The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007/09/27 CVRC Agenda Packet "'c. ,"~03j,f Ii. CORPORATION CHULA VISTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Christopher H. lewis, Chair Paul Desrochers, Vice Chair Rafael ,\Iunoz Doug Paul Hector Reyes Christopher Rooney Salvador Salas, Jr. OFFICERS David Garcia, CEO Maria I<achadoorian, CFO Ann Moore, General Counsel Ann Hix, Secretary AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVElOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC) Thursday, September 27, 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 PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the CVRC on any subject matter within the CVRe's 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. ACTION ITEMS The items listed in this section of the agenda will be considered individually by the CVRe, and are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation, If you wish to speak 0/1 any item. please fill out a "Request to Speak" form lavailable in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting, 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff Recommendation: A. That the CVRC approve the minutes of August 9, 2007. B. That the CVRC approve the minutes of August 23, 2007. 2. REDEVELOPMENT UNDERWRITING POOL A joint planning effort between the City/Redevelopment Agency (Agency) and the San Diego Unified Port District (Port) created the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan (CVBMP) that envisions developing a world-class waterfront using sound planning and economics. The CVBMP project area encompasses a total of approximately 550 acres that includes approximately 490 acres of land area and 60 acres of water area that lie within the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area. Over the next several years, the City anticipates the CVBMP's new development and redevelopment projects will require between $178 million and $510 million in capital and infrastructure requirements. Staff Recommendation: That the CVRC adopt the following resolution: A. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISH A POOL OF INVESTMENT BANKING AND UNDERWRITING FIRMS FOR THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROJECT AREAS 3. DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT Parking is an integral part of the 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. Staff Recommendation: That the CVRC adopt the foJ/owing resolution: A. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACCEPTING THE DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT STUDY AND RECOMMENDING 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 Page 2 of 4 CVRC - Agenda - 09/27/07 4. CONSIDERATION OF THE SALE OF SPACE 118 AT ORANGE TREE MOBILEHOME PARK In November 1987, Orange Tree Mobilehome Park converted to resident ownership. The Agency assisted residents in purchasing their park with a $600,000 acquisition loan, which was converted to loans for lower income residents to help them purchase spaces they had been renting. At that time, 29 residents either did not wish to or could not afford to purchase their mobilehome spaces. The Redevelopment Agency agreed to purchase the remaining spaces after the newly-formed homeowner's association was unable to secure the financing to purchase them. The Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing Set-aside Fund was used to purchase the remaining spaces. Residents who did not purchase their space remained as renters in the Park. It was also the Agency's intent to sell these remaining spaces as new mobilehome buyers moved into the park, or to sell the spaces to the current residents when they were in the position to buy. Staff Recommendation: That the CVRC adopt the following resolution: A. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A "REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT" AND RELATED DOCUMENTS FOR THE SALE OF SPACE 118 AT ORANGE TREE MOBILEHOME PARK 5. PRE-SUBMITTAL REVIEW FOR 248 CHURCH AVENUE The 248 Church Avenue development proposal is for ten town homes on an approximately 13,856 square foot City-owned parcel in the urban core. The preliminary proposal for this site is presented by Voyage, LLC (UDeveloperH). 6. INFORMATION UPDATE ON THE SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY STRENGTHENING STRATEGIES This report is an information update to the CVRC on the Southwest Community Strengthening Strategies Work Program, including initial steps that City staff has taken to date. The consulting firm of Moore lacafano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) has been selected and hired to assist Southwest community partners in designing a process for community building. In addition, a team of Chula Vista representatives, including community members, will share how what they learned at a National League of Cities Roundtable on Building Equitable Communities will inform this process. Page 3 of 4 CVRe - Agenda - 09/27/07 7. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS 8. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTS A. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON THE SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOl DISTRICT ASSET UTILIZATION PROJECT 9. DIRECTORS' COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation will adjourn to their regularly scheduled meeting on October 11, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. In compliance with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a CVRC meeting.. activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the Community Development Department for specific information at (619) 691- 5047, or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf onD) at (619) 585-5655. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. Page 4 of 4 CVRe - Agenda - 09/27/07 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC) August 9, 2007 6:00 P.M. A Regular Meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation was called to order at 6:01p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. CVRC ROLL CALL PRESENT: Directors: Desrochers, Lewis, Munoz, Paul, Reyes ABSENT: Directors: Rooney, Salas ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Garcia, Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer Tulloch, General Counsel Moore, Deputy General Counsel Shirey, Chief Financial Officer Kachadoorian, Acting Community Development Director/Secretary Hix, Planning Manager Ladiana, Redevelopment Project Manager Crockett, Senior Community Development Specialist Do, Senior Community Development Specialist Kurz, Senior Community Development Specialist Tapia, Senior Deputy City Clerk Peoples, Senior Administrative Secretary Fields PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE I. SELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Acting Community Development Director Hix explained the selection process. ACTION: Director Desrochers nominated Director Lewis as Chair of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation. Director Munoz seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0, with Directors Rooney and Salas absent. At 6:03 p.m. Chair Lewis recessed the CVRC. At 6:10 p.m. Chair Lewis reconvened the CVRC with all members present except Rooney and Salas. Chair Lewis requested nominations for the position of Vice Chair. ACTION: Director Paul nominated Director Desrochers as Vice Chair of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation. Director Reyes seconded the motion, and it carried 5- 0, with Directors Rooney and Salas absent. PUBLIC COMMENTS Russ Hall, City of Chula Vista resident, congratulated the new members and the newly appointed Chair and Vice Chair; expressed support for the CVRC; and offered his personal assistance if needed. Page I of5 I .f\ \ CVRC - Minutes - 08/09/07 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN EXTENSION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUPO-07-0l 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. Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Planning Manager Ladiana provided a brief introduction and Senior Community Development Specialist Tapia provided the staff report. Director Lewis opened the public hearing. Joe Botkin, project coordinator for Ecology Auto Parts, spoke In support of the requested extension. Joe Kellejian, San Diego County Regional Manager for Ecology Auto Parts spoke in support of the requested extension and responded to questions of the Board. Charles Siroonian, President and CEO of Ecology Auto Parts spoke in support of the requested extension and also responded to questions of the Board. With no further members of the public wishing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the public hearing. ACTION: Motion by Director Paul to adopt CVRC Resolution No. 2007-024, heading read, text waived: CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2007-024, RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUPO-07-0l UNTIL MARCH 31, 2020 FOR ECOLOGY AUTO PARTS, INC. LOCATED AT 850 ENERGY WAY Director Desrochers seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0 with Directors Rooney and Salas absent. Chair Lewis announced that Item 3 would be postponed until the August 23, 2007 meeting. \ ..f'1 ).. Page 2 of5 CVRC- Minutes - 08/09/07 ACTION ITEMS 3. CONSIDERATION OF TWO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENTS FOR SITES WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT AREA Staff proposed two Exclusive Negotiating Agreements (ENAs) for review and consideration by the CVRC. Although these are considered "new" ENAs in the Third A venue 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 the staff report. 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-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LANDIS A VENUE 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 ACTION: No action was taken. Postponed to August 23, 2007 meeting. 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. Senior Community Development Specialist Do provided the staff report, and responded to questions ofthe Board. IA?J Page 3 of5 CVRC- Minutes - 08/09/07 ACTION ITEMS (continued) Greg Mattson, representing the Third A venue Village Association, expressed concerns regarding employee parking, late night walking to distant parking lots, the need to reinstitute the downtown PAC and encouraged staffto move forward with the ordinances recommended in the report. Earl Jentz, Chula Vista resident and property owner, requested staff consideration for the establishment of a parking district on Garrett Street. ACTION: No action was taken. 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. Acting Community Development Director Hix introduced Senior Community Development Specialist Kurz who provided the staff report. Kim Prijatel, Vice President of Development with the Olson Company, provided a project overview and responded to questions of the Board, and project architect Daniel Danciu, described the architectural detail as urban architecture. ACTION: No action was taken. 6. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS Executive Director/City Manager Garcia advised the Board of the changes being discussed regarding the way staff provides support for the CVRC. He stated that a more streamlined support staff process was being evaluated, as were ways to improve the redevelopment process. He added that both processes would be presented in detail at a future meeting. Acting Community Development Director Hix directed the Board's attention to an information memo from Mr. Zimmerly that had been distributed on the dais regarding the RAC process. She additionally pointed out a memo from Director Rooney requesting an excused absence. 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTS Chair Lewis stated that it was an honor and a privilege to serve on the Board, as well as to serve his community. He noted that what the CVRC accomplished would be reflected for many years and he stated that he did not want to see the Board get enmeshed in political issues. 8. DIRECTORS' COMMENTS I A~ Page 4 of 5 CVRC- Minutes - 08/09/07 Director Paul congratulated Chairman Lewis on the work he had done over the years to establish the CVRC and on his appointment as Chair. He then made several inquiries, and Acting Community Development Director Hix responded that a briefing would be provided to bring the new directors up to speed, and that meetings would continue to be scheduled for two per month, but they would only be held as necessary. Director Desrochers thanked the CVRC members for appomtmg him as Vice Chair, and suggested consideration that future meetings be held in a conference room or less formal setting. Chair Lewis expressed support, but noted that the use of the Council Chambers might be necessary at times to accommodate the public. Director Reyes thanked all of the members for their support. ADJOURNMENT At 8:25 p.m., Chair Lewis adjourned the meeting to the regularly scheduled meeting on August 23,2007 at 6:00 p.m. Annlli~ I)~ \ -Ps S Page50f5 CVRC- Minutes - 08/09/07 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC) August 23, 2007 6:00 P.M. A Regular Meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation was called to order at 6:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. CVRC ROLL CALL PRESENT: Directors: Desrochers, Lewis, Munoz, Paul, Reyes, Rooney, Salas ABSENT: Directors: None ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Garcia, Assistant City Manager/City Engineer Tulloch, Deputy General Counsel Shirey, Acting Community Development Director/Secretary Hix, Planning Manager Ladiana, Associate Planner Pease, Principal Civil Engineer Evetovich, Redevelopment Project Manager Crockett, Principal Community Development Specialist Lee, Senior Community Development Specialist Kluth, Senior Community Development Specialist Tapia, Senior Deputy City Clerk Peoples, Senior Administrative Secretary Fields PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE PUBLIC COMMENTS Patricia Aguilar, Chula Vista resident representing Crossroads II, welcomed the newly reconstituted CVRC Board and spoke in support of redevelopment and the City's General Plan. Chair Lewis pledged the support of the CVRC Board to listen to and work closely with all community groups. Chair Lewis announced that Item 6A under Chairman's reports, a subcommittee report on the Sweetwater Union High School District asset utilization project, was being continued to a future meeting. I. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Memorandum from Christopher Rooney requesting an excused absence from the CVRC meeting of August 9, 2007. Staff Recommendation: That the CVRC excuse the absence. \ 6 \ Page I of8 CVRC - Minutes - 08/23/07 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (continued) B. Memorandum from Salvador Salas requesting an excused absence from the CVRC meeting of August 9, 2007 Staff Recommendation: That the CVRC excuse the absence. ACTION: Director Munoz moved approval of the requests for excused absences by Directors Rooney and Salas. Director Desrochers seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0-2 with Directors Rooney and Salas abstaining. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION DRC-07-02 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 24,585-SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH A 2,000-SQUARE FOOT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 144 27TH STREET IN THE SOUTHWEST PART OF CHULA VISTA The proposed project consists of the construction of a 24,585-square foot multi-tenant industrial building with a 2,000-square foot administrative office and other site improvements at the site located at the northwest comer of 27th Street and Faivre Street. The proposed project concept plans are being presented to the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation for consideration and final approval. Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Chair Lewis opened the public hearing. Planning Manager Ladiana introduced Senior Community Development Specialist Tapia who provided the staff report. Enrique Rodriguez of Davy Architecture, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project and responded to questions and comments of the Board. Director Munoz requested that a dollar amount be provided under increased assessed valuation on future staff reports. With no further members of the public wishing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the public hearing. \ :& )... Page 2 of 8 CVRC - Minutes - 08/23/07 PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) ACTION: Director Salas moved approval ofCVRC Resolution No. 2007-025, heading read, text waived: CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2007-025, RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (DRC-07-02) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 24,585-SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH A 2,000-SQUARE FOOT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND THE ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 144 27TH STREET IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Director Desrochers seconded the motion, and it carried 7-0. 3. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ZA V-07-08 AND DRC-07-04, BUILDING AT 868 STELLA STREET Small warehouse/office building on a 4,260 sq. ft. site located at the northwest corner of Stella Street and the Palomar Street on-ramp to Interstate 5. The project will include a two-story concrete block building providing three parking spaces and trash storage on the ground floor and 2,064 sq. ft. of office and warehousing on the second. Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Chair Lewis opened the public hearing. Planning Manager Ladiana introduced Associate Planner Pease who provided the staff report. Applicant Angel Gonzales spoke in support of his proposed project, and responded to questions of the Board and public comments. Peter Cogswell, owner of a business across from the proposed project, requested a traffic study be prepared for the project and spoke of numerous accidents occurring on the street. He suggested the road be widened and better signage be provided. Director Reyes suggested the character of the building be revisited stating that it appeared too residential and needed a more urban look. He requested staff explore the corner for infrastructure and safety issues. Director Desrochers expressed concerns with the requirement for only 3 parking spaces on site. He also made inquiry, and Redevelopment Project Manager Crockett responded, as to the status of the Southwest Specific Plan which currently has seed money and is being reviewed by the Planning Department. 153 Page 3 of 8 CVRC - Minutes - 08/23/07 . PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Director Rooney expressed concerns with vehicles backing out onto Stella Street, and requested consideration for a turn around if possible. Chair Lewis closed the public hearing. ACTION: Director Paul moved approval of CVRC Resolution No. 2007-026, heading read, text waived: CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2007-026, RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (DRC-07-04) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO- STORY WAREHOUSE/OFFICE BUILDING ON THE SITE LOCATED AT 868 STELLA STREET AND APPROVING A VARIANCE (ZAV-07-08) TO PERMIT A IS-FOOT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. Director Munoz seconded the motion, and it carried 5-2-0 with Directors Reyes and Rooney voting no. ACTION ITEMS Chair Lewis stated that the public hearing was open. Deputy General Counsel Shirey clarified that this was an action item and not a public hearing, and stated that Director Salas had property holdings within 500 feet of the property referenced by Item 4B and would be recusing himself from participation on that item. He requested the presentation be split to accommodate Director Salas. 4. CONSIDERATION OF TWO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENTS FOR SITES WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT AREA Staff proposed two Exclusive Negotiating Agreements (ENAs) for review and consideration by the CVRC. Although these are considered "new" ENAs in the Third A venue 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/Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency-owned parking lots. The details of those ENAs and why the ENAs are being proposed for different sites are described in the staff report. Chair Lewis stated he had a speakers slip from Ms. Aguilar. Ms. Aguilar requested to speak after the staff presentation. lC:>-4 Page 4 of 8 CVRC - Minutes - 08/23/07 ACTION ITEMS (continued) Redevelopment Project Manager Crockett introduced Senior Community Development Specialist/Project Manager Kluth, who provided the staff report, which was comprised of an overview of how the developers were selected. Principal Community Development Specialist/Project Manager Lee, speaking on behalf of CityMark, who was unable to attend due to scheduling conflicts, spoke regarding the CityMark ENA for the original site, which was allowed to expire due to the results of the comprehensive parking management study. Since then, they have entered into a new ENA for the new site. He then provided examples of the award winning projects throughout the City of San Diego that CityMark had done. At 7: 14 Director Salas left the dais and the Council Chambers. Senior Community Development Specialist/Project Manager Kluth began the presentation on Item 4B, Voyage LLC (Public). Deputy General Counsel Shirey clarified that because Director Salas had property holdings within 500 feet of the property referenced by Item 4B, he and would be recusing himself from participation on that item. He then stated that Director Salas had left the dais. Jim Brown, Managing Partner of Voyage LLC, provided his architectural background and experience and provided an overview of some of their previous development projects. Patricia Aguilar, representing Crossroads II, spoke in support of both ENAs, but expressed concerns that the design of the projects should fit the area, which is within historic Chula Vista. At 7:22 Director Salas returned to the Council Chambers and the dais. Director Reyes requested each applicant explain how their project would engage the street, reinterpret the Chula Vista character, provide high quality design, and provide linkages to the paseos. He also encouraged each developer to ask the community/committee for input prior to going forward with design. Deputy General Counsel Shirey again reminded the Board that the two ENAs needed to be discussed separately as a Board member had a conflict with 4B. Chair Lewis requested the Board address CityMark first. Director Desrochers verified that CityMark would have to adhere to the Urban Core Specific Plan and it's guidelines, and would have to comply with the current approved 84-foot height limit for that site. Director Paul stated that he was very impressed with projects done by CityMark and would like to see them invest in Chula Vista. 165 Page 5 of8 CVRC - Minutes - 08/23/07 ACTION ITEMS (continued) Director Rooney stated that he agreed with his colleague regarding the projects done by CityMark, and inquired of staff as to why the current site was selected for them. Director Salas stated that he would encourage CityMark to design an iconic building, something with a different look that would become a catalyst for future development. Chair Lewis suggested that developers' periodic progress reports be provided to the CVRC every 3 months during the first 6-month period and montWy after the first 180 days until the project is finished. ACTION: Director Desrochers moved approval ofCVRC Resolution No. 2007-027, heading read, text waived: CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2007-027, RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APPROVING AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH CITYMARK COMMUNITIES LLC FOR CITY-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LANDIS AVENUE AND DAVIDSON STREET Director Rooney seconded the motion, and it carried 7-0. At 7:39 p.m. Director Salas left the dais and the Council Chambers. Chair Lewis requested discussion be reopened on Item 4B. Director Reyes requested, and Mr. Brown of Voyage LLC (Public) explained how his project would engage the street, reinterpret the Chula Vista character, provide high quality design, and provide linkages to the paseos. Patricia Aguilar, representing Crossroads II, expressed disagreement to the prior comments made by Director Salas for "iconic" building design. Chair Lewis requested that staff ensure that the CVRC receives reports regarding the dialogues between the RAC and all developers. ACTION: Director Munoz moved approval of CVRC Resolution No. 2007-028, heading read, text waived: CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2007-028, RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APPROVING AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH VOYAGE, LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH AVENUE AND DAVIDSON STREET NORTHWEST SITE lb~ Page 6 of8 CVRC - Minutes - 08/23/07 ACTION ITEMS (continued) Director Rooney seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0- I with Director Salas abstaining. At 7:43 p.m. Director Salas returned to the Council Chambers and the dais. 5. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS Chief Executive Officer Garcia spoke regarding Item 5B first. A. UPDATE ON CURRENT REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES Redevelopment Project Manager Crockett provided an overview and update of the current redevelopment projects. B. SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 JOINT WORKSHOP WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CVRC Director Garcia noted that there would be a Joint Meeting of the City Council and the CVRC on September 4, 2007 to discuss some changes that are being proposed for the Redevelopment Agency program to support the newly constituted CVRC. The recommendations fell into two main categories: the first to reorganize the staff that supports the CVRC, and the second, a list of recommended authority that would be delegated from the City Council to the CVRC to facilitate implementing the redevelopment program. Both are key recommendations for energizing the redevelopment program and allowing it to move forward effectively. 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTS A. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON THE SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT ASSET UTILIZATION PROJECT-DIRECTORS' COMMENTS This item was not discussed and no action was taken. Chair Lewis thanked Chief Executive Officer Garcia and staff for all of their hard work, as well as the new CVRC Boardmembers who were stepping up to the plate. He also thanked the City Attorney for keeping him straight, and the City Clerk staff and secretary. 7. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS Director Desrochers stated that he would not be present for the September 4, 2007 Joint Meeting as he had another commitment, and would be submitting a request for an excused absence. Ibl Page 7 of8 CVRC - Minutes - 08/23/07 ADJOURNMENT At 7:53 p.m., Chair Lewis adjourned the meeting to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on September 4,2007 at 6:00 p.m., meetingjointiy with the City Council at the Police Department Community Room, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista. tL/)!; Ann Hix, Secretary Ib<t Page 8 of8 CVRC - Minutes - 08/23/07 . .. CVRC Board Staff Report - Page 1 Item No. 2 CORPOR/\T10N CHL'L/\ ViSTA FROM: September 27, 2007 CVRC Board Directors ~ _ David R. Garcia, Chief Executive Officer ~\Y ~ Ann Hix, Acting Community Development tector #\ Eric Crockett, Redevelopment Manager@; DATE: TO: VIA: SUBJECT: REDEVELOPMENT UNDERWRITING POOL BACKGROUND: A joint planning effort between the City/Redevelopment Agency (Agency) and the San Diego Unified Port District (Port) created the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan (CVBMP) that envisions developing a world-class waterfront using sound planning and economics. The CVBMP project area encompasses a total of approximately 550 acres that includes approximately 490 acres of land area and 60 acres of water area that lie within the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area. Over the next several years, the City anticipates the CVBMP's new development and redevelopment projects will require between $178 million and $510 million in capital and infrastructure requirements. To finance these projects, it is necessary to establish a pool of investment banking and underwriting firms to serve as an integral part of the City's financing team comprised of the City's financial advisor, bond counsel and City staff. In addition to establishing the underwriting pool for the CVBMP, there is a desire for the underwriting pool to also provide their financial expertise when the Agency considers development projects within the other Redevelopment Project Areas. For any given project financing, one firm will be selected to act as Senior Manager and may contract with the other firms to co-manage if necessary. The Senior Manager will work with the City's financing team in formulating a debt financing strategy. Other duties include but are not limited to developing a sales strategy and marketing plan, assisting in structuring the debt issuance, making recommendations on the timing of the debt sale, maturity schedule and call provisions, analyzing and assisting in the evaluation of credit enhancement proposals, and assisting in preparing documents related to debt issuance. 