For the multi space meter lots, each stall must be numbered and the
machine(s) would be conveniently located with appropriate signage
instructing the parker how to pay and where to go. The multi-space meter
will accept coins, bills. credit cards and value cards. The machines can
be networked and could be solar. The parking enforcement officer will
have to pull a report from the multi-space meter in the lot and then drive
around the lot to determine if the vehicle parked in a space is legal.
Meter location sign
Cost:
Revenue:
Action TIme:
Examples of multi-space meters
3.5.2 Parking Rates
Finding: The parking rates in Chula do not deter people from parking
beyond the posted limits nor do the rates promote the use of the Park Plaza
parking structure. In general, the parking rates do not differentiate the
different parking space types enough to reflect their use and desirability.
$85,000 for individual off street meters and $125,000
for multi space meters in Lot #2 (1 unit) Lot 3# (2 units),
Lot #5 (l unit) and Lot #7 (1 unit). These costs include
installation, software, one hand held, and collection
cart. Additional cost for specifications and drawings is
estimated at $10,000.
No additional revenue was projected by having new
meters though some increase may be expected.
Prepare specifications and bid First Quarter 2008. and
install Second Quarter of 2008.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
=:;: Parking Consultants - Planners
1l1\;B
3-29
81112007
Chula Vista
The current parking rates also do not allow the parking system to generate
adequate revenue to operate the parking or revenues to improve the
parking system. Also, if the enforcement is not consistent, it makes it
difficult to charge appropriately for parking.
Recommendation: Increase the parking rates for meters and permits as
follows:
Time Limit Current Rate Proposed Rate
On-street $0.05 per 10 minutes $0.25 per 30 minutes
30 minute meters
Token per 10 minutes
$0.10 per 20 minutes
$0.25 per 30 minutes
On-street $0.05 per 10 minutes $0.25 per 30 minutes
2 and 3 hour meters
Token per 10 minutes $0.50 per 60 minutes
$0.10 per 20 minutes
$0.25 per 50 minutes
Off-street 4 hour meters $0.05 per 30 minutes $0.25 per 30 minutes
$0.10 per 60 minutes $0.50 per 60 minutes
$0.25 per 150 minutes
Off-street 1 0 hour meters $0.05 per 30 minutes $0.25 per 60 minutes
Token per 30 minutes
$0.10 per 60 minutes
$0.25 per 150 minutes
Permits $54.00 per Quarter $1 20 per Quarter
Permits For Lots 2 and 3 $54.00 per Quarter $1 80 per Quarter
COSt:
Revenue:
No costs since the new parking equipment will come
with the increased rates
The projected increase in revenue is shown on the
following page for the first and second year.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
!\lS.(!
3-30
811 12007
Chula Vista
Year 1 Year 2
On-street meters $183.950 $204.400
Off-street meters $122.800 $166.810
Permit $57.600 $57.600
ActIon TIme:
Second Quarter of 2008
3.5.3 Parking Allocation
Finding: The City of Chula Vista has two different types of on-street
parking meters. The 30-minute and two hour on-street meters are sufficient
based on the land uses and the typical average stays.
Recommendation: Implement the following changes to the allocation of
certain time limit designations within the District.
On-street Parkina
The two-hour parking should be the dominant duration for on-street parking
as it suits the needs of the majority of customers and visitors. Individuals
requiring more than two hours for parking should be directed to off-street
parking areas. The other duration that should be found on-street is 30
minute parking for use as pick-up and drop off stalls or very short-term
parking. The 30 minute parking should be located as either the first or last
stall on the block face where needed. Finally. in areas where there is no
demand for customer-visitor parking. ten-hour on-street meters could be
used to add to control over these spaces and to generate revenue.
Off-street Parkina
For the off street lots with meters, they are either four hour or ten hour
meters. As recommended in Parking Revenue Control, four lots should be
equipped with multi-space meters. For Lots 2 and 3 on Landis, RICH
recommends that they be converted to three- hour time limits.
Lots 2 and 3 on Landis Avenue between E and F Streets and Lot 5 on
Madrona and Third Avenue are not providing sufficient customer and visitor
~ Rich and Associates, Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
~!S;!!
3-31
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
parking due to the large number of 10-hour meters in these lots. since the
1 Q-hour meters are primarily utilized by employees. This allocation of
spaces decreases the amount of parking available to visitors. Based on
the land uses in the area, it is more appropriate for these spaces to be
utilized by customers and visitors.
Permit Parkina
Although, RICH supports permit parking and believes it should be
maintained, specifically for lots 2 and 3, the permits should be priced
higher than other permits. The rate should be at least 150% of the base
permits in the other lots. This will provide ample daytime parking for
customers and visitors in Lots 2 and 3 since the fee increase will likely result
in fewer permits being sold for these lots. Those employees who elect to
not pay the premium fee to park in these two lots will move to the Park
Plaza parking structure, which currently provides free public parking.
In addition, permits City--wide should be issued for specific lots. Many
stakeholder expressed frustration that they were unable to find a space in
a lot even though they had purchased a permit. A permit today is merely
and hunting license for a space in any lot.
Cost: Cost for signage change estimated at $5,000
Revenues:
No impact projected at this time
The change to parking lots on Landis will create
improved visitor/customer parking.
Second Quarter 2008
Benefit:
Action TIme:
3.6 - Parking Facilities
3.6.0 Park Plaza Parking structure
Finding: This parking structure is critically underutilized. During the
turnover and occupancy on December 14, 2006 the structure was only 42
percent occupied at peak hour and on December 1 5, 2006 it only
reached peak occupancy of 32 percent. Based on normalizing the data.
RICH would project that the typical average occupancy is about 40
percent.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
q Parking Consultants - Planners
~l(;f!
3-32
8/1 /2007
Chula Vista
This facility represents a parking asset and in the overall plan, this parking
will be promoted for employees (free) and as a free parking alternative for
customers/visitors who need or want to stay longer than two hours.
The Park Plaza Parking Structure signs are old and fading so they are
difficult to find. The lighting in the structure and stair towers is insufficient
and this may be a reason employees do not use the structure. The
structure is not easily identified as public parking nor is it easily seen due to
the fact that it is set back from F Street and Third Avenue. Finally, the
structure needs rehabilitation. There is spa lied and crack concrete that
needs to be repaired. exterior spandrel walls need repairs, and the stair
towers need repairs.
Recommendation: Implement the following improvements.
. Upgrade locational and directional signage to the parking structure.
. Upgrade signage in the parking structure identifying floors, where
certain groups can park, and finally way finding signage in the parking
structure to tell a parker where they are going to get to Third Avenue.
. Lighting within the parking structure needs to be upgraded to have at
least six foot candles across the floors with 30 foot candles at the
vertical cores (stairs and elevators).
. Re-stripe the parking floors.
. Have a conditions study done and complete structural and cosmetic
repairs to the structure.
. Consider adding an elevator to the north end of the parking structure to
facilitate employee and customer/visitor access to parking.
. The lower level spaces will be allocated to short-term parking (three
hours) and the upper floors all day parking.
Cost: Costs to be determined
Revenue:
ActIon Time:
Zero
Fourth Quarter of 2007-Conduct Study
Second Quarter of 2007-lmplement improvements
~ Rich and Associates, Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
!'lS:B
3-33
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
Signs and lighting are an issue in the Park Plaza parking
structure. This structure would be more inviting with better
lighting and signage to direct and let people know this is long
term free parking.
..
There is not a sizabie sign at the entrance to the Park Plaza
parking structure. There are signs in the median ot the
road. though they are very difficult to read and not all cars
can see the signs. All entrances should read free parking
to encourage customers staying beyond two hours to park
here.
Examples of signs to help locate free parking for customers/visitors
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
~!,s;.\;!
3-34
811 /2007
Chula Vista
3.6.1 Meter Color Coding
Finding: The existing meters are not marked to indicate the time limit for the
meter, which is confusing for parkers. There needs to be an easy way for
parkers to identify if they are at a 30-minute, 2-hour, or 10-hour meter to
avoid pulling into a space then realizing they won't have enough time and
having to find another space, which affects traffic congestion and parking
availability.
Recommendation: Designate a color to represent each parking limit then
implement by painting the entire pole or painting a band of color just
below the meter head. There are also color bands that can be placed at
the top of the meter head that may be considered.
Cost:
Revenue:
Benefit:
$5.000
None
Easier to understand system will improve parking and
overall customer/visitor experience to Chula Vista.
Second Quarter of 2008
ActIon Time:
3.6.2 street Curbs
Finding:
The street curb painting is inconsistent.
Recommendation: Street curbs should only be painted for no parking
where required and for fire hydrate locations. Curbs should not be painted
to reflect the type of parking available.
Cost:
No estimates were made at this time. Additional
analysis must be completed to quantify the areas to
be painted
None
Make no parking areas legible
Fourth Quarter of 2007-Analysis
First Quarter 2008-Work completed
Revenues:
Benefit:
Action Time:
~ Rich and Associates, Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
~!E\;!
3-35
8/112007
Chula Vista
3.7 - Bicycles as an Alternate Mode of Transportation
3.7.0 Bicycling as an Alternative to DrMng
Finding: There is a need for a program to promote bicycle usage in
Chula Vista and to make traveling to downtown by bicycle safer and
more appealing.
Recommendation: Following the U<;:SP in promoting alternate modes of
transportation and creating a more pedestrian friendly downtown, consider
making Chula Vista a more bicycle friendly downtown and providing
adequate and useable bicycle parking. Consider creating a bike route to
the downtown and creating a marketing program to promote bicycle use
as an alternative to driving. Create a special event to promote bicycles in
an effort to help create alternative modes of transportation. which in turn
cuts down on the number of parking spaces needed.
Cost:
Revenue:
ActIon TIme:
To be determined
Zero
Fourth Quarter of 2007
3.7.1 Bicycle Parking
Finding: Chula Vista does have bicycle racks, though they are difficult
to find. There are walls built around some of the bicycle racks that hid the
rack. There is no signage to show where the racks are located.
The placement of this rack will impede pedestrian traffic when the bicycle rack is full.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
0:::::::;:: Parking Consultants - Planners
!}IEt!
3-36
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
Recommendation: Install new bicycle racks in the downtown and institute
a marketing program to promote new locations to park bicycles. In
following the UCSP, racks should be placed near bus stops to encourage
people to use the bus. epically stops with a high ridership count like the
intersection of Third Street and H Street. In areas where commuters will be
using bicycle storage it is a good idea to provide a shelter from the
elements such as a bike locker, covered rack or simply by placing bicycle
racks in an existing or new parking structure.
Parking bicycles in many ways should be looked at like parking cars, areas
for parking must be convenient, well lit and signed. Racks must allow for
enough room when parking a bicycle there is ease in locking the bike to
the rack. Locations for bicycle parking should mirror locations of
automobile parking. Existing parking lots create a good place for bicycle
racks and several bicycles can be parked in one automobile parking
space. Begin by placing racks in lots with the highest parking demand. As
racks begin to get greater utilization, begin adding additional racks in
other lots with high parking demand.
Cost: $10,000-$ 75,000 depending on the number and style
of racks, signs and marketing materials.
Revenue: None
Benefit:
As mentioned, bicycle friendly communities draw
people and activity into the downtown areas,
promoting economic and social activity.
Second Quarter of 2008
Action TIme:
Best Practices for Selecting Bike Racks:
. Racks should allow bike frame to make
contact at two points. Most bikes commuters
use do not have kickstands.
. Should allow for more than one bike per rack.
. Needs to allow for popular "U" shape lock.
. Racks should be placed where they will not
impede upon pedestrian traffic, though need
to be readily identifiable. Bicycle racks
should not be hidden.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
~!S!!
3-37
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
. Should be clearly signed with a bicycle parking <
sign.
. A complete guide to bicycle parking. written by The
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, can be found at
httD:llwww.bicvclinainfo.ora/de/Darkauide.cfm.
Markellng Bicycles In a Downtown:
. There is National "Ride Your Bike to Work Day/Month" in May. There are
several communities throughout the U.S. that participate. Information can
be found through the League of American Bicyclists, www.bikeleaaue.ora.
. Bicycle Friendly Community Campaign
rwww.bicvclefriendlvcommunitv.ora) awards communities who are
bicycling friendly and promote walk-able, safe communities.
