|
1
|
|
|
2
|
- Initial Conclusions
- Parking Assumptions – March ‘07
- Existing Parking Requirements
- Current Conditions
- Near-Term Projections
- Long-Term Projections
- Strategies in Other Cities
|
|
3
|
|
|
4
|
- Existing Specific Plan is progressive by reducing parking requirements
in Old Town
- No near-term shortage of parking (5-10 years)
- No recommended changes to Specific Plan to increase parking requirements
in Old Town both near-term and long-term
- Need to develop comprehensive parking strategy to increase parking
supply in the long-term
|
|
5
|
|
|
6
|
- February - Conducted counts and surveys
- March through May - Estimated future parking demand and concluded there
was no shortage of existing parking
- Parking deficiency projected at build out
- 3.5 Million square foot build out
- 4,000-6,000 new parking spaces needed for commercial and office
|
|
7
|
- Assumptions of build out too aggressive
- Refined through massing study and economic analysis
- Overall square footage was high based on existing zoning
- Assumption for residential development too low
- Parking ratios assumed too high for actual demand
- 1,500 non-residential spaces more realistic
|
|
8
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
11
|
- Parking requirement for mixed-use developments
- One space per residential unit screened from public view
- No requirement for commercial or office
|
|
12
|
- The Specific Plan is progressive by removing many parking requirements
in certain parts of Old Town, and should not change
- Flexible approach in that developers can build spaces if they want
|
|
13
|
|
|
14
|
- Conducted occupancy counts earlier this year
- Weekday and weekend
- 55% on weekday peak (Noon)
- 65% on weekend peak (1 p.m. on Saturday)
|
|
15
|
- Currently 1,350 parking spaces in Old Town
- Public on-street (35%), public off-street (27%), and private off-street
spaces (38%)
- No fee or time restrictions for public parking
|
|
16
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
20
|
- Conducted surveys of visitors and employees
- F&P developed surveys
- F&P trained City staff to administer surveys
- Surveys administered by City staff and City trained volunteers
- F&P observed survey process
- F&P coded data
|
|
21
|
- Surveyed over 200 visitors on Thursday and Saturday
- 11 a.m. – 2 p.m. on Thursday
- 10 a.m. – 2 p.m. on Saturday
- 60% parked in on-street spaces
- 86% had no problem finding a parking space
- 50% walked 2 blocks or less
- Few people said parking was a problem
- 50% said they were willing to pay for parking
|
|
22
|
|
|
23
|
- City staff distributed surveys to various Old Town businesses
- Surveyed 50 employees of various businesses
- All drove to work
- 98% parked within 1 block of destination
- 60% parked in private off-street lots
- 90% said they were willing to pay for parking
- Some respondents noted that there were problems finding parking
|
|
24
|
- Sufficient parking on a regular basis (parking supply)
- Sometimes parking not always available at a particular spot based on
surveys
|
|
25
|
|
|
26
|
- Developments under construction in Old Town
- Several new projects being reviewed as part of the pre-application
process
- Some projects have built/are building their own parking
- 3 of last 5 projects approved provide parking
- City Hall with 488 space parking garage opening
- Large increase in parking supply with some increase in demand
- New garage will especially help with weekend and evening events
|
|
27
|
- 488 spaces (all public)
- 200 spaces projected demand for City Hall use during the weekday
business hours
- 100 spaces projected demand for new retail associated with Civic Center
- 188 spaces surplus spaces above projected demand for Civic Center
|
|
28
|
- Parking supply is sufficient to meet needs for the next 10 years based
on preferred build out scenario
- May experience shortages during large events or at selected locations
- May need more detailed planning
- No immediate action needed, but development of long-term comprehensive
parking strategy recommended now
|
|
29
|
|
|
30
|
- Development will continue within Old Town
- Future development will be mixed-use
- Projecting ½ of development will be residential, ½ non-residential
- 25,000 – 50,000 s.f. of new development per year
|
|
31
|
- Current demand is less than 2 spaces per 1,000 s.f.
- Typical range of downtown areas is 1-2 spaces per 1,000 s.f.
- Santa Monica & Pasadena demand is in this range
- Four spaces per 1,000 s.f. is a typical suburban rate at a stand alone
development
- Not applicable in a mixed-use environment
|
|
32
|
- Aiming to reach 85% occupancy
- Standard applied throughout US
- Ensures that some spaces are available (1-2 on a typical block)
- In some cities it is tied to regulatory action (Redwood City, Salem)
- 85% occupancy could be reached in 7-10 years
- More likely that 85% occupancy will be reached in 10-15 years and
parking supply will need to be increased
|
|
33
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
35
|
- Pasadena
- Santa Monica
- Riverside
- Ventura
- Benicia
- Salem, Oregon
|
|
36
|
|
|
37
|
- Require private parking be available for public use after hours
- Time limits for on-street spaces
- Off-site parking
- Travel demand management
- Parking charges to manage parking availability and provide revenue
stream
|
|
38
|
|