01- \ Staff Report - Item No. ~ Page 2 Based on a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, staff recommends that seven firms be included in the pool. The City will be required to enter into agreements with selected firms only at the time of any debt financing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and City Council establish a pool of seven investment banking and underwriting firms for the City of Chula Vista Bayfront Development and Redevelopment Agency project areas. . DISCUSSION: The practice of establishing an underwriting pool streamlines the process for project financing. Additionally, the pool concept provides the City and Agency with a wide range of financial expertise and it provides for participation by a variety of qualified firms. On March 23, 2007, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for investment banking and underwriting services. The RFP was advertised in the Star News, a local publication, and many underwriting firms were contacted and invited to participate in this process. In total, ten proposals from national and regional municipal investment banking and underwriting firms were received. A four-member panel consisting of the City's Director of Finance, Assistant Director of Finance, Treasury Manager and the City's financial advisor was created for the selection process. After reviewing all ten proposals, the panel selected nine firms to interview. After a comprehensive evaluation process, the interview panel selected a total of seven firms to be included in the pool as Senior Manager or Co-Manager. Not all firms in the pool will participate in each financing. However, it is possible that all of the firms will have the opportunity to participate in some capacity in at least one financing. Following is the alphabetical listing of the selection recommendation and a summary of the firms' profi les: 1. Bank of America 2. Citigroup 3. De La Rosa & Co. 4. Goldman Sachs & Co. 5. JP Morgan 6. Stone & Youngberg 7. UBS ~-~ Staff Report - Item No. ~ Page 3 Bank of America Bank of America Securities, LLC, (BAS) is the investment banking, securities trading, and underwriting affiliate of Bank of America, N. A., the nation's second largest commercial bank in terms of total assets. BAS has a real estate financing capability that specializes in tax-supported bond issues (special taxes, assessments, mortgages, or tax increment). BAS also has specific experience in marketing mix-use development projects and offers a team of bankers with municipal finance industry experience of over 20 years. BAS Public Finance is headquartered in New York City, but provides service to clients via a network of 23 investment-banking offices nationwide, including Irvine and Los Angeles. BAS also has three full-service underwriting, sales, and trading desks with one office in San Francisco. The firm has over $1.8 billion in excess net capital as of June 30, 2006. Citiwoup The Company was formed by the merger of Traveler's Group and Citicorp in 1998 to form the largest financial services firm in the world. The firm is a leader in development and redevelopment finance, and a national leader in tax-exempt hotel financings. Citigroup offers a team of bankers with municipal finance industry experience of over 20 years and ranks as the number one senior manager of California debt since the year 2000. The firm has a long history of success serving their California clients through their offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. Currently, Citigroup's Municipal Securities Division consists of 220 public finance bankers, 126 sales and trading professionals, and 62 financial product and credit specialists nationwide. Citigroup's excess net capital is $3.35 billion as of July 31, 2006. De la Rosa & Co. De La Rosa & Co. is a California-based investment banking services firm with full-service offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco. The firm is a top ranking municipal bond underwriter in California. De La Rosa & Co. is the only major firm serving California municipal issuers that focuses exclusively on the California municipal bond market. The firm has over 15 years of investment banking experience in bond underwriting, transportation financings, and redevelopment and land-secured projects. Goldman Sachs & Co. Goldman Sachs & Co. (Goldman Sachs) is a leading global investment banking and securities firm that provides a full range of investment banking and financing services, is based in New York, and maintains offices in over 20 different countries. The firm has maintained a Public Finance Department, the Municipal and Infrastructure Finance Group, for over half a century and is organized under regional groups with the Western Region Group based in their San Francisco and Los Angeles offices. The municipal finance team has over 15 years experience. Goldman Sachs has a wealth of experience in development- related financings. ~---~ Staff Report - Item No. ~ Page 4 Goldman Sachs has been the lead manager on complex and innovative financings in the country for projects with limited dedicated revenue streams, has a special group which invests in real estate across the country, and has significant experience in real estate transactions in the municipal sector. The firm's excess net capital is $2.6 billion, and, unlike many firms, Goldman Sachs has no preset limits concerning the allocation of capital to their municipal underwriting. JP Morp,an JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JP Morgan) is a global financial services company, is the third largest financial institution in the nation, and the fifth largest bank in the world. JP Morgan's Public Finance Group conducts its business through one of its three wholly- owned subsidiaries, JP Morgan Securities, Ine. The Public Finance Department is headquartered in New York and maintains 18 regional offices across the country. The Western Region Group is based in San Francisco with secondary offices located in Los Angeles. The firm has over 25 years experience in public finance with a wide array of senior-managed projects, including tax-exempt and taxable financings. The firm's excess net capital is $1.3 billion as of July 31, 2006. Stone & Youngberg Stone & Youngberg is California's largest regional investment banking firm specializing in municipal finance. Founded in 1931, the firm has a rich history of providing investment banking and brokerage services to the State of California, local government entities, high net worth investors, and institutional investment funds. Stone & Youngberg is headquartered in San Francisco with offices throughout the State, including San Diego. With over 25 years experience in municipal finance, the firm has worked on redevelopment projects, tax allocation, and revenue bond issues, and special tax bond issues for public infrastructure needs. Stone and Youngberg has vast experience in community facility district (CFD) and assessment district financings. UBS UBS Securities, LLC (UBS), is a wholly-owned subSidiary of UBS AG, a publicly-traded company. UBS AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland and is headquartered in New York. UBS is a leading global securities and investment banking firm providing a full spectrum of products. The firm has extensive experience in transportation finance and has specialists located in California. UBS is also a leader in land secured and tax increment financing with offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco and has a team with over 20 years experience in public finance. Additionally, UBS has extensive experience with multi- purpose issuers and convention center bonds and other related credits. UBS has an excess net capital of $4.6 billion as of June 30, 2006. ~4 Staff Report - Item No. ~ Page 5 DECISION MAKER CONFUO Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision. FISCAL IMPACT There is no direct fiscal impact to the General Fund as a result of the recommended action. The fiscal impact upon future debt issues will vary depending on the size and type of the issue. All costs to be incurred will be paid solely from the proceeds of each particular transaction and therefore become part of the long-term debt cost of issuance. PREPARED BY, Nadine Mandery, Treasury Manager, Finance Department 1.-(5 CVRC RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISH A POOL OF INVESTMENT BANKING AND UNDERWRITING FIRMS FOR THE CHULA VISTA BA YFRONT AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROJECT AREAS WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan (CVBMP) encompasses approximately 550 acres in the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area; and WHEREAS, staff anticipates that new development and redevelopment projects in the CVBMP will require between $178 million and $510 million in capital and infrastructure requirements; and WHEREAS, staff proposes to establish a pool of investment banking and underwriting firms to assist the City's financing team; and WHEREAS, staff anticipates that the underwriting pool will provide financial expertise for development projects within Redevelopment Agency Project Areas in addition to projects in the CVBMP; and WHEREAS, staff conducted a fonnal Request for Proposal process and ten proposals from national and regional municipal investment banking and underwriting fillns were received; and WHEREAS, the selection panel recommends the following finns, listed in alphabetical order, to comprise the pool of investment banking and underwriting finns: Bank of America, Citigroup, De La Rosa & Co., Goldman Sachs & Co., IP Morgan, Stone & Youngberg, and UBS. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation that it recommends that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista City Council establish a pool of investment banking and undelwriting finns for the Chula Vista Bayfront and Redevelopment Agency Project Areas. J.-A-\ Presented by: Approved as to [onn by: Ann Hix Acting Community Development Director Ann Moore General Counsel v ~ ?-- t.G{ /v {; ...~ J:\Allorney\ELlSA\RESOS\CYRC - Investment Bunking and Underwriting Pool.doc 1A---J-... . .. CVRC Board Staff Report - Page 1 Item No. 3 COR PO R/\TIO \: CHL'L/\ ViSTA DATE: September 27, 2007 FROM: CVRC Board Directors ~',I O,,;d .. G"d.. Ch;of '..,coU" Dffk", ~ Ann Hix, Acting Community Development Director~ Eric Crockett, Redevelopment Manager@ TO: VIA: SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT STUDY AND ACTION PLAN BACKGROUND: Parking is an integral part of the 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. To understand the current parking dynamics and develop strategies for promoting and achieving an effectively-managed parking supply, the City has been engaged in a comprehensive study of downtown parking management and operations during the past nine months, The completion of the parking study is the first step in addressing existing deficiencies and developing a plan for the future management and operations of the Downtown Parking District. The entire process involves three phases: Phase I Phase II Phase III Preparation of the Parking Management Study (completed) Adoption and implementation of the Interim Action Plan Adoption of a Downtown Parking Management Plan The purpose of this staff report is to present Rich and Associates (RICH) Downtown Parking Management Study Final Report (Phase I), propose an Interim Action Plan (Phase II) for review and consideration by the CVRC, and request direction to prepare a Downtown Parking Management Plan (Phase III). This report will describe the three phases and how they build upon each other. 3~\ Staff Report - Item No. ~ Page 2 RECOMMENDA liON: Staff recommends that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation: 1. Accept the Downtown Parking Management Study; and 2. Approve the Resolution recommending 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. DISCUSSION Chula Vista's only parking district was established in the downtown Third Avenue area 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. 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 of Parking Parking Spaces lot #1 E Street and Landis South 14 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 Although the District has generated adequate revenue for staffing, administration and enforcement there has been inadequate revenue to maintain the public parking areas or make necessary capital improvements. This has contributed to a negative public perception about the availability and quality of parking in the downtown area. 3--1-- Staff Report - Item No. ~ Page 3 The fieldwork results presented in the Downtown Parking Management Study (Study) clearly demonstrate that there is an overall surplus of parking in the downtown. Additionally, the report also describes a number of interrelated dynamics such as inadequate signage and the physical condition of the free public parking structure, that continue to diminish the overall effectiveness of the District. Therefore, significant operational changes must occur to improve and promote the District's assets and make the capital improvements necessary to achieving a successful parking district. EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENTS (ENA) In 2005, the Redevelopment Agency identified the development of public parking lots within the District as a necessary and positive step to better utilize existing assets, attract new developers, provide a variety of housing opportunities in downtown, and generate revenue to the Parking District for capital improvements. However, based upon the findings presented in RICH's Downtown Parking Management Study Final Report and community input, the Agency reconsidered the Exclusive Negotiating Agreements (ENA) with several developers. In early 2007, the Agency had ENAs on four public parking lots (#3, #6, #9 and #10) within the downtown parking area. Two developers ultimately decided not to move forward, and then on August 23, 2007, the CVRC approved ENAs which moved two developers from Lot #3 to Lot #2 and from Lot #6 to Lot #10. This effectively reduced the number of parking lots considered for development and preserved more existing parking spaces. DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT STUDY (PHASE I) 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 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 parking system. Following are some of the key findings presented in RICH's Final Report: . Overall the Study Area has more parking than currently needed. On average 43% of the spaces are unoccupied. . 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. 3 ---3 Staff Report - Item No. ---L Page 4 . RICH calculated a parking generation rate of 2.37 spaces per 1,000 sf for all land uses, which supports the UCSP rate of 2.0 spaces per 1,000 sf. . The Park Plaza Parking Structure is severely underutilized (peak occupancy of only 42 percent). . The study concluded that Lot #3 is not suitable for development due to high occupancy rates and its strategic location within the District. This resulted in moving the ENA developer to Lot #2, as discussed previously. The Consultant determined that development of Lot #6 would have minimal impact on parking availability, but based upon significant concerns expressed by surrounding business and property owners, staff recommended that this ENA be moved to Lot #10, which was also previously discussed. A significant conclusion of the Study is that ineffective management and lack of policies to address parking issues has hindered the District's ability to generate sufficient revenue to be self-sufficient. The following are key recommendations from the RICH report: . Meter and parking fine rates need to be increased to generate adequate revenue for necessary capital improvements, such as the replacement of parking 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 consistent to be effective. . Revenue generated within the District should remain with the District, as it does now, and be utilized for capital improvements. These recommendations are the basis for staff's proposed Downtown Parking Interim Action Plan (Attachment 3) and future development of the Downtown Parking Management Plan. The Downtown Parking Management Study Final Report (Attachment 2) incorporates overall parking management goals and considers the best practices of other cities and the parking industry. These goals include sufficient staffing to develop and operate an effective parking management program, and parking enforcement. 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 list of findings, recommendations, implementation timeframes and financial impacts, please refer to the Downtown Parking District Recommendation Summary (Attachment 1). The information contained within the RICH Downtown Parking Management Study Final Report is the basis for the actions proposed in the Downtown Parking Interim Action Plan described below. 3-1 Staff Report - Item No. ~ Page 5 DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT INTERIM ACTION PLAN (PHASE II) The Downtown Parking District Interim Action Plan primarily focuses on changes to management and operations, addressing significant functional changes that will provide opportunities for revenue generation to finance future improvements within the Downtown Parking District. Since the emphasis of the Interim Action Plan is to address management and increase revenue, most of the actions contained within the Action Plan carry minimal financial impact to the City. There are a number of additional necessary capital improvements that would require a significant financial expenditure, but until the District has an opportunity to increase its revenue, there are no funds for these improvements. These future improvements will be identified in the Management Plan (Phase III). The complete Interim Action Plan is attached with the most significant of the recommendations described below: ~ Continue to dedicate all revenue generated in the Parking District for parking improvements within the District. ~ Appoint an Interim Parking Manager, from existing City staff, dedicated to overseeing and managing parking operations. ~ Form a Downtown Parking Advisory Committee to advise the City Council on the development and implementation of a Downtown Parking Management Plan and review ongoing operations. ~ Purchase new individual meters for on-street parking spaces and replace individual meters with multi-space machines in publiC parking lots. ~ Maintain Lots #3 and #6, previously approved for development, as public parki ng. ~ 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. ~ Increase the expired/overtime meter fine from $12 to $25. ~ Increase parking meter rates as follows: Time Limit Current Rate Proposed Rate On-street 30 minute meter $0.25 per 30 minutes $0.25 per 30 minutes On-street 2 and 3 hour $0.10 per 20 minutes $0.25 per 30 minutes meter $0.25 per 50 minutes $0.50 per 60 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 Off-street 1 0 hour meter $0.10 per 60 minutes $0.25 per 60 minutes All the recommendations suggested in the Interim Action Plan, described above, are essential in providing a dedicated management structure for oversight of the District and in J --'5 Staff Report - Item No. -L Page 6 generating additional revenue for improvements within the District. The implementation of the Action Plan is the second critical component in the City realizing an effective and functioning Downtown Parking District. DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT MANAGEMENT PLAN (PHASE III) The final component of addressing the District's needs will be the preparation of a comprehensive management and implementation plan. The goals of the plan are to address existing deficiencies, identify necessary capital improvements and provide short and long-term strategies to promote the self-sufficiency of the District. The Management Plan will provide strategies that build upon the foundational changes to the management and operations of the District with the approval of the Interim Action Plan. Those strategies will address the following: . Marketing and Signage . Parking Policies . Maintenance Program . Technology . Parking Allocation . Park Plaza Parking Structure . Bicycle Parking The Management Plan will include recommendations to upgrade and/or implement new enhancements to the District ranging in cost from $550,000 to $1,000,000, depending upon the extent of the improvements. These projected costs include new tools for enforcement, more enforcement staff, new equipment and use of technology, marketing, signage, improvements to paseos and installing new equipment to encourage bicycling in the downtown area. Staff will work with the Parking Advisory Committee (Interim Action #5) in the preparation of the Management Plan. It is expected that this Plan will be presented to the CVRC for consideration in Spring 2008. CONCLUSION As the first component of a three-phase process, 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 it has helped initiate collaborative efforts between the City, business organizations, and community members. Understanding how parking impacts businesses and potential development is crucial to developing a clear and achievable plan that addresses long-term management and operations of the District. 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. 3./LR Staff Report - Item No. -L Page 7 The approval and implementation of the Downtown Parking District Interim Action Plan is the second component of the process, and provides the first opportunity to create significant changes in the District by addressing outdated parking practices and inefficiencies. This lays the groundwork for the final phase, a comprehensive Downtown Parking District Management Plan that will outline additional actions necessary for achieving an efficient parking system. DEClSIONMAKER CONfliCT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the CVRC members and has found a conflict exists, in that Director Salas has property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. FISCAL IMPACT The implementation of the Interim Action Plan will create additional revenues for the District and will also result in expenditures for necessary capital improvements. Any future actions for the disbursement of Redevelopment Agency or City funds will be brought forward for consideration and approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Downtown Parking District Recommendation Summary 2. Downtown Parking Management Study Final Report 3. Downtown Parking District Interim Action Plan PREPARED BY: Diem Do, Senior Community Development Specialist 3-1 Downtown Parking DlsIrlc .ommendallon Summary .-,hmentl I I IMPLEMENTATION EsnMATED I CATEGORY FINDING RECOMMENDATION CAPITAL EsnMATED RMNUE TIMEFRAME COSTS 3.1 PARKING MANAGEMENT 3.1.0 Downtown The Downtown Parking District was formed In 1963 to Maintain the District and modify the boundaries to E Street Parking D1s1~ct Statu. provide meters, generate revenue, fund Improvements Third Quarter 2007 $0 $0 and Bounda~... and help control parking. (north), Del Mar (eo.l), Garren (wesl) and H Slreet (south) IThe management of the parking system Is not effective. Form a Parking Advisory Committee (PAC) and appoint an 3.1.1 Parking Stan existing staff person from the City's CommunIty Development Fourth Quarter 2007 $0 $0 Deoartmenl to act as the Parklna Director The District has fulfilled Its obligation to continue to use Create one Parldng Enterprise Fund and place all revenue 3.1.2 Parking funds generated by parking meter revenue and fines on generated from the Downtown District Into this fund. Fourth Quarter 2007 $0 $0 Enterprise Fund park.lng-related activities. Continue to designate these funds for park.lng-related actMtles within the District. Develop an educational program that contInually stresses 3.1.3 Parking There Is a general lack of awareness of park.lng facts. the costs of park.lng, enforcement regulatIons, transit options Fourth Quarter 2007 $0 $0 Education and the vision of a walkable community. Present the information on a continual basis. 3.2 Parking Pallcies Parking policies need to be developed and updated as the 3.2.0 CIty Parking Other than the In-lieu fee, there are no policies for downtown evolves. Policies should be established for First Quarter 2008 $0 $0 Policies parking overtime park.lng, enforcement strategies, parking allocation and oarklna rates. The In-lieu fee policy was implemented in 1980. The Retain the program but revise the formula so that the cost DiffIcult to project. 3.2.1 In-Ueu Fee formula for calculating the fee Is confusing and per parking spece be Indexed fa fhe cost of constructing Fourth Quarter 2007 $0 Depends upon outdated. -- one DOrkina sooce In a oorklna structure. develooment. 3.2.2 Valet Parldng Valet parking Is not currently used City should develop a valet park.lng polley to regulate how First Quarter 2008 $0 $0 valet operations would run. 3.2.3 Re.ldenflal Evaluate the Impact of parking needs on surrounding Parking Perm" There Is no residential parking permit In place. residential areas and Implemenf a residential parking First Quarter 2008 $0 $0 oermit oroaram If necessary 3.2.4 There has been a lack of Information shared between Prepare an annual report to be presented to the CIty Annually $0 $0 the Cltv and shareholders. Council and community on an annual basis. 3.3 PARKING OPERATIONS \.J 04 Downtown Parking D1strlc. ,ommendatlan Summary "hment 1 3.3.0 Parking Parking revenues have been erratic. particularly from Prepare a Parklng DIstrict Operating budgellhat projeCts Revenues and Annually $0 $0 Expen.... 2002 to present appropriate costs for maintenance of the District. There Is no ongoing marketing campaign for the Parking Develop an ongoing and budgeted parking marketing First Quarter 2008- 3.3.1 Marketing program. Coordinate with lAVA to implement under the developed $15.000/yr $0 District. direction of the Parking Advisory Committee. Ongoing-ImplementatIon The City Is lacking In a comprehensive and coordinated Develop a sign program that includes four types of 5lgnoge: $10.000- 3.3.2 Slgnage direction. location, Identification and pedestrian Second Quarter200a $0 sIgn program. wavfindino. $50,000 Fourth Quarter 2007- 3.3.3 Condnlon 01 The majorlty of the parking lots ore in need of capital Make lighting. painting, 5lgnoge, landscaping and Analysis of Facilities Nalyet First Quarter 200B-Bld $0 City Perlclng Lots improvements resurfacing Improvements as necessary. SecondlThird Quarter determined 2008.lmnlementation Fourth Quarter 2007- 3.3.4 ExIsting Perking Generally I the design and layout of the parking lots Is Remove the one-way restriction In the alley to allow legal Analysis of Facilities Not yet First Quarter 2008-Bid $0 Area Configuration efficient except for Lot 6 access Into lot 6 and/or create an entry from Medrano. SecondlThlrd Quarter determined 20Q8-lmnlementatlon Downtown Chula Vista has a number 01 paseos $10,000- Install slgnage to bener Identify paseos. Consider using $100,000 3.3.5 Paseos connecting parking lots to Third Avenue. Many of them lighting, murals and landscaping to create a more Inviting First Quarter 2008 depending $0 need Improvements to make them more atlractlve and walking experience. upon types of InvitIng. Improvements 3.3.6 Validation The District does not currently have a validation system Institute a parking vandatlon system that businesses can use Third Quarter 2008 $3,000-$5,000 $0 ISystem In place. to offer free narklnn to customers. 3.4 PARKING ENFORCEMENT Dedicate enforcement personnel to the District. The officer 1$81,550 In average 3.4.0 Perking The Parking Enforcement Program Is not functioning at must cover a consistent route and enforce during the entire $70,000 for an annual revenue Enforcement stafflng optImal efficiency. The enforcemenf officers do not lust enforcement period of Monday through Saturday 9 am to 5 Third Quarter 2008 additional full- Increase based upon I enforce parking within the District. time position current fine and pm. collection rcites ~ ~ Downtown Parking DIsIrIcI .._,",ommendallon Summary A. .....chmen! 