. "Communities that are bicycle-friendly are seen as places with a high
quality of life. This otten translates into increased property values. business
growth and increased tourism. Bicycle-friendly communities are places
where people feel safe and comfortable riding their bikes for fun, fitness.
and transportation. With more people bicycling, communities experience
reduced traffic demands, improved air quality and greater physical fitness"
www.bicvclefriendlvcommunitv.ora
. Work collectively with the Chula Vista Chamber and TAVA on incorporating
bicycle events into flyers and newsletters.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
mfli
3-38
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
3.8 - Parking Requirements for Current and Future
3.8.0 Trame Impacts
Finding: Based on a cursory analysis by RICH, there were no issues with
respect to traffic. All of the parking areas are easily accessible with the
exception of Lot 6 and the Park Plaza parking structure, though this is
because of its location and not traffic concerns. Additionally. there were
no traffic concerns based on the future parking projections. It was noted
that the current on-street parking arrangement on Third Avenue (angled
parking) has a traffic calming effect, which slows down traffic. This is a
positive condition.
The level of additional traffic generated from the projected "worse case"
parking demand based on UCSP maximum build-out represents a 50
percent increase in parking spaces needed from what is projected for the
current condition. The UCSP and this report assume that there will be
additional parking nodes that will reduce the amount of traffic that will
drive through the downtown.
Recommendation: Continue to monitor traffic flow within the
downtown and the levels of service at principle intersections as
development occurs and parking changes/additions are implemented.
Cost: Zero
Revenue:
ActIon TIme:
Zero
On-going
3.8.1 Current Parking Analysis
Finding: Overall there is a surplus of approximately 1,103 parking
spaces within the District and the area south to H Street. However, there
are several blocks along Third Avenue that have deficits (blocks 9and 10).
As identified earlier, the Park Plaza parking structure is underutilized.
Recommendation: The parking demand analysis identified an overall
parking surplus, but also a deficit in certain blocks such as blocks 2, 3. and
12 on the north side and blocks 9 and lOon the south side. The
recommendation in 3.6.0 to increase the use of the Park Plaza parking
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
~!E~
3-39
811/2007
Chula Vista
structure should alleviate the parking demand issues on blocks 2, 3 and 12.
The deficits on blocks 9 and 10 will be reduced when the Social Security
Office relocates, and these blocks too should be utilizing the Park Plaza
parking structure for employee parking.
Cost: Zero
Revenue:
ActIon TIme:
Zero
On-going
3.8.2 Potential Parking Impact of Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement (ENA) sites
Finding: At the time of RICH's review, the Redevelopment Agency had
entered into Exclusive Negotiating Agreements for the development of four
public parking lots. These sites are Lots 3. 6. 9 and 10 and are shown on
Map 7 (ENA Development Sites), included in Section 2. RICH analyzed the
loss of parking that would occur with each development and confirmed
that development of any of the ENA sites would reduce the number of
parking spaces available in the District. Each potential development site is
further analyzed below:
· Lot 3 has high utilization. with occupancy averaging 80 percent for
most of the day. This lot provides a large supply of parking and is
central to many businesses on Landis Avenue and Third Avenue.
Additionally, a number of permit holders park in this lot. Loss of this
parking lot would have a significant impact on the District.
. Lot 6 has a high occupancy, averaging about 70 percent. Due to the
small lot size it has a lower capacity and is hampered by a difficult
ingress and egress. The loss of parking spaces on this site could have
some impact on surrounding businesses. There are other parking areas
that can make up for any loss of parking however.
· Lot 9 has occupancies of around 90 percent at peak time. The loss of
spaces due to the ENA development will have some impact on parking
supply in this area. although there are other parking areas that can
make up for the loss of spaces.
· Lot 10 has average occupancy of approximately 85 percent. but had
apeak time occupancy of almost 1 00 percent at two time intervals over
the two survey days. This is largely based on the 1 O-hour spaces having
a high number of permit holders. The loss of spaces in this lot will have
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
R!f~~
3-40
81112007
Chula Vista
minimal impact on customers, although permit holders would need to
be redirected to other parking. There are surrounding parking areas
that can make up for the loss of parking.
Recommendation for Lot 3: Maintain Lot 3 as a public parking lot
Recommendation for Lot 6: Development of this lot should have
minimal impact on the surrounding area because of the availability of
additional parking. If alter development there appear to be negative
impacts on parking availability, the City should pursue the Baptist Church
parking lot next to lot 6 through a shared parking agreement for the entire
lot or certain spaces, to be used particularly at night. The City would
agree to maintain the lot and insure the lot for the Church. If a significant
need for parking in this area occurs in the future, consider combining Lot 7
and the Baptist Church lot for the development of a parking structure.
Recommendation for Lot 9: Development of this lot should have minimal
impact since there is available surrounding parking. If development
occurs. use way finding and signage to direct customers/visitors to Lots 8
and 11. If the parking capacities of the surrounding lots are not adequate
to support the parking lost on Lot 9, the City should consider acquiring
property to create additional pUblic parking.
Recommendation for Lot 10: Development of this lot should have minimal
impact to customers and visitors since it is primarily occupied by permit
holders and there is available surrounding parking. Once development
occurs, use way finding and signage to direct customers/visitors to Lots 8
and 11. If the parking capacities of the surrounding lots are not adequate
to support the parking lost on Lot 9. the City should consider acquiring
property to create additional public parking.
Potential Future Parking Needs WIth Redevelopment of
third Avenue
Finding: The Urban Core Specific Plan may hasten redevelopment
along Third Avenue and cause changes to the parking demand in the
District. For purposes of exploring the maximum parking needs, RICH
projected parking demand based upon the redevelopment of Third
Avenue to the maximum allowable by the plan which included maximum
coverage of each parcel; commercial on the ground floors and residential
3.8.3
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants. Planners
~!S;.(!
3-41
8/1 /2007
Chula Vista
on the upper floors. The projections identified that there could be the need
for approximately 500 additional spaces in the District.
Recommendation: The future parking needs will depend greatly on the
redevelopment along Third Avenue and on the ENA development sites (see
Map 7 for reference to sites). For the ENA sites in general, RICH
recommends that the agency should prioritize proceeds from the sale of
parking lots to necessary capital improvement projects within the parking
district. Additionally, this parking study should be updated every two years
to track how the implemented recommendations contained herein have
affected parking and to assess the over parking utilization in the district.
Based on the zoning outlined in the UCSP, RICH projected parking needs
assuming redevelopment and maximum build-out of each parcel. Those
assumptions included a 2.0 FAR and a land use distribution of 40 percent
residential, 40 percent commercial and 20 percent office. The results
showed that there could be a deficit of about -500 spaces if this build-out
were to occur with no additional parking provided.
If the build out of these blocks occurs structured parking will be required
even if the goals of alternate transportation are met. Additionally,
additional residential development that might curb the number of vehicles
coming into the downtown and increase the likelihood of shared use
parking will still not meet the demands of the projected deficit.
There are severO I possibilities for additional parking in the downtown:
· Nodal Parking: One concept would be to create nodes of parking at
the north and south ends of Third Avenue and then to rely upon a trolley
system to get pedestrians up and down Third Avenue. One possibility
would be to use the parking in with the Gateway project at H Street and
Third during their off hours as the south node and then a property at or
north of E Street as the north node. Finding property that is of sufficient
size will be critical. The minimum dimensions for an efficient parking
structure is 125 feet by 290 feel. The longer the site can be would allow
more efficient layout and would allow flat facades on the ends and one
long side of the structure.
~ Rich and Associates, Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
~$!.;!
3-42
8/1/2007
Chulo Vista
. Conventional Parking Structure on Alternate Site: There were several
parking structure sites identified; the Baptist Church lot in combination
with Lot 7, the vacant lot on the east side of Third Avenue between G
and Alvarado Streets and finally a site on the west side of Church
between E and Davidson Streets. These sites are discussed in Section
3.8.4.
· Alternate Parking Structure Options: There are multi-level parking
facilities that require a smaller site. This type of parking facility is
,
mechanical and uses a mechanicalliflto place vehicles in a multi story
structure. While this requires a smaller footprint. there are operation
limitations that generally restrict its use to residential projects with little
turnover parking.
.
3.8.4 PossIble Parking Structure Sites
FindIngs: There is currently no need to construct additional parking, but
as part of RICH's analysis, three parking structure sites were identified for
future consideration, if necessary. These sites are shown on Map 9
(Potential Parking Structure Sites) on the following page. All estimates of the
parking structure footprints and the parking space capacities are based
on aerial maps that do not allow exact site dimensions to be determined.
For each parking structure site we assumed grade and two supported
levels. For each site the City should consider incorporating bicycle
amenities such as racks, lockers and possibly shower facilities. Depending
on the site location, the City should consider incorporating ground floor
commercial uses; especially those that would promote provide services to
employees of the downtown. Finally, the parking sites should incorporate
transit options where possible and such amenities such as recharging
stations for hybrid/electric vehicles.
Site l-Block 6 : The vocant lot on the eas1 side of Third Avenue between G
and Alvarado streets
This site is approximately 300 feet wide and 380 feet long and is currently
vacant. Assuming setbacks around the site, a preliminary parking footprint
was developed for this site. A typical floor could accommodate 228
spaces assuming four parking module. A module consists of a parking
stalVaisle/parking stall. If we assume grade and two supported floors, the
capacity could be as much as 640 spaces.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
!HS!:!
3-43
8/112007
PARKING STUDY
FOR THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
CHULA VISTA . CAUFORNIA
..-..... '.,kin&[oo,"llan"
~Ar<:blt~"'.EnlID""
~ f:~~;!:~~:~:~ ~;:';<""
RICH',::'.::':::,",
&A..OCJAn> ._."'",,,~.,.~
DWG. lTTlE'
POTEN1lAL PARKING
STRUCTURE SITES
MAP 9
LE<JEJoI)
@ BLOCK #
~
~
~,N.T5
PAGE: '
Chula Vista
This site and the possible parking structure footprint could accommodate a
mixed-use component on the Third Avenue side. There could be as much
as 31,000 square feet of space created on the ground floor. Since there
are up four modules and only two are required for the traffic flow, the
amount of occupied space could continue to the second and third floors
facing Third Avenue. Therefore a maximum of 93,000 square feet of
mixed- use space could be developed.
,
The positive aspects of this site are; the size which provides several options
and allows the incorporation of occupied space at a minimum on the
ground floor which gives a streetscape top the parking structure, and the
lot is currently vacant so all of the parking built on this site will be a net
add. The cons to this site are the fact that the City does not own the site
and that it is several blocks from the core. The distance from the core
however, does comply with the principles of the UCSP in terms of moving
towards a walk able community.
Site 2-Block 4: Baptist Church lot In combination with the City's Lot 7
With both properties. this site is approximately 1 80 feet wide and 400 feet
long and there are currently +/- 106 spaces on the two lots. City Lot 7 on
its own is approximately 240 feet long and could be a parking structure
site, but the functional design would be less efficient than the longer site
and should only be considered if the Baptist Church lot is unavailable.
The site dimensions with both lots would accommodate a two module
parking structure which would leave a +/- 60 foot setback from Church
Avenue that could be developed into surface parking. green space,
pocket park, or even a site for the Farmer's Market on the surface 101.
The preliminary parking structure layout on this site would accommodate
approximately 420 spaces for a net add of approximately 314 spaces. A
typical floor could contain 156 spaces.
The positive aspect of this site is that it is centrally located and compliments
the Park Plaza parking structure on the west side of Third Avenue. Parking
~ Rich and Associates, Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
~!S!.!
3-44
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
demand could be accommodated both north and south on Third Avenue.
Also, the setback from Church could provide a green space or a home for
the Farmer's Market. The drawback of the site is that the City does not own
all of the property proposed.
Site 3- Block 1: West side of Church between E and DavIdson Stree1s
There are two options on this site that would incorporate the vacant parcel
on the corner of Third Avenue and E Street and the northeast corner of the
block bounded by E Street and Church Avenue including the area up to
the City's Lot 11 .
The first option is a parking structure only on the east half of the block. This
orea could support a parking structure of approximately 250 spaces on
grade and two supported floors. This would add would be 216 spaces.
This would retain the vacant parcel on the northwest corner for
development and provide parking for it in the new parking structure.
The second option would be to plan an "L" shaped parking structure that
would incorporate the vacant parcel. At a minimum the ground floor of
this parcel should be developed as mixed use space and then have two
levels of parking on top of thaI. These two floors would tie into the main
parking structure as described above. About 16,000 square feet could be
developed for mixed-use space. Additionally, the air rights above the
parking structure, at least on the northwest corner could be developed as
residential. This footprint could accommodate approximately 375 spaces
for an estimated net add of 341 spaces.