1 Flrsl/Second Quarter Upgrade the system to allow the handheld ticket writers to 2008-Prepore 3.4.1 Hondheld The handheld ticket writers are not being used to their record and track license plates, provide Information about specifications and Issue $40.000 $75,500 In average TIcket Writers full potential. outstanding tickets and number of tickets received and Request for Proposals annual revenue data regarding stolen vehicles and warrants, T11irdQuarter2008~Enter Into contract 67,975 In average 3.4.2 OVertime The overtime parking fine of $12.00 Is nol high enough Increase the overtime parking fine from $12.0010 $50.00 annual revenue Parking Fine to dIscourage parkers from knowingly violating parking consistent with the parking Violation Penalty Schedule ThIrd Quarter 2008 $0 Increase based upon regulatIons. same number of citations Issued 3.4.3 Multiple Tlcket. Chula Vista currently Issues multiple tickets for same day Continue this policy of issuIng multiple tickets Currently In place $0 $0 violations of exclred meters. Issue courtesy tickets for a first offense of a non-permit Loss of 3.4.4 Courtesy TIcket Chula Vista does not currently issue courtesy tickets. ThIrd Quarter 2008 revenue from $0 vehicle. i nnrklnn ticket 3.5 PARKING AND REVENUE CONTROL . FIrst Quarter 2008- 3.5.0 On-street Meters need to be replaced. Many are non- Purchase new Individual on-street meters that can accept P If' tl . I repare spec Ica ons $160,000 $0 Porklng functioning. This causes enforcement Issues. COins, tokens and smart cards. Ideally the system would be and Bid Second . wireless and solar powered. Quarter 2008-ln51all Install multi-space meters In lots #2, #3, #5 and #7. These FIrst Quarter 2008- The off-street parking lots have Individual meters that are Prepare specifications 3.5.1 Off-street difficult to maintain for both collection and machines can accept coins, tokens and smart cards and and Bid $210.000 $0 Porklng maintenance. should be wireless and solar powered. The remainder of the Second Quarter 2008- lots could be upgraded to new Individual meters. Install - $194,1 75/yr In new Increase the parkIng rates tor meters and permits to $0.50/hr revenue for on-street The parking rates do not deter people from parking at 30-mlnute and 2, 3, and 4 hour meters, Increase to meters, $144,805/yr 3.5.2 Porklng Rotes beyond the posted limits nor do the rates promote the $O.25/hr at 1 O-hour meters. Increase permits to $120/qtr In Second Quarter 2008 $0 In new revenue from use of the Park Plaza Parking structure. all lots except #2 and #3 where the increase should be off-street meters, and $180/qtr. $57.600 In permit fees c,J \ o Downlown Parking Dlslrlc .-ommendallon Summary .;hmenfl The 2-hour parking should be the dominant duration for on- $5.000 for 3.5.3 Parking The District has two different types at on-street meters: 30 street parking. Individuals requiring more than 2 hours Second Quarter 2008 slgnoge $0 Allocation minute and 2-hour should be directed to off-street parking areas. For Lots #2 and #3 convert to 3-hour lime limits changes 3.6 PARKING FACIUTIES 3.6.0 Pork Plaza The parking structure Is critically underutillzed with Upgrade 51gnoge, improve lighting, re-stripe the parking Naiyet floors, conduct a conditions study and complete needed Fourth Quarter 2007 $0 Parking Structure average occupancy projected at 40%. structural and cosmetic rennirs and consider addln" an estimated 3.6.1 Meter Color The existing meters are not marked to Indicate the time Designate a color to represent each time limit then paint Second Quarter 2008 $5.000 $0 Codlna limit, which is confuslna for oarkers. the DOle to identify the meter. Street curbs should only be painted for no parking where Fourth Quarter 2007- Nalye! 3.6.2 Street Curbs The street curb paintIng Is Inconsistent. required and for fire hydrate locations. Curbs should not be Analysis First Quarter estimated $0 painted to reflect the type of parking available. 2008-Work completed 3.7 BICYCLES AS ALTERNATE MODE OF lRANSPORTATlON l,..onSlaer creaTIng a DIKe roure 0 me aowmown ana There Is a need to promote bIcycle usage In Chula Vista creating a marketing program to promote bicycle use as 3.7.0 Bicycling os on an alternative to driving. Create a special event to promote Not yet Alternative to Driving and to make coming to the downtown by bicycle more bicycles In an effort to help create alternative modes of Fourth Quarter 2007 estimated $0 appealing. transportation, which in turn cuts down on the number of parking spaces needed. - $10.000- Chula Vista does have bicycle racks, although they are Install new bicycle racks and lnstitue a marketIng program $75.000 3.7.1 Bicycle Parking Second Quarter 2008 depending on $0 difficult to find. to promote the new locallons. quantity and style of racks 3.B PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE l)) ~ .-- Downtown Parking District, .ommendatlon Summary t. ~hment 1 3,8,0 Traffic Impacts There are currently no noted issues with respect to traffic. Continue to monitor traffic flow within the downtown and the Ongoing $0 $0 levels of servIce at principle Intersections as development occurs and parking changes/additions are Implemented. Directing customers and visitors to park In Park Plaza should 3,8.1 Current Parking Overall, there Is a surplus of approximately 1,103 alleviate the parking demand Issues on blocks 2.3 and 12. Analvsls parking spaces wIthin the Study Area. However I there The defIcits on blocks 9 and 10 should be reduced when First Quarter 200& $0 $0 are several blocks [2,3.9,10 and 12) that have a deficit. the Social Security office relocates and more people become aware of free parking In Park Plaza. RICH reviewed lots 3,6.9 and 1010 delermlne.the Impact Malnlain lot 3 as public parking. Developing lols 6,9, and 3.8,2 Patentlal " to Ihe Dlstrlcl If these sites were developed. All of the lols 10 should have minimal Impact, but If Ihe surrounding Parking Impact af had moderately high occupancy levels, but lots 6, 9, parking areas cannol absorb the loss of parking consider Ongoing $0 $0 ENAs and 1 0 had more available surrounding parking to enterlng Into shared use agreements with existIng parking alleviate any Impact due to the loss of parldng. lots or develop new parking. 3.8.3 Pafential Future The future parking needs will depend greatly on Parking Neesd with The Urban Core Specific Plan may hasten redevelopment in the downtown area. If ENA sites are Redevelopment of redevelopment along Third Avenue, causing changes to developed, utilize proceeds from the sale of parking lots for Ongoing $0 $0 third Avenue the parking demand. necessary capita/Improvements. The City will need to continually monitor development and parking needs. 3.8.4 P"",lble There Is currently no need to construct additional Monitor parking needs and consider Identified slfes for Parking structure parking. Although. RICH did consider potential parking passlble development of parking structures In the future, If Ongoing $0 $0 Sites structure sites If needed In the future. necessalV . \sI \ ~ Attachment 2 DOWNTQWN..fARtSING DISTRICT --::. \ ',/~ :;;;>7 r:x ,:, ~<~.. -'- ,,- .' . . Final Report -f... .> -;- ';;':~ : ; Down.' ',," I ,\/,.S . f~ .f~!NIc~il '. . A 1!!'-'_~it;1%,M~ -' -. ~ , '. "~" "" ,', ,":.".A."..J";. . ':",,; . ,,,_W,~.I""""" ....,<..,._jl~)!l-RF.J1.<.. .. ~ialking '., J1Jtudy , ~-, -'.. ",'V..~;::;:,\ > ~_." ,....._.,. ... <',"' ';",' _ W"""'; -':Ii ,~ -","" 'I 1;", Iii IlIIIilf ~.. .-""", ,', :; ~..........".I ." .. " F~ ' , .. -" """1 ".". .. ,..~ 3-12> Rich and Associates, Inc. Parking Consultants - Planners www.richassoc.com ltEdCcri:lr1s Execuflve Summary SECllON 1 - Parking Study Overview 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Best Practices...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Scope 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 Map 2: Downtown Parking District and In Lieu Fee Boundaries 1.6.1 Establishment of District..............................................................................1-7 1.6.2 In Lieu Fees ................................................................................................1-7 1.6.3 Park Plaza Parking Structure................................................................... ...1-8 1.7 Urban Core Specific Plan........................................................... ............ .1-8 SECllON 2 - Analysis 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Parking Inventories...... ............ ........................ ......... ............ .................. ............. 2-1 2.3 Turnover and Occupancy Study ........................................................................2-2 Map 3: Parking Supply Map 2.3.1 Turnover and Occupancy Analysis............................................................ 2-3 Map 4: December 14. 2006 Peak Hour Map 5: Decernber 15, 2006 Peak Hour 2.3.2 Turnover Results......... ............. ...... ........ ................ .................. ................... .2-3 Table 2B and 2C Turnover Summary Results 2.3.3 Occupancy Results................................................................................... .2-5 2.3.4 Occupancy Conclusions.... ........... ................. .......................... ......... ....... .2-7 ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners !"I\-:t! Y \L\ 2.3.5 Permit Occupancy. ...................................................................... .2-7 2.4 Parking Demand Calculation.............................................................. ...2-9 Map 6 Permit Occupancy Map 7: Current Surplus Deficit 2.4.1 ENA Development Parking Demand................................................2-9 Map 8: ENA Development Sites 2.4.2 UCSP Parking Demand .................................................................2-10 2.5 Parking Operations and Enforcement.....................................................2-10 Table 2J: Parking Tickets Issued 2.5.1 Parking Permits................. ...........................................................2-11 Table 2K: Parking Permit Statistics 2.5.2 Regional Surveys......................................................................... .2-12 Table 2l: Parking Violation Benchmarking 2.5.3 Chula Vista Parking Rates................. ........... ......... ............... ....... ...2-12 Table 2M: Meter Parking Rates Conclusion............................................................................................ ...2-13 SECTION 3 - Findings and Recommendations 3.1 Parking Management ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.0 Downtown Parking District Status and Boundaries .....................................3-1 Map 9: Proposed Parking District Boundaries 3.1.1 Parking Staff ...............................................................................................3-2 3.1.2 Parking Enterprise Fund .............................................................................3-3 3.1.3 Parking Education......................................................................................3-3 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 Parking Fee Reconciliation 3.2.2 Valet Parking.................................. .......................................... ....3-7 3.2.3 Residential Parking Permit.............................................................. .3-8 3.2.4 Reporting to Community.............................................................. ...3-8 3.3 Parking Operations.......................................................................... ..... .3-8 3.3.0 Parking Revenues and Expenses......................................................3-8 Table 3B: Historical Parking District Parking Revenue and Fees '!J I~ ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners !':!9:j 3.3.1 Marketing................................................................................... .3-9 3.3.2 Signage................................................... .............................. ...3-1 0 3.3.3 Condition of City Parking Lots.........................................................3-14 Table 3C: Parking Lot Condition Assessment 3.3.4 Existing Parking Area Configuration............................................... ...3-16 3.3.5 Paseos...................................................................................... .3-16 3.3.6 Validation System.................................. .................................... ...3-18 3.4 Parking Enforcement.......................................................................... ...3-18 3.4.0 Parking Enforcement Staffing................................... .......................3-18 3.4.1 Handheld Ticket Writers......................................................... ....... ..3-19 3.4.2 Overtime Parking Fine................................................................. ..3-20 3.4.3 Multiple Tickets.................................................................... ........3-21 3.4.4 Courtesy Ticket.......................................................................... ..3-21 3.5 Parking and Revenue Control......................................................... ..... ..3-22 3.5.0 On-Street Parking...................................................................... ...3-22 3.5.1 Off-Street Parking....................................................................... ..3-23 3.5.2 Parking Rates........................................................................... ...3-24 Table 3D: Existing and Proposed Meter and Permit Rates Table 3E: Projected Two-year Meter and Permit Revenues Table 3F: Parking Revenue and Expense Projection 3.5.3 Parking Allocation..................................................................... ...3-27 3.6 Parking Facilities............................... ................................................. .3-28 3.6.0 Park Plaza Parking Structure................... ............ ...................... ......3-28 3.6.1 Meter Color Coding................................................................... ..3-30 3.6.2 Street Curbs............................................................................... .3-30 3.7 Bicycles as an Alternate Mode of Transportation.......................................3-31 3.7.1 Bicycle Parking.................................................................... ...... ..3-31 3.8 Parking Requirements for Current and Future...........................................3-34 3.8.0 Traffic Impacts.......................................................................... ...3-34 3.8.1 Current Parking Analysis............................................................. ...3-34 3.8.2 Potential Parking Impact of Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Sites.....3-35 3.8.3 Potential Future Parking Needs with Redevelopment of Third Avenue..3-36 3.8.4 Possible Parking Structure Sites.. ............................................. .......3-37 Map 10: Potential Parking Structure Sites ~-' \ '-t ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. .:::;~ Parking Consulfants - Planners fi!EJ-j 3.8.5 Timing for Additional Parking Development................................... ..3-39 3.8.6 parking Site/Design Decision Matrix...................................... ......... .3-40 Table 3G: Site Selection/Design Matrix 3.8.7 Parking Development Costs, Parking Improvement Costs and Financing..3.41 Conclusion Exhibits 1. Community Presentation Powerpoints 2. Table 2A-Parking 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 Parking Demand with ENA Sites Developed 8. Table 21-Parking Demand Projections and Surplus or Deficits for UCSP Model 9. Table 3H-Chula Vista Findings and Recommendations Matrix ~- \l ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners !U9i 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 beginning January 2007; including a review of best practices in February, presentations of findings in March and presentations of recommendations 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 ,000 square feet of area) is used 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 3-\<( 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 critical 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 Operations 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 questioned 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 from 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. 3--- \~ 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 policy for Lots 2 and 3 should be modified from 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 and to adequately control parking. Stakeholders expressed an opinion that rates needed to be increased. Proposed meter rates increases 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 directs people to different parking areas, gives information about the type of parking available and identifies the name of the lot is necessary. Parking sign age 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 parking 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 full time 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>--- ~O 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 are in 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. While 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 yd-\ occupancy continues to be high after the recommended changes to the lot and to the Park Plaza parking structure. b. With 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 Avenue in 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 potential 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 residential units 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 stakeholders 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. .y~~ Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study SectIon One - Parking Study 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 and Associates (RICH) to prepare a parking planning study which 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 piUS 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 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. ~ ~ !'!.\;.1'1 Rich and Associates, inc. Parking Consultants - Planners 2J~~ 1-1 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study . Parking generation rates are moving towards requiring parking maximums as opposed to minimums. Codes based upon individual land uses are moving to a torm based generation rate in which one parking ratio (generally per 1 ,000 square feet of area) is used 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 fundamental and should include branding the parking, 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 """"".,,,.,., Rich and Associates, Inc. Parking Consultants - Planners ~-- ~ ~ 1-2 Final 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 area to determine the parking. 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 conductmg on.street & off. street mventones land Use Determme by conducting bUIlding Inventory for each block I Utilization Determine geographic dlstnbutlon of parkmg utilization levels User Surveys To obtain parking characteristics unique to Chuta Vista Parking needs analysis Parking needs determination ~ ~ !\I,C;;,l;! Rich and Associates, Inc. Parking Consultants - Planners 3;16 1-3 Final 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, way finding, 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. Prellmlnaty Program Site Analy$is DeslgnAnaly$Is Results Parking System Recommendations (Policies, Technology, Pricing, Allocation) System Analysis Review policies, procedures. enforcement, signage, marketing. maintenance, technology, space allocation Sites for New Parking (Surface or Structured, Cost, Feasibility, Timing) Consensus on Solutions ~ ~ !,g;.\i Rich and Associates, Inc. Parking Consultants - Planners 3--- 1 ~ 1-4 Final 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 Public Works Transit Administration Department. In general, over the last year there has been a five percent increase in ridership on Third Avenue between E and H Streets. This increase in ridership is a positive indicator that the goal to promote other modes ot 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 that will be relocating from this site), medical and dental offices. The number of medical and dental offices in the study area is unusual for a downtown. This land use type has a different dynamic in terms of the number of spaces needed per 1 ,000 square feet and the needs of patients to walk from parking to the medical office. 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 parking demands are in the evenings and on weekends. Therefore, they have less of an impact to parking during the weekday daytime hours when parking demands in downtown Chula Vista are typically higher, but a higher impact on nights and weekends, when the parking demands in downtown Chula Vista area are lower. In addition to the existing land uses, RICH considered the impact on parking that the 24 Hour Fitness facility might have since this use is 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 .~ ~ !l;ESJi Rich and Associates, Inc. Parking Consultants - Planners ?r- ~\. 1-5 Final GJ i }.) :__ J W_M ~ e I~~. ~ GD --- iu---- " ~ a a ~ e > ~ , ----- 0) PARKING STUDY FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CHULA VISTA, CAUFOANIA ..-..... '.''''~g Co","II"." :=:s:: Arcbll"<".Englnou. ~ ~[~f:i~f ":;," RICH::;',"""'" "ASSOClAnS _..,,"^,,~.'o~ owo. TITLE: STUDY AREA MAP' LEGEND o BLOCK 11 _ _ _ STUDl' AREA BCVNDARY VATE,OI-oq-Ol DI'UH'IBT,~ FILE, (i ,OU,~T5 PAGE:'\-4 Chula Vista Downtown Parldng Study 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. 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 survey 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: Communitv 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 to community and stakeholders in a morning and evening meeting. . March B, 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 (lAVA). Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, and Landis property 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) at the end of the report. '?J- ~~ ~ ~ ltJ.\;I! Rich and Associates, Inc. Parking Consultants - Planners 1-6 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 1 .6 History of Parking District 1.6.1 Establishment of a District (cited trom 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 trom 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 the 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. Bonds were never issued, but the initial allocation ot 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 all of the 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 Map 2 (In- Ueu Fee Boundary Map) located on the tollowing 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 providing the required on-site parking. The fee was not intended to guarantee anyone specific parking areas or spaces within those areas. The fees collected under this policy are to be used for the purchase or development of parking sites which benefit the Sub Area. 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. ~ ~ !\I5:,!-l ~<~b Rich and Associates, Inc. Parking Consultants - Planners 1-7 Final ,_' ,,"""'. '\ '~.~' ""'r' ,.. ~ ~ .~.... '.. 'WI:,'"' -~'~ ~ -""".... .....i. .~;: ~ ~ ~ " . \ > >" 'CI'~' ~ 'c.' ;''''''":~,'' \~tP..~l'0.~~,:J''1tt~'''Z''~: ~, ~. ',;:' ," ').1 , :'('';'' h ;""'!': ~'7"".". . \.- \;;- .....,~ '~'\!\\'lr:y' ,.'1 i'~.;: ...' ;:."':\ ~~ . ~ ,. ~~c:..\ ',~ ","~' f~\' \,.."'~.. .r'> ~l!?- ...\,~,,,,\,,\ ::. ~.;":>J' \ \~:"'d.'~:;l'- "~$'\ ' .l --J.\ ~ "" )'I'I'l:T"I '."". ",0;, ~"'\ \"''i<;"'\''''fj:'' \ "'~""", "'" ..,' /, ;. ;,.. \ \:)~''-~tlJ Y ",\\',~~",,' 1'. ':.\V:\ .~~~ '\;",-;li' 'Jj' . "..~' :\;"10~ V' f- .-,f' \fI.:r '" " \ \li'I"'} ",..'>.' "'~ .i'~','~ ~.#..'" _ \...' . \ " \'!jl' ,. ~ ~ . ,.,;.(l \. \ ~ . - . \:1- ' ,...,';.F , . ~.' \. '.' . .t ." \"" ....0 ',.- "'~ ~ ,.',~\ O$l~'- , ~o;"",.. .,,~ '" \' ~\. ~ \~ ":1-tr.'\-:......,,~'>' "'~.,~ "" ... '-, , .., ...... ~. ..... \) '\ ,-- ~.-f" . .."..:;...-<.:.\> ...,,~, ,~....# .. .,.".\..,,:$~...Ir ~,- ,. ;","y""...~~~.:t" ~'~~ ,'.r;.i"\'~;':'/"\." _~-,~if.ll ' ,~ ,.~\\\,i, {~,.,~' '.' ...""'" ~ .~~. '.' J \ . . ,,".. ... '" ,,&.., ~ ___"', .',. - ~..\. ,,,,,,... .~ ~.~... '\-,''' "W . , ,.......- ~ I.. ., t. "-'.. , , ~ ~..".W~ G.\.;". '" "..;r\\. \ '. ~.'l'?...:-t'~t\'-; ~., '; l-', . ~'-J " "" '"4' , . -\.-' ""~ ..:\. ..-.rI" ~ .... \ ,~< -r ;:;; ,,:.- ~ ~~, ~ _ _ ' , .. _ ~ ~,~ 0", -..J. ~ i\~~" -,~~~r~'~.-,:~, ;"f ,'. 't:.~ '~:~'\\"~\ ~\ ~ \t~l~.~t' "\~~~.;.~, 7 \\~...~\~ ~' ~~' '3 '\ t';" :"c'.t .,,~,.q \ t~,~,",~,\ " . '" , ,'. ~"'I\ 'I ~<~ _lI '. " , _\-:1'. 'iO'.",;,1;l;~ '",' ,. p,,", ,', .\. ,,_,~ ....", -'" ,,.. -:,'~. ."~ ""~,,~.,, c.'!"~'\ ~ .~. S <"~~~'" ,,' 'II....', J Wl,' ~-1' .~l<i ~~lOI- ~~ ~ "1,<;,,~....j '\ \~... d:~I,~ tft m~.. ..- "-. .' "~";'. I;) ,., "-,' , _,. ".,'-""',1 ,,,,,~,, '" 'H"""'t~'" ,\ _ , ._~ftl ~- ;-"JP", , ,_,\ - . " ;...,... ....::..... ~ ~ $ 0'" _, """-'/ """'"i'" "'.. . '" ~ ~ """,' ...,;.:c~...... v;" ",-'". ,,' . '" ".~1l"1 \ ' 'i,.. '-. ".", ,,~... r"'J.-~ .....'\ '~.'\,",.."i 1f) '" 1(\ , i.Y ::'> (iI\ ~\'<;J "")~,;..k,), ""rr' ~-;;"'''';. I;~':... .--\ .~....'.":: '''''i:t'~~~, ~ ,,,,,," >-- \, yr't'>,ji.\ , \ I ''9i!:~-Z " V#~ ,.- <r \I '1$$" iM.\\\ .. ~~ iI. \!" ~:21' '-. ~"" , ~"P::.I._ _ ..~ -- 't'", ,,~ <'; .."'.. ,'i!,7I1I.",",p,.!.", ~~~,~. i',:,~,\ ,I ":' ...~.~~~. ~'^ \' ~._;~ <:.~?",j\~~ ~";;:\ , " ~, ,." ,.- ' \ '. ^' '... it. ..e- M"\ >r '~. ., ~ .........~\-I...;;.J~~ ~$\ ~~'''':'.J-:.,i,..' :\:c!~ ::..:...:.,1 \,./ 7t.-\~!J. ~~~""^;: 1""~O ~~. >. ft.",:"" ~.v :t. .~',,,, ,_, ...~'~'J$t\. .~4tt <"'''''~ .~ _1 "''';;' .....r"~~-"'."e4I,. .~ .< ,.~~!i" \,.,1. '....t'"' ,'* ~ ~ \. ',. ~ ,~, , _ '- ~~~. -fi"....) ..'~ '~ 't ...~' ;,li;A. \.;jJ;, '. ^.. .,\, ~ '':, . ,...s " -t.-i- y..........;r,. ,- .~ _\.,,-t ~""\\' ~,~ ~~,\ \~"'f\. .~\ \~~~~.:. ~,,;:j\~~' "\;1~;'" ~i4. it.....~\~\ ~" -,..:....,J ':...: 'Ii,'J~~ l~. , ~~ ,'.",,~ ~.~\ ' \,. \ ~ .' \ ,""", -:. -'.'-'l\!.1~::\ <:I ~ , " .p;~ ... Al!',~ ........ ," ~~ ~,.~""'< \..a;..~ ~,;.<'i '..,y ',' \ \' ".- ~ '\~~ 'i~,J'~ . '..~- I .' '~~", \,< F ,'"". ~.. ~ \ ,. ",~-",. .. . ,.'-4, .', ~ , ;;"'- ',~;.iI-~ :,.r.' "'1~~""~"Y.~ '.... \ -f' ~.-- i,# \ ;'l,,l . - ~:< ... ...' ,. _ """y: \ -( ...:__ ""''''-;,' ~" ~ f 4". Ij ,J '.. < 10..- , ,'.. 1; .8 "" ~"" -:t.' ~... ." '.' .; \; _,\\t" \. \\~~/.\\' ',~~ ~\,.ri,\~' ,:~,.. ,,:-~~.., &~~~\, \_ '>t ". ' r -..... '\ l'~:' ",:,,, . '~~j' .;:?if'-"~' , ~ "",. "'(.. ~'. i:Xj'; ! ~'. \ , " ~,.' <;,,,,. '. :~~"\ \ '~iJ,I. ~\.."'f S1~_ :,..,,:.111: ;jf~' :''''., -:!fir. 1._,>: . ' ~ . , \l-., ~~~'l'&~ --- ~ ( ".;.'i ~\.. . ~~I ,\"'" r},"" ,;) \\\, ("\1',-1.;. '11 \,'>) ~~ !'f'~,( ",...il{ fl'- ~ ..,)~ ,'II _~ ~.",,'''',.!r;.a.. 13'"' "" '0" ",,1:,.." ..~?l'l"':'",:,,~\< ~ ,..-" /" ';II; '.. '", ...~ "!:\ " ~J.. ~ ",C;~,':'-~y9, .... 1;~1~~ ~,~~ [ \~.".i.~.~,:'?' '. ~~~ ", r ' "'" ~,ft'l!. ,.,.>-1'" .~~~, ,.',\ .'~ ..~. ~.~."',\- . \;'~m ' ,~v. ",..~<, ,,~ ~ ~"~~l,,~.,. '''--'''",:;",\;:>~. - *(. l' ~\- ,,'$"'" \ ~\ ~ .' ......, .., " '.... " ' ~,.-- . .,,,",,, . '. \ ' ...,., , .~\ "r "".:'. )J~ "" \J'. 'jC;' ~'. " }~,; 4~'''-~'!'' '., ".;;'~ ,\"1'. " ,'--:>~. ~ , .;\ ,,'" ---... . - "'~......,. ~ ..J ......Il. . I"liI .. t " '~\ ,)./. ~ ~"'. :...: ,.",.c;,. ..'"'~ ; ;O~2\\ ".' ,.~ \,<,~ ,~, ',,"',:';"co.1 P'" . ~ . ,'r:!.. . . ,'~, \~";:.' .,'1.' --', '~,;, '. ' "" "'" "~\~"'., "> ' \ ,'I' ~ .,~. ~ .... " . ""'~ . ,~~ .' J' .' \ ," ~" P:'~ ' .~~!. ,~ 'it,'. .%,'. ." /...;"'::\- '~"'., l .. ~ '!Ii' ~,. "1~\'" ";i~. ~f"" '... o~ '.-n - . ';.:: ",: ..f _ ~ -:. ....,#l.. p<.."':'; . \" 'I " ., \0,. . ., ,I. , ;,,~r' ~", " '. J> 'ft... ~ t \ .; i.., '~-. 'il,. ". ,~"" -~'::' Y.\':., ~ ,,-~.,,:~~\, . ,~~\..!', :;: :.. ..1.'.~~,!l' '" ,,i >'~. -:. ,- ~'" ~\\,. ^. I \:.\~~ ,N\)j\ t' ' ~~",. ~.. '--,. ~. ~J." " . ~_. ,;a~ ' ~',:,'. ",~ ..' ~~t~'t<~~,,/-)f'!! ,fR" o,,:,'.rj.':fi~li:1'.{.'i.~~'t'~1r~~~;.~ ' , ,.. ... .':-- ... \\'~ ..". '. ....1Ia. ,,~.\ .",~ ',"",' ',,\, , --,' .''',' ...' t '..\ .',.,' '~. t .'"", .\., . .' '.'.' ,,- , tl!J;.' ,,-... "I?' "', , .. I.:.~. ~ '.. . --, ._- . ><f' ~ i ___ i1< ,. So ~ -, ,~ '" -- / ~- -........ ~ .. _ ,~_ ~"" -; . ~f" ~p ~ ... ' '. ,', ".,~/" 'J ---:'1i\:' }."""It'~"';"''"\~'"'' '~"~i""'" ,.f '\5" ,-' , /' ~:':' d' ,'';t. ,. ,. """;? t.,. '~' . - -'. ..,~., ,\~I, " . ~ /"'" ".' :'...... . '. 'l!I , ~. . A'" ,. ,<,'. ,. I ,'''' , .....--. ---'- ....,.....-......-J t I~ ' Q ~ L - ... a\.-w _ ,It "i.. ' \. :~~ \ s..~ ~Q4-\~\~~~~~'~"\ ~t'k~~",'~' ~~~~;:<~ .... ......', ~ '~.,! .;;... '1.:\1' ....".......~~"".;.:. 'A" Il.~ ji""" \ \ . ....-; \11 .... ~ TW'.' .... ...~ ... ,~~ \ .,,~)'... t1i> .... t:~. .,' ,. ,'\ . 'p.~IC-~~- :)"", OJ': .,:~,. "'~' " ~.... ~w. .#""",,' li1I~~ .. ''':'1, .,,',,~.. ~--p "'r ,,>;r~\ . ~~f~' -~ '': ~ ~t\ f1S"* -;.... / ~F.r J \ tiI ,"_',I,",-ii.' \' _.~~. J~~ ". J\~;, '.... ,\,.,. .' \"'''';;:;11", ~~~~l 0.'~'. ...... \1" 'I.' . \,,~. . "'"" ~~... .. ~\\. '1'" {""" .',.., ?..r: -,;~ '!\"" n '..... \ :J.",,,,~>-........ -'" ~ ,\ " 'w d\ \~ ,;{ ..~ - ....."'-.. ,1]( :6..... \ \,&~ '(1-~ (\', ~..-.:~- ~; ~\ "'~~ ,. .....:Jt.... '" 'l/V'~ 'f'" '~' . "'"'" ... ,. .,. t 'f~ ~'IIll~' \~ '.-" '%. ._' ,< 11. co<" '", :i':"\._ ,"': ",;: \,"'<'~ \...."1., ir.,\.;"'.. "~~\' J"l \~ ; "~'"'' ":."~.It ',i~.....~~. -'. \:~"~',.i ('~":t.' V'---..L' ~,,.;~~~-" ~\ '!". ~1, """'",~ _\ '. ~*'{di4"4. "f L'[<. "'o;'J.i"t' ~.........~\Pp :.,c y. l-'" ";.11;"1'" \ \ ',' . ,:. ""'.~.