The positive element of this site is that it creates a northern of parking and
encourages parking and walking down Third Avenue. The negative
aspect is that the site(s) is not owned by the City.
Recommendatlons:Continue to monitor the parking occupancies and re-
evaluate parking every two years. The following sections below address
the timing and development costs issues.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
R!5J!
3-45
811 /2007
Chula Vista
TIming for Additional Parking Development
Parking development in downtown Chula Vista will need to be coordinated
with demand to ensure that as development occurs the City has the
appropriate amount of parking. The City will need to position itself so that if
the need for additional parking arises it will have the financial SOlvency to
construct additional parking.
Deciding when to initiate the parking structure will depend first and
foremost on need. Financial costs must then be considered in terms of
viability and timeframe. However, deciding when development demands
warrant the parking structure is a relatively straightforward calculation.
RICH prepared the following formula to assist the City as a decision making
tool. The model works by using the building gross floor area (existing and
proposed) as the variable in a decision making flow chart that assists with
determining when new parking demand justifies a new parking structure.
New Parking Threshold Calculation Worksheet
Part A; Determining Floor Area
Total Built Gross Floor Area For Entire Downtown:
(+) Proposed New Gross Floor Area:
(=) Total Existing and Proposed New Gross Floor Area:
Part B: DeterminIng Parking Need
Total Existing and Proposed New Gross Floor Area:
(X) 2.37 Parking Stalls Per 1,000 Square Feet:
(=) Total Parking Stalls Demanded:
(-) Existing Off-Street Parking:
(=) New Parking Demanded:
Part C: Decision Guide
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
!UfB
3-46
8/1/2007
Chula Vista
New Parking Demanded:
(X) 85%:
(=) Minimum New Parking Needed:
(If) Minimum New Parking Needed Is:] Optimal Capacity of the New
Parking Structure
Then: Initiate Project
(Or) Minimum New Parking Needed Is: Optimal Capacity of Next New
Parking Structure
Then: Delay Initiation Until The Above Condition Is Met
Parking Slte/DeSlgn Decision Matrix
As development occurs within the district, the City will have to address the
need for additional parking. Several possible parking structure sites were
identified in Section 3.8.5 and a formula that can be utilized as a measure
for determining when a parking structure is necessary is also included in
Section 3.8.6 above. RICH has developed a decision matrix for the City to
use to analyze both sites and the design on each site. That is included
below.
~ Rich and Associates, Inc.
~ Parking Consultants - Planners
~!ft!
3-47
8/1 /2007
EXAMPLE OF SITE SELECTION/DESIGN MATRIX
Please score each site based on the criteria below. The score should be a whole number from 1
(lowest score) to 5 (highest score). In each criteria category. the same score may be given to
more than one site or parking structure layout on a site. Some criteria may be difficult to score
such as cost per net added space since Rich and Associates will be filling in this data. We have
left these criteria closed because we will score them when we have the numbers.
Weight
Site 1<0"""
Criteria ", ,,'
,
1. Vehicle Ingress I Egress
/
't
2. Ability of driver to find structure
,
/
3. Effects on adjacent properties II
I"
"
4. Revenue potential lif: ,',
5. Pedestrian access and wayfinding H T
/,
'>. Meet goals for spaces needed. "
7. Economic benefits to area i!lf
'"
I
8. Effects on back entrances or loading/unload'
9. Efficiency of parking structure ,
,
'I:oll
10. Disruption on-site and downtown :t :,'
11. Expansion capability of parking structure :121i
12. User group served: Commuters
Employees "'"
,
VisitorlCustomers "
13. Cost/net added space I: '"
Chula Vista
Parking Development Costs. Parking Improvement Costs and
Financing
While there were no immediate recommendations for a parking structure.
this section covers possible parking structure development costs and how
they may be financed. The construction costs for a parking structure of
approximately 300 spaces which would be considered the minimal
number of spaces for scales of economy. is estimated to range from
$15,000 to $18,000 per space. Prpject soft costs without land costs are
generally between 1 7 and 20 percent and then finance costs are between
7 and 1 0 percent of the project costs.
There are other costs for parking improvements such as new meters, multi
space meters etc. No specific funding mechanism has been identified,
though there are several options.
. The first is to fund projected capital costs and increased operating costs
from increased revenues based on the General Fund receiving the net
revenue from parking fixed at the projected 2007 level. This can be
seen on the accompanying projection of revenues and expenses.
8ased on the projection through 2027, the average net revenue to the
parking fund would be approximately $169,000 per year. This could be
used to fund the debt service on a bond or other debt instrument to pay
for the proposed improvements.
. Include possible support from the Redevelopment Agency using some
of the tax increment capture to fund improvements. There appears to
be approximately 1 2 years left on the increment capture and this could
be used to fund some or all of the proposed improvements.
. Use the existing PBID to fund improvements.
. Federal funding with highway/transit funds may be possible depending
on the project, which would have to incorporate some type of multi-
modal functions. The process is lengthy and there is competition from
other projects/cities for these dollars.
~ Rich and Associates. Inc.
=::: Parking Consultants - Planners
!}!,<;;.\'!
3-48
811 /2007
City of Chula Vista
Overview of Parking
Best Practices
February 15,2007
~
~
R,;.1fl:!
Improving Existing Parking
if
An Examination Of Current Parking
Management, Allocation, Pricing and
Operations
"Best Practices" Approach To
Improving The Efficiency Of Existing
Resources.
Strategic Plan Of Implementation
,
.
~
::;;;:
!\~c;ff
Parking Allocation
.
Individual Economic
Decision
Free Parking Like Free Gas
Transportation Influenced
By Economics
l '
~
,
~
~
~-'9.t
it'
.
,
Exhibit 1
Parking
.
;a,
~
~LC;.IJ
Parking Is One Of The Biggest Factors In
SuccessfUl Dovvntovvns
Traffic Congestion Is Related To Parking
Parking Is In Reality A Transportation
Node (Riding <> Walking)
Modality, Ridership And Shared Parking
Are Among The Most Desirable Ways To
Reduce Parking Demand
,
,
Parking Management
. City Departrnent(s)
Contract Management
Local Businesses and Retailers
Business Associations
Parking Committee
,
,
;a,
::;;;:
~J.t;:,tl
Parking Enforcement Strategies
.
;a,
::;;;:
F:1St'
Carrots
- Validation program
- Concentric pricing
- Marketing material
- Incentive to pay fine early
-Amnesty day
- Tourism Incentive
.
1
Parking Enforcement Strategies
Sticks
~ Dedicated enforcement
officers
- Consistency is key!
- Increased fines for
multiple infractions
- Use technology
- Meters are reminders,
a not just tax: collectors
;;;:!
fI.!.\.ti
~.
~"i'" ~.
.--~/~~~,
~j;)IY.Il:-~ ~,l;;'.tf..IiY)
},..:-,. IH'----;'ltJ ..'
:9)l!bk.( ~
<!AKEU.",'(JUHM<I'!O'
"iQlI S'.' "NO PA~~'NG' ~H~) r~f SEa"
s.ws. 'C'NE F~'Il.AR~"18'
Signs - Pedestrian
. Way Finding
- Pedestrian Link
Between
Parking Areas
and Destination
.
.
~
:31
R.J,t;t!
Pedestrian Strategies
.
Enhance Pedestrian Experience
Reduce Presence Of Parking Lots
Way-Finding Signs
Create PedestrianlBicycle Paths
Zoning To Achieve Urban Density &
Variety of Land Uses
,
~
3
f9<.;:t!
.
.
Signs - Traffic
.
Five Main Types - Hierarchy Is Important
Four Oriented Towards Automotive Traffic
- Introduction
- Direction
- Location
- Identification
,
~
;;;:!
R;!S,l:I
Pedestrian Activity
.
Critical Part Of Successful Downtowns
(Pedestrian Activity ~ Economic Activity)
A Mode Used Whenever We Change
Transportation
Key Concerns: Safety, Cleanliness, Traffic
and Parking
~
3
~<~~:.~
Parking Strategies
.
On-Street Parking ]s Your Best Friend
Charge For Parking
Change Zoning To Parking Maximum
Make As Much Parking Public As Possible
Public/Private Partnerships
Parking Signs & Marketing Are Crucial
,
,
~
3
NC,11
2
Parking Operations
Parking Management
Pricing Strategies
Defining Users
EquipmentfTechnology
S:
31
~k~:l!
Marketing
S:
::;;;!
!'I.9.:!
Customer and Business friendly practice
Distribution with other downtown
promotional material
Advises individuals and businesses of %
upcoming changes to the parking system
Marketing/Education-Ongoing Process
RadiolPrintlWeb Site fI'
Park & Shop
Supply and Demand Analysis
.
Parking
Equipment/Technology
Multi Space Meters
Pay By Space Meters
Pay and Display
Electronic Payment
Meter less Parking
Networked Equipment
Credit Card/Debit(Value) CardIValidations
,
.
S:
31
!tl,~l.\
Shared Use Strategy
NOD-.haredIlR
Sh...eduse
..
".
..
'"
""
".
""
"
,
~.. tf'''' .,...,g. "",,;f
~l> ~l" "...,+ ,
.
-
.
..
.
Moraln&~!_lIt
(S11I1...n {Sbauolj (Sh.red)
NlidJl
(Sh......)
S:
;;;;:$
~
3
s
::;;:::
~g-Jl
Cost of Parking
$16,000 per stall- Construction costs
$350 per stall-Operation and Maintenance
for 1 year (assumes attendant parking)
$50 per stall every year-Repair and
Replacement Reserve Account
s
::;;:::
F;!,c,:,lj
User Fees
Simplest method to implement
Benefactor is paying
Easy allocation through pricing
Can be combined with validation programs
Helps promote alternate transportation
choices
Payment is matched to cost of parking
s
::;::;:
R:!r:I:!
Key Issues
Determine who will pay for parking
Assess how much parking private
development projects will need
Decide when to build public parking
s
::;::;:
!l:!QJ
,
.
,
,
Paying For Parking
Operating and
Maintenance are on-
.
w
,
going
Planning for
Replacement
Four key sources to
select from
Can be combined.
. . ,
One bme Capital cost
to build.
,
One time payment
City gets money up-front
May require building specific parking allocation
according to what developer pays
- "I paid fOT 50 stalls. I want 50 stalls"
Developers may be resistant to on-going user fees
or assessments
Leaves Operating, Maintenance and Replacement
costs to City
In Lieu Fee
.
*
,
s
::;::;:
~
.
.
.
4
Annual Assessment
Difficult to administer as
- changes in use or ownership may cause
challenge of assessment
Often unable to charge enough to cover all
costs
- becomes a burden to small business
City left with up-front cost of building
parking
3:
~
R!Et!
Financing Options
Tax Backed Obligations
general obligation bonds
special assessment districts
tax increment financing
Revenue Bonds
COPS
3:
~
!l:IQ:!
w.,~
Payrcll Taxes & Frinlles
Liabilrtylnsurance
Ulilrtie5
Telephone
EQuipment Maintenance
Parking Suppjies (Tickels I Cards)
Uniform. & Cleaning
Recruilemem I Employee Testing
Legal & Accounting
L09$ & Damage
Maintenance Supplies
Elevator Maintenanc:e'
Ma'l8l1ementFee
BookkeepinllFees
ReJlllir& ReplacementFund'
Snow Removal
Miscellaneous
'"
Total
1212,8117
~ 1) Assumes 2 Elevato~@ $400lMonlh PerElevalo,
~2JS50lspaceIYear
=
J\!,q~
"""'"
$56.355
523.3<12
$35.000
526.000
$1.B00
SMoo
$3.400
"
$2,000
$2,400
$5,000
55,000
59,600
"'-"""
59726
5389<1
55833
54333
1300
5583
$567
$0,00
$3.33
5400
$833
58,33
51600
50,00
5000
$50,00
5533
""
$30,000
$5,000
$2,500
$35463
%
.
General Fund
.
,
.
Easy to administer
Financing for construction but on-going
maintenance and replacement costs still an
issue
Challenge of competing City interests and
responsibilities
,
,
3:
~
~!Ql
-- -
......w___'w...__...___
,...........- -,...-
,.....-, ....,...~._~_._...~._..,
.......--...
.
.
, ,_~o..o~.._.
"...-
,
,
-
"...~.......-
,
.
1Sl
~
~1~}j
1::......::::=
PRO FORMA 455 SPACE PARKING STRUCTURE
BREAK EVEN ANAYLSIS BASED ON GO BOND ISSUE
,~, .~, "." ,~. .~, .-. ,..., 'OR" .~. '...."
~
,- "" "" ." ." ". Il," "" ~ .. ""
- ." .. .. ~" ~" ~" ~. .." ."" ,,,.
- Im,DOD,OO Im,DOD" 1m,,",," "","1"" """",," .",",,'" "","",,'" -,''''''' -,,.,,,, "",,"'''
"","" """"'''' h>01O<.,,,,, " ""-",,,", ">UI'" ""121,'"' "., ,., ,,,,,,,",., "..".01
..- '."-,,",00 -~. -~. "",'"'' ....,""", -,"'-'" ....,"",'"' -,,,"., _n"
- ''''-,",,'' "....,.., .171"..", m,,"'," ""-,,",," """"'" "",'",,00 """"" "''-'u" mo..,,'
..."'-. "";.0.. "-" h"""", "","'" '"",,,"," "","''' .",,,,.. "''''',11 "","'," m...,.,
.v..........."'" ",,""'" mu..'" ",...""" "....." ",,",m," "",,"'''' "....... "..~. ....,"",.. .~.
-. ""!OJ'" ,,'.....'" ."....... "",""''' "",",," ",",",,'" """"'lID "",,",,00 ",",DOD,'" '711,"".,
.....""'....e. ",""'" '"-",,," ",,,"," "',"'" '",111''' "","'" ~~. '""... "',"''' 106,'''''"
-'-"-...-- ,,,,,,'" 11,'00'" ,"",",., ,""",., '",'00'"' ,",',"",", ,",',",'" ,.,.,'" ",',",,'" 11,'0000
3:
~
RJ,~:~
5
PRO FORMA 455 SPACE PARKING STRUCTURE
MARKET RATE ANALYSIS BASED ON GO BOND ISSUE
. .
_. $" ',"" -. $" '.... ,.." ,.... -. ''"''.
m
-.- 1m ". ". ... ... .m ,t:" .. .... ".10
.-- .. .. .. .. ... m. ." .. ..
-
-- "'1;"". ~,- "',,,,,. ,.....'" -.. -. -.. -.. -.. -"
",.""'" """"'" .-- ,,,,,,.'" ,,,,,,,'" ,,"'.....'" "OI.>DUI "'0:.... "OJ".""'"
.",....... .."....'" "",'''", "".'.". """'''' -... ....',,'" -." -.. mo,"".
"',.,."" .....""'" ,,,,,..., ."'.,.... " .. .'.,,.,... ~_. -.. ,~,..... ""',.,,,
,,,- "...""'" .....""'" 111U04" "..." ~_. ,~,...., -,.,."
"...............,.."", =.. "'........ -.. ''''''''-'' ".,....., -.. -.""'<11 -- -.- ._-
,- "'.""'" "'liD]'" ",..,,'" ",......, ",.-", ".....'" ~.. .".""'" ,,,..,.'" ~.
",..__e. "",."", "71.'''''' ,"."'" -.. --. -Sm,"" _lll>,..... "''''''' 4I1OlP''-'' ..1S''''''
"..,,,,,,.,"...,~.,... ".""'" ".""" ".""'" "."'''' It,",,'" ".''''''' It,'''.'' ".''''''' a,''''''' ...
a
;;;;;Ii
!'.1.9J
Design / Layout
AOl!le vs. 90 del!'ree
Ramoinl!:
Sloped Floor
Semi-express
Express
DeterminiDl! Facton:
Mixed-wes
Capacity
~ Peak traffic flow
~ Expaodability
~Ft;!j
Operational Considerations
.
Cashiered vs. Cashierless
a
;;;;;Ii
it!q-f
Operating costs
Customer service
Revenue accountability/maximization
Site Selection
Dimensions:
Size
Sbape
Efficiency
Location:
Proximity to major
demand genera ton
Connections to adjacent
land.uses
a
3'i
~ISk\
User Friendly Considerations
Securitv
. Passive
. Active
Wavfindiol!
. CleIlr aod concise
Lil!htcores
. Open environment
. Supplemenl artificiBllight
MaximizeVisibilitv
AcrosspBrkingfloors
3
3'i
~WJ~
Vertical cores (insjde& out)
Next Steps
,
R&A Compiling and Analyzing Data
March 8, 2007
- Presentation of Parking Study Findings and
Charrette
April 12, 2007
- Presentation of Parking Recommendations
3
3'i
Jg~:tI
6
City of Chula Vista
Parking Study Findings
March 8, 2007
:=
;;;;:!
m~:!i
District History
. Parking District formed in 1963
. In Lieu fee established in 1982
. Modification of In Lieu Fee in 1989
. Park Plaza Parking Structure built in late 19805
=
~
RJP!
Parking Supply
_:_.~~_<_"~ ; f, ~
. '.I'~' I
i""T: ' I '
11il --.-' ,!!, . t_ _ _,,,
~_~_ \_~.l -'iii
Jl1.':&:.r ~~"'~ ~:I'~ill"1
_II~" ..~_j"./I~I~-'~f
:=
;;;;:!
~
G
Study Area
.
.
o
.
o @
.
@@
,
:=
~
!H9i
G
Parking Study Process
,
,
Parking Supply
.
.
,
On-Street Parking Totals 600
Public Off-Street Parking Totals 1,158
Public Parking Totals 1,758 52%
Private Parking Totals 1,603 48%
Total Parking in Study Area 3,361 100%
==
,
,
Z
~!~tl
1
Key Definitions
. Turnover- Tbe number of times a vebicle is obsenred
in tbe same space
. Occupancy - Tbe lengtb of time a space is occupied by a
vebicle
The obsenration of eacb parking space once
every two hours
. Block Face -A number and letter designation for each
block (A - North Face, B - East Face, C-
South Face, D - West Face)
. Circuit-
a
~
mS,t1
Friday Turnover and Occupancy
.
!Ji~.
rIIOl:":"'-"
,
~
,
<t
a
~
~J~:t!
Summary of Occupancy Study
~-_...-
lj~m=;-...~.....~..
... ".. '.. ... ,.. ,..
---
IDo'....~._.o.."'1
.
.
P.,aonlllIlO0<""pooncy12115.11C
"-~
fll ::
iJi :: .
.. ". ,. ,. .. ,.
n-..__
a
~
~
1.~."_,,,c"'~1
.
,
'\
Thursday Turnover and Occupancy
a
:::;;:
~I.SI;i
--
__an...
~_.
,
'Ii
,
0ccuP0G'-'2Il_
Summary of Occupancy Study
Ij~~~
I.O'_.....'''''~c..'''1
a
:::;;:
'9f~
.
I
. "~.0<<.P."q,2Il_
"-~
"h .....
r"t"'" :.
,!h:: .. ,
~......"-,-_.,,.~..
I''''''''_OM_'''O''''''''I
Summary of Occupaocy Study
*'
Comp.rative Percentllge Occupency
h=l~
'6 (;; 40%
I... ~O%
!!!!20%
!:! 10%
i. 0%
- ~ 1=-::::
9,00 ",00 "00 ~:oo 5:00 7:00
a
~
~K[l
,
Tlmeo1'O_,...,1Icn
2
Parking Demand Generation Factor
. Based on existing land uses
. Does not include cbanges to vehicle use patterns,
availability ofalteroate modes, walkability, etc. envisioned
by UCSP
. Form based parking generation factor is "best practice"
. Rich calculated 2.37 sp /1,000 s.f. for all land uses
. Rich calculated factor supports UCSP factor of 2.0 sp /
1,000 s.f. for all land uses
a
~
!H~'};!
Current Demand
.
With 2.37 Factor
Supply Demand Surp1us/(Deficit)
.
3,361 2,253 1,108
With 2.0 Factor
Supply Demand Surplus I (Deficit) .
- 3,361 1,901 1,460
~
!l$~
Current Demand
ENA Developments .
With 2.0 Factor
Supply Demand Surplus / (Deficit)
]",
3,147 1,901 1,246
,
a
~
m~~
Assumptions for Current Demand
.
. + /. 40,000 s.f. vacant space not re-occupied
. Existing patterns of vehicle use at +/. 95%
. Typical daily parking demand
. No changes to parking supply
e
.
a
~
!~_t9i
.
,
,
Assumptions for ENA
. Assumes Development on
Block 1
Block 2
Block 4
Block 12
Lot 10
Lot 9
Lot 6
Lot 3
. Development eliminates public parking on lot
. Development supplies on.site parking for project
a
3
!qq~
,
,
.
Assumptions for DeS?
. Assumes UCSP model for development only on east and
west sides of Third Avenue
. 2.0FAH
. 40% Residential
. 40% Commercial
. 20% Office
. No new parking provided
a
::;;:::
N.(H
,
,
.
3
UCSP Development
.
With 2.0 Factor
Supply Demand Surplus I (Deficit)
.
3,012 2,890 122
.
S::
~
!P91
LoICo.dllloo.
~
Parking Revenue and Expenses
- - - - -
_.
- ., ., $3.01 $2,""100 '26,104W
.. CIllO","" . '00 - 00 .00 S6S.06..00 m~"oo
....."'0n-5l_ '" ~oo , . 1l1S1'OO ""'.'5000 .,.l 100 00
F,,,,, .......011.....' W'4!l'.OO ,,",,"''''' $e1""".00 17',"'".'" .""""
T_~.. ~_oo ...'''000 """'000 ..""51'00 '3J7~OO
-
",,'50.._ , :IS'.OO . ....,.00 '.,
. _.""SoN,... "'''''.00 - 00 $1.<4_00 m.moo
s..~_. $11600.00 11232126.00 $2,.00..00 $1"'~OO """'.00
- -. , 00 , 13"".00
*
*
,
S::
:::;;;::
Rl<-C?i
.
.
.
Overall Findings
illi
Lot Conditions
Meters
Signage and Way-Finding Signs
In Lieu Fee
Parking Financials
,
S::
~
!H9J
In Lieu Parking
~~
__".o.."...~,
.
_~_'''"L.o"
~_.
.
"
S::
~
RWI:i
Next Steps
.
R&A Preparing Recommendations
April 12, 2007 Community Meeting
Presentation of Parking Study
Recommendations
,
S::
a::
~.t~lj,
4
Chula Vlstal!arl!l~lI~u .
Findings and Draft
Recommendations
April 12, 2007
Current Parking Demand
FINDING: Overall there is a surplus of parking
within the District although there are several
, blocks along Third Avenue that have deficits
JRECOMMENDATION:
I
j 0 Increase usage of Park Plaza parking structure
I D Consider..implemeriling strategies presented
Current Parking Demand
FINDING: Park Plaza parking structure needs
improvement
RECOMMENDATION:
o Upgrade signage: directional and locational
D Upgrade interior signage
D Improve ~a~ting_,~,.
o Restripe
o Conduct condition study
o Consider adding elevator to north end
Agenda
o Presentation of Findings and Draft
Recommendations
o Public Comment Period
Current Parking Demand
FINDING: The Park Plaza parking structure is
underutilized
RECOMMENDATION:
10 Make structure more user-friendly
:
11mPlement ~~~~~,::~,~~ations
Operational Recommendations
Management
F'lND1N~eas-Lrpaaled'arid'corisisterit
parking policies
RECOMMENDATION:
:0 Develop policies for operation and use of valet
i parking
OConsider and develop residential parking
~.ogr.am,.jf-l1eeded
o Maintain but revise in-lieu parking fee policy on
an annual basis
~Report out to community about parking
i ' policies, management and changes on annual ti
~ basis
1
Operatlon.1 Recomm.nd.tlons
Man....m.nt
FINDING: Parking management is disjointed
RECOMMENDATION:
; 0 Form a Parking Advisory Committee
jOAppoint one City staff person to serve as
I Parkjng^,~~r.::~~~~,x"o'"
o Establish separate parking fund
,DAssign marketing to TAVA
Operatlon.1 Recomm.nd.tlons
M.n.g.m.nt
FINDING: Marketing is done on a limited basis
RECOMMENDATION:
iDBudget $10,000 for marketing from parking
revenues
10 Marketing should include web site,
~.informationa~.newsletters to stakeholders etc.
o Involve lAVA in implementation
I
Op.ratlonal Recomm.ndatlons
P.rklng D.m.nd
FINDING: Inconsistent time periods available for
parking in public lots
RECOMMENDATION:
iORemove 10 hour time periods in lots 2,3 and 5
~DAllocate 3 hour time periods in public lots
r
-'f:3l3irechmployees^and all day parkers to free
spaces in Park Plaza parking structure and
designated lots within the District
I i
"
Operatlon.1 Recomm.nd.tlons
M......m.nt
FINDING: The parking district has not been effectively
managed and sufficient funds expended which has
lead to an inability to properly maintain and market
parking in the District
RECOMMENDATION:
) 0 Management of the District should be based on a
i budget that is prepared annually based on standard
I ""nnnaasonable,.requirements to maintain, operate and
r enforce parking
o Parking revenues and fines generated within the
: district should be used for funding operating costs,
1 ; capital repair costs and a capital fund to develop
1 I additional parking areas
Op.ratlon.1 Recomm.nd.tlons
Parking Allocation
FINDING: Lots 2 and 3 on Landis are not
providing enough customerlvlsitor parking
.RECOMMENDATION:
~ 0 First phase- move all permit parking from these
I' lots to Park Plaza parking structure
,DSecond phase- monitor use of lots 2 and 3 and
, If occupancy"averagesless than 85% consider
allowing permit parking back in these lots at a
premium rate
"
Operational Recomm.ndatlons
Parking Operations
FINDING: Parking rates are too low
RECOMMENDATION:
'0 Increase rates to $.25 per fifteen minutes for all
except 10 hour meters
j 0 Increase rates to $.50 per hour for 10 hour
-L.me-tsrs~~--~,
o Increase permit rate to $120.00 per quarter
"
2
Operational Recommendation.