- --:?:" .', f1.' \iii. ,"~, \ <. '1.', "__ .'.", [. ",.-. 'd" L o:''LM~\l''';...'l~ t~".. \'.. -. 1'... ~'\i,.;tj, ~ ~ -A _ ~~ _ () . . . . Downtown Parking District Town Centre I In-Lieu Parking Area Downtown Parking Districts and 1---\ {' In Lieu Fee Boundaries ./ Map 2 Chula Vista Downtown Parking study 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 tour. The land value figure currently utilized in this calculation is $20.00 per square foot. The formula is: 1.6.3 Number of spaces reauired x 350 x 25% of fair market value 4 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 ongoing maintenance and housekeeping of the parking structure and the City is responsible for the capital repairs. 1 .7 Urban Core Specific Plan (Cited from a document prepared by Diem !X>, 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 tocus 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. This fulfills 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. ~~3~ ==s ~ 1\15:1;;1 Rich and Associates. inc. Parking Consultants - Planners 1-8 Final Chula Vista Downtown 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 taking into consideration the goals and vision of the Urban Core Specific Plan. Also, research was conducted to determine how the parking was being operated and how elements related 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 as it relates to parking . Meetings with City staff and stakeholders to discuss parking operations and policies 2.2 Parking Inventory Based on RICH's research we believe that if a city is going to successfully 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. Within both the total study area and within the primary study area, the city meets or exceeds the control criteria. 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 proper 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 3,551 parking spaces, and of these, 625 are on-street, 1,193 are public off-street and 1,732 are private off-street parking. The on- street parking consists of 11 different types of spaces. These include unrestricted ~ ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. '\"9:7 Parking Consultants - Planners y~) 2-1 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking study 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 51 percent of the parking in the downtown. Within the primary study area, which includes the blocks north of G Street, the percentage of spaces the city controls rises to 76 percent. On the following page is Map 3 (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 actual 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 in December to compare and contrast how parking use 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 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 - Occupancy represents the number of spaces occupied at each period or circuit. . 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 (Al 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. 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 ~ ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. !l}$;.!;I Parking Consuitants - Planners :Y-3L\ 2-2 Final LY ~ u-\ PARKING STUDY FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CHULA VISTA , CALIFOANIA .-... P."'i"" COM"U,"" ~"'<h!t.c"'ED~ln.." ~ ~~qKf~f';' ~,,"~ RICH"',:"",," &..,,,,,,,,,,n, _..''',.''""' DWG. lTTlE' PARKING SUPPLY ...... LEGEND o BLOCK . D"Tf,O<I-ot>-01 ~61',6I't:: FILE. KEY .. PRWATE ... FUOLiC .. 151A'i "''''' .. I.NMR(EO (+H .. H" .. 4HtMETEflED .. Kll-R ( t.ETEFED) 31R ~re, OFF 5~ET FOR 6L0::.,;:5 100. 21X), 300 NCJ <100 ""~ ~ 5C.>U,N.Tb PACE' 2-4 Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 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 occupancy result 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 throughout 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. 2.3.1 Turnover and Occupancy Analysis (December 14 and December 15. 2006) The turnover and occupancy analysis took place during a span of two days: Thursday, December 14, 2006, and Friday, December 15, 2006. The first circuit began 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 determine Chula Vista's turnover rate and to understand how employee-parking utilization was impacting the parking operations. Turnover was recorded from 9:00 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 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. 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. Following are Map 4 (December 14, 2006 Peak Hour) and Map 5 (December 15. 2006 Peak Hour) illustrating the peak hour demand observed during the two-day turnover and occupancy counts. 2.3.2 Turnover Results On-Street 2-Hour Spaces On-street spaces should have shorter parking time limits to encourage turnover and provide enough ovailability for customers and visitors to the downtown area. Since on-street spaces are the most visible they are generally considered to be the most convenient. Ultimately, a parking district should provide enough shorter-term on- street parking that is appropriately priced so that porkers are discouraged from circling to look for parking and will consider parking that may be further away and ~ ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. !\l~!! Parking Consultants - Planners :j- jl.f 2-3 Final PARKING STUDY FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CHULA VISTA ,CAlFOANIA ........ hrkin,ro",""onLs ~M'hh.<t'.tn~ln~.rs ~~~:::n'~':T'""'''.''''''''''' ..-;:0. ""'"',," "<0,,"' "'" ~ ;::;~~;;l\,~,~ RICH :::',:~":,,,,, &ASSOCIAru; ,_'''"^'_..rn DWO. 1TT1..B PEAK HOUR 12-14-06 - 1100 am to 1:00 pm MAP 4 LEGEND o BLOCK. _ B5% - 100% 15% - 84% _ 5O'A>-14% il!faSjJ 0 - 4'll'6 ~ ~ sc..ou,fH~ PAGE : PARKING SnJDY FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CHULA VISTA , CALJFOFINIA ........ r",~in. ~on,ullan" ~^,<hl"c".E.n.ln.." ~PI.n"'T> .... RICH ',:c,:;;;;"" "ASSOC'"'''' _."",,,...,.~ DWG. TITLE: PEAK HOUR 12-15-06 - 11:00 EU1l to 300 pm MAP 5 LECBV o BLOCK I _ 85%-100SI> 1511I- 84% _ 50%-14% ~ 0-4<1% ~ ~ ~,IH5 PAGE' Chula VIsta Downtown Parking Study less expensive. These short-term spaces would be most attractive to those visiting the area tor a specific purpose, such as eating at a particular restaurant, running an errand or keeping an appointment with a specific provider in the area. 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. There were 1,124 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 there was a slight increase to about 1 7 percent who stayed longer than two hours. An acceptable rate for overtime parking is approximately three percent. Therefore, Chula Vista has an unacceptably high percentage of overtime parkers. This is likely related to inconsistent enforcement. It is possible that some of the vehicles were observed twice in the same parking spot (overtime parking) though they may 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. We believe this occurred infrequently. Another factor to consider is the turnover of spaces. Depending on occupancy levels, we would normally expect a maximum turnover rate of four for two-hour spaces. For the Thursday count, the turnover rate was 2.41 times, and during the Friday count the turnover rate was 2.27 times. The observed rates for both days appears reasonable, although the data collected during both days indicates that Chula Vista is on the lower end of the turnover spectrum. Off-Street 4-Hour Spaces Off-street parking that has a longer time limit serves a different purpase than on-street spaces with shorter time limits. Off-street spaces should be priced at lower meter rates to encourage their use by customers and visitors who plan to stay in the area for a longer period of time to potentially explore, shop and dine. The four-hour metered spaces in off-street lots were 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 12 percent of the vehicles parking at four- hour meters stayed longer than four hours. This percentage is higher than what is typically acceptable. On the Friday survey only four percent stayed longer than four hours. The turnover in these spaces on Thursday was 2.32 times, which was very close to the on-street ratio observed for the two-hour spaces. ~ ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. m,\;tf Parking Consultants - Planners y~\ 2-4 Final Chula Vista Downtown ParkIng study Tables 28 (December 14, 2006 Tumover Summary) and 2C (December 15. 2006 Tumover 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, Turnover and Occupancy Table) at the end of the report. Table 28 Turnover Summary December 14, 2007 Parking Turnover Summary (by type) On-Street & Off-Street Parking Off-Street Parking 2hr nerklna 4hr narklnn Vehicles that remained 2 hours or less 964 (86%) 316 (73%) Vehicles that remained between 2 and 4 hours 108 (10%) 67 (15%) Vehicles that remained betv./een 4 and 6 hours 30 (3%) 18 (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 Parking 2hr oarki no 4hr Darkino 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 betvveen 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 occupancy results for Thursday and Friday, December 14 and 15, 2006, were the following: Thursdav. December 14. 2006 . The peak occupancy for all on-street parking in the study area for Thursday peaked at 65 percent between 3:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. . The public off-street parking peaked at 60 percent on Thursday and occurred from11 :00 A.M. to 1 :00 P.M. ~ S::: Rich and Associates, Inc. B.1.S;!i Parking Consultants - Planners 3- .L(D 2-5 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking study . On the Thursday survey date, the 3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. circuit was only slightly greater than the 11 :00 A.M. circuit with 53 percent occupied for the private off-street spaces. . Using a composite of all parking areas, the Thursday survey day had peak occupancy of 57 percent, which occurred from 11 :00 A.M. to 1 :00 P.M. Fridav. December 15. 2006 . The peak occupancy for all on-street parking in the study area for Friday peaked at 64 percent but this occurred during 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. . The public off-street parking peaked at 59 percent on Friday and occurred from 1 :00 P.M. to 3:00 P. M. . On the Friday survey date, the 11 :00 A.M. to 1 :00 P.M. circuit was the peak occupancy period at 58 percent for the private off-street spaces. . The Friday survey day had a higher overall occupancy of 55 percent. which occurred from 11 :00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. Park Plaza . The Park Plaza parking structure had peak occupancy of only 41 percent on Thursday from 11 :00 A.M. to 1 :00 P.M. . The average occupancy of Park Plaza during the daytime was only 34 percent. With a total of 645 spaces in and around the structure, this represents an underutilized resource. Public Parkina Lots . Lot 2 peaked at 88 percent occupied on the Thursday survey date and 86 percent on the Friday date. . Lot 3 peaked at 77 percent occupied on the Thursday survey date and 87 percent on the Friday date. . Lot 5 achieved 100 percent occupancy on both survey dates. . Lot 8 peaked at 87 percent on Thursday but only 67 percent on the Friday date. . Lot 9 peaked at 90 percent during the 1 :00 to 3:00 P.M. circuit on the Thursday date and achieved 100 percent occupancy on the Friday survey date during the 9:00 A.M. to 11 :00 A.M. circuit ~ ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ms;!"! Parking Consultants - Planners )-~ \ 2-6 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study RICH also prepared an update to the occupancy counts on March 8, 2007 since it was believed that the counts taken in December might be lower due to the holiday season. The data collected determined that the occupancies were very similar between the December 14th and 15th 2006, counts and the March 8, 2007, count. Therefore, the December, 2006 survey dates were considered to be an average period. 2.3.4 Occupancy Conclusions . For both survey days the average occupancy during the daytime was about 57 percent. . The on-street spaces had varying peak occupancies on both survey days. . 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 41 percent occupancy. . Based on the occupancies that were observed for the three count days and Rich and Associates experience 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 1 O-hour meters. The benefit to maintaining this program is that it provides the City with upfront revenue, and when 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 in addition to the 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 was 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 the 319 ten-hour meters showed that 78 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 83 percent of the ten-hour spaces occupied but only about 25 ~ 3::::: Rich and Associates. Inc. !'IS!! Parking Consultants - Planners '}- L\ 1, 2-7 Final Chula VIsta Downtown Parking Study percent having permits. It should be noted that the survey date coincided with the weekly Farmer's Market that is open every Thursday from 4-7 P.M. on Center Street and Church Avenue. Lots 7 and 1 0 had 1 00 percent occupancy of the ten-hour meters at certain points of the day. In lot 10, there was an average of 80 percent with permits. For the ten municipal lots included in the analysis, the average occupancy of the ten-hour spaces was 79 percent during the four circuits. On average 29 percent of these were permit-holders. On the next page is Map 6 (Pennll 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-Pennlt 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 form 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 facts such as 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. The Urban Core Specific plan anticipated a form 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 and Associates, Inc. - fil.9i Parking Consultants - Planners ~- Li ~ 2-8 Final V I .1:>. ~ PARKING SIUDY FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CHULA VISTA ,CALFOANIA .......... p.,k,ngCon,"I..n" ~"'Cblt'<"EDlln.." ~planno" .... RICH '::":~"'''' &^"lX",TES _',,"',_,.m DW<l lT1tE PERMIT OCCUPANCY 2-15-07 - 11:00 am to 100 pm .... . lBJEN) o EllO<K' _ b5l1> - 100% 15% - B4% _ 50%-14% ~ 0-4'1% ~ ~ SGo'U,IUS PAGE' Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study Rich applied the 2.37 rate to all existing land uses on each block of the study area. Map 7 (Current Surplus and Deficit Map) illustrates the block-by block surplus or deficit of parking which takes the parking supply for a specific block and subtracts the calculated demand to arrive at a surplus or deficit. Please consult Exhibit 6 (Table 2G-Chula VIsta Current Parking Demand ProJection) for the Parking Demand Anolysis 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 1,293 spaces based on current conditions. 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 areas with parking surpluses. As an example, blocks 2 and 3 are within one to two blocks of the Park Plaza parking structure on block 11 , which shows a surplus of 51 8 spaces. There are specific recommendations in Section 3 hat will assist or promote the use of parking areas that have available spaces such as 3.3 .1-Park Plaza Improvement, 3.3.2-Marketing, 3.3.3-Signage, and 3.3.6-Paseos. 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 olf-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. 2.4.1 ENA Development At the time of RICH's review, there were four public parking lots identified as potential development opportunities. Each of these sites has an approved Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA), which is entered into by the Redevelopment Agency and developer to give structure to the negotiation process and identify a specify a period of time during which the Agency will negotiate exclusively with the developer. These sites are in Lots 3, 6, 9 and 10 and are shown on Map 8 lENA 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 ~ ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. !\r\;!:l Parking Consultants - Pianners 3--45 2-9 Final ] JI W I 2>- 0- ~ ;. 8 -n , -- -', 0 ,; <OS .- ' 8 -12 KEY LJl::L MAR AYE 8 I~I . o o KfF,~,j J", - . ':--:};,'tfri!!.'l<: ,,;,,1:\ ,-:;; :'~' f{.il!:.i~ B~Jf}?_,1-~a e"tf'~~fI ~~,t~:', ~ ..::: '. Yi:t;':'~7!h ~ f;:wt ,~~ ~C'I;.; ..":,"Z~';~ _ DEFICIT GREATER THAN -100 _ DEFICIT Bfll"(:EN -51 AND --'l'l DEFICIT BETrEEN -I TO -50 _ SlRPLU5 BET~EN 0 AND 50 ~ ~U5 6REATER THAN 50 @ I -41 @ I -39 8 -18 l <SARRETT AVE. " ~ , f ~ , ~ , ~ ~ . PARKING STUDY FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA . ;0 CHULA VISTA ,CALFORNIA ..-.... .arklnl Con_hll.n" :=s::: A"hho<". Englnurs ~ f:t~~;rf~~:I; ~~;,"~ RICH ::e,:"",_ ".SSOCI~1E5 _'''hA,_.,,~ OWQ.ll1l.b SURPLUS - DEFICIT (CURRENT) """7 LBlEND (!) BLOCK.' V"TE,O'I-Q1-Q1 DRAH'l6l',etc. l"Il-E. ~ 5I:.1U:,N.T.5 PAGE' u. ~O 2~~ mOO) ow> zl:<( ;;;zl-....J lI:lI::=l <(Ol: 1l..ILO ! IU;,;;: ~ . HU~;~ ~H t5 i .<< c.]"'"' ...J ~ (((~~! ~ ~ 00 o ~ ffi ~ ~ ~ .. ~ " 8 o ~'. ' '-9l e ~ I ~ t ~ ! . Cl ~ :! Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 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 ,293 spaces to 1,119 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 as part of the development. 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: . Assuming maximum build out there would be total square footage of 1 ,445,205, compared to the estimated 950,680 square feet currently. . The project increase in square footage results in a reduction in the parking supply from 3,507 spaces to 3,012 spaces, 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 likely never be achieved, therefore for planning purposes, this should be considered an upper-limit parking deficit. For a complete analysis of the projected build-out based upon the UCSP zoning standards, please refer to Exhlbll 8 (Table 21-Parklng Demand Projections and Surplus and Def\clls 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, oversees the Parking District revenue and administers parking and meter maintenance. The Police Department oversees parking enforcement. :=" ~ Rich and Associates. Inc. i\iQI Parking Consultants - Planners 3-41 2-10 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parldng Study There are two Parking Enforcement Officers (PEa) for the entire City. Signs are posted indicating enforcement hours are from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday. 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 PEa is responsible for territory south of H Street and the other is responsible for the area west of H Street (which is primarily downtown). In general however, we only observed the PEO's working in pairs. Table 2J below shows the number of overtime/expired meter tickets issued and the revenue generated for the last three years. This revenue is deposited into the Parking Meter Fund. The table covers through December 2006. The table shows a large fluctuation in the number of tickets written. This can be attributed to fluctuations in parking enforcement staffing and availability resulting in inconsistent enforcement. Generally, we would expect the number of tickets written to be consistent from year to year and possibly increasing slightly. Table 2J City of Chula VIsta Parking TIcket Statistics Year 2004 2005 2006 # Issued 5.071 1,988 3,687 Revenue $49.851 $42,185 $47,560 *Chula Vista Finance as of 02/07/2007 2.5.1 Parking Permits Permits are sold through the City Finance Department and cost $54.00 per 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 meter fund. The information provided below is a summary of the last three years and does not include apprOXimately 60 permits issued per calendar year for employees of the Norman Park Senior Center. Table 2K City of Chula VIsta Parking Permit Statistics Year 2004 2005 2006 # Issued 655 577 612 ADcroxlmate Revenue $35,370 $31,158 $33,048 *Information ~ ::3::: Rich and Associates, Inc. ~I~!i Parking Consultants - Planners :)-41 2-11 Final Chura VIsta Downtown Parking Study 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 their parking was managed. We received very few responses. 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. 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 range from two hour to four hours. Permit rates range from $40.00 to $60.00 per quarter depending on location. Table 2l (Parking VIolallon Benchmarking) below shows a comparison of parking fine rates for the expired and overtime meters for selected communities; Encinitas. Escondido, La Mesa, Carlsbad, Vista and Temecula. These fine rates were 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. Table 2L Parking Violation Benchmarking Chula Vista Carlsbad Encinitas Escondida Expired meter $12.00 n/a n/a $25.00 Overtime meler $12.00 n/a n/a n/a *Information from SDPPEC Parking Violation Penalty Schedule June 2005 Vista n/a n/a La Mesa n/a $25.00 San Diego $25.00 $35.00 San Diego County Wide Untormed Parking Fine Schedule $50.00 $50.00 2.5.3 Chula VIsta Parking Rates Parking rates in Chula Vista are low. When parking rates are low there is not an incentive to follow the requlations, such as 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. ~!.\;!;! Parking Consultants - Planners ~ -<SD 2-12 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study Please refer to Table 2M (Chula Vista Meter Parking Rates) below for a summary of Chula Vista's current parking rates. ua r r ngl a On-street 30 minute meters $0.05 per 10 minutes $0.10 per 20 minutes $0.25 per 30 minutes Token per 10 minutes On-street 2 and 3 hour meters $0.05 per 10 minutes $0.10 per 20 minutes $0.25 per 50 minutes Token per 10 minutes Off-street 4 hour meters $0.05 per 30 minutes $0.10 per 60 minutes $0.25 per 150 minutes Token per 30 minutes Off-street 10 hour meters $0.05 per 30 minutes $0.10 per 60 minutes $0.25 per 150 minutes Token per 30 minutes Table 2M Ch I Vista Mete Pa kI R tes * The last parking rates increase may have occurred in 1996. Conclusion In this section RICH reviewed the processes and results of the fieldwork that was conducted to understand the existing parking dynamics in Chula Vista, determined potential parking impacts based upon the recently-adopted Urban Core Specific Plan, considered the impact of Exclusive Negotiating Agreements for several of the public parking lots, and described unique factors to Chula Vista and the parking district that were considered by RICH in their analysis. This information should be considered when reading the findings and recommendations presented in Section 3. as they provide the basis and contexf for understanding them. 2>~\ ~ =:::: Rich and Associates, Inc. mS;!;! Parking Consultants - Planners 2-13 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking study 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 operational, managemenf, configurafion, parking pricing and allocation changes aimed at increasing the efficiency 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 bock into the District ended in 1 999, 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 and other parking- related operations. 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 9 (Downtown Parking District Recommenda1lon) on the next page shows the proposed new boundary. 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 Revenue: Additional revenue may be generated if the District boundaries are modified. Action Time: Third Quarter of 2007 3-5l.. 3-1 Final ::::::~ Rich and Associates. Inc. == ~ Parking Consultants - Planners !\lSI;i, w , IJ vJ ~ -. _ ~ _t ~ ".,. .!~ .! l ;.~_:'. t_~. ,.-- '-'''''.'' ; - ~.)I :'._ , ,_. }., " ! '-.I,i',' ~ '.- -- . -.",-:. _ii......... -, . ~j ~ { ..-- -. ~~'ilh ,c' i,". _ _.. -..J . ..J _ < .,iIl _ .! , I' ~.~ ... - r-.... ".~~.~:. f. ,-. I ~.'" !-"I.'JjSi."~!\. . :-'71'11"~~fl"'1 ,~ __ .1-. 4 _i~'~,'.:. ..,n~ lJ ~ :::...::' :,,,: ,J.p.' :lI' "' J' · ~'P~ ~ I -, "'7 Ii -1: ~ ;;a:~.;. '. -i-.~'. ...:. '}; ,,; :'- Ii,,' WI 0' ,. .'. 4,""1.1 - ! , """il'~". "'3i';.2~~I.:r-;.:! r; .jtl . r. .,IUlI..... 1I Bri' o -, -~T'. ,'.-'- - .-.~. -- . ~ , '''--;~t. \t!EII'.!JJli.Jl S. lii~.l'Y."''''~.'iI;.! '. ~. G>~~ .a:""~ll c; ~~I J.-~lY'S': f..~:31n" .' A;" ~ .~..'" ~"i -t ._',' " __'; 'ct .:. "J ,~!"4';'? ,y. \. .. .~ .if'{- "" . ...... 'ilt:~. .~: ;\-r~ ...l; . '..,. , : j ~ . -..~- }.Jf' :L-, ._rI"~q ~. - _;'~-..l ; t- .~ ":J.. ~ ~.." :)l. ._~'- t.~-I ." '-- ;" : ". y~! 1ill!t..olr '..- "'--*J.l-y- <:".... .~.J .li,'....~.) ftL': ~"I;~ . I' ~~ .:qi ,jJ,l ,,'~'~;'J ~~.Lt . . .1. '_'~~." it"", '; liS!' .1'-, ,'<lo ~ -I ~~~!:~ IID_ rOf'~~~; l_~. ;;:...t.. I '"~'ik. ~~:;, p' ~.. "'6 ')'~' ~ :;~'/>{ ..'. ..-- ....,.,....:,: !. _' i ,- '.,\, .J>J -.,,,.. .Ai .' "- .~.~ ~ ~'~or.....-,-, ,,:-<;p ".. -- .,,-: < ~<";f,.. ~. ,"'- ,-\r.1 ~t'..j ;;i~' r:R"::"--: , t ~'.' . J ,. , v -. -~""""'-"'T. .IE.'i "",:.. - ~ - WI',...~ ~ .-;. Ii 10........ ..""^""" i - 1J... : hI) 0.,", \ij'J.;' , ," -.-' '0 _ . . ,.' ':1 .~~...~ / . . - !=-i.~;~r:i!'G. _ ~~,) n' i . c.~ I'i~ ~y 'i~" /1 (JI :.:,l..lltt:t~~=.";==,,-..~.. "j ~:iJ ' ~;'>iJ $ ".... __0-< '~-lf ';~"-~-"";~7~.:''''~-:Y''''::~;:''''~'~' ---l~- ._~ . ~ ... ~--' j. f...... I t.. '.-L .. . : :.l IUF r... l,__ -.,,- -I. -; , .. - '..~- -::~ -f-.~ :.1::)' . -!-\.'~ .!" .. , .- 1... R. . ..~ - . , ,- ,--l;l ~",J. r. .of..... -~~>'~ ''''" .~ ~ . ..--- . ,.,", l ... . . t P f;'.....J. .....] II ,- ;.;.;... ~ __~ '.' .~ ~.i/i" ,. .- ',"':) '!I~~lit'_. ~~'r',~,.. . " ~~~..:t~:.~;;q""~ -...~ -~--"'-"'-. -......, .... ;J, 1 ~ <.>. .;. .,.::a..' .. ,.,'"-'~..,-"'~ ~....... ,....... ~~,,~;,i _ -"-i~ I~~; ;~r: ~ .: J ,~ iil~ij'" '~, ,.',tclO ,~..:. lItt.V.;, ., . ~~~jlt:, , -. '0..- ~L;~~ .--'" .Lti I.Ui . . , .......fJ. ~--_..-. f.~f ; , -A-01>-Y'O\ ..,..- ----........ ~ -' '(ill~i ',.' ~ ~J.O ..t : 'H... ,,-:d . .. -." j..,.- ~ J: I I'" r:!\.i-, " ...:-..,'.........."...." -Q..""j.! .,.. i' ~ .......... ~,t !aU--1 --r>. ~ .~~ = ..j ,~", i. -;- .....~.- . .; ~ ,,'- ,.., .. F ,~ ~~/-'::';' '.~"".L.... ;j,.L,.. - ~ ".... -', . _. ... < i............ ,~ .. J... _*'-. Jt. '"' ;' .:: .e. ::-::r. '~- ';fILI:-: ~~ J 1 ~'" ~i ~ :;, .~1, 't" ~.-.Y:} .,_~._",_ .~~ ~_:"l-,~ ____ ___-::r.:::; ....~...--v J:. t,~' :..~'.~.. V) PARKING SlUDY FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA . ~ < ,'~ CHULA VISTA ,CAUFOFINIA - ~ .... ..-.... '.,kln& Con,ulo.n\> ::=s:: Ar<bh"d,'lnlln.... ~ ~~=~~~~ t." ",', "'".,,~ ~-"".""..,""...., ~;::';::;;:i~<~ RICH :::.."~;,,," ..A..""....ns _.,"..,~,~ '1 0W<l TI11E r- DOWNTOWN PARKING DIS1RICT RECOMMENDATION MAP. LEClEfo[) o BLOGK. D"'lC.~I&-01 ~ElY.~ FilE. ~ sc..ou:,...r~ PAGE' Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 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. Additionally, there are decisions made concerning parking operations, and budgets that are based on normal best practices. The role of the Finance Department in parking needs to be limited and decisions on the operations and budgets needs to come from someone who has as part of there job description parking operations and are then able to devote more time to parking issues. The 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. Recommendallon: 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 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 ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants. Planners ~JSJi 3~1 3.2 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 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 (Le. maintenance, repairs and capital improvements). 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: None Acnon TIme: 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 ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. == ~ Parking Consultants - Planners ~!9;:! ~- 3-3 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 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: None ActIon Time: Fourth Quarter of 2007 3.2 Parking Policies 3.2.0 City Parking Policies Finding: Other than the in-lieu fee policy, the City has no parking policies. 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, time periods that 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 'Y"S'k 3-4 Final ::::::: Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners ~Jflj Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study appropriately for the development and maintenance of parking. There were numerous concerns expressed by stakeholders about how the funds had been spent and what the 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. 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 Ueu Parking Fee Reconciliation), on the next page, 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. ':)-5) 3-5 Final -~ Rich and Associates. Inc. :3~ Parking Consultants - Planners ~!S!:! Chula Vista Downtown Parldng Study Table 3A In Lieu Parking Fee Reconciliation Revenue From In lieu Fee Payments $7,025.00 $19,250.00 $83,125.00 $21,875.00 $65,800.00 $0.00 $19,775.