Parking Operation.
FINDING: Difficult to identify the meter time limit
RECOMMENDATION:
D Color code meters based upon length of stay
'OPut small signs on poles that are color coded
i and describe time limit of meter
j '_'~~',~M
"
Operational Recommendation.
Parking Operation.
FINDINGS: Signage is inconsistent
RECOMMENDATION:
: 0 Upgrade or provide signage: Introduction,
; directional, locational and way finding
~DEngage a sign consultant to design signage
~ndprov4d8'fecommendations for sign
placement
"
Parking & Revenue Control
FINDING: On-street & off-street meters are
outdated, many do not work and cannot be
repaired
,RECOMMENDATION:
10 Replace all on-street and off-street meters with
! electronic meters that accept a smart card
-Yexceptasnoled below)
o Replace meters in lots 2,3,7,and 5 with multi-
space meters that accept coins, dollar bills,
i I credit cards and smart cards.
"
Operational Recommendation.
Parking Operations
FINDING: Bicycle racks are difficult to find and
are outdated
RECOMMENDATION:
; 0 Install new bicycle racks and market availability
! and locations
-.e Develop a broader marketing campaign to
promote1:llcyclause......
~ '0 Promote use of bicycles as alternate mode of
transportation consistent with the UCSP
..
Operational Recommendation.
Parking Operation.
FINDING: Some paseos need improved lighting
and sign age to increase use
RECOMMENDATION:
~ 0 Install signs at the entrances: street and lot
i sides
I 0 '.lss,mura!s.and,Jandscape
D Install lighting features
"
Parking Facllltle.
FINDING: Some parking lots in the downtown
core are not well-maintained
RECOMMENDATION:
; 0 Repair lot 5 (remove surface, compact and
I resurface) and minor repair of lot 2
IDupgrade lighting in lots 2,3,4,and 11
-erRestripe lois1;2;5,6,~rand 10
o Improve sign age
iOBetter maintain landscaping
"
3
Parking Enforcement
FINDING: Enforcement is inconsistent
RECOMMENDATION:
CI Provide two full time PEOs in District
:OEstablish defined routes that are completed in
i two hour circuits
IOAband~~c~eQV{aysforPEOs if they must
operate In pairs
OConduct license plate inventory to monitor
.. shuffling
locontinue monitoring permit parking and
issuance of multiple tickets
"
Potential Parking
Considerations with ENA
Development
_M.~..__.,^<..
FINDING: Development of ENA sites will reduce
the number of parking spaces available to the
District
;RECOMMENDATION:
IOAgency should prioritize proceeds from the
j sale of parking lots to necessary capital
-L...jmprovementprojects within the Parking
District
o Study and review parking district every 3 years
"
Potential Parking
Considerations with ENA
Development
-'~.._-_.~....'.
FINDING: Lots 9 and 10 have lower parking
occupancies and smaller capacities therefore
development of lots has minimal impact
: RECOMMENDATION:
j D Use way finding and signage to direct
! customers/visitors to surrounding lots 8 and 11
,
-"'----,~~,~~"
n
Parking Enforcement
FINDING: Parking fines are too low
RECOMMENDATION:
o Increase overtime parking and expired meter
fines from $12.00 to $20.00
o Increase fine for unpaid tickets from $24.00 to
$40,OO'~"~c
o For a 6 month period after implementation of
fine increase, issue courtesy tickets for first
infraction
E
Potential Parking
Considerations with ENA
Development
FINDING: Lot 3 currently has high utilization and
larger capacity and its location is central to
many businesses
: RECOMMENDATION:
I Cl Remove permit parking from lot and reevaluate
! occupancy
~evelopmentoccur, more effectively use Park
Plaza parking structure and consider integrating
replacement public parking as part of the development
Cl Maintain lot 3 as public parking if occupancy continues
, to be high after recommended changes
!
~
Potential Parking
Considerations with ENA
Development
FINOING: Lot 6 has higher occupancy but lower
capacity and has difficult ingress and egress
and therefore will have minor impact
.RECOMMENDATION:
lOFirst step: investigate possibility of agreement
I to lease space from Baptist Church
---'0c01Ts1der1uture~development of a parking
structure on Lot 7 and the existing Baptist
Church parking lot
~
4
Potential Future Parking Needs
With Redevelopment of Third
Avenue
FINDING: Should the Urban Core Specific Plan
(UGSP) be adopted, redevelopment may occur
and cause changes to parking demand
RECOMMENDA liON:
i D Study and review parking district every 3 years
~M_"'_'~"~~"'~"'"
~
Next Steps
. Consultant to finalize Recommendations
. Consultant to prepare Final Report
. Staff will prepare accompanYing report
i and recommendations for public review
!. Final ReJ:lgrt~m:JStaff Report and
Recommendations will be presented to
City Council
i I
~
5
Exhibit 2
EXHIBIT 2
Table 2A - Parking Supply SUmmary
Block> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ! 100 200 300 400 Summan
On-Street
,
Not Signed 28 5 16 26 22 5 102
15 Minute Metered 3 3
30 Minute Metered 2 2 4
,
One Hour Metered 3 2 4 6 3 3 21
Two Hour Metered 14 66 24 24 17 18 16 10 24 37 34 4 6 13 307
Ten Hour Meter 11 7 16 5 6 8 53
30 Minute Free 3 3
One Hour Free , 4 I 4
,
Two Hour Free 21 18 20 13 72
Ten Hour Free 26 26
Loading Zone 2 1 2 5
TOTALS 600
Off-Street
Public
Three Hour Free 254 254
All Day Free 407 407
Two Hour Metered 14 1 1 16
Four Hour Metered 16 9 32 51 43 151
Ten Hour Metered 17 20 61 30 65 43 52 288
Barrier Free
(Handicap) 1 1 3 3 2 27 3 2 42
i TOTALS 1158
Pnvate !
Private/Reserved 64 83 62 i 57 29 122 109 848 91 4 28 52 11 1560
Barrier Free {Handic 3 1 2 4 23 3 4 3 43
TOTALS 1603
.
Summaru 126 179 113 204 100 i 172 118 891 132 46 758 201 183 18 27 26 67 3361
Source: Chula Vista data and Rich and Associates fieldwork. December 2006
Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3
Table 2D-1
Occupancy Count Results for On-street and Off~Street Parking
Thursday, December 14,2006
9:00am -11:00 11:DDam -1:00 1:00 pm.3:0D 3:00 pm -5:00 5:00pm- 7:00 7:DDpm-9:00
ON-STREET SPACES am pm pm pm pm pm
Slockl
Face Description # stall ~Oe, %Occ #Oce %Occ #Occ %Occ #Dce .~ Occ #Oee %Occ #Occ %Occ
1B 10-hr. metered 12 9 75% 10 83% ,5 42% 11 92% 5 42% 7 58%
10 2-hr. metered 25 9 36% 15 60% 12 48% 16 64% 21 84% 23 92%
2B 2-hr.melered 23 20 87% 14 61% 11 480,f, 17 74% 11 48% 14 61%
2C 30-min. metered 3 0 0% 0 0% 2 67% 1 33% 2 67% 2 67%
20 2-hr.metered 32 10 31% 22 69% 27 84% 27 84% 20 63% 21 66%
3C mix of 1 ,2,1 O-hr & 30-min 16 9 56% 11 69% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
metered
30 12-hr.metered 16 4 25% 13 81% 12 75% 16 100% 16 100% 8 50%
4A ;1-hr.metered 3 , 100% 1 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
4B 2 hr nol metered 21 8 38% 5 24% 5 24% 5 24% 5 24% 2 10%
4C 3 2-hr. metered/4 not 7 5 71% 6 66% 5 71% 6 B6% 7 100% 5 71%
metered
40 172-hr.!2-30min metered 19 9 47% 19 100% 11 58% 17 89% 18 95% 13 68%
5D 2-hr.metered 13 9 69% 12 92% 13 100% 10 77% 13 100% 13 100%
60 132-hr.12 3D-min. metered 15 1 7% 4 27% 4 27% 5 33% 4 27% 2 13%
9A 1-hrmeter 4 4 100% 4 100% 3 75% 2 50% 2 50% 3 75%
9A Unmarked 6 6 100% 6 100% 5 83% 5 83% 5 83% 5 83%
9B 2-hr.metered 16 0 0% 2 13% 1 6% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
lOA Unmarked 8 4 50% 4 50% 4 50% 4 50% 3 38% 4 50%
lOA :3 1-hr. meterec1l4 1hr. No 7 7 100% 6 86% 5 71% 6 86% 4 57% 4 57%
meters
lOC Unmarked 5 5 100% 5 100% 4 80% 5 100% 3 60% 5 100%
lOC 1*hrmeler 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 1 33% 2 67% 3 100%
11B 2-hr. metered 24 8 33% 8 33% 7 29% 23 96% 23 96% 8 33%
11C 1 and2 hrmeter 5 4 80% 5 100% 1 20% 3 60% 2 40% 1 20%
11C Unmarked 22 15 68% 9 41% 9 41% 5 23% 5 23% 2 9%
110 2-hrnolmetered 10 5 50% 2 20% 6 60% 9 90% 3 30% 3 30%
126 2-hr.metered 30 2 7% 9 30% 23 77% 23 77% 26 87% 22 73%
12C 1-hr. metered 6 2 33% 2 33% 2 33% 5 83% 4 67% 2 33%
120 mix of2-hrand 1D-hr 21 19 90% 13 62% 17 81% 18 86% 9 43% 7 33%
13B 2-hr.metered 30 4 13% 9 30% 17 57% 14 47% 21 70% 27 90%
130 Imixof2-hr and1D-hr 13 12 92% 7 54% 2 15% 7 54% 6 46% 4 31%
100B Imixof2-hrand1D-hrand 18 15 83% 15 83% 12 67% 12 67% 9 50% 6 33%
Ifree
200B Imix of2-hr and 1D-hr 15 13 87% 12 80% 11 73% 14 93% 11 73% 6 40%
20De 11-hrmeter 7 5 71% 3 43% 2 29% 6 B6% 4 57% 6 86%
3000 110-hrnolmetered 16 9 56% 13 81% 8 50% 15 94% 8 50% 7 44%
400D !2-hr not metered 13 7 54% 4 31% 9 69% 8 62% 6 46% 8 62%
SOOD b.hr neX metered 17 11 65% 8 47% 7 41% 7 41% 4 24% 6 35%
TOTAL On-Street 501 256 51% 281 56% 265 53% 323 64% 282 56% 249 50%
Table 20-2
Occupancy COunt Results for On-Street and Off-Street Parking
Thursday, December 14, 2006
9:00 am -11:00 11:DOam -1:00 1:00 pm-3:00 3:00 pm - 5:00 5:00pm.7:00 7:00 pm-9:00
MUNICIPAL LOTS am pm pm pm pm pm
Block I
Face Description # Stall # Dee .~ Oce #Oee % Oce #Oee %Occ #Dee %Occ #Oee %Occ ~Oe, % Oce
1 Metered Alley 8 3 38% 7 88% 6 75% 6 75% 7 88% 4 50%
1 Lot1~4hrmeters 9 4 4 44% 6 67% 8 89% 7 78% 4 44%
1 Let 10 1D-hrmelers 17 12 71% 14 82% 14 82% 18 106% 9 53% 1 6%
1 Lct111CJ..-hrmeter 19 13 68% 16 84% 14 74% 17 8S% 6 32% 11 58%
1 Lot 114-hrmeters 11 6 55% 9 82% '6 55% 11 100% 4 36% 8 73%
2 lol91D-hrmeters 22 16 73% 19 86% 22 100% 16 73% 7 32% 2 9%
2 Lot 94-hrmeter 6 5 63% 6 75% 5 63% 7 68% 4 50% 1 13%
3 NCP Lot 17 10 59% 16 94% 12 71% 9 53% 12 71% 10 59%
4 Lot 6 27 12 44% 21 78% 16 59% 21 76% 17 63% 11 41%
4 Lot 7 70 63 90% 55 79% 60 86% 65 93% 52 74% 3S 56~_
5 Lot 5 44 27 61% 44 100% 44 100% 44 100% 44 100% 44 100%
11 Lot#4 633 258 41% 266 42% 211 33% 190 30% 231 36% 215 34%
11 Fuddruckers 33 4 12% 26 79% 26 79% 26 79% 32 97% 6 18%
12 Lot 3 91 63 69% 75 82% 7S 87% 67 74% 3S 43% 11 12%
12 Lol3Alley4-hrmeters 27 14 52% 21 78% 16 59% 22 81% 12 44% 4 15%
13 L0I2 59 31 53% 34 58% 40 68% 38 64% 52 88% 16 27%
13 Lot 1 14 13 93% 11 79% 9 64% 13 93% 11 79% 6 43%
13 WAlley 4-hr meter 16 11 69% 14 88% 15 94% 13 81% 15 94% 11 69%
400 Lot 8 54 47 87% 46 65% 41 76% 36 67% 11 20% 1 2%
TOTAL MuniCipal 1179 612 52% 704 60% 642 54% 627 53% 572 49% 405 34%
9:00am-11:DO 11:00am .1:00 1:00 pm-3:00 3:00pm -5:00 5:00pm-7:00 7:00 pm .9:00
OFF-STREET am pm pm pm pm pm
llfo""
Face Description # Stall #Occ %Occ #Oce %Oee #Oec % Oce # Oee % Oec #Oee % Oce # Occ %Occ
1 Alley Private 49 21 43% 18 37% 22 45% 19 39% 2 4% 0 0%
2 Pacific Trust 42 23 55% 27 64% 24 57% 33 79% 23 55% 6 14%
2 Alley Private 41 21 51% 20 49% 16 39% 18 44% 12 29% 6 20%
4 Alley Private 21 11 52% 16 76% 15 71% 17 81% 13 62% 13 62%
4 Church Lot 36 6 17% 7 19% 15 42% 24 67% 13 36% 5 14%
6 7-11 Lot 15 2 13% 5 33% 5 33% 4 27% 5 33% 7 47%
6 Lot nearKFC 52 33 63% 41 79% 31 60% 24 46% 6 12% 1 2%
11 Red Lobster 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 1 33% 1 33%
11 Marie Calendar 3 1 33% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
12 Alley Private 28 14 50% 16 57% 16 57% 13 46% 14 50% 8 29%
13 Alley Private 53 21 40% 23 43% 25 47% 25 47% 13 25% 13 25%
TOTAL Off-Street CPvt) 343 156 45% 179 52% 175 51% 183 53% 105 31% '5 19%
TOTAL ON..sTREET 501 256 51% 281 56% 265 53% 323 64% 282 56% 249 50%
TOTAL MUNIICPAL 1179 612 52% 704 60% 642 54% 627 53% 672 49% 405 34%
TOTAL PRIVATE 343 156 45% 179 52% 175 51% 183 53% 105 31% 65 19%
TOTAL FOR THE DAY 2023 1024 51% 1164 58% 1082 53% 1133 56% 959 47% 719 36%
Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4
9:00am-11:00 11:00am-1:00 1;00 pm -3:00 3:00 pm .5:00 5:00 pm - 7:00 7;00 pm .9:00
ON.STREET SPACES am pm pm pm pm pm
Block I Description # Stall #Oee %Oec 1#0cc %Oel: #Occ %Oec #Oee %Oec 0" %Oec #Oce %Oec
Face
1B 1 D-hr. metered 12 6 50% 9 75% ,10 83% 9 75% 3 25% 4 33%
10 2-hr.metered 25 12 48% 14 56% 17 68% 15 60% 16 64% 23 92%
2B 2-hr.metered 23 16 70% 15 65% 14 61% 13 57% 7 30% 5 22%
2C 3D-min. metered 3 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 67% 0 0% 1 33%
20 2-hr. metered 32 18 56% 19 59% 28 88% 19 59% 21 66% 31 97%
3C mix of 1,2,1D-hr & SO-min 16 14 88% 10 63% 10 63% 10 63% 11 69% 15 94%
metered
30 ;'2 hr. metered 16 7 44% 7 44% 10 63% 13 81% 15 94% 16 100%
4A 1 hr. metered 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 4 133% 4 133% 4 133%
4B 2 hr not metered 21 14 67% 10 48% 4 19% 6 29"A, 4 19% 11 52%
4C 3 2-hr. metered/4 not 7 7 100% 6 86% 5 71% 7 100% 7 100% 7 100%
metered
40 17 2-hr.I2-30 min. metered 19 14 74% 18 95% 18 95% 14 74% 19 100% 18 95%
SA 2 hr. notrnelered 5 4 80% 2 40% 2 40% 4 80% 4 80% 4 80%
50 2-hr.metered 13 13 100% 13 100% 12 92% 13 100% 13 100% 14 108%
60 13 2-hrfl 3D-min. metered 15 1 7% 5 33% 3 20% 5 33% 4 27% 0 0%
9A '-hrmelered 4 1 25% 3 75% 3 75% 0 0% 2 50% 3 75%
9A Unmarto:ed 6 6 100% 6 100% 4 67% 5 83% 6 100% 6 100%
9B 2-hr. metered 16 1 6% 1 6% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 13%
lOA Unmarked 8 5 63% 4 50% 4 50% 5 63% 3 38% 5 63%
lOB 2-hr.metered 10 8 80% 10 100% 9 90% 9 90% 7 70% 11 110%
lOC Unmarked 5 4 80% 5 100% 4 80% 4 80% 3 60% 5 100%
lOC 1 hr metered 3 2 67% 3 100% 2 67% 2 67% 3 100% 3 100%
11B metered 24 4 17% 11 46% 10 42% 11 46% 11 46% 20 83%
11C 1 and2hrmeler 5 1 20% 2 40% 7 140% 0 0% 2 40% 2 40%
11C Residential 22 6 27% 9 41% 7 32% 4 18% 5 23% 3 14%
110 2 he 10 9 90% 8 80% 26 260% 9 90% 7 70% 4 40%
12B 2.hr. metered 30 9 30% 12 40% 2 7% 26 97% 26 87% 27 90%
12C !1-hr.metered 6 2 33% 2 33% 12 200% 3 50% 5 83% 5 83%
120 mix of 2-hr and 10-hr 21 14 67% 17 81% 19 90% 16 76% 11 52% 11 52%
13B 2-hr.metered 30 7 23% 16 53% 11 37% 16 53% 15 50% 29 97%
13D mix of2-hrand 1o-hr 13 5 38% 6 46% 11 85% 7 54% 7 54% 3 23%
1008 mix of2-hr and 10-hr and 18 15 83% 17 94% 17 94% 16 89% 14 78% 3 17%
free
2008 mix of2-hr and 10-hr 15 10 67% 12 80% 12 80% 11 73% 10 67% 6 40%
200C 1-hrmeler 7 2 29% 2 29% 4 57% 2 29% 3 43% 6 86%
300D 10-hr.notmelered 16 8 50% 11 69% 10 63% 6 38% 6 38% 7 44%
400D 2-hrnotmetered 13 8 62% 8 62% 10 77% 4 31% 1 8% 8 62%
5000 2.hrnotmetered 17 17 100% 9 53% 7 41% 2 12% 7 41% 6 35%
TOTAL On~Street 509 273 54% 305 60% 327 64% 295 58% 282 55% 326 64%
Table 2E-1
Occupancy Count Results On-and Off-Street Parking
Friday December 15 2006
MUNICIPAL LOTS 9:00am-11:00 11:00am -1:00 1:00 pm - 3:00 3:00 pm . 5:00 5:00 pm - 7:00 7:00 pm-9:00
am pm pm pm pm pm
BlocK/ Description # Stall #Oce %Oce #Oec %Occ #Occ %Occ #Oec % Oe, #Occ % Oce
Face #I Oce % Occ
1 Metered Alley 8 5 63% 6 75% 7 88% 6 75% 6 75% 7 88%
1 Lol10-4hr meters 9 6 67% 8 89% 8 89% 1 11% 1 11% 5 56%
1 lot 10 10-hrmeters 17 12 71% 17 100% 16 94% 14 82% 5 29% 3 18%
1 Lot1110-hrmeter 19 16 84% 17 89% '16 84% 12 63% 9 47% 10 53%
1 Lot 114-hrmeters 11 8 73% 9 82% 10 91% 5 45% 2 18% 11 100%
2 Lot 910-hrmeters 22 22 100% 20 91% 21 95% 16 73% 7 32% 9 41%
2 LoI94-hrmeter 8 8 100% 8 100% 5 63% 5 63% 3 38% 2 25%
3 NCP Lot 17 18 106% 14 82% 6 35% 2 12% 4 24% 13 76%
4 lot 6 27 15 56% 15 56% 9 33% 8 30% 17 63% 27 100%
4 lot 7 70 69 99% 56 80% 53 76% 52 74% 53 76% 70 100%
5 lot 5 44 30 68% 44 100% 41 93% 41 93% 44 100% 44 100%
11 lot4 614 179 29% 198 32% 213 35% 204 33% 176 29% 202 33%
11 FuddrucKers 33 5 15% 16 48% 22 67% 18 55% 31 94% 28 85%
12 lot 3 91 50 55% 70 77% 69 76% 57 63% 31 34% 10 11%
12 Lot 3 Alley 4-hr meters 27 25 93% 17 63% 20 74% 24 89% 18 67% 10 37%
13 L0I2 59 31 53% 39 66% 51 86% 46 78% 35 59% 42 71%
---
13 L0I1 14 10 71% 12 86% 9 64% 9 64% 8 57% 2 14%
13 WAlley 4-hr meter 16 11 69% 16 100% 16 100% 16 100% 16 100% 12 75%
400 IL0I8 54 35 650", 36 67% 29 54% 22 41% 4 7% 1 2%
TOTAL Municipal 1160 555 48% 618 53% 621 54% 558 48% 470 41% 508 44%
i:UU am- 11:UU l'l':UU"am- I:UU l:uupm-;;s:uu ;;s:uv pm - ::>:uu ::>:uu pm- t:uu t:uupm-~:uu
OFF-STREET SPACES am om pm pm pm <m
BlOCK/
Face Description # stall #Occ %Occ #Occ okOcc #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ
1 Alley Private 49 19 39% 20 41% 20 41% 16 33% 2 4% 1 2%
2 Pacific Trust 42 22 52% 30 71% 21 50% 32 76% 29 69% 12 29%
.--
2 Alley Private 41 22 54% 25 61% 24 59% 19 46% 15 37% 11 27%
4 Alley Private 21 17 81% 18 66% 17 81% 19 90% 7 33% 5 24%
4 Church Lot 36 13 36% 3 8% 5 14% 2 6% 3 8% 2 6%
6 7-11 Lot 15 3 20% 0 0% 5 33% 2 13% 3 20% 5 33%
6 Lot nearKFC 52 38 73% 56 108% 40 77% 25 48% 10 19% 1 2%
11 ! Red Lobster 3 0 0% 0 0% 1 33% 3 100% 2 67% 2 67%
11 Marie Calendar 3 2 67% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
12 Alley Private 28 13 46% 15 54% 22 79% 15 54% 16 57% 9 32%
13 Alley Private 53 24 45% 29 55% 21 40% 10 19% 13 25% 13 25%
TOTAL Off-Street (Private) 343 173 50% 19. 58% 179 52% 14. 43% 103 30% 64 19%
TOTAL ON-STREET 509 273 54% 305 60% 327 64% 295 58% 282 55% 328 64%
TOTAL MUNICIPAL 1160 555 48% 618 53% 621 54% 558 48% 470 41% 508 44%
TOTAL PRIVATE 343 173 50% 188 58% 179 52% 146 43% 103 30% 64 19%
TOTAL FOR THE DAY 2012 1001 50% 1122 56% 1127 56% 899 50% B55 42% 900 45%
Table 2E-2
Occupancy Count Results On-and Off-street Parking
Friday, December 15, 2006
Exhibit 5
EXHIBIT 5
Table 2F
Permit Occupancy Results
February 15, 2007
The table shows the results of the four observation periods for the total number
of ten-hour spaces for each lot, including the number of spaces occupied by
permit and non-permit holders. The combination of these two values gives the
percentage occupancy. The number 01 permif holders compared to the total
number of spaces occupied gives the percentage of permit occupancy.