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $26,250.00 $150,500.00 $28,379.16 $3,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $425,479.16 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 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 Total Revenues Expenditures From In Lieu Fund FY 1984 $875.00 FY 1990 $126,500.00 $1,660.00 $103,326.91 $127,012.70 $24.76 $600.67 $134,000.00 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1994 FY 1 996 FY 1997 Total Expenditures 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 $6,470.53 $4,319.18 $461 .43 $457.73 $524.20 $84,263.64 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 $34,849.69 $7,819.18 $461 .43 $457.73 $524.20 $509,742.80 Refund of fees Centre Parking Landis Parking Landis Parking Church and Center Municipal Parking Church and Center Reimbursed to Other Agencies Differences of Revenues over Expenses ~--::s <{ $493.125.04 $16,617.76 ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. _:;:: Parking Consultants. Planners !U9:\ 3.6 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 3.2.2 Valet Parking VALET PARKINC ONLY 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 specity 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 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. Cast: Minimal Revenue: None projected Actton TIme: Enact ordinance allowing and regulating valet services First Quarter 2008. 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. Cast: Minimal for supplies and staff time Revenue: No net revenue projected '~ Rich and Associates, Inc. :::: Parking Consultants - Planners m.S!:l ~----s~ 3-7 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking study Action TIme: First Quarter 2008- Prepare policy and/or ordinance establishing procedure for residential parking permits services 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. Recommendanon: An annual report should be prepared for the community on the status of the parking operation. The report should cover and accounting 01 income and expenses, delails on enforcement including number of tickels written and fines collected, accounting of meter and permit revenue and any management and policy issues. Cost: Minimal cost, some slaft time Revenue: None Acnon TIme: 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 1 7 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 lor the variances in the trends in either revenues or expenses. As of June 3D, 2007, the unaudited parking fund balance was $137,430, but only $31,401 was considered available funds due to the remainder being designated as funds for contingency. The fund balance represents the accumulated annual excess of all sources of parking revenue including meter revenue, permits and line revenue less all parking related expenses. ~~~b 3-8 Final :~ Rich and Associates, Inc. =~ Parking Consultants - Planners !'!9i Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 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. Table 38 Historical Parking Dlslrlct Parking Revenue and Fees FY 2005- FY 2004- FY 2003- FY 2002- FY 2001- 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Revenue Permits $27,402.00 $35,996.00 $33,015.00 $27,681.00 $26,154.00 Parkina 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 Parkina Meters $69,469.00 $88,314.00 $81.559.00 $ 75,616.00 $ 74,434.00 Tolal 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 Recommendalton: 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 Aclton 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. Recommenda11on: 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. 3- l.p I 3-9 Final ~ Rich and Associates. Inc. 4 Parking Consultants - Planners !lt~t\ Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 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. Acltan Time: Fourth Quarter of 2007 then ongoing 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 are 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. Way finding should be addressed for both vehicles and pedestrians. 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. 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 how long they can park. '~-l.p ~ ~ Rich and Associates. Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners !1.!.9::\ 3-10 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study Cost: 10,000 to $50,000 depending on signs, how many, and design. Revenue: Additional revenue may be collected, but cannot be projected at this time. Acllon TIme: Second Quarter of 2008 Examples of Parking Signs by Type Identification This identification sign has 4" text lettering. The parking symbol or identification logo is approximate Iy 26 inches in height. WALNuT STR'EE-{ & 'vVASHINGTO\l . ",e~..,..= _,.._.. Permit Only 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. - ~ Parking Consultants - Planners !U9;:1 rlp~ 3-11 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study ""'I i 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. ~~4 ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners Nf!:i 3-12 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parldng Study lhe general qualities of good s1gnage 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 Specific Criteria 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. . Vehicular way-finding needs to be laid out initially in a coordinated fashion to determine what the preferred entry paints 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 ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. :3:=:: Parking Consultants - Planners ~~S!j y~- 3-13 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 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 sign age 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 3-15. Recommendaf1on: Make the following improvements and upgrades. . Ughtlng: 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. . StrlplnglPalntlng: 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. . Slgnage: Recommendations for signs are covered in more detail in 3.3.2, but overall, there need to be identification signs identifying public parking areas and the type of parking available and way finding signs to assist the parker in finding their destination. . 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 lot 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. Revenues: None Action Time: Fourth Quarter of 2007-Analysis of facilities First Quarter of 200B- Prepare specifications and bid Second and Third Quarter of 200B-lmplementation ~- ~ It 3-14 Final ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Pianners ms!:\ Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study Table 3C Parking Lot Condition Assessment Lot # L1ahts strlplna Slanaae Surtace Landscaping Meters 1 No lighting needs 10 signage need Surface ok, ok Paint poles or painting improvements had wheel stops add signs surface has some Only one pole, needs 10 sign age 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 improvements curbing ok ok add signs appears to be adequate Needs exterior Concrete rehab 4 Lighting needs ok and interior necessary, ok NjA upgrade signage especially on roof deck Surface in bad 5 One light pole is needs 10 sign age 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 NjA painting improvements curbing ok Has "Old Style " 7 lighting, appears ok 10 sign age need surface ok, ok Paint poles or ok improvements curbing ok add signs Has "Old Style " ID signage need surface ok, Very well Paint poles or 8 lighting, appears ok improvements curbing ok landscaped add signs ok 9 One light pole needs ID signage need surface ok, ok Painf poles or appears sufficient painting improvements curbing ok add signs 10 One light pole needs 10 signage need surface ok, ok Paint poles or appears sufficient painting improvements curbing ok add signs Has "Old Style " lighting, may not 10 signage need surface ok, Paint poles or 11 be sufficient ok ok lighting due to improvements curbing ok add signs location of poles ~-le '1 ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. =-:: Parking Consultants - Planners m.Sii 3-15 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 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. If Lot 6 is not redeveloped. then the entry/exit issue should be addressed. Possible options include removing the one-way designation in the alley thereby 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 Revenue: None Action TIme: None 3.3.5 Paseos Finding: Some of the paseos need improvement as they are not inviting for pedestrian use because. Many are not well-lit and lack way finding and identification signage. Additional improvements such as landscaping and painting would help create a more pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. 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. The paseos are a severely underutilized asset for the District that need to be improved and then marketed to the public. Recommendation: Install sign age 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 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. ?J- y 1; ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. :::::-=: Parking Consultants - Planners ~!S!:! 3-16 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study Revenue: Additional revenue may be collected. but cannot be projected at this time. ActIon Time: 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. A good example of an inviting paseo with good lighting, landscaping and a mural. ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consulfants - Planners ))l<;~ ~-~~, 3-17 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 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 allows parkers to prepay for parking by allotting a certain dollar amount on the card. In the scenario of the validation system, a business could purchase cards from the City that they could then in turn give to their customers or visitors for future use. In addition, the card is rechargeable and can be recharged at any of the multi-space meters and City Hall. Cas!: 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 ActIon Time: Begin Third Quarter of 200B. 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 Saturday 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. RICH staff observed PEO's working in pairs. During the last few years, the Finance Department has reported that only .75 of a PEO has been dedicated, and paid from, the District. 3.4 Parking Enforcement 3.4.0 Parking Enforcement Staffing Recommendaflon: 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 porking citation. 3-1D 3-18 Final ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners ~IS!:1 Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study Cost: Budget $70,000 for an additional 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 Chuta Vista. Revenue: 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 ot 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 entorcement since information is not readily available to the parking enforcement officers. 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 A.M. 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 ted 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. Cost: 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. Revenue: 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 :=:~ Rich and Associates. Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners ~!\;!:\ ~--'\\ 3-19 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parldng study fine rates proposed in #3 below the projected fine revenue could be $69,900 the first year and $81,100 the second year. ActIon TIme: First and Second Quarter 2008- Prepare specifications and Issue Request for Proposals 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 increosed 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 trom $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. Action TIme: Implement Third Quarter 2008 ~ -- J '"\.---' 3-20 Final ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners !}.!f!'\ Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 3.4.3 Multiple 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 regulations 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 Cost: None Revenue: No projected increase Action TIme: Currently in place 3.4.4 Courtesy TIcket Finding: There is currently no courtesy ticket issued for first time violators. 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 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 fo alert the parker fo fhe facl 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. 3~1~ ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners !'ISji; 3-21 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study Revenue: The projected loss of revenue is difficult to project at this time. ActIon TIme: Third Quarter 2008 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. Duncan Meter ,., -. ~ ~. ,. t Three different types of meters are used 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 tree 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 multi-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 =~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners fl!St' 3-l ~ 3-22 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 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 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. Revenue: No additional revenue was projected by having new meters though some increase may be expected. Action TIme: First Quarter 2008- Prepare specifications and bid Second Quarter 2008-lnstall 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 1 O-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. 6-1~ 3-23 Final ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners f,!ftI Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study Recommendation: Install multi-space meters in off street lots #2, #3, #5 and #7. The remainder ot the lots would receive new single space meters. 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 trom the multi-space meter in the lot and then drive around the lot to determine if the vehicle parked in a space is legal. J- Meter location sian ExamDles of multi-sDace meters $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 (1 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. Cost: Revenue: No additional revenue was projected by having new meters though some increase may be expected. Action Time: First Quarter 2008-Prepare specifications and bid Second Quarter 2008-lnstall 3.5.2 Parking Rates Finding: The parking rates in Chula do not deter people from parking beyond the pasted 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. 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 ~ Rich and Associates. Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners RIEl:! ~ --Ill 3-24 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study the enforcement is not consistent, it makes it difficult to charge appropriately for parking. Recommendaflon: RICH recommends that meter rates increase as illustrated below. The increases are being proposed in order to ensure that the revenues of the parking district are reasonable in relation to the expenses incurred. The fee is intended, not as a revenue measure, but instead, to be sufficient in amount to defray the expense of the parking program.. including the cost not only of installation, maintenance and supervision of meters, but also of other expenses required for traffic regulation, police regulation, and the provision of off-street parking facilities. The anticipated expenses include normal and reasonable operational expenses such as meter collection, enforcement, maintenance of publiC parking areas and acquisition and development costs related to the construction of new parking facilities, such as a public parking garage. RICH also recommends that the parking permit fees increase as illustrated in Table 3D (Chula VIsta ExIs11ng and Proposed Meter and Permit Roles). Table 3D Chula Vista ExIs11ng and Proposed Meler and Permit Rafes T1meUmlt Current Rafe Proposed Role 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 2 and 3 hour meters $0.05 per 10 minutes $0.25 per 30 minutes 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 10 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 $180 per Quarter Cost: No costs since the new parking equipment will come with the increased rates. Revenue: The projected increase in revenue is shown in Table 3E (Chula' Vista Projected Two-Year Meler and Permit Revenues) for the first and second year of operation. -3 -/1 ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ::3:: Parking Consultants - Planners !HS!:! 3-25 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study Table 3E Chula Vista Projected Two-Year Meter and Permit Revenues Year! Year 2 On-street meters $183,950 $204,400 Off-s1reet meters $122,800 $166,810 Permit $57,600 Action Time: Second Quarter of 2008 Following is Table 3F (Parking Revenue and Expense Projection), a summary table of revenues and expenditures for a ten year period showing both historical data and projections. The purpose of this table is to illustrate that the proposed meter increases are reasonable and do not result in excess revenue to the City. The projected revenue beginning in 2007 is based upon the proposed meter rates. All of the revenue generated from the meters should continue to be placed in a designated parking fund and used for the expenditure of parking-related expenses. Lines 12 and 13 also reflect permit parking fees and overtime parking fines that are also utilized to fund maintenance and improvements in the parking district. Table 3F Parking Revenue and Expense Projection FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2001 FY 2008** FY 200913) FY 201 0(4) FY2011 FY FV2013 FY2014 2012**(5) METER REVENUEI6) On-Street Meters $176,527 $147,467 $166,307 $179.445 $193,914 $193.914 $193.914 $218,153 $242,392 $242,392 Off-Street Meters $88,314 $69,469 $71.027 $75.928 $162,652 $162,652 $162,652 $182,983 $203,315 $203,315 Total Estimated Me1er Revenue(l) $264,841 $216,936 $237.334 $255,373 $356,566 $356,S66 $356,S66 $401.137 $445,707 $445,707 OPERAnNG EXPENSESI8) Enforcement Staff $142,885 $149,381 $149,381 $1 96,630 $204,495 $212,675 $221,182 $230,029 $239,230 $248,799 Meter Collection Staff $39,351 $81,407 $18,954 $19,712 $20,501 $21,321 $22.173 $23,060 $23.982 $24.941 Administration Staff $117,039 $108,909 $108,909 $117,796 $122,508 $127,408 $132,504 $137,805 $143,317 $149,049 Maintenance $0 $8,435 $6,921 $571,000 $27,370 $28,464 $457,998 $30,787 $32,018 $33,299 Utilities $18,210 $16,623 $16,697 $17,365 $18,059 $18,782 $19,533 $20,314 $21,127 $21,972 Supplies and Services $20.240 $24,421 $9,149 $33,900 $35,256 $36,666 $38,133 $39,658 $41,245 $42,894 Talal Estimated Expenses(2)I7) $337,725 $389,176 $310,011 $956,403 $428,189 $445,316 $891 ,523 $481,653 $500,919 $520,954 Net Revenue ($72,884) ($172.240) 1$72,677) 1$701,030) ($71,623) ($88,750) ($534,957) 1$80,516) 1$55,212) 1$75,247) Parking Permit Revenue $35,996 $34,083 $24,729 $41,273 $57,600 $57,600 $57,600 $64,800 $72,000 $72,000 Meter Fine Revenue $46,939 $59,668 $60,047 $119,914 $147.115 $147,115 $147,115 $1 65,505 $183,894 $183,894 Talal other Revenue $82,935 $93,751 $84,776 $161,187 $204,715 $204,715 $204,715 $230,305 $255,894 $255,894 TOTAl REVENUE $10,051 1$78,489) $12,099 1$539,843) $133,092 $115,965 1$330.242) $149,788 $200,682 $180,647 *'" Rate Increase (I) Actual reported revenue for 2004- through 2006 (2) Actual reported operating expenses for 2004 through 2006 (3) The effect of fhe rate increase for 2008 is 50% the firs! year and 1 00% the second year (4) For fhe third and fourth years during each rate increase, cycle has no projected increases (5) Rate increases every four years after 2008 increase are 25%': 12.5% first year, 25%second year and 0% third /fourth years [6) The revenue increases assume that enforcemenf will be changed as recommended in the report [7) Operating expenses from 2008 and beyond are increased at 4% per annum ~ Rich ond Associotes, Inc. 3---1 , 3-26 ~ Perking Consultonts - Plonners Finol E9J Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 3.5.3 Parking Allocation Finding: The City of Chula Vista has two different types of on-street parking meters. The 3D-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 tor 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 parking due to the large number of 10-hour meters in these lots, since the 10-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. Therefore the number of permit or long term spaces should be limited. As more development occurs however, there should be a reduction to not more than 30 percent of the spaces as permit or long term parking in Lots 9, 10 and 11. At that point, the majority of the spaces should be two or three- hour and then sell permits specifically to these lots at a premium. Permit Parkina Although, RICH supports permit parking and believes it should be maintained, the permits should be priced higher in certain parking areas, specifically for lots 2 and 3. The rate should be at least 150% higher than the parking permit fee 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 likely park in 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 3-- 1,\ 3-27 Final ~ Rich and Associates. Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners !'J!;;lj Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 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 Revenue: No impact projected at this time ActIon TIme: Second Quarter 2008 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 41 percent occupied at peak hour and on December 15. 2006 it only reached peak occupancy of 33 percent. Based on normalizing the data. RICH would project that the typical average occupancy is about 40 percent. 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. '~ --1t; 3-28 Final ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners ms;1j Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study . 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: Zero ActIon TIme: Fourth Quarter of 2007-Conduct Study Second Quarter of 2007-lmplement improvements ','- ~-== ~~~~lltl~' . -1IIt'"4'~~~ '--W"~.1'j I! . ) i.,; m' ~:1..~. .'.'.7,-f."1 1- 11m. '1IIilllltlnii:Ci;j~:1~nr'.~' ;c,., "mr~~v':iili~~m ' .. .' ~ ~ . ". "Z'lIi:l;l1i ,.h""l' .'11" III ,it. -- di.^"'''_'__n.''C...:';, - --iliitJj~iti; '..l 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. - ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners !'!9i J- ~ l - . ;"':; '-. ~.... ...,tt.'~:< _.'f' "., ;iT.' l.:t...~~~...\' ",it. ';]f;;7<<""/'.' ,. I" There is not a sizable sign at the entrance to the Park Plaza parking structure. There are signs in the median of 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. 3-29 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study Examples of signs to help locate free parking for customers/visifors 3.6.1 Meter Color Coding Finding: The exisfing mefers are nof marked to indicafe the time limif for fhe mefer, which is confusing for parkers. There needs to be an easy way for parkers to idenfify if fhey are af a 30-minufe, 2-hour, or 10-hour mefer to avoid pulling into a space then realizing fhey won'f have enough time and having fo find anofher space, which affecfs fraffic congestion and parking availability. Recommendation: Designafe a color to represent each parking limit then implemenf by painfing the enfire pole or painfing a band of color jusf below fhe mefer head. There are also color bands that can be placed at fhe top of the mefer head fhat may be considered. Cost: $5,000 Revenue: None Acllon Time: Second Quarter of 2008 3.6.2 Street Curbs Finding: The sfreef curb painting is inconsisfenf. 2,- C{; 'J.-- 3.30 Final '3::: Rich and Associates, Inc. :::: Parking Consultants - Planners !z!~lj Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 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 Revenue: None Action TIme: Fourth Quarter of 2007-Analysis First Quarter 200B-Commence Work 3.7 Bicycles as an Alternate Mode of Transportation 3.7.0 Bicycling as an Alternative to Driving 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 UCSP 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: To be determined Revenue: Zero Action TIme: 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 hide the rack. There is no signage directing bicyclists to where the racks are located. In keeping with the vision of the Urban Core Specific Plan, integrating convenient and accessible bicycle racks is an important component of encouraging greater use of bicycles and other modes of transportation in the downtown Chula Vista. 3~CZ) ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. :='.::: Parking Consultants - Planners !J}!;!:J 3-31 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study --~ $'" d'/<;; ^,,::iJ;::'::'" ,."'. ""_'" ~.r'~ .,~ -<-: ',. ... ..... ':;<;~~... "-...,- This is an existing bicycle rack in downtown Chula Vista. The placement of this rack wiil impede pedestrian traffic from the crosswaik when the bicycle rack is full. Recommendation: Insfall 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, particularly stops with a high ridership count like the intersection of Third Avenue and H Street. In areas where commuters will use bicycle storage it is ideal to provide upgraded bicycle facilities such as a bike locker or covered rack or locating bicycle racks in an existing or new parking structure that provides additional security from the elements. In many ways, bicycle parking should be looked at like parking cars in that areas for bicycle parking must be convenient, well lit and signed. Racks must allow for adequate space to easily lock the bike to the rack. Locations for bicycle parking should mirror locations of automobile parking to encourage the use of multiple modes of transportation. Existing parking lots create a good place for bicycle racks. The use of one parking space can provide adequate space for several bicycles. Begin by placing racks in lots with the highest parking demand. As racks are more heavily utilized, add additional racks in other locations with high parking demand. Cost: $10,000-$75,000 depending on the number and style of racks, signs and marketing materials. Revenue: None ?ri, ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners !H9:' 3-32 Finai Chula Vista Downtown Parlclng study Aclton Time: Second Quarter of 2008 Best Pracltces for Selecting Bike Racks: . Racks should allow bike frame to make contact at two points. Most commuter bikes do not have kickstands. . Provide adequate space for multiple bikes to be stored at one rack. . Allow for popular "U" shape lock. . Racks should be placed where they will not impede upon pedestrian traffic, though they need to be readily identifiable. Bicycle racks should not be hidden. . A complete guide to bicycle parking, written by The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, can be found at htto://www.bicvclinainfo.ora/de/oarkauide.cfm. . Provide clear signage indicating bicycle parking. Two examoles of recommended bike racks Marketing Bicycles In a Downtown: . Promote National "Ride Your Bike to Work Day/Month" in May. There are many communities throughout the U.S. that participate including the City of San Diego. Information can be found through the league of American Bicyclists at www.bikeleaaue.ora. . Engage in a Bicycle Friendly Community Campaign and awards communities who are bicycle friendly and promote walk-able, safe communities. For additional information visit www.bicvclefriendlvcommunitv.ora. . Embrace the concept that, "Communities that are bicycle-friendly are seen as places with a high quality of life. This often translates into increased property values, business growth and increased tourism. Bicycle-friendly communities -=::::: Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Pianners !',!fB 3-~ 3-33 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 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." Visit www.bicyclefriendlvcommunitv.orqfor more information. . Work collectively with the Chula Vista Chamber and TAVA to promote bicycle events into flyers and newsletters. 3.8 Parking ReqUirements for Current and Future 3.8.0 Traffic 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, that incorporates 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: Zero Acllon TIme: 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 9 and 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 10 on the south side. If the recommendation in 3.6.0 to increase the use of the Park Plaza parking structure is implemented, this should ~-q4 3-34 Final ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. :3::=: Parking Consultants - Planners !US!i Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 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 should also be utilizing the Park Plaza parking structure for employee parking. Cost: Zero Revenue: Zero Action TIme: 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 8 lENA Development Sites). included in Section 2. RICH analyzed the loss of parking that would occur with each development and contirmed 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 ot 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 a peak time occupancy of almost 1 00 percent at two time intervals over the two survey days. This is largely based on the 10-hour spaces having a high number of permit holders. The loss of spaces in this lot will have 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 3- <11 3-35 Final ~. Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants. Planners mSIj Chula Vista Downtown Parldng Study Recommendation for Lot 6: Development of this lot should have minimal impact on the surrounding area because of the availability of additional parking. If after 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 sign age 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. 3.8.3 Potential Future Parldng 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 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 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. )-1;<( 3-36 Final ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. =~ Parking Consultants - Planners !1-!Slj Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study 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 several possibilities for additional parking in the downtown: . Nodal Parking: One option would be to create nodes of parking at the north and south ends of Third Avenue then develop a trolley system along Third Avenue. This might be accomplished by negotiating a shared parking agreement with the Gateway project at H Street and Third during evening and weekend hours, when the majority of their office uses are closed or have less clientele. This would serve as the south parking node. A property at or north of E Street would need to be developed 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 feet. The longer the site the more efficient the layout as it allows flat facades on the ends and one long side of the structure. . Conventional Parking structure on A1temate Site: The possible parking structure sites identified are listed below and discussed more fully in Section 3.8.4; o The 8aptist Church lot in combination with Lot 7 o Vacant lot on east side of Third Avenue between G and Alvarado Streets o The west side of Church between E and Davidson Streets. . A1temate Parking S1ructure OptIons: There are multi-level parking facilities that can be constructed on smaller sites. This type of parking facility and uses a mechanical lift to 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. Those limitations include longer wait time to retrieve vehicles and vehicle height limitations. 3.8.4 Possible Parking Structure Sites Finding: 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 10 (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. ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. -=::::: Parking Consultants - Planners ~!~f:! Y'tv\ \ 3-37 Final GJ \ cJ PARKING STUDY FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CHULA VISTA "CALFOANIA ..-..... J>d'~I..&(on,"I'an" ~A"bh'<".I.I>g'n..... -...., ~,I;'::.::,.,."". ~,,,.,," ~"""."""",,,..."" ~;;:;::;;\;~,~ ~~!! ::'::::':','.~ DWO.11Tl.8 POTENTlAL SITES FOR FUTURE PARKING DEVELOPMENT MAl'1O L.EClBV o BLOCK. (t ~,N..T!; PAGE: Chula Vista Downtown Parking study 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: Vacant lot on east side of Third Avenue between G and Alvarado 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 stall/aisle/parking stall. If we assume grade and two supported floors, the capacity could be as much as 640 spaces. 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 ot 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. One of the positive aspects of this site is the size, which provides several development options and allows the incorporation of occupied space at a minimum on the ground floor, which gives a streetscape top the parking structure. Additionally, the lot is currently vacant so all of the parking built on this site will be a net add. The drawbacks of this site are the fact that the City does not own the site and it is several blocks from the core. The distance from the core however, does accomplish the vision of the UCSP in terms of encouraging a more walk able community. Site 2-Block 4: City's Lot 7 or Baptist Church lot In combination wtth the City's Lot 7 With both properties, this site is approximately 180 feet wide and 400 feet long and there are currently +/- 106 spaces on the two lots. City Lot 7 is approximately 240 feet long and is large enough to accommodate a parking structure site, but the functional design would be less efficient than a larger 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 lot. The preliminary parking structure layout on this site would accommodate approximately 420 spaces for a net add of approximately 314 spaces. A typical floor would 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 demand could be accommodated from both northern and southern 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. ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. :=::;: Parking Consultants - Planners fi.1fJ;! 3-~ ) 3-38 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study Site 3- Block 1: Wes1 side of Church between E and DavIdson Streets 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 1 1 . The first option is a parking structure only on the east half of the block. This area could support a parking structure of approximately 250 spaces on grade and two supported floors. This would net 216 spaces. This scenario contemplates the retention of the vacant parcel on the northwest corner for development and providing parking for any new development on that site in the new parking structure. The second option would be 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 with two levels of parking above. These two floors would tie into the main parking structure as described above. About 1 6,000 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 of 341 new spaces. The positive element of this site is that it creates encourages parking and walking down Third Avenue. the site(s) is not owned by the City. a northern of parking and The negative aspect is that Recommendation: Continue to monitor the parking occupancies and re-evaluate parking every two years. The following sections below address the timing and development costs issues. 3.8.5 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 development of a 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. )-41- ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Consultants - Planners ~j~~ 3-39 Final Chula Vista Downtown Parking Study New Parking Threshold Calculallon 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 New Parking Demanded: (X) 85"10: (=) 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 3.8.6 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 3.8.4 and a formula that can be utilized as a measure for determining when a parking structure is necessary is also included in Section 3.8.5. RICH has developed Table 3G (Parking Site and Design Decision Matrix), located on the following page, for the City to use to analyze both the feasibility of identified sites and the potential design of each site. 3-~~ ~ Rich and Associates, Inc. ~ Parking Cansultants - Planners RJfB 3-40 Final Table 3G Parking Site and 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. Weigh! Site factor Criteria ,< 1. Vehicle Ingress / Egress " ,<< 2. Ability of driver to find structure " 3. Effects on adjacent properties ,. ":,,, :: 4. Revenue potential 5. Pedestrian access and wayfinding ::' " <, 6. Meet goals for spaces needed. i':"" " 7. Economic benefits to area H 8. Effects on back entrances or loading/unloadi 9. Efficiency of parking structure " 10. Disruption on-site and downtown 11 . Expansion capability of parking structure :" 12. User group served: Commuters Employees Visitor/Customers , 13. Cost/net added space """1 , ~-11 Chula Vista Downtown Parking study 3.8.7 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 at $15,000 to $18,000 per space. Project soft costs without land costs are generally between 17 and 20 percent, and finance costs are between 7 and 10 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 described below. . 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 if available. Based on the projection of revenue and expenses through FY 2014 however, there is not a projected net revenue. . Include passible support from the Redevelopment Agency using tax increment to fund improvements. There appears to be approximately 12 years left in the redevelopment area, 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. Conclusion The findings and recommendations presented in this report represent a parking management system that addresses management practices and operations necessary to create and maintain an effective parking district. For a summary of all the findings and recommendations described above, please refer to Exhibit 9 (Table 3H-Chula Vista Findings and Recommendations Matrix). y~ ~ Rich and Associates. Inc. =:;;: Parking Consultants - Planners ~tS)j 3-41 Final City of Chula Vista Overview of Parking Best Practices February 15,2007 = 31 !H~}'! Improving Existing Parking . . An Examination Of Current Parking Management, Allocation, Pricing and Operations . "Best Practices" Approach To Improving The Efficiency Of Existing Resources. . Strategic Plan Of Implementation . " = 31 ~s:);! Parking Allocation . . Individual Economic Decision . Free Parking Like Free Gas . Transportation Influenced By Economics , = 3 IUS!;! " . \ Exhibit 1 Parking .. , , . Parking Is One Of The Biggest Factors In Successful Downtowns . 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 ~ .. = 31 ~,!~1;:! ?rt11t Parking Management " . City Department( s) . Contract Management . Local Businesses and Retailers . Business Associations . Parking Committee .. \ ~ 31 &tQi Parking Enforcement Strategies iZ' ~ 31 !YQ.:! 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 ;;;::] ~c;.ti .. W.~U?\'Olf"'IN,'D' "{OlI&M"NOPAA~I~orAI'IO!'Hf61!>" Sl.YS. '''''~EfORFAFlK!N(1~ Signs - Pedestrian . . Way Finding - Pedestrian Link Between Parking Areas and Destination a :;;;;: !tl.st! ~, .- . Pedestrian Strategies .. . Enhance Pedestrian Experience . Reduce Presence Of Parking Lots . Way-Finding Signs . Create Pedestrian/Bicycle Paths . Zoning To Achieve Urban Density & Variety of Land Uses . ~ a 31 M9.i Signs - Traffic .. , , . Five Main Types - Hierarchy Is Important . Four Oriented Towards Automotive Traffic - Introduction - Direction - Location - Identification . a :;;;;: !Y.~!! 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 . ~ ::s:: :;;;;: !UCti Parking Strategies .. . On-Street Parking Is 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 .. " ::s:: 31 aCH ~L-OJl 2 Parking Operations Parking Management Pricing Strategies Defining Users EquipmentlTechnology Sl ;;;;::! N9'! Marketing 3' Sl :::;;:: .&.!.Sti 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 RadiolPrint'Web Site JI' Park & Shop . Supply and Demand Analysis p- I , . Parking Equipment/Technology . Sl :::;;:: ~C!;! Multi Space Meters Pay By Space Meters Pay and Display Electronic Payment Meter less Parking Networked Equipment Credit Card/Debit(Value) Card/Validations . . , I ~...., ~-...... i'" ..Il ;"6:1': " ; !!,":II.!1iQj/!IO' ~~1I~ l~:<;!Ci !=l".:;-::1~! ~m~:1-' L..1I~~~li" U:;i'l, I.. ~:m; '~9oi," tt~: ~~:- !EIj cmo~,.,..... '.", . 8'J ;; ~q 'I ':ti ,.. --"7 12111 (_..... _--' . tJ::j _._ '~"<!.lJ _"._ l-.......~_!lI! 1l..@:" ~ ':';;';li.r!C' . ~ ~itli ". Ill, .. (a '. --- ~'I2lI1 - l~-1I.j H_- '!L.( .. ~ ~a;:~ lrg "~!I:~_'iiI' !C[l'l.l~"I:i; -_.~ =='- __ ____n _______.<.._~~n___nUU.~...__nn______._ i) Shared Use Strategy NOII-Iib.redvse Sb....eduR .. "" '" 'so ... ,.. '" .. , '!8'~ ,p" 1.~ _...."'~ ,,<" ~., " .- - m - DReslIIur.qt 25t .Rct.il 1M .OlTitt ~ IlIlRelidtlltial . .. ,. . . Mo.... AlI..- E-..: (Iibo""'l (Sbo.....) (51001"<01) - ,""m, , Ji" .. Sl ~ ~9f ~- C1 <r 3 a :;;;;;1 !t1q.I Cost of Parking . $16,000 per stall- Construction costs $350 per stall-Operation and Maintenance for I year (assumes attendant parking) $50 per stall every year-Repair and Replacement Reserve Account " ~ a :;;;;;1 ~S:ti 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 . " ~ a :;;;;;1 N,q:! Key Issues " Determine who will pay for parking Assess how much parking private development projects will need ., Decide when to build public parking a ~ !UQ! ~ Paying For Parking . Operating and Maintenance arc on- going Planning for Replacement Four key sources to select from Can be combined. ~ One time Capital cost to build " 3-q~ One time payment City gets money up-front May require building specific parking allocation according to what developer pays - "I paid for 50 stalls, I want 50 stalls. n Developers may be resistant to on-going user fees or assessments Leaves Operating. Maintenance and Replacement costs to City In Lieu Fee a ~ ~ . " .. 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 a ;;;;;::] ~L9.t Financing Options Tax Backed Obligations general obligation bonds special assessment districts tax increment financing Revenue Bonds COPS a :::;;;:l !tII:;,.l;! W.'" Payroll Taxell & Fnnges Uilbilitylnsur1lm:e UlIIKilll Teleph<lne EcIuipmenlMeitrtenance Parlclng Suppli.. (Ticl<ets/Can:ls) Unllarml& Cleenlnll Recrullementl EmplO)'H Tectlng Legal & Accaunting l.ou& DamllQe Mlinten.nceSI,j~U8S ElevalorMalnlenence' M.~pIIm.ntF... BooI<kHpingFeell Re;>elr&ReplacemenlFunc:l' Snow RemCMII Millcellaneoull "" ,.., $212,1117 ~ 1j.......me52 E1ew1c'" Gi $4OOIMI;IfIth Per e_r ~2)S5CIS".ceIY..r ~ ~ """"" 555.355 523.342 "'''''' $26,000 51,BOO n.5ClO $3,400 " "000 $2,400 $5,000 $5,000 $11,600 "'-'- $&7.26 $38.80 $58.33 Sol3.33 $3.00 $5.113 $5.67 SIl.DO $3.33 Sol.DO $B.33 sa.33 $16 DO SO.DO SO.OO SSODO SB.33 .", $30,000 $5,000 $2,500 S35<l_B3 General Fund " r . Easy to administer Financing for construction but on-going maintenance and replacement costs still an issue Challenge of competing City interests and responsibilities , . , , , a :::;;;:l &9,J ---- ...---......---- '-'" -. ::.,-....----..- ._---. :=:_- r . , '_~...~M_. ,,-- " " .......~-_. .......-..-- , , a :::;;;:l ~<;!! I~'-''''= ~ - " PRO FORMA 455 SPACE PARKING STRUCTURE BREAK EVEN ANAYlSIS BASED ON GO BOND ISSUE , -. -, ,~. -. ,~. ,~. ,~, ,~. -. ,~. ~- - .- - 1>." ... .- ... - - - .- .- .- .- .- .- .- - .- .- 1- M M M _ ......... --- . - -..- ........... -.- _.m" ._- ,~- --- ..>In,''' ""2l'I." --- --- .- .11I....."... .."';nL" -~ .,....'" -....... ......,.11I -~- -- ....m." --- --- -....... - - ........... , - ..,......... ...-. .......,.., -- "" ." "".""" ......,.., - --- .....0... .nua<." ........ --. ....".,... -- "'.,",.U "',....." .......... .v...........__ _..... mt$<.. -- --,"'''_no... -..... ..- ......... m._ -. - ........... "'''11II.'' -- -- "....... -- - -- ""...... .-. ....__a m__ -- - ....... '''_rT''. au,u, - . ....",J11 ~ -- .,.... .,.... .- ..'\IIl.IIl ...... ........ -.- .,... ..""" ....... a :::;;;:l N91: . , ') ~ j1YD 5 PRO FORMA 455 SPACE PARKING STRUCTIJRE MARKET RATE ANALYSIS BASED ON GO BOND ISSUE I ,~ . ..--....--..,.. ....--,.-. ~. .~~ ..." ." ..... -. ." ... ." -. -. ... . -- .:: .. .> ,. - -. .. -- -- -- -. .. .. -. - -- ~- -. -. --. -- ~- --- -.. .-. "- ''''''''11 ~ .-. .- . . .- ,- - ....- ...,.... .,-- '<TUllIO -- -- .-- -. -.. -. ''"'-'11 -- ..- ......."' .... - .. .." ,II ......<T ..- .......... -- .... "",'''. ..- ",",,"'-II -- ...... '''''"'','' "'........'..00'....... ... -- --. - .. -- --- -.. ~ ,.- - - -- .- - .-. .0- ....... ..- .- _om ...._-.eo- .......".. "''''''1.1. -- .. -. --. ..- ''''.'''''' 4"".'''' ........... ....,.........,......... .,ll1lJ1l 11,- ",I""" .,..... ........ .- ..- .- .,1"'"' ..,..... ~ 31 M-S,ti Design / Layout --,C.-"'-;;- .~ _,'ii'",- :="'~'- ~3!;': AII2'le vs. 90 devree Ram nin2': Sloped Floor Semi-express Express Determininv Factors: Mixed-uses Capacity ~ Peak traffic flow ~ Expandability M.C};! Operational Considerations . Cashiered VS. Cashierless ~ 31 g.Q! Operating costs Customer service Revenue accountability/maximization Site Selection Dimensions: Size Shape Efficiency Location: Proximity to major demand generators Connections to adjacent land-uses ~ 31 !Y..-C),i User Friendly Considerations Securitv . Palsive . Active Wavtindinv . Clear .lId concise ~ 31 a9! Lil!"htcores . Openenvirollment . Sqpplement artificullligh Maximize Visibilitv AcrossparkinlDoon Vertic:al cores (ilUi.u: & tHd) 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 ,,; ~ ~ N~ 'It )-\t>\ 6 City of Chula Vista Parking Study Findings March 8, 2007 :5l: ;;;:! ~ District History . Parking District Conned in 1963 . In Lieu fee established in 1982 . Modification uHn Lieu Fee in 1989 . Park Plaza Parking Structure built in late 19805 :5l: S1 .RI~.H Parking Supply I:=:=",... ' ,-..- :5l: ;;;:! ~ ,',.. -~l~JJ{_1 JI-~ I -'~=::~A~~J;;- ._.~J! '_~~ , . .:!\IJ"'l' &:.f:~'~1[j : ':;:'1:1[:-: i -'(-~.;=J~;,,")sr' !', H' ~i i. ... I ~r~---~-J_J__llJ__~~_~_} ~ ~ .-- S :_-=---,,~ Study Area . . ~ , ., :5l: 31 !l-$ti s Parking Study Process . !l': ., 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 48Ya Total Parking in Study Area 3,36t HKt-/. - . ., S1 ~Qi 3-- /1) 1.. 1 Key Definitions . Turnover - Tbe Dumber of times a vehicle is obsenred in the same space . Occupancy - The length attime a space is occupied by a vehicle # . Circuit- The observation of each parking space once every two bours . Block Face-A number and letter designation for each block (A - Nortb Face, B - East Face, C- South Face, D - West Face) ~ , a. 3 !U9J Friday Turnover and Occupancy ,=:..' . ~ a. ::;:;; N~~ ,------- >; e i L._~=.,...d Summary of Occupancy Study --.....- i-HI ----, Ii:: -'~1iiI II . . - "" ,'" ... .... ''"'''' -.- . ._._.a...", . ~_n.IIO~1V'1_ .,-~- ill ::: l]B =E ~ '_".___1- .....-- a. ;:;:;; ~ .""--._0....01' Thursday Turnover and Occupancy -- ,-.- , , . __ . iii ':=-=----' ! (j) .~. i ;; g~~ a. ::;:;; !ll<;:J;l. ~" r -; , e ' i---=__.....' Summary of Occupancy Study --,....... IJ~~-;j .... ".. ''''' .... .... "" --- . . .~._"""" "_oDo;cu.."",IVl_ a. ::;:;; RIt:;H ._~ fh- Iii = ' ..! .. -".._--- -...-- .__,.y_,...o"", Summary of Occupancy Study CCl~rativ. Pnc.nbIge OCCl.lpam::y . I, "I J: ~ SO'll. 1 ~ .0% I... 30% .l!I !l 2ll% :! 10% i 0% ~ ~ ~- +_::: . e:oo 11:001:00 3:00 5:00 7:0Q nm.afo.......aan " a. ::;:;; !llqt 3- 11)~ 2 Parking Demand Generation Factor . Bastd on existing land uses . Does Dot include changes to vehicle use patterns, availability of alternate modes, walkability, etc. envisioned by UCSP . Form based parking generation factor is "best practice" . Rich calc:ulated 2.37 sp /1,000 s.r. for aU land uses . Ricb calculated factor supports UCSP factor of 2.0 sp I 1,000 s.f. for all land uses ~ " " a ~ ~u~ Current Demand & With 2.37 Factor Supply DomBnd Surplus I (Deficit) & 3,361 2,253 1,108 With 2.0 Factor Supply D""""d Surplus I (Deficit) " ~ 3.361 1,901 1.460 :;;;;::1 ~Lc~ Current Demand ENA Developments & With 2.0 Factor Supply Demond Surplus I (Deficit) ~ 3,147 1,901 1,246 .. ~ ;;;:s Rl~ Assumptions for Current Demand . + 1- 40,000 s.!. vacant space Dot re-ou:upied . Existing patterns of vehicle use at +1- 95-1a . Typical daily parking demand . No changes to parking supply , , a ~ ~t9:j 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 ~ RI9i Assumptions for UCSP . Assumes UCSP model for development only on east and west sides of Third Avenue " 2.0 FAR . 40% Residential . 40% Commercial " 20% Office . No new parking provided a :;;;;::1 Iyc~ :::'-11)4 & , ~ " , , , . , 3 UCSP Development ~ With 2.0 Factor Supply Demand Surplus I (Deficit) ~ 3,012 2,890 122 ~, = ~ ~s'!1 LoIC".dill.... ~ - ~ I~ Parking Revenue and Expenses Overall Findings - , , Lot Conditions Meters Signage and Way-Finding Signs In Lieu Fee Parking Financials . ~ = S1 ft'<;:'!! In Lieu Parking ___..wo.... "- "........ "-- -- -- --:f=- -.."",,- . --.......... - ~-- ....".... .-- '''_00 ........ ......~ ..-.. -. ..- -- 1't1."''' -- ........ "- --. --- -. "'...... . "- "- "- ..- "- "- ~ = SO ~If:~ '----....- - - .-- - , , - . . .oo "' . -. " , . 1171 .OO $'HI"1~,"" " -..""..-. - " '.I1~lIl ..~ .--.. --oo ~m ....., l3!IO",,(rl $337"."" - - ,.OO m.' . .......s_ """"',lIl ~- - --oo , , , ". , , , Next Steps - . R&A Preparing Recommendations - April 12, 2007 Community Meeting . Presentation of Parking Study Recommendations , ~ = ~ p;igi = SO !U~ 3-1~ 4 Chula Vista Parking. ~!I_ . Findings and Draft Recommendations Agenda April 12, 2007 '0 Presentation of Findings and Draft Recommendations i !OPUbIiC Comment Period I , , i J I . I I Currant Parking Demand Currant Parking Demand FINDING: Overall there is a surplus of parking ,~ within the District although there are several I' blocks along Third Avenue that have deficits ,RECOMMENDATION: 10 Increase usage of Park Plaza parking structure (I Conside<-implementing strategies presented FINDING: The Park Piaza parking structure Is I underutilized iRECOMMENDATION: '10 Make structure more user-friendly jD Implement recommendations II FINDING: Park Plaza parking structure needs improvement RECOMMENDATION: Dl)pgrade signage: directional and IDeational o Upgrade interior signage o Improve lighting D Restripe o Conduct condition study DConsider adding elevator to north end Operational Recommendations Management FINIJIr\lG:l;lty needs updatea-and conSistent- ; parking policies RECOMMENDATION: p Develop policies for operation and use of valet parking Consider and develop residential parking l'aOl,-if-needed 1J Maintain but revise in-lieu parking fee policy on 1 an annual basis b Report out to community about parking policies, management and changes on annual 6 basis Currant Parking Demand 3-ID~ 1 Operational Recommendations Management Operational Recommendations Management FINDING: Parking management is disjointed ,RECOMMENDATION: '0 Form a Parking Advisory Committee DAppoint one City staff person to serve as Parking Director 'OEstab ish separate parKing fund i DAssign marketing to T AVA FINDING: The parking district has not been effectively , managed and sufficient funds expended which has i lead to an inability to properly maintain and market I parking in the District r:COMMENOATION: o Management of the District should be based on a budget that is prepared annually based on standard od.rea~kl", ~""l'lirements to maintain, operate and 11 j enforce parking I~ to Parking revenues and fines generated within the II district should be used for funding operating costs, capital repair costs and a capital fund to develop additional parking areas I I Operational Recommendations Management Operational Recommendations Parking Allocation :FINDING: Marketing is done on a limited basis iRECOMMENDATION; o Budget $10,000 for marketing from parking revenues o Marketing should include web site, 0_'0 tmationaUlewsletters to stakeholders ete, I rlnVOlve TAVA in implementation "FINDING: Lots 2 and 3 on Landis are not I~ providing enough customer/visitor parking RECOMMENDATION; ~! 0 First phase- move all permit parking from these lots to Park Plaza parking structure OSecond phase- monitor use of lots 2 and 3 and , ! r u~upan\;y i:I.'Vt:Ha:Qes~less than 85% consider t allowing permit parking back in these lots at a premium rate " Operational Recommendations Parking Demand OperatIonal Recommendations Parking Operations FINDING: Inconsistent time periods available for I parking in public lots IRECOMMENDATION: IORemove 10 hourtime periods in lots 2,3 and 5 .100AlIOcate 3 hour time periods in public lots ,--1aOi,l;;:wl elllployees-and-all day parkers to free spaces in Park Plaza parking structure and designated lots wnhin the District " FINDING; Parking rates are too low !RECOMMENDATION: !Olncrease rates to $.25 per fifteen minutes for all except 10 hour meters o Increase rates to $.50 per hour for 10 hour _L , ! 0 Increase permit rate to $120,00 per quarter I I " ~---I ul 2 Openltional Recommendations Parking Openltions Openltlonal Recommendations Parking Openltlons FINDING: Difficult to identify the meter time limit RECOMMENDATION: ) CJ Color code meters based upon length of stay o Put small signs on poles that are color coded and describe time limit of meter , Ii FINDING: Bicycle racks are difficult to find and are outdated !RECOMMENDATION: /Olnstall new bicycle racks and market availability and locations lOOeveJop a broader marketing campaign to ; J-ll ur r lote"1:lil:y'C:llf1JSe--' IOpromote use of bicycles as alternate mode of transportation consistent with the UCSP " " Openltlonal Recommendations Parking Openltlons Opanltlonal Recommendations Parking Openltlons FINDINGS: Signage is inconsistent ,iRECOMMENDATION: I ~' 0 Upgrade or provide signage: Introduction, directional, locational and way finding o Engage a sign consultant to design signage nc4u'.ov.ide.recommendations for sign , placement " jF1NDING: Some paseos need improved lighting land signage to increase use IRECOMMENDATION: II' 0 Install signs at the entrances: street and lot sides ".....lI:UJse.mu<aJs.aod..landscape ;Dlnstalllighting features I I " Parking & Revenue Control Parking Facllltl_ .FINDING: On-street & off-street meters are j outdated, many do not work and cannot be j repaired IRECOMMENDATION: '.0 Replace all on-street and off-street meters with electronic meters that accept a smart card I1oS"flOted-beIow) , .DReplace meters in lots 2,3,7,and 5 with multi- " I' space meters that accept coins, dollar bills, credit cards and smart cards. , IT FINDING: Some parking lots in the downtown i core are not well-maintained , iRECOMMENDATION: IORepair lot 5 (remove surface, compact and resurface) and minor repair of lot 2 DUpgrade lighting in lots 2,3,4,and 11 estnpe ots ,2,5, :;Sand 10 10 Improve signage 10 Better maintain landscaping " ~--- 1-0 <{ 3 Parking Enforcement FINDING: Enforcement is inconsistent ,RECOMMENDATION: 10 Provide two full time PEDs in District ! 0 Establish defined routes that are completed in i two hour circuits IOAbandon Seowavs for PEDs if they must operate In pairs :DConduct license plate inventory to monitor I shuffling 1,0 Continue monitoring permit parking and issuance of multiple tickets. 19 Potential Parking Considerations with ENA Development FINDING: Development of ENA sites will reduce j the number of parking spaces available to the 1 District RECOMMENDATION: OAgency should prioritize proceeds from the sale of parking lots to necessary capital . .pr-ejec:ts;,within the Parking District JOStudyand review parking district every 3 years " Potential Parking Considerations with ENA Development ,FINDING: lots 9 and 10 have lower parking 1 occupancies and smaller capacities therefore j development of lots has minimal impact lRECOMMENDATlON: loUse way finding and signage to direct ! customers/visitors to surrounding lots Band 11 " Parking Enforcement ; FINDING: Parking fines are too low I RECOMMENDATION: ~Increase overtime parking and expired meter fines from $12.00 to $20.00 . 0 Increase fine for unpaid tickets from $24.00 to 40,BO f ~ < , j' 0 For a 8 month period after implementation of Ii fine increase, issue courtesy tickets for first infraction " Potential Parking Considerations with ENA Development i FINDING: Lot 3 currently has high utilization and i larger capacity and its location is central to 1 many businesses RECOMMENDATION: [:J. Remove permit parking from lot and reevaluate occupancy n ~h, "I.... ....~apment..QCCU[, more effectively use Park Plaza parking structure and consider integrating j replacement public parking as part of the development I [:J. Maintain lot 3 as public parking if occupancy continues I to be h;gh after recommended changes " Potential Parking Considerations with ENA Development FINDING: lot 6 has higher occupancy but lower capacity and has difficult ingress and egress land therefore will have minor impact RECOMMENDATION: ...0 First step: investigate possibility of agreement , ' to lease space from Baptist Church Consfdenlltunnlevelopment of a parking ;- structure on Lot 7 and the existing Baptist I ' Chunch parking lot II ~ 3-1 VI 4 Potential Future Parking Needs With Redevelopment of Third Avenue Next Steps 'FINDING: Should the Urban Core Specific Plan i (UGSP) be adopted, redevelopment may occur , and cause changes to parking demand !RECOMMENDATION: iOStUdy and review parking district every 3 years _I . ,; ~l . Consultant to finalize Recommendations . Consultant to prepare Final Report . Staff will prepare accompanying report and recommendations for public review . Final ReDort and Staff Report and Recommendations will be presented to City Council ~ ~ 3- \ I'D 5 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 Summary On-51r8e1 15 Minute Metered 3 3 30 Minute Metered 3 2 2 7 One Hour Metered 3 2 4 6 3 3 7 28 Two Hour Metered 26 55 22 20 13 18 16 10 24 37 41 4 6 24 316 Ten Hour Meier 11 7 1 16 5 6 8 54 30 Minute Free 3 3 One Hour free 4 4 Two Hour Free 25 21 20 12 78 Ten Hour Free 26 26 loading Zone 2 1 2 5 TOTALS 626 Olf-Street Public AU Day Free 407 407 Two Hour Metered 14 1 15 Four Hour Metered 27 9 32 51 43 162 Ten Hour Metered 35 20 61 42 65 43 52 318 Barrier Free (Handicap) 2 1 3 3 2 19 2 3 2 37 TOTALS 1193 Private Private/Reserved 66 83 59 57 29 122 109 848 91 30 4 28 52 4 46 31 32 1691 Barrier Free (Handicap) 3 1 2 4 23 3 2 3 41 TOTALS 1732 Summary 170 171 108 205 110 172 118 891 132 78 745 203 190 22 69 57 110 3551 On-Street Parking Totals Public Off-Street Parking Totals Public Parking Totals Private Parking Totals Tolal Parking In study Area 626 1193 1819 1732 3551 Source: Chula Vista data and Rich and Associates Fieldwork, December 2006 )-- t I I Table 20-1 Turnover and Occupancy Thursday, December 14, 2006 Exhibit 3 On-Street Spaces 9:00 am - 11 :00 am 11 :00 am - 1 :00 pm 1 :00 pm - 3:00 pm 3:00 pm - 5:00 pm 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm Block! Face Oescription # Stalls #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ lB mixed 2-hr.