Table 5 illustrates the average occupancy of each public lot and the average
permit occupancy as well.
~.3l 11:00 1:00 3:00 -.go
:; N:n- 0/< N:n- N:n- 0/< , N:n- 0/< , N:n-
- - ~%- - Al1s%Qn.p%Fmrit - -~- - -~- _ _%~%F9rrit
ut1 1 3 7 76.9'A; :n~ 4 5 69.2'A; .....'!. 2 8 76.9'A; :n~ 3 101(1).(7'10 211' 3 8 "'6% ZJ~
ut2 " 6 13 63.3% 31.6'1. 6 14 9i7% :n~ 5 14 63.3% 3i3l 5 16 7O.1I'A; 218'!. 6 14 9i7% :n~
ut3 e 8 44 76.5% 1M' 9 36 662'A; :n~ 7 45 76.5% 13'" 7 43 73.5'% 14.~ 8 42 735% 161ll
ut5 .. 6 29 833% 17.10 6 :JJ 85.7% 167'1 5 36 97.6% 12,., 5 33 9:1.5% 13,., 6 32 9O.5'/, 15.B\
ut6 Z 4 4 29.6'A; Sl~ 5 8 48.1% 38.5'l 4 10 51.11% 2Il..., 4 11 55.6% 2Il.7'I 4 8 444% :n:r.
ut7 " 11 :!l 79.6% 3S.'" 11 22 "'6'A; 333l 8 XI 97.4% 21.1o/c 8 ZJ 89.7% 22Sl 10 25 89.7"10 2Il...,
ut8 .. 17 34 94A'A; 333l 15 :JJ 83.3% 333l 16 23 722% 41.~ 13 36 90.7% 3i5"1. 15 31 ll5.2'A; 3291
ut9 z 8 13 95.5% 38.1' B 14 1oo.lI'A; ~ 5 16 !l5.5"A; 21ll'l 4 14 81.8% 222'!. 6 14 9O.9'A; :JJ.~
ut10 11 9 2 100.IJ'/lI 81.ll'l 8 3 1oo.lI'A; 72.7'\ 8 1 81.8"..4 88.Sl 8 2 9O.9'A; lIl.O'1. 8 2 90.6% 90.~
ut11 1 6 6 66.7% SlIl'1. 8 7 B3.3% 53.3'!. 6 6 9i7% SlIl'1. 8 8 88.9% Sl~ 7 7 nJ!'h Sl~
.QWd ..."
TdaI 78 172 n.2'A; 31.,., III 1... 76.6% 32.1% Il6 189 78.7"10 25.Sl 65 200 81.8% 24.'" T.l 183 79.1I'A; 28.5'l
Exhibit 6
EXHIBIT 6
These numbers represent the number of spaces required for each block
based upon land use.
Table 2G
Chula Vista Current Parking Demand Projection
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 P 0 . v W
Meaeal ....,'CO Rnldertlel Commun' Banquet Oemend PIr1d~ Surplusl
Billek ","" Relllll ",' om" Molel SMVice ", Muselll1 ResteUllln! Churdl '"II Dave." Vacant (current) Suppty DefieR
(current)
Daylim 2.37 2.31 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 '31 0.75 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37
1 12.885 0 0 9.832 17.372 0 0 0 0 2,002 0 0 0 10.040 0 0 124 '29 2
2 23.110 15,904 16.568 4.761 11,574 0 7,199 0 0 0 10,228 0 0 0 0 0 212 179 ."
3 0 6,1l37 0 2.352 7,148 0 0 1.&79 0 3.938 57,742 0 0 0 0 0 192 113 ."
4 14.756 9,572 0 0 12,044 0 975 0 0 7.6118 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 204 97
5 10,692 1,120 0 0 5,828 0 5.116 0 0 G,974 0 0 0 0 1.746 0 75 100 "
6 1,820 3,436 0 0 0 0 6,034 0 0 1,988 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 172 141
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97.632 0 0 0 0 73 110 45
, 9.481 1,800 0 1,508 100,405 0 832 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 270 DB1 621
9 56,154 0 12.636 0 20,085 7.728 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 229 132 .97
10 27.760 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.200 3.102 0 0 0 0 4,950 76 " .30
11 0 0 14.766 0 61,100 0 0 0 1,157 24,079 0 0 0 0 0 0 240 758 510
12 1,209 19,524 0 10,500 55,461 0 11.766 0 0 0 0 11,340 0 0 0 1,340 2" 20' .,
13 3.034 3,640 0 11.712 9,243 0 4,113 0 0 7,713 18.131 0 0 0 0 15.348 '" 183 44
100 5,140 0 0 1,100 6,16S 0 0 0 0 0 '50 0 0 0 0 0 34 18 .16
200 1.800 0 0 16,400 10,225 0 0 0 0 0 8,300 0 0 0 0 0 B7 Tl <0
300 9,515 0 0 3,800 3,300 0 0 0 0 0 12,'50 0 0 0 0 0 " " .2
400 550 0 0 9,150 3,300 0 0 0 0 0 12,080 0 0 0 0 0 59 ., ,
Totals 118,526 63,035 43,990 71,115 323,853 1.128 36.635 U79 1,157 55,502 123.183 108,972 0 10.040 1,746 21,638 2,258 3,361 1,103
(slalls) stalls) (stills)
Exhibit 7
EXHIBIT 7
Table 2H
Chula Vista
Future Parking Demand with ENA Sites Developed
A , c 0 E F G H I J K L M N 0 , 0 R V W
Medical ReSldenl1111 Community BaI"llUlt Doy Demm Parking Surplusl
Block om.. ReteH .... om.. Mixed Us ""'" ..NI.. ,,, ,"',,'" Rest.unml """" Hen Cere VICIni (current) Supp,>, Delicn
, (current)
Daytime 2.37 W 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 0.75 2.37 2.37 2.31 2"
1 12,885 0 0 9,832 11,372 0 0 0 0 2.D02 0 0 0 lC,D40 0 0 '" 92 ~2
2 23.110 15,904 16,588 4.761 11,574 0 7.199 0 0 0 10,228 D 0 D 0 0 212 149 ~3
3 , 8,037 0 2.352 7,148 0 0 1,679 0 3,938 57,742 0 0 0 0 0 192 113 .79
4 '14,756 9,572 0 0 12,G44 0 975 0 0 7.608 D 0 0 0 0 0 107 175 68
5 10.692 1,120 0 , 5,828 0 5,116 0 0 6,974 0 0 0 0 1,746 0 75 100 25
5 1,820 3,438 0 0 0 0 5,"" , D 1.988 0 0 0 0 D D 31 172 141
7 0 0 D 0 D 0 D , D 0 0 97,632 0 0 D 0 73 116 45
, 9,481 1,800 , 1,508 100,405 0 '" D 0 D D D 0 0 0 0 270 '" 621
9 56,154 D 12,&36 D 20,085 7.728 0 0 0 0 0 D D 0 0 D '" '" -97
10 27.780 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.200 3,102 0 0 0 0 4,950 76 46 ~D
11 0 0 14.766 0 61,100 0 0 0 1,157 24,079 0 D 0 0 , 0 240 758 516
12 1,209 19,524 D 10,500 55,461 0 11,766 0 0 0 0 11,340 0 D D 1.340 242 " .162
13 3,034 3,640 D 11,712 9,243 0 4,713 0 0 7,713 18,731 0 0 D 0 15,348 139 183 44
'" 5,740 0 0 1.100 6.768 0 0 , 0 0 850 0 0 D 0 0 34 18 .16
20' 1,800 D 0 16.400 10,225 0 0 0 D 0 8.300 0 0 D 0 0 87 27 ~o
'"' 9.515 0 0 3.800 3.300 0 D 0 0 0 12,150 0 0 D 0 0 68 " .2
400 550 0 , 9,150 3,300 0 0 0 D 0 12.080 0 0 D 0 0 58 67 ,
Total, 178,526 63,035 43,990 71.115 323,853 7,728 36,635 1,679 1,157 55,502 123,183 108,972: 0 10,040 1,746 21.638 2.258 3.147 '"
(stalls (stalls) Ilslalls)
Exhibit 8
EXHIBIT 8
Table 21
Chula Vista
Parking Demand Projections and Surplus or Deficits for UCSP Model
A 8 C 0 E F G H J J K l " N 0 P R V W
Medical Mixed Ban~et Do, Demand Pricing SurpluS(
Block o.~ Retail 8m' Offi~ U~ Mote! S""" 8.. Museum Re!itllUf'8/1t Residenh Comm..mitl Church "OJ c.~ (curr.,l) ""'ply Defidt
(curr.,t)
Daytim 237 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.l7 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37
1 28,460 56,920 56,920 337 84 -253
2 24,780 49,560 49.560 294 13. -156
3 12,296 24.592 24,592 146 96 -50
4 15.984 31,968 31,968 189 183 -6
5 18,000 36,000 36,000 213 82 -131
6 33.000 66,000 66,000 391 59 -332
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97,632 0 0 0 231 118 -113
8 9,481 1,800 0 1,508 100,405 0 832 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 270 891 821
9 56,154 12.636 20,085 7,728 0 229 132 -97
10 11,440 0 0 0 22,880 0 0 0 0 1,200 3,102 0 0 0 0 92 31 -61
11 0 0 14,766 0 61,100 0 0 0 1,157 24,079 0 0 0 0 0 240 758 518
12 27,378 54,752 54,752 324 173 -151
13 28.704 57,408 57,408 340 129 -211
100 8,702 0 0 0 6,768 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 18 -19
200 0 0 0 30,650 4,050 0 0 0 0 0 4,050 0 0 0 0 92 'ZI -65
300 26
400 67
Totals 274,37 1,800 27,402 32,158 592,488 7,728 832 0 1.157 25,279 384,352 97,632 0 0 0 3,425 3,012 -506
(stalls) (stalls) (stalls)
(1) UCSP Model assumes an FAR or2.0 for rnmlages along Third Avenue; 40% oflhe space residential, 40% of the space commercial and 20% of the space office
..
..
:- f- i f\
CORPORATION
CHULA VISTA
CVRC Board
Staff Report - Page 1
Item No. .5:
DATE:
August 9, 2007
FROM:
CVRC Board Directors ~
David R. Garda, Chief Executive ~fficer .'
Scott Tulloch, Assistant City Manager -r-
Ann Hix, Acting Community Development Director ~
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW FOR BAYVISTA WALK RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF (765-795)
PALOMAR STREET AND INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD IN CHULA VISTA
BACKGROUND
At the request of the applicant, the BayVista Walk project is being brought to the CVRC
for a preliminary design review. The project is anticipated to come back on September
13, 2007 for final recommendations on the design, zoning and environmental
document. The applicant will provide a presentation on the project, and staff will provide
a synopsis of the August 2nd Redevelopment Advisory Committee ("RAC") meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation review and provide
comment on the proposed design.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
The project was reviewed by the RAC on May 3,d and August 2nd. The August 2nd staff
report has been attached for your reference and includes a synopsis of the applicant's
response to the first RAC meeting, as well as staff analysis.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICTS
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the CVRC Board and has found no property
holdings within SOD-feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this
action.
cs-\
Staff Report - Item No. ~
August 9, 2007
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. August 2, 2007 RAC Staff Report
PREPARED BY:
Stacey Kurz, Senior Community Development Specialist
8-~
Attachment 1
~M~
:-A~
~ <--~
'-""~~
Community Development Department
CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
Memo
TO:
Members of the Redevelopment Advisory Committee
FROM:
Stacey Kurz, Senior Community Development Specialist
Miguel Z. Tapia, Senior Community Development Specialist
DATE:
August 2, 2007
SUBJECT:
Review No.2 of DRC-05-39 Bayvista Walk (765-795 Palomar Street)
Proiect Description:
Bayvista Walk is a proposal for the construction of a mixed-use project consisting of
multi-family residential and limited commercial uses on a vacant site on Palomar
Street between Frontage Road and Industrial Boulevard (Attachment 1, Locator Map).