& 10-hr. metered 12 9 75% 10 B3% 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. metered 23 20 B7% 14 61% 11 48% 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 metered 16 9 56% 11 69% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 30 2-hr. metered 16 4 25% 13 81% 12 75% 16 100% 16 100% B 50% 4A l-hr. metered 3 3 100% 1 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4B 2 hr not metered 21 B 3B% 5 24% 5 24% 5 24% 5 24% 2 10% 4C 3 2-hr. metered!4 not metered 7 5 71% 6 B6% 5 71% 6 86% 7 100% 5 71% 40 17 2-hr,f2-30 min. metered 19 9 47% 19 100% 11 5B% 17 89% 18 95% 13 68% 50 2-hr. metered 13 9 69% 12 92% 13 100% 10 77% 13 100% 13 100% 60 13 2-hr,f2 30-mln. metered 15 1 7% 4 27% 4 27% 5 33% 4 27% 2 13% 9A l-hrmeter 4 4 100% 4 100% 3 75% 2 50% 2 50% 3 75% 9A Go 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 \ first 8 Unmarked spaces 8 4 50% 4 50% 4 50% 4 50% 3 38% 4 50% lOA _ 3 l-hr. metered!4 1 hr. No melers 7 7 100% 6 86% 5 71% 6 86% 4 57% 4 57% 10C- first 5 Unmarked spaces 5 5 100% 5 100% 4 80% 5 100% 3 60% 5 100% 10C \' l-hrmeter 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 and 2 hr meter 5 4 80% 5 100% 1 20% 3 60% 2 40% 1 20% 11C Unmarked 22 15 68% 9 41% 9 41% 5 23% 5 230/0 2 9% 110 2-hr not metered 10 5 50% 2 20% 6 60% 9 90% 3 30% 3 30% 12B 2-hr. metered 30 2 7% 9 30% 23 77% 23 77% 26 87% 22 73% 12C l-hr. metered 6 2 33% 2 33% 2 33% 5 83% 4 67% 2 330/0 120 mix of 2-hr and 10-hr 20 19 95% 13 65% 17 85% lB 90% 9 45% 7 35% 13B 2-hr. metered 30 4 13% 9 30% 17 57% 14 47% 21 70% 27 90% 130 mix of 2-hr and 10-hr 13 12 92% 7 54% 2 15% 7 54% 6 46% 4 310/0 100B mix of 2 -hr and 1 O-hr and tree 18 15 83% 15 83% 12 67% 12 67% 9 50% 6 33% 200B mix of 2-hr and 10-hr 14 13 93% 12 86% 11 79% 14 100% 11 79% 6 43% 200C l-hrmeter 7 5 71% 3 43% 2 29% 6 86% 4 57% 6 860/0 3000 10-hr. not metered 17 9 53% 13 76% 8 47% 15 88% 8 47% 7 410/0 4000 2-hr not metered 13 7 54% 4 31% 9 69% 8 62% 6 46% 8 620/0 5000 2-hr not metered 17 11 65% 8 47% 7 41% 7 41% 4 24% 6 350/0 TOTAL On-Street 500 256 51% 281 56% 265 53% 323 65% 282 56% 249 50% Table 20-2 Turnover and Occupancy Thursday, December 14, 2006 Exhibit 3 MUNICIPAL LOTS 9:00am-ll:00am 11 :00 am - 1 :00 pm 1 :00 pm - 3:00 pm 3:00 pm - 5:00 pm 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm Block I Face Description # Stalls #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ 1 Metered All< B 3 3B% 7 88% 6 75% 6 75% 7 88% 4 50% 1 Lot 10-4 hr r 9 4 44% 4 44% 6 67% 8 89% 7 78% 4 44% 1 Lot 10 10-hr 17 12 71% 14 82% 14 82% 18 106% 9 53% 1 6% 1 Lot 11 10-hr 19 13 68% 16 84% 14 74% 17 89% 6 32% 11 58% 1 Lot 11 4-hr r 11 6 55% 9 82% 6 55% 11 100% 4 36% 8 73% 2 Lot910-hrr 22 16 73% 19 86% 22 100% 16 73% 7 32% 2 9% 2 Lot 9 4-hr m 8 5 63% 6 75% 5 63% 7 88% 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 78% 17 63% 11 41% 4 Lot 7 70 63 90% 55 79% 60 86% 65 93% 52 74% 39 56% 5 Lot 5 44 27 61% 44 100% 44 100% 44 100% 44 100% 44 100% 11 Lot 4 645 258 40% 266 41% 211 33% 190 29% 231 36% 215 33% 11 Fuddrucken 33 4 12% 26 79% 26 79% 26 79% 32 97% 6 18% 12 Lot 3 91 63 69% 75 82% 79 87% 67 74% 39 43% 11 12% 12 Lot 3 Alley 4 27 14 52% 21 78% 16 59% 22 81% 12 44% 4 15% 13 Lot 2 59 31 53% 34 58% 40 68% 38 64% 52 88% 16 27% 13 Loll 14 13 93% 11 79% 9 64% 13 93% 11 79% 6 43% 13 WAlley 4-hr 16 11 69% 14 88% 15 94% 13 81% 15 94% 11 69% 400 Lot 8 54 47 87% 46 85% 41 76% 36 67% 11 20% 1 2% TOTAL Municipal 1191 612 51% 704 59% 642 54% 627 53% 572 48% 405 34% VJ \ - v Table 20-3 Turnover and Occupancy Thursday, December 14, 2006 Exhibit 3 Oil-Street 9:00 am -11:00 am 11 :00 am - 1 :00 pm 1 :00 pm - 3:00 pm 3:00 pm - 5:00 pm 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm Block! Face Description # Stalls #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %000 1 Alley one Clinic Private 49 21 43% 1B 37% 22 45% 19 39% 2 4% 0 0% 2 Pacific Trust 42 23 55% 27 64% 24 57% 33 79% 23 55% 6 140/0 2 Alley Private 41 21 51% 20 49% 16 39% 18 44% 12 29% 8 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 Lots near KFC 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 HC 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 (all combined) 53 21 40% 23 43% 25 47% 25 47% 13 25% 13 25% TOTAl OIl-Street IPvIl 343 156 45% 179 52% 175 51% 183 53% 105 31% 65 19% W L - ..> Table 20-4 Turnover and Occupancy Thursday, December 14, 2006 Exhibit 3 Description Total # 9:00 am . II :00 am 11:00 am - 1:00 pm I :00 pm - 3:00 pm 3:00 pm - 5:00 pm 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm Stalls #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ TOTAL On-Street 500 256 51% 281 56% 265 53% 323 65% 282 56% 249 50% TOTAL Munlclpa/ 1191 612 51% 704 59% 642 54% 627 53% 572 48% 405 34% TOTAL Private 343 156 45% 179 52% 175 51% 183 53% 105 31% 65 19% ITata/tor day 20341 10241 50%1 11641 57%1 10821 WIoI 11331 56%1 9591 47%1 7191 35%1 w l - - U\ Tc ~E-l Turnover C"y Occupancy Friday, December 15, 2006 :hlbR 4 s;.- On-Street Spaces 9:00 am -11:00 am 1:00 am -1:00 pn 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm 3:~OO pm - 5:00 pm 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm 7:00 pm - 9:00 p",- Block I Face Description # Stalls #Occ %Oce #Oce %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ lB mix of 2 hr. & IO-hr. metered 12 6 50% 9 75% 10 83% 9 75% 3 25%. 4 33% lD 2-hr. metered 25 ----c-- 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% 5 220;' f----~ -- - ~ ~-' 2C 3D-min. metered 3 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 67% 0 0% 1 33% -,-_.- --.- -..- 2D 2-hr. metered 32 18 56% 19 59% 28 68% 19 59% 21 66% 31 97% - 3C mix of 1.2,1 O-hr & 30-mln metered 16 14 68% 10 63% 10 63% 10 63% 11 69% 15 94% - - - 3D 2 hr. metered 16 7 44% 7 44% 10 63% 13 81% 15 94% 16 100% f--~ ...--- -- - 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% 4 19% 11 52% ~- 4C 3 2-hr. metered/4 not metered 7 7 100% 6 86% 5 71% 7 100% 7 100% 7 100% 4D 17 2-hr./2-30 min. metered 19 14 74% 18 95% 18 95%. 14 74% 19 100% 18 95% -~ - ~- -~- --...- 5A 2 hr. not metered 5 4 80% 2 40% 2 40% 4 80% 4 80% 4 80% -- - 5D 2-hr. metered 13 13 100% 13 100% 12 92% 13 100% 13 100% 14 106'''10 -~ ----- - 6D 13 2-hr./2 30-mln. metered 15 1 7% 5 33% 3 20% 5 33% 4 27% 0 0% - -~~ .-.-- 9A 1-hr metered 4 1 25% 3 75% 3 75% 0 0% 2 50% 3 75% - ~~ - 9A Unmarked 6 6 100% 6 100% 4 67% 5 63% 6 100% 6 100% .--- - --- -~ - 9B 2-hr. metered 16 1 6% 1 6% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 13% -.-- --.- - - - IDA first 8 Unmarked spaces 8 5 63% 4 50% 4 50% 5 63% 3 38% 5 63% I--~ ----- ~ - lOB 2-hr. metered 10 8 80% 10 100% 9 90% 9 90% 7 70% 11 110% -~ - ~ - -- IOC first 5 Unmarked spaces 5 4 80% 5 100% 4 80% 4 80% 3 60% 5 100% .-.- - 3 -"100% 10C 1 hr metered 3 2 67% 3 100% 2 67% 2 67% 3 100% -- liB metered 24 4 17% 11 46% 10 42% 11 46% 11 46% 20 83% -- -- llC 1 and 2 hr meter 5 1 20% 2 40% 7 140% 0 0% 2 40% 2 40% -- 27~o - - ----- - -- llC Residential 22 6 9 41% 7 32% 4 16% 5 23%. 3 14% -- - -- ----- -- ---- -._--- liD 2 hr 10 9 90% 8 80% 26 260% 9 90% 7 70% 4 40% -- - ~ - - -- 12B 2-hr. metered 30 9 30% 12 40% 2 7% 29 97% 26 87% 27 90% ..~ - 12C mix of 1-hr. & 2 hr. metered 6 2 33% 2 33% 12 200% 3 50% 5 83% 5 63% ~- - 12D mix of 2-hr and 10-hr 20 14 70% 17 85% 19 95% 16 60% 11 55% 11 55% ---- 13B 2-hr. metered 30 7 23% 16 53% 11 37% 16 53% 15 50% 29 97% -~~ - _.- - -- ~ .~ --- - 13D mix of 2-hr and 10-hr 13 5 38% 6 46% 11 85% 7 54% 7 54% 3 23% - - ~- - lo0B mix of 2-hr and 1 O-hr and free 18 15 83% 17 94% 17 94% 16 89% 14 78% 3 17% - 200B mix of 2-hr and 10-hr 14 10 71% 12 86% 12 86% 11 79% 10 71% 6 43% -- ---.- 200C I-hrmeter 7 2 29% 2 29% 4 57% 2 29% 3 43% 6 86% 300D 1 O-hr. not metered 17 8 47% 11 65% 10 59% 6 35% 6 35% 7 41% ~- -- ~- ----. -~ -- -- 400D 2-hr not metered 13 8 62% 8 62% 10 77% 4 31% 1 8% 8 62% --.-. ---- - -- 500D 2-hr not metered 17 17 100% 9 53% 7 41% 2 12% 7 41% 6 35% TOTAl On-5treet 508 273 54% 305 60% 327 64% 295 56% 282 56% 328 65% ~ ( - ~ Table 2E-2 Turnover and Occupancv Friday. December 15. 2006 Exhibit 4 - --' MUNICIPAL LOTS 9:00 am -11:00 am 11:00 am -1:00 pm 1 :00 pm - 3:00 pm 3:00 pm - 5:00 pm 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm Block I Face Description #51011, #Occ %Occ #Oce %Oce #Oee %Oce #Occ %Oce #Oce %Occ #Oce %Occ 1 Metered Alley 8 5 63"/0 6 75% 7 88% 6 75% 6 75% 7 88% ------ 1 lot 1 0 4 hr meters 9 6 67% 8 69% 8 69% 1 11% 1 11% 5 56% ---- I lot 10 1 O-hr meters 17 12 71% 17 100% 16 94% 14 82% 5 29% 3 18% n_ - 1 Lot 11 10-hr meter 19 16 84% 17 89% 16 64% 12 63% 9 47% 10 53% --- - - --...- 1 Lot 11 4-hr meters 11 8 73%. 9 82% 10 91% 5 45% 2 18% 11 100% - ---. --- - -._-- -- 2 Lot 9 1 O.hr meters 22 22 100%. 20 91% 21 95% 16 73% 7 32% 9 41% - - --- - '--__no -- 2 lot 9 4-hr meter 8 8 100% 8 100% 5 63% 5 63% 3 38% 2 25% -_.". ,.---. 3 NCP LoI 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 lot 4 645 179 28% 198 31% 213 33% 204 32% 176 27% 202 31% ---..- -- 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% no .... _._~- - - 13 Lol2 59 31 53% 39 66% 51 86% 46 78% 35 59% 42 71% n__ 13 lot 1 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 lot 8 54 35 65% 36 67% 29 54% 22 41% 4 7% 1 2% TOTAL Municipal 1191 555 47% 618 52% 621 52% 558 47% 470 39'% 508 43% --.J Table 2E-3 Turnover and Occupancy Friday, December 15, 2006 Exhibit 4 OII-Street 9:00 am -11:00am 11:00am-l:00pm 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm 3:00 pm - 5:00 pm 5:00 pm. 7:00 pm 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm --. - lot Bloek/ DesIgnation Face Description # Stalls "Occ %Oce "Oee %Oce "Oee %Occ "Oce %Oee "Occ '% Occ "Oce %Occ 1 Alley and Clinic 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 86% 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 7-11lol 15 3 20% 0 0% 5 33% 2 13% 3 20% 5 33% - -- - ..-- -- 6 lots near KFC 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 He 3 2 67% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100'% __,._u --- -- 12 Alley Private 28 13 46% 15 54''10 22 79% 15 54% 16 57% 9 32% -- - 13 Alley Private (all combined) 53 24 45% 29 55% 21 40% 10 19% 13 25% 13 25% TOTAl OIl-Street (Private) 343 173 50% 199 58% 179 52% 146 43% 103 30% 64 19% W l - ~ Table 2E-4 Turnover and Occupancy December 15, 2006 Exhibit 4 Description Tolol# 9:00 am - 11:00 am 11:00 am -1:00 pm 1 :00 pm - 3:00 pm 3:00 pm - 5:00 pm 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm Stalls #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #Occ %Occ #0= %Occ #0= %Occ #Occ %Occ TOTAL On-Street 508 273 54% 305 60% 327 64% 295 58% 282 56% 328 65% TOTAL Municipal 1191 555 47% 618 52% 621 52% 558 47% 470 39% 508 43% TOTAL Private 343 173 50% 199 58% 179 52% 146 43% 103 30% 64 19% ToIallor day 2042 1001 49% 1122 55% 1127 55% 999 49% 855 420/0 900 44% \,J \ - - ..EJ Table 2F Permit Occupancy Resuns February 15. 2007 Exhibit 5 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 of permit holders compared to the totai 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. 9:30 11:00 1:00 3:00 Average 10-Hour Non- '10 "(0 Non- '10 '10 Non- '10 "(0 Non- "(0 "(0 Non- '10 "(0 Spaces Pmts Pmts OccuP Permits Pmts Pmts OccuP Permits Pmts Pmts OccuP Permits Pmts Pmts OccuP Permits Pmts Pmts OccuP Permifs Lot 1 13 3 7 76.9% 30.0% 4 5 69.2% 44.4% 2 8 76.9% 20.0% 3 10 100.0% 23.1% 3 8 84.6% 27.3% Lot 2 30 6 13 63.3% 31.6% 6 14 66.7% 30.0% 5 14 63.3% 26.3% 5 16 70.0% 23.8% 6 14 66.7% 30.0% Lot 3 65 8 44 80.0% 15.4% 9 36 69.2% 20.0% 7 45 80.0% 13.5% 7 43 76,9% 14.0% 8 42 76.9% 16.0% Lot 5 42 6 29 83.3% 17.1% 6 30 85.7% 16.7% 5 36 97.6% 12.2% 5 33 90.5% 13.2% 6 32 90.5% 15.8% Lot 6 26 4 4 30.8% 50.0% 5 8 50.0% 38.5% 4 10 53.8% 28.6% 4 II 57.7% 26.7% 4 8 46.2% 33.3% Lot 7 36 11 20 86.1% 35.5% II 22 91.7% 33.3% 8 28 100.0% 22.2% 8 27 97.2% 22.9% 10 25 97.2% 28.6% Lot 8 52 17 34 98.1% 33.3% 15 30 86.5% 33.3% 16 23 75.0% 41.0% 13 36 94.2% 26.5% 15 31 88.5% 32.6% Lot 9 20 8 13 105.0% 38.1% 8 14 11 0.0% 36.4% 5 16 105.0% 23.8% 4 14 90.0% 22.2% 6 14 100.0% 30.0% Lot 10 17 9 2 64.7% 81.8% 8 3 64.7% 72.7% 8 1 52.9% 88.9% 8 2 58.8% 80.0% 8 2 58.8% 80.0% Lot 11 18 6 6 66.7% 50.0% 8 7 83.3% 53.3% 6 6 66.7% 50.0% 8 8 88.9% 50.0% 7 7 77.8% 50.0% Grand Total 319 78 172 78.4% 31.2% 80 169 78.1% 32.1% 66 187 79.3% 26.1% 65 200 83.1% 24.5% 73 183 80.3% 28.5% ~ I ~ o Table 2G Chula Vista Current Parking Demand Projecflon Exhlb~ 6 A B C D E I F G H I J K l M N 0 P Q R 5 T U V W x y Medlcall Mixed Banquet Dcy Demand Parking Surplusl Block Olltee Refall Bank Off1ce U.. Molel Se<Vlc. Bm Museum Restaurant Residential Communltv Chulch Hall Care Vacant (currenl) Future Syr. TOyr. Supply Deficit Surplus! Surplus/ current Deficit Deficit Daytime 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 0.75 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 Demand Demand (5 years) lOyearsl 1 12,885 0 0 9,832 17,372 0 0 D 0 2,002 0 0 0 10,040 0 0 124 0 124 124 170 46 46 46 2 23,110 15,904 16,588 4,761 11,574 0 7,199 0 0 0 10,228 0 0 0 0 0 212 0 212 212 171 -41 -41 -41 , 0 8,037 0 2,352 7,148 0 0 1,679 0 3,938 57,742 0 0 0 0 0 192 0 192 192 lOB -B4 -B4 -B4 4 14,756 9,572 0 0 12,044 0 975 0 0 7,606 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 0 107 107 205 9B 9B 9B 5 10,692 1,120 0 0 5,828 0 5,116 0 0 6,974 0 0 0 0 1,746 0 75 0 75 75 110 " " " 6 1,820 3,436 0 0 0 0 6,034 0 0 1,988 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 " " 172 141 141 141 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97,632 0 0 0 0 " 0 " " llB 45 45 45 B 9,481 1,800 0 1,508 100,405 0 "2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 270 0 270 270 B91 621 621 621 9 56,154 0 12,636 0 20,085 7,728 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 229 0 229 229 1>2 -97 -97 -97 10 27,780 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,200 3,102 0 0 0 0 4,950 76 12 Bl B5 7B 2 -, -7 11 0 0 14,766 0 61,100 0 0 0 1,157 24,079 0 0 0 0 0 0 240 0 240 240 745 505 505 505 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<2 , 24> 244 20' -'9 -40 -41 " 3,034 3,640 0 11,712 9,243 0 4,713 0 0 7,713 18,731 0 0 0 0 15,348 139 ,. 154 16B 190 51 '6 22 100 5,740 0 0 1,100 6,768 0 0 0 0 0 B50 0 0 0 0 0 >4 0 >4 >4 22 -12 -12 -12 200 1,800 0 0 16,400 10,225 0 0 0 0 0 8,300 0 0 0 0 0 B7 0 .7 B7 69 -18 -18 -18 '00 9,515 0 0 3,800 3,300 0 0 0 0 0 12,150 0 0 0 0 0 6B 57 -11 4DO 550 0 0 9,150 3,300 0 0 0 0 0 12,080 0 0 0 0 0 59 110 51 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 51 2,151 2,171 3,551 1,293 1,233 1,213 'stalls (stalls) fstalls) (slallsl (stalls) Istalls! (stalls) stalls W l v ---' Table 2H Chula VIsta Future Parking Demand wllh ENA Slles Developed Exhibit 7 A B C D E F G H I J K l M N 0 P Q R S 1 U V W x V Medica! Mixed Banquet Day Demand Parking Surplus! Block Omes Retail Bank Office U,. Motel So>Vlc. Bm Museum Reslaulant Residential Community Church Hall Care Vacant (cull'en!} Future 5Y1 lOyr Supply Deficit SUfplus! Surplus! Adjust. Peak Peak current Deflclt Deficit Daytime 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 0.75 2.37 2.37 2.37 2,37 Demand Demand 15yeals) (TOyeors) 1 12,685 0 0 9,832 17,372 0 0 0 0 2,002 0 0 0 10,040 0 0 124 0 124 124 144 20 20 2D 2 23,110 15,904 16,588 4,761 11,574 0 7,199 0 0 0 10,228 0 0 0 0 0 212 0 212 212 141 -71 -71 -71 3 0 8,037 0 2,352 7,148 0 0 1,679 0 3,938 57,742 0 0 0 0 0 192 0 192 192 lOB -B4 -B4 -84 4 14,756 9,572 0 0 12,044 0 975 0 0 7,606 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 0 107 107 178 71 71 71 5 10,692 1,120 0 0 5,828 D 5,116 0 0 6,974 0 0 0 0 1,746 0 75 0 75 75 110 35 35 35 6 1,820 3,438 0 0 0 0 6,034 0 0 1,988 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 31 31 172 141 141 141 7 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97,632 D 0 0 0 73 0 73 73 118 45 45 45 B 9,481 1,800 0 1,508 100,405 0 832 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 270 0 270 270 891 621 621 621 9 56,154 0 12,636 0 20,085 7,728 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 229 D 229 229 132 -97 -97 -97 10 27,780 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,200 3,102 0 0 0 0 4,950 76 12 B1 85 78 2 -3 -7 11 0 0 14,766 0 61,100 0 0 0 1,157 24,079 0 0 0 0 0 0 240 0 240 240 745 505 505 5D5 12 1,209 19,524 0 10,500 55.461 0 11,766 0 0 0 0 1',340 0 0 0 1,340 242 3 243 244 112 -130 -131 -132 13 3,034 3,640 0 11,712 9,243 0 4,713 0 0 7,713 18,731 0 0 0 0 15,348 139 36 154 168 190 51 36 22 100 5,740 0 0 1,100 6,768 0 0 0 0 0 850 0 D 0 0 0 34 0 34 34 22 -12 -12 -12 200 1,800 0 0 16,400 10,225 0 0 0 0 0 8,300 0 0 0 0 0 B7 0 B7 B7 69 -18 -18 -18 300 9,515 0 0 3,600 3,300 0 0 0 0 0 12,150 0 0 0 0 0 6B 57 -11 400 550 0 0 9,150 3,300 0 0 0 0 0 12,080 0 0 0 0 0 59 110 51 Totals 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 2,256 51 2,151 2,171 3,377 1,119 1,059 1,039 stalls slolls) stalls) (stalls) (slalls) (sla!ls) (stalls) (stalls) W l - ~ \' (JJ ~ - '-' lY Table 21 Chula VIsta Parking Demand Pra)ecflans and Surplus ar Deficits far UCSP Model Exhibit 8 A " C D E F G H r J K l M N 0 P R V W Medical Mixed Banquet Day Demand Prklng Surplu&", Block Office Retail Bank Onice U.. Molel Service Bar Museum Restaurant Resldentia rommunil Church Hall Care (current) Supply Deficit (current) Daytime 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 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 11" -113 8 9,481 1,800 0 1,508 100,405 0 832 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 270 891 621 9 56,154 12,636 20,085 7.726 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 75" 518 12 27,376 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 1" -19 200 0 0 0 30,650 4,050 0 0 0 0 0 4,050 0 0 0 0 92 27 -65 300 26 400 67 Totals 274,377 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 (staIrs) (stalls) (stalls) (1) UCSP Model assumes an FAR of 2.0 for fronlages along Third Avenue; 40% reSidential space, 40% commerclol space and 20% office space. Tc ~H Chula VIsta Findings and Recommenda1lans Matrix Exhlblf 9 IMPLEMENTATION EsnMATED CATEGORY FINDING RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME CAPITAL EsnMATED REVENUE COSTS 3.1 PARKING - - MANAGEMENT 3.1.0 Downtown The Downtown Parking District was forme<::t In 1963 to Maintain the District and modify the boundaries to E Street Parking DlslrIct status provide meters, generate revenue, fund Improvements (north), Del Mar (east), Garrett- (west) and H Street (south) third Quarter 2007 $0 $0 and Boundaries and help control parking. Form a Parking Advisory Committee (PAC) and appoint an 3.1.1 Parking stall The management of the parkIng system Is not effective. existing staff person from the City's Community Development Fourth Quarter 2007 $0 $0 Dennrtment to act as the Parkina Director The District has fulfilled Its obligation 10 conttnue to use Create one Parking Enterprise Fund and place 011 revenue 3.1.2 Parking funds generated by parking meler revenue and fines on generated from the Downtown District Into this fund. Fourth Quarter 2007 $0 $0 Enterpi'lse Fund parking.related activities. ContInue to designate these funds for parklng.related activities within the DistrIct. Develop an educational program that continually stresses 3.1.3 Parking There Is a general lack of awareness of parking facts. the costs of parking, enforcement regulatIons, transit options Fourth Quarter 2007 $0 $0 Education and the vision of a walkable community. Present the _._-_._--~- InformatIon on a continual basis. - 3.2 Parking Policies Parking policies need to be developed and updated as the 3.2.0 City Parking Other than the In.lIeu fee, there are no policies for downtown evolves. Policies should be established for First Quarter 2008 $0 $0 Policies parking overtime parking, enforcement strategies, parking allocation and oarkina rates. The in-lieu fee polley was Implemented in 1980. The Retain the program but revise the formula so that the cost Difficult to project. 3.2.1 In-Lieu Fee formula for calcu]atlng the fee Is contusing and per parking space be Indexed to the cost of constructing Fourth Quarter 2007 $0 Depends upon outdated. one parking space in a parking structure. development. 3.2.2 Valet Parking Valet parking Is not currently used City should develop a valet parking polley to regulate how First Quarter 2008 $0 $0 valet ooeratlons would run. 3.2.3 Re~denllal Evaluate the Impact of parking needs on surrounding Porklng Permit There Is no residential parking permIt In place. residential areas and implement a residential parking First Quarter 2008 $0 $0 oermft oroaram If necessary . 3.2.4 There has been a lack of Information shared between Prepare an annual report to be presented to the City Annually $0 $0 the City and shareholders. Council and community on an annual basis. 3.3 PARKING OPERATIONS \ - )-J .J>. Ta H Chula VIsta FindIngs and wecommendaflons Matrix Exhlb~ 9 3.3.0 Periling Parking revenues have been erratic, particularly from Prepare a Parking District Operating budget that projects Revenues and Annually $0 $0 ExpenS81 2002 to present appropriate costs for maintenance of the District. There Is no ongoing marketing campaign fOf the Parking Develop an ongoing and budgeted parking marketing FIrst Quarter 2008- 3.3.1 Marketing District. program. Coordinate with lAVA to Implement under the developed $15.000/yr $0 direction of the Parking Advisory Committee. Ongoing-implementation The City Is locking In a comprehensive and coordinated Develop a sign program that includes four types of 5lgnoge: $10.000- 3.3.2 Slgnage direction, location, Identification and pedestrian Second Quarter 2008 $0 sign program. wavflndina. $50,000 Fourth Quarter 2007- 3.3.3 CandUian 01 The majority of the parking lots are In need of capital Make lighting, painting, slgnage, landscaping and Analysis of Facilities Not yet City Parlllng Lat, Improvements resurfacing Improvements as necessary. First Quarter 2008-Bid determined $0 Second/Thlrd Quarter 2008-lmolementatlon Fourth Quarter 2007- 3.3.4 ExIsting Periling Generally, the design and layout of the parking lots Is Remove the one-way restrlctlon In the alley to allow legal Analysis of Facilities Not vet First Quarter 2008-Bld $0 Area Conflguratlon efficient except for Lot 6 access Into Lot 6 and/or create an entry from Modrono. 5econd!rhlrd Quarter determined 2008-lmclementatlon Downtown Chulo Vista has a number of paseos $10,000- Install signage to better Identify paseos. Consider using $100,000 3.3.5 Peseos connecting parking lots to Third Avenue. Many of them Ughtlng, murals and landscaping to create a more Inviting First Quarter 2008 depending $0 need Improvements to make them more attractive and walking experience. upon types of Inviting. Improvements 3.3.6 Validation The District does not currently have a validation system Institute a parking validation system that businesses can use Third Quarter 2008 $3,000-$5,000 $0 ISVllem In place. to offer free oarki':lQ to customers. 3.4 PARIONG ENFORCEMENT Dedicate enforcement personnel to the District. The officer $70,000 lar an ] :;i81 .550 In average 3.4.0 Parking The Parking Enforcement Program Is not functioning at must cover a consistent route and enforce during the entire annual revenue Enforcement staffing optimal efficiency. The enforcement officers do not just enforcement period of Monday through Saturday 9 am to 5 Third Quarter 2008 addltlanal full. increase based upon enforce parking within the District. time position current fine and pm. , collection rates v \ - " U\ Ta.H Chula VIsta Findings and Recammendaflans Matrix ExhlbR 9 First/Second Quarter Upgrade the system to allow the handheld ticket writers to 2008-Prepare 3.4.1 Handheld The handheld Ilckel wrIters are not being used to their record and track license plates, provide Information about specifications and Issue $40,000 $75,500 In average TIcket Writers full potential. outstanding tickets and number of tickets received and Request for Proposals annual revenue dala regarding stolen vehicles and warrants. Third Quarter 2008- Enter into contract ~67,975In average 3.4.2 OVertime The overtIme parking fine of $12.00 is not high enough Increase the overtime parking fine from $12.00 to $50.00 annual revenue Parking Fine to discourage parkers from knowingly violating parking consistent with the parking Violation Penalty Schedule Third Quarter 2008 $0 Increase based upon regulations. same number of citations issued 3.4.3 Munlple I1ckels Chula Vista currently Issues multiple tickets for same day Continue this polley at Issuing multiple tickets CurrenUy In place $0 $0 violations ot expired meters. - Loss or 3.4.4 COurtesy Ticket Chula Vista does not currently issue courtesy tickets. Issue courtesy tickets for a first offense of a non-permit third Quarter 2008 revenue from $0 vehicle. nnrklng Ilckel - 3.5 PARKING AND REVENUE CONTROL Purchase new individual on-street meters that can accept First Quarter 2008- 3.5.00n-streel Meters need to be replaced. Many are non- coins, tokens and smart cards. Ideally the system would be Prepare specifications $160,000 $0 Parking functioning. This causes enforcement Issues. and Bid Second wireless and solar powered. Quarter 2008-lnstall . Install mulll-space meters In lots #2, #3, #5 and #7. These First Quarter 2008- 3.5.1 Off-S1reet The off-street parking lots have Individual meters that are machines can accept coins, tokens and smart cards and Prepare specifications difficult to maintain for both collection and and Bid $210.000 $0 Parking maintenance. should be wireless and solar powered. The remainder of the Second Quarter 2008- lots could be upgraded to new Individual meters. Install $194.17 5!yr In new Increase the parking rates for meters and permits to $0.50/hr revenue for on-street The parking rates do not deter people from parKIng at 3D-minute and 2, 3, and 4 hour meters. Increase to meters. $144.B05/yr 3.5.2 Parking Rate. beyond the posted lIinlts nor do the rates promote the $D.25/hr at 10-hour meters. Increase permits to $120/qtr In Second Quarter 2008 $0 In new revenue from use of the Park Plaza Parking Structure. all lots except #2 and #3 where the Increase should be off-street meters, and $1 BO/q!r. $57.600 In perml! fee. ~ ~ To H Chula VIsta Findings and ~ecommendatlons Ma1rIx Exhlb~ 9 The 2-hour parking should be the dominant duration for on. $5,000 for 3.5.3 Parking The District has two different types of on.street meters: 30 slreet parking. Individuals requiring more than 2 hours Second Quarter 2008 slgnage $0 AllocatIon minute and 2-hour should be directed to off~5treet parking areas. For lots #2 and #3 convert to 3-hour lime limits changes 3.6 PARKING FACIUl1ES 3.6.0 Park Plaza The parking structure is critically underutlllzed with Upgrade 5lgnoge, Improve IIghfing, fe-stripe the parking Nolyel Parldng structure average occupancy projected at 40%. floors, conduct a conditions study and complete needed Fourth Quarter 2007 estimated $0 structural and cosmetic renalrs and consider addlnn an 3.6.1 Meter Color The existing meters are not marked to Indicate the tIme Designate a color to represent each time limit then paInt Second Quarter 2008 $5,000 $0 Ceding limit, which is confusing for parkers. the pole to Identify the meter. Street curbs should only be painted for no parking where Fourth Quarter 2007- Nolyet 3.6.2 street Curbs The street curb paInting Is Inconsistent. required and for fire hydrate locations. Curbs should not be Analysis FIrst Quarter $0 painted to reflect the type of parking available. 2008-Work completed estimated 3.7 BICYCLES AS AlTERNATE MODE OF TRANSPORTAllON I.....onsluer ...r'=Ullng a DIKe rOUTe TO me aowmown ana - There Is a need to promote bicycle usage In Chuta Vista creating a marketing program to promote bicycle use as 3.7.0 Bicycling a. an an alternative to driving. Create a special event to promote Not yet A1tematlve to DrMng and to make coming to the downtown by bicycle more bicycles in an effort to help create alternative modes of Fourth Quarter 2007 estimated $0 appealing. transportation, which In turn cuts down on the number of parkIng spaces needed. $10,000- Chula Vista does have bicycle racks. although they are Install new bicycle racks and Instltue a marketing program $75,000 3.7.1 Bicycle Parking Second Quarter 2008 depending on $0 difficult to find. to promote the new locations. quantIty and style of racks 3.8 PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE w \ - !i To H Chula VIsta Findings and l<8Commendatlons MatrIx ExhlbU 9 3.8.0 Tratllelmpacf. There are currently no noted Issues with respect to traffic. Continue to monitor traffic flow within the downtown and the $0 $0 levels of 5BIVlce at principle Intersections as development Ongoing occurs and parking changeS/additions are Implemented. Directing customers and visitors to park In Park Plaza should 3.8.1 Current Parking Overall, there Is a surplus of approximately 1,103 alleviate the parking demand Issues on blocks 2.3 and 12. Anoly.ls parking spaces within the Study Area. However I there The deficits on blocks 9 and 10 should be reduced when First Quarter 2008 $0 $0 are several blocks (2,3,9. 