As previously presented, the project is proposed to be developed in two phases. The
first phase represents the development of the 4-acre portion (Lot 1) of the site to be
developed with the 104-unit residential project. The second phase located on the
eastern-most portion of the site (Lot 2) with an approximate area of 0.89 acres, is
proposed to be developed with the mixed-use residentiallcommercial element that
would contain an affordable housing component. This phase of the project includes
the construction of a podium building structure with 5,060 - 10,000 square feet of
commercial space on the first floor, 50 residential units on the upper floors of the
building and 102 parking spaces on the first floor and subterranean level. Overall, the
mixed-use project proposal being presented to the Redevelopment Advisory
Committee (RAC) is for the construction of a two phased development consisting of
154 Townhome units, 325 parking spaces, and approximately 21,000 square feet of
usable open space (see Attachment 2, Design Plans). The residential buildings in
Phase 1 contain a density of 26 DUlAC. The proposed density for Phase 2 would be
56.2 DUlAC. Total proposed density for the combined project is 32 DUlAC. Overall,
the site density is within the range of the General Plan mixed-use designation and
maximum permitted density for mixed-use projects under the Central Commercial
zone (32 du/ac).
6',.~
Review No.2 - DRC-05-39, Olson Co.
Page 2
August 2, 2007
Phase 1 would include design parameters that would insure Phase 2 provide the
foliowing:
. Mixed-use development at General Plan level densities;
. Affordable housing to meet or exceed project requirements;
. Internal connection to Phase 1;
. Continuous pedestrian access to transit;.and
. Integrated design elements with Phase 1.
A concept building design and layout have been provided to illustrate how these
elements can be achieved with the future development of Phase 2.
The proposed project requires the processing of the foliowing applications: environmental
review application, design review application, re-zone of the site from CT-P to CC-P,
Conditional Use Permit application for the proposed commercial/residential project, a
Precise Plan and development standards, and a Tentative Subdivision Map for the
condominiums. The following city review bodies would consider the various aspects of
the project: Redevelopment Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, Chula Vista
Redevelopment Corporation, and City Council. Review and analysis of the project is
based on the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the guidelines of the City's
Design and Landscape Manuals.
Proiect Location:
The subject property is located on the south side of Palomar Street between Frontage
Road and Industrial Boulevard. The site has been vacant for several years and was
used as a temporary site for the sale of pumpkins and Christmas trees.
The site is located within the area designated by the 2005 General Plan Update as the
Palomar Gateway District. It is located close to the Interstate 5 ramps and next to the
Palomar Troliey Station, one of the busiest entrances to the City and next to one of its
most active commercial enclaves. Existing uses, General Plan and Zoning
designations of adjacent properties to the subject site are as foliows:
ExistinQ Uses General Plan Existinll Zoninll
Desillnation
Site Vacant Mixed Use - Transit Commercial
Focus Area. Thoroughfare
North Residential and commercial Mixed Use - Transit R-3 (Multi-Family
S --- "l
Review No.2 - DRC-05-39, Olson Co.
Page 3
August 2, 2007
uses Focus Area Residential)
East Palomar Trolley Station Mixed Use -Transit S-94
Focus Area
South Trailer park, multi-family High Density Residential R-2 P (one and
and single-family residential two Family
units Residential)
West Hotel & Trailer park Mixed Use -Transit C-T (Commercial
Focus Area Thoroughfare)
Buildina Desian:
The buildings are designed in contemporary urban architecture, with elements such as
steel awnings supported by steel ropes, clean lines, simple box-like massing; flat
parapet roofs, rectangular-shaped windows with minimum mullions and simple
contemporary door and window trim. The building height ranges from three-story
Townhomes (42 feet) to five-story mixed-use podium building (approximately 50 feet).
Several tower elements (approximately 53' in height), located on the buildings along
Palomar Street will serve as landmarks to designate this as the entrance or "gateway"
into the City.
Site Desian:
As designed, the site will contain two 15-dwelling unit buildings fronting on Palomar
Street, eight 9-unit buildings three stories high, and a five-story mixed-use podium
building at the corner nearest the trolley station. Access into the site is on Frontage
Road and Industrial Boulevard. These access points lead into a two-way driveway,
running in an east-west direction along the south property boundary, which provides
access to the private driveways leading into the garage of the individual units. Access
into the mixed-use podium building is through the driveway entrance off Industrial
Boulevard.
Internal pedestrian circulation is provided through a system of walkways (concrete
sidewalks) and paseos that connect the residential units to Palomar Street at various
points. A wide landscaped area with a meandering path runs north to south through
the development and connects to the large central open space area (containing a tot
lot, a water fountain and other open space amenities), which terminates in an
ornamental wall and pedestrian gate for residents to access Palomar Street. Another
access point to Palomar Street is provided by a paseo between Lots 1 and 2 closer to
the intersection of Palomar and Industrial. There are 32 homes in Lot 1 with front
~-5
Review No.2 - DRC-05-39, Olson Co.
Page 4
August 2, 2007
doors facing Palomar with patio enclosures that establish a direct relationship to the
street.
This pedestrian circulation system in turn provides several access points that connect
the residential project with the Palomar Trolley Station located across Industrial
Boulevard. The future retail component will further enhance the relationship between
the project and the transit station by creating additional pedestrian activity. In
addition, pedestrian circulation will be provided between the Bayvista Walk project site
and the recently approved Marcella Villas project to be built at the site located to the
south. This will be achieved by extending one of the Bayvista Walk project's paseos
across the southern driveway and through the southern property line to connect with
the easement at the Marcella Villas site. As shown on the site plan, the pedestrian
walkway will need to be modified in order to coincide and connect at the same point
along the southern boundary line.
A landscape concept plan was included with the latest project submittal. However, it
has not been reviewed by the Landscape Planner and formal comments have not
been formulated yet. On a preliminary basis, the landscape plan provides a balanced
arrangement of trees, shrubs, vines, groundcovers and turf throughout the site.
Additional comments regarding usability of landscaped areas are provided in the
following section of this report. A thorough analysis of the landscape plan will be
conducted by the City's Landscape Planner based on the guidelines of the Landscape
Manual, and comments and recommendations will be provided to the applicant as part
of the review process. The project's landscape concept will also be reviewed in
relationship with the streetscape enhancement plan being prepared for Palomar Street
and Industrial Boulevard.
Discussion Items:
A number of recommendations were made by staff, and were communicated both in
the last memorandum addressed to RAC and in a later letter addressed to the
applicant. The RAC initially reviewed this project on May 3, 2007 and expressed a
number of concerns. Following the first RAC meeting, revised plans were submitted
to the City by the Applicant. The following matrix summarizes the RAC comments
generated at the May 3rd meeting and provides a summary of changes made by the
applicant to address the issues.
RAC Comments Applicant Response Staff Analysis
Open space
. Safe
issues with Park
As part of the consideration of
the Precise Plan, the applicant
has requested a reduction on the
open space requirement due to
the urban nature of this mixed-
The proposed private and
common open space presented
on the plans does not meet the
requirement of the Zoning
Ordinance, which requires
. Lack of useable open space
s--~
Review No.2 - DRC-05-39, Olson Co.
Page 5
August 2, 2007
entrance on Palomar
o Suggested
reconfiguring and
placing towards the
back or middle of the
site
o Place in the center of
the two pillars
Palomar Frontage! Architecture
. Project needs to make a bigger
impression
o Architectural
landmark to
showcase qual ity of
development
o The two buildings,
250' each, are too
long and too flat
o Articulation to create
more of an urban
use development. As proposee
the project will provide 20,726
sq. ft. of usable open space,
which is a 66% reeuction from
the current CYMC requirements.
The applicant has provided
gated entrances along Palomar.
The applicant has revised the
northern elevation and internal
buildings to provide a more
urban fa~ade with vertical
articulations. Patios have been
added to the front of each unit to
create more interest and activity
along Palomar Street and along
the internal paseos.
The applicant has indicated that
further i nueasi ng the density or
height of the project is not
6'-)
46,720 sq. ft. of usable open
space. As presentee, the plans
provide approximately 20,726 sq.
ft. of common and private open
space. However, if design
modifications to the existing
landscaped/developed areas are
made, the usability of open space
could increase significantly.
Staff would propose the addition
of a variety of design elements
and features to increase the
usabi I ity of the open space areas.
These could include elements
such as benches and vertical
flowerbeds with seating areas.
In addition, staff would
recommend that the applicant
look into the feasibility of adding
rooftop gardens with sitting areas.
Finally, patios in each of the
residential units on Phase 1 could
be cou ntee toward the
requirements of CYMC if they
were enlarged slightly to meet the
minimum code dimensions of six
feet.
All of these recommendations
would increase the usable open
space and minimize the gap
between the proposed open
space and code requirements.
Tot lot safety has been added
throuRh the Rated entrances.
The articulation and design
features of the project provide a
more urban and improved fa~ade
along Palomar Street and at the
entrance to the City.
Review No.2 - DRC-05-39, Olson Co.
Page 6
August 2, 2007
fa~ade
o 4-storv facade
General Plan
.
Project doesn't fit the vision in
the General Plan
Need a retail live/loft, with
professional offices along
Palomar
Increase density by adding
another livable floor
Internal access neecs to be
resolved and site may be too
dense
.
.
.
Affordable Housing
. How would the project meet
the affordable housing
requirement?
Conclusion:
I financially feasible.
The applicant proposes to fulfill
the mixed-use component on
the 0.89-acre corner lot
("podium") with den;;ities of up
to 56 du/ac. The corner lot
would be conveyed to the
Redevelopment Agency for
implementation of this higher
density project. The
Recevelopment Agency would
require that the future
development meet the vision of
the General Plan. Conditions
will be attached to the project,
as well as design parameters, to
insure integration of the two
phases.
The applicant has proposed to
fulfill the affordable housing
obligation on the corner piece
("podium") at Industrial and
Palomar by setting-aside the
property to the City's
Recevelopment Agency.
The Agency is obligated to
ensure the affordable hou5ing is
completed. Conditions will be
attached to the one-acre site, as
well as design parameters for the
affordable hou5ing component.
The General Plan's Palomar
Gateway district calls for higher
density mixec-use development
near the trolley station with less
dense residential development to
the west and south of the station.
Overall densities for the entire
district should average 40 du/ac.
The proposec project provides a
density range of 26 to 56 dulac,
with an average density of 31.5
du/ac. The proposed den5ity is
within the density range of the
General Plan and permissible
density allowec for mixed-use
projects in the Central
Commercial zone (maximum 32
du/ac).
The City's Affordable Housing
Requirement (IncJusionary
Program) identifies priorities for
fulfilling the affordable obligation.
Although meeting the obligation
on-site is the most desirable
option, land set-asides provide a
unique opportunity for the
Agency to leverage additional
affordable units and potentially at
deeper income targets.
The IncJusionary requirement of
the applicant would be 16 units
(10%), however by the Agency
leading the "podium" project
additional units may be built
(minimum of 15% or 23 units).
While staff is still processing the submittal and awaiting comments from other city
departments on final site design; Community Development staff has reviewed and
6'--<{;
Review No.2 - DRC-05-39, Olson Co.
Page 7
August 2, 2007
analyzed the project proposal for consistency with the overall objectives of the
Palomar Gateway District identified in the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
Based on this review, staff has determined that the project is in substantial
conformance with these objectives and feels the revised project submittal has been
significantly improved from the first submittal. Further, staff believes the revisions
address the concerns and comments raised by RAC at the May 3rd meeting.
Therefore, staff requests that the RAC consider the revised project and the
information and analysis provided in this memorandum to formulate a
recommendation on the project.
Committee Member Conflicts:
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the RAC members. No conflict exists for
members and alternates of the RAC.
Attachments:
. Locator Map
. Concept Plan Packet
cc: Ann Hix, Acting Director, Community Development Department
Mary Ladiana, Planning Manager, Community Development Department
Eric Crockett, Redevelopment Manager, Community Development Department
Amanda Mills, Housing Manager, Community Development Department
6~1