1 O-and 12) that have a deficit, the Social Security office relocates and more people become aware of free parking In Park Plaza. RICH reviewed lots 3,6.9 and 10 to determine the Impact Maintain lot 3 as public perkIng. Developing lots 6,9, and 3.8.2 Potential to the District If Ihese sites were developed. All of the lots 10 should have mlnlmallmpacf. but If the surrounding Parking Impact 01 had moderately high occupancy levels, but lots 6. 9. parking areas cannot absorb the loss of parking consider Ongoing $0 $0 ENAs and 10 had more available surrounding parking to entering Into shared use agreements with exlsflng parking allevIate any Impact due to the loss of parking. lots or develop new parking. 3.8.3 Potenllal Future The future parking needs will depend greatly on Parking Neesd with The Urban Core Specific Plan may hasten redevelopment In the downtown area. If ENA sites are Redevelapment of redevelopment along Third Avenue, causing changes to developed. utilize proceeds from the sale of parking lots for Ongoing $0 $0 third Avenue the parking demand. necessary capital Improvements. The City will need to contInually monitor development and parking needs. 3.8.4 Passlble There is currently no need to construct additional Monitor parking needs and consIder Identified sites for Parking structure parking. Although. RICH did consider potential parking possIble development of parking structures in the future. 11 Ongoing $0 $0 Slles structure sites if needed In the future. necessary. '\ }-i ~ Attachment 3 ~~~ ~ , -..- --- -..- --- ----- ~~......-:;.... CllY OF CHUlA VISTA Downtown Parking District Interim Action Plan ]-- J Ley Attachment 3 DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT 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 additional revenue for capital improvements within the District. Implementation: Work with staff and the community to develop a Downtown Parking District Management Plan including a timeline for capital improvements in the District. Action Time: Fourth Quarter of 2007 #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. Recommendation: 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. Implementation: No changes required at this time. Action Time: Third Quarter of 2007 #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 ~~\3D Attachment 3 declaring that the Parking District is formed and describing the acquisitions and improvements to be made. Action Time: First Quarter of 2008 #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. Recommendation: 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. Implementation: The City Manager will assign an Interim Parking Manager. Action Time: Third Quarter of 2007 #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. !Y- \~ 1 Implementation: Attach ment 3 The Interim Parking Manager will coordinate with the Police Department to ensure coverage Monday through Saturday from 9am to 5 pm. Ongoing coordination and review will occur to determine if additional enforcement is required. The Interim Parking Manager will work with the Finance Department to ensure adequate funding for enforcement hours. Action Time: Fourth Quarter of 2007 #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 are 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. 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 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 be able to repay the Agency within 2 years from the date of installation of the new meters. Action Time: 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. 3- 13 1- Attachment 3 Time Limit Current Rate Prooosed Rate On-street 30 minute meter $0.05 per 10 minutes $0.25 per 30 minutes Token per 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. 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. Action Time: Second Quarter of 2008 #9 PARKING FINES Finding: The City's parking fines are too low and do not discourage parkers from knowingly violating parking regulations. Recommendation: Increase the expired/overtime meter fine from $12 to $25. This proposed rate increase is lower than the $50 fine recommended in the Parking Violation Penalty Schedule, 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. Implementation: 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 ~-I~) Attachment 3 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. Acti on Ti me: Second Quarter of 2008 #10 PASEOS 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. Recommendation: 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. Implementation: 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. Action Time: First Quarter of 2008 #11 Finding: 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. Recommendation: Maintain Lots #3 and #6 as public parking. Implementation: On August 23, 2007, the CVRC approved new Exclusive Negotiating Agreements (ENA) to transfer the development opportunity for CityMark Development LLC from Lot #3 to Lot #2 and Voyage LLC from Lot #6 to Lot #10. Therefore, Lots #3 and #6 and will be maintained as public parking. Action Time: Third Quarter of 2007 3-12>4 Attachment 3 #12 CONDUCT ANNUAL REVIEW Finding: There has been no system establ ished 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 Finding: REPORT OUT TO COMMUNITY 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 to provide general parking information and information specific to 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 Association and the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce and direct contact, such as community meetings and direct mailing. Implementation: 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. Action Time: Fourth Quarter of 2007 '?J.- \ ~5 CVRC Resolution No. 2007- Page 1 CVRC RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACCEPTING THE DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT STUDY AND RECOMMENDING 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 WHEREAS, the Downtown Parking District was established in 1963 pursuant to the Parking District Law of 1951; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Parking District provides more than 1700 public parking spaces through metered and free parking; and WHEREAS, Rich and Associates was engaged by the Redevelopment Agency to conduct a Parking Management Study and began the study process in December 2006; and WHEREAS, the Parking Management Study has been completed and the Final Report outlining the findings of the Study and providing recommendations for modifications to the District has been issued; and WHEREAS, the Parking Management Study determined that significant changes should occur in the area of management and operations of the District; and WHEREAS, a Downtown Parking Interim Action Plan has been presented outlining 13 recommendations to address those areas of management and operations of the District; and 611~ l CVRC Resolution No. 2007- Page 2 WHEREAS, the future preparation of a Downtown Parking Management Plan is necessary to provide a long-term strategy for the District; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation does hereby accept the Downtown Parking Management Study and recommends 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. Presented by: Ann Hix Acting Director of Community Development ~ ~ ~ ').... . .. CVRC Board Staff Report - Page 1 Item No. 4 CORPORATlm; CHUL/\ VISTA DATE: September 27, 2007 CVRC Board Directors ~ "',;d R. G.~;., Ch;" E,,,,,",;" Offi"" ~" Ann Hix, Acting Community Development Director~"" Amanda Mills, Housing Manager@) TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE SALE OF SPACE 118 AT ORANGE TREE MOBILEHOME PARK BACKGROUND: In November 1987, Orange Tree Mobilehome Park converted to resident ownership. The Agency assisted residents in purchasing their park with a $600,000 acquisition loan, which was converted to loans for lower income residents to help them purchase spaces they had been renting. At that time, 29 residents either did not wish to or could not afford to purchase their mobilehome spaces. The Redevelopment Agency agreed to purchase the remaining spaces after the newly-formed homeowner's association was unable to secure the financing to purchase them. The Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing Set-aside Fund was used to purchase the remaining spaces. Residents who did not purchase their space remained as renters in the Park. It was also the Agency's intent to sell these remaining spaces as new mobilehome buyers moved into the park, or to sell the spaces to the current residents when they were in the position to buy. Over the last 19 years, 24 spaces have been sold. Proceeds from the sales have been deposited in the Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing Set- aside Fund. Only five spaces remain in Agency ownership. The current resident renting Space 118 has submitted an offer to purchase. The property is located in Orange Tree Mobilehome Park at 521 Orange Avenue. A\ - \ Staff Report - Item No. ~ Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subjected to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation adopt a resolution recommending that the Redevelopment Agency authorize the Community Development Director to execute a purchase contract and related documents for Space 118 at Orange Tree Mobilehome Park. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the CVRC Board and members and has found no property holdings within SOO-feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. DISCUSSION: On August 27, 2007, Celia Virginia Camacho and Edward John Camacho Jr. submitted an offer to the Community Development Department to purchase Space 118 for $43,000. The land value of the property has been appraised at $43,000. Staff will recommend that the Agency accept the offer of $43,000, because of the Agency's desire to sell the spaces and goals of fostering permanent housing opportunities for low and moderate income residents. Staff believes that the proposed sale is appropriate because the sales price is consistent with the fair market value of the property. This is for recommendation that the Redevelopment Agency authorize the Community Development Director to execute a purchase contract and related documents as approved by the City Attorney's office for the sale of Space 118 at Orange Tree Mobilehome Park. California Health and Safety Code, Article 11, Section 33431 requires a public hearing to consider a sale of agency-owned property without public bids. A public hearing is scheduled for October 2, 2007. ~/~ Staff Report - Item No. ~ Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT: Proceeds of the sale, less the estimated closing costs of approximately $800, will be deposited into the Agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Set-aside Fund for further use in providing affordable housing programs within the City. PREPARED BY: Stacey Kurz, Senior Community Development Specialist ~ --- :? CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHO~ZE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A "REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT", AND RELATED DOCUMENTS FOR THE SALE OF SPACE 118 AT ORANGE TREE MOBILEHOME PARK WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency currently owns mobilehome spaces at Orange Tree Mobilehome Park located at 521 Orange Avenue, Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, an offer to purchase space 118 at Orange Tree Mobilehome Park has been received by the Community Development Department for $43,000; and WHEREAS, the land value has been appraised at $43,000; and WHEREAS, this sale will meet the Agency's goals of fostering permanent housing opportunities for low and moderate income residents; and WHEREAS, Article 11, Section 33431 of the Health and Safety Code requires a public hearing be held for any sale or lease of Agency-owned property without public bids; and WHEREAS, said public hearing has been set for October 2, 2007, pursuant to Section 33431 for the sale of space 118 at Orange Tree Mobilehome Park; and WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation has found and determined that the sale of space 118 at Orange Tree Mobilehome Park to the buyer, on the terms proposed is for fair value under the circumstances, is in the best interest of the Redevelopment Agency, and is consistent with its housing goals; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Action (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation recommends that the Redevelopment Agency authorize the Community Development Director to execute a "Real Estate Purchase Contract" and related documents for the sale of Space 118 at Orange Tree Mobilehome Park. PRESENTED BY APPROVED AS TO FORM BY Ann Hix Acting Community Development Director ~"~~ ~gen ~~unsel -4 A-\ C:\Documents and Settings\cherylp\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK7E\Orange Tree Lot 118. eYRe Reso.doc . .. CVRC Board Staff Report - Page 1 Item No. 5 CORPO!\t\TIO~~ CHUL/\ \/!STt\ DATE: September 27, 2007 FROM: CVRC Board Directors ~ ( O..;d R. G.~;., Ch;" h~",i.. Offiw ~~ Ann Hix, Acting Community Development Dlrector~ Eric Crockett, Redevelopment Manager@) TO: VIA: SUBJECT: PRE-SUBMITTAL REVIEW FOR 248 CHURCH AVENUE SUMMARY: Action Pre-Submittal Project Review: Early CVRC input to developer and staff on design aspects of development proposal. No formal action/decision. Developer/ Voyage LLC Applicant Project Summary Location 248 Church Avenue (Church Ave & Davidson St) Site 13,856 sf / City-Owned Public Parking Lot UCSP V-1 Subdistrict Project Area Town Centre I Product Type lO-Unit Residential Townhome Project RAC #1 Public input received on September 6, 2007. Function Project Elements Rules & Regulations CVRC Functions Redevelopment ENA ./ DDNOPA ./ Cal. Redev. Law ./ Planning GPA CUP General Plan Rezone Variance Zoning Code UCSP Design Review DRC I UCDP 1./ Design Manual Landscape Manual UCSP ./ Environmental Exemption I Initial Study ./ CEQA Guidelines ./ ND/MND EIR 5-\ Staff Report - Item No. 2- Page 2 BACKGROUND: The 248 Church Avenue development proposal is for ten townhomes on an approximately 13,856 square foot City-owned parcel (see Attachment 1) in the urban core. The preliminary proposal for this site is presented by Voyage, LLC (VDeveloperH). The Developer has requested an early review by the CVRC prior to formal submittal of an application with the City for an Urban Core Development Permit. The purpose of this pre- submittal review is to provide the Developer and project staff an opportunity to receive early technical input from CVRC Directors on the design of the project, using the Board's professional expertise and background to ensure high quality development. Tonight's presentation is an informational item and does not require any action by the CVRC members. A thorough review of the entire project wi'1I be conducted by city staff subsequent to formal project submittal, and the project will come back to the CVRC prior to final consideration. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Site The project at 248 Church Avenue will occupy approximately 13,856 square feet at the northwest corner of Davidson Street and Church Avenue. The site is flat, and has direct access to the alley between Church Avenue and Third Avenue. The property currently serves as a public parking lot with 34 parking spaces. The Setting The site is located just one block east of the Third Avenue Village - the heart of downtown Chula Vista. Future residents will be within walking distance of a growing selection of shops, restaurants and community-oriented businesses. The Chula Vista Center regional shopping mall is within a mile, as is the Civic Center which includes City Hall, the Main Library, the Police Station and other public facilities. The site is also close to regional bus lines, freeway ramps and regional bicycle routes. It lies within the V-1 (East Village) subdistrict of the Urban Core Specific Plan (VUCSP") and within the Town Centre I redevelopment project area. Objectives for the redevelopment plan for Town Centre I include the encouragement of residential units in the urban core and the reorientation of the people of Chula Vista to their downtown. 1:;/1-- Staff Report - Item No. ...L Page 3 Existing land Uses, General Plan Designation and Urban Core subdistrict designations of the subject site and adjacent properties are as follows: Existing Land Uses General Plan UCSP Subdistrict Designation Site Public Parking Lot Mixed-Use Res. V- 1 North Multi-family Residential Mixed-Use Res. V- 1 East Professional Office Mixed-Use Res. V- 1 South Public Parking Lot Mixed-Use Res. V- 1 West Commercial/Retai I Mixed-Use Res. V-2 Additional land use information is provided in Attachment 3. The Proposal The proposal being presented to the CVRC (see Attachment 2) is for the construction of 10 townhomes and 16 garage parking spaces. The homes are three stories and up to 45' in height. Massing - The primary objective of appropriate building massing is to minimize the potential impact to surrounding land uses. In this case, the proposed project is a less intense land use than the majority of its neighbors, but the design is still considerate in terms of site design and potential for noise and light impacts to the residential buildings to the north and east. The single family homes to the east have all been converted to multi-family, commercial or office uses, so any impact from the proposed project would be minimal. Open Space - Open space is a challenge in any urban residential project. The Developer is proposing a unique solution in this case, with roof-top decks. The decks will be able to catch the prevailing breezes, possibly providing views to the San Diego Bay to the west and to the mountains to the east. Pedestrian-Orientation - The town homes on Church Avenue will have front doors, stoops and small landscaped areas on the street. The project is open and inviting, offering easy access with an interior drive aisle and pedestrian connections through the site to the alley. Each of the homes will be designed with the option of live/work use. These homes can be adapted to be accessible to pedestrians coming from the street or the alley. Vehicular Access - Vehicular access is minimized, with only one curb cut on Church Avenue. With so many urban amenities within walking distance, residents should be encouraged to make fewer trips in their cars and generate less traffic. 5-) Staff Report - Item No. ....L Page 4 Parking - The parking required for this project is 1.5 parking spaces per unit, plus 1 guest parking space for the ten units. The total parking spaces required for 10 units is 16, and the project will provide 16. Any additional parking needs could be met with the public parking lots to the north and to the south of the subject site. The 34 parking spaces presently existing on site will not be replaced. The downtown parking study shows a surplus of parking in this area, and two adjacent lots (one to the north and one directly to the south) will remain. Trash and utilities - Trash will be stored in individual containers and taken to the alley on designated pick-up days. Utilities will be individually metered for each home. UCSP Development Standards and Design Guidelines As noted above, this site is located within the Urban Core Specific Plan's V-1 subdistrict. Development regulations for the area limit the building height to 45 feet, with a maximum floor area ratio of 2.0 and maximum lot coverage of 90 percent. The open space requirement is 200' square feet per unit. The UCSP's Village District Design Guidelines encourages medium-density residential land use that could include live/work units, to support pedestrian-oriented activity. The guidelines also note, 'New creative interpretations of traditional design variables are particularly encouraged. " The Developer envisions this site as a unique opportunity to create a new residential building form in Chula Vista's urban core. The location and context of this project are exciting - book-ended by a broad range of interesting architectural styles along Third Avenue and the beautiful historic homes on Del Mar Avenue. There is a lot of character in this area. The Developer is studying the various building designs through photographic surveys and walking the streets, sidewalks and paseos of Chula Vista's downtown to get a feeling for what is here, ensuring the proposed project will tie-in and complement its surroundings. AGREEMENTS: The Developer entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (August 2007) with the CVRC on August 23, 2007. Under the terms of that agreement, the Developer will negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement ('DON) with the Redevelopment Agency. The CVRC will review the DDA, making a recommendation to the Agency for final consideration. 1 Urban Core Specific Plan, Chapter VII Design Guidelines, April 2007. '5-~ Staff Report - Item No. ....L Page 5 NEXT STEPS: The Developer is looking forward to receiving input and feedback from the eYRC on the conceptual designs. Taking all the input and feedback into consideration, revisions will be made where feasible and plans submitted for City staff review and comment. The developer will return to the eYRC for the presentation of the DDA, as well as for a recommendation prior to final consideration of the project (Urban Core Development Permit). DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the eYRC Members and has found that a conflict exists, in that eYRC Board Member Salas has property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the Church and Davidson site, which is the subject of this action. FISCAL IMPACTS: No formal eYRC action or decision is being taken at this time. Staff anticipates that the project will generate approximately $30,000 per year in gross tax increment, resulting in approximately $6,000 in Affordable Housing Set-Aside Funds, $6,000 in pass-through revenues to schools and the County, and $18,000 to the Redevelopment Agency for redevelopment activities (e.g., projects, public improvements, administration, debt service). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: locator Map Site Plan Surrounding land Uses ENA Timeline PREPARED BY: Janice Kluth, Senior Community Development Specialist 2 Based on assumed propetyvalueof$3,OOO,OOO 6 -.5 Atta h C ment I EB:J: Ii: o z Commercial Commercial i A~rtment Building Office Building Davidson Street Pub lie Architecture and Planning 4441 Park Btvd. San Diego, CA 92116 www.publicdigital.com ?: ... ll> ,- S- a to = ... N Parking Lot Apartment Building Attachment 3 248 Church Avenue ... ~ ~ ,s,lft- 1l! + ~- - o 'i' ~ ~ Attachment 4 Voyage, LLC EXHIBIT "B" Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Timeline MILES10NE DESCRIPTION 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 ENA 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 subm its fi nal 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 Submittal/Completeness 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 CVRe Hearing Redevelopment Presentation of DDA to Agency and/or Council for final review and consideration. Agency / City Cou nci I 5-'\ 1 . .. CVRC Board Staff Report - Page 1 Item No. 6 CORPO!\/\ TIO:-< CHUL/\ \,/: , " DATE: September 27, 2007 FROM: CVRC Board Directors ~ David R. Garcia, Chief Executive Officer ~~ Ann Hix, Acting Community Development Director ~ Eric Crockett, Redevelopment Manager QJ TO: VIA: SUBJECT: INFORMATION UPDATE ON THE SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY STRENGTHENING STRATEGIES BACKGROUND: On May 24, 2007, the CVRC received a comprehensive presentation from staff on the 2007 Midterm Review of the Agency's Five Year Implementation Plan. A key highlight of that presentation was the introduction of a proposed work program toward a community building and outreach effort in Southwest Chula Vista. As described by staff, the Community Strengthening Strategies would provide an important foundation for all future City activities in the Southwest, including redevelopment. This report is an information update to the CVRC on the Southwest Community Strengthening Strategies Work Program, including initial steps that City staff has taken to date, and the introduction of the consulting firm that has been selected and hired to assist Southwest community partners in designing a process for community building. RECOMMENDATION: Information update - No action is required. DISCUSSION: The Southwest is one of the oldest sections of the community, and a late annexation to the City in 1985. Considerable portions of the infrastructure require updating. It was an area targeted in both the General Plan and Redevelopment Agency Five Year Implementation Plan for change, reinvestment and further specific planning. From a social perspective, many in the Southwest community feel a need for a stronger civic voice that overcomes linguistic and cultural barriers and draws attention to their unique needs. The Southwest ~--\ Staff Report - Item No. ~ Page 2 Community Strengthening Strategies, modeled on civic engagement and neighborhood improvement efforts conducted in other communities across the country, will be an initial step in a long partnership effort to improve life quality in this portion of Chula Vista. The Southwest Community Strengthening Strategies will endeavor to: . Partner with residents, businesses, property owners, non-profit organizations, schools, faith-based organizations, and other government agencies . Identify and achieve common goals in Southwest Chula Vista . Pursue broad community building efforts . Address community issues comprehensively . Improve quality of life for residents . Attract and leverage resources. To facilitate these objectives, City staff has taken the following initial steps toward launching the Southwest Community Strengthening Strategies (SCSS). . Designed a community building strategy, focused on process and partnerships rather than any specific outcome. . Developed a contact list of potential early partners and learning from them about the work being accomplished in the Southwest through existing organizations and institutions. . Prepared a grant application for the Department of Toxic Substances for additional funds to support the SWCCS. . Compiled thematic mapped data for the City and Southwest to illustrate some of the issues that have arisen in the early partner outreach. Please visit www.chulavistaca.gov/redevelopment and click on HLinks and Resources" to access this data. Another key first step was attending a National League of Cities Roundtable Forum in Indianapolis with a delegation of staff, community members, and a City Councilmember. Chula Vista was invited to apply to the National League of Cities' Roundtable on Building Equitable Communities based on its innovative approach to strengthening partnerships and engaging the community in Southwest Chula Vista. Chula Vista was selected, and learned how cities have successfully built upon community assets and used strong city-community partnerships to leverage resources, build community, and improve civic engagement. In addition to these activities, staff cooperatively worked with key community partners to solicit proposals for a consultant to assist in the work program. After a competitive process, the firm of Moore lacafano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) was selected by a panel of staff and community members to facilitate meetings, provide process management assistance and provide tools and methods for community building over the next 9 to 12 month period. A representative of MIG will be present at the September 27 CVRC meeting to ~ --J-.... Staff Report - Item No. ~ Page 3 present their qualifications and an overview of the process we are prepared to launch. Over the coming months, our goal will be to establish community priorities and common agendas with the various sectors that comprise the Southwest community. Among other outcomes, this process is intended to result in community-led efforts that will allow stakeholders to network and leverage resources and assets toward community strengthening. This process will also provide a platform for developing cooperative partnerships and processes for a future Southwest Specific Plan(s), infrastructure management plan(s), and other community improvement proIJams. FISCAL IMPACT: As part of the FY 2007-08 budget process, the CVRC and Redevelopment Agency authorized a $50,000 budget for the Southwest Community Strengthening Strategies Work Program. No additional funding is being requested at this time. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT: Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision. PREPARED BY, Nancy Lytle, Process Improvement Manager, Planning and Building Sarah Johnson, Community Development Specialist t.pr'~