HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda: Study Session B: Downtown Parking Study Status Report `.ofF°n°
C., Op! 17
11=sf°ion
{u
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
DATE: November 15, 2011
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director
Philip A. Wray, Deputy Director of Development Services/City Engineer9N
Prepared by: Linda Hui, Transportation Services Manager
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY STATUS REPORT
Recommendation: Information
SUMMARY
In March 2011, the Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with Walker
Parking Consultants for a Downtown Parking Study. The parking study is well
underway. Walker Parking Consultants, in coordination with Development Services
staff, has conducted field surveys, an online user preference survey, two downtown
community meetings, and a preliminary parking analysis. The purpose of this report is
to provide the Council a status update of the study before developing final
recommendations.
BACKGROUND
The City's recent General Plan Update combined with Gold Line Foothill Extension
project activities has brought a renewed focus on planning and development in the
downtown area. It is anticipated that the updated General Plan and the Gold Line
extension will result in growth and/or changes of use in the downtown area. While the
City has an intact downtown area, complete with public right of way improvements,
attractive streetscapes, and public parking lots, the area needs additional attention to
prepare for new uses and growth. In order to allow for potential changes in the downtown
area, the City decided to assess current parking conditions and needs, and to develop
potential management policy and recommendations to ensure parking resources are
meeting needs now and in the future. On March 15, 2011, the Council approved a
contract with Walker Parker Consultants to conduct the downtown parking study.
Staff Report
November 15, 2011
Page 2
PROJECT UPDATE
The parking study was initiated in April 2011 with a study scope that includes the
following tasks: the review of existing conditions and data, community outreach, analysis
of parking demand, use, and effectiveness of existing parking resources, and
development of recommendations for future growth.
During the months of June and July, the consultant team conducted several field surveys
of both private and public parking within the project area (see attached map). The field
surveys included parking inventory, occupancy counts and parking turnover analysis.
The field survey results show that there are a total of 3,232 parking spaces in the
downtown project area, of which 46% were occupied at the peak time (weekday at 11
AM). The 46% peak occupancy in Downtown Arcadia is comparable with some similar
downtowns such as Glendora (47%) and Camarillo (49%); however it is significantly lower
than other more active downtowns such as Pasadena (57%), Culver City (62%), etc.
During the same peak hour, 65% of the parked cars were there for a longer term (two
hours or more).
In addition, an online survey was conducted to obtain comments from downtown
business/property owners and users, and the general public. The survey asked
participants their experience with the downtown businesses and parking, the type of
activities they would like to see in Downtown Arcadia, as well as whether paying for
parking would be a trade off they were willing to make for a more active downtown. The
survey was posted on the City's website and advertised through the Chamber of
Commerce and Arcadia's Best websites. A total of 160 respondents completed the
survey. The online survey results highlighted that more intense commercial uses such as
retail shops and restaurants were picked as desirable future uses in the downtown area.
Property assessments for parking and paid parking (meters) were picked as the least
desirable funding mechanisms for parking. Most respondents noted that parking in the
downtown area was adequate now but, clearly, if more intense uses locate in the area
over time, additional parking measures will be necessary.
The City, in coordination with the Arcadia Downtown Business Association, has held two
public meetings. The first meeting, held in May 2011, was to introduce the parking
study's goals and objectives to the downtown community and to allow the community to
express their experience with parking. At the second meeting held in September, the
downtown community was given an update on the parking study including survey results
and preliminary analysis.
In general, the results of field analysis and the survey show that, if viewed as a shared
parking district, parking is adequate to support current use levels. However, there is a
desire for more active uses and more development which will bring pressure on parking
resources. The current levels of parking demand do not justify paid parking; however, in
Staff Report
November 15, 2011
Page 3
order to allow for change of uses and additional new development, and also to ensure
long term maintenance of public parking, the existing parking supply needs to be
managed effectively. The consultant team has identified potential management
mechanisms including parking zoning credit and in-lieu fee programs for further analysis.
Currently, the consultant team is analyzing potential parking impacts of new uses and
development projected by the General Plan Update. A separate analysis is being
conducted on the impact of the Gold Line Extension to the downtown area. In addition,
the consultant team is looking into potentially redesigning the City's parking lot located at
Wheeler Avenue/Indiana Street for more efficiency of use and access. Once the draft
report is completed, staff plans to hold another public meeting to share with and obtain
feedback from the community prior to the project being presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council provide comments and unless directed otherwise,
staff will continue to work on the study, and bring the final policy document to the
Council for final approval.
Approved By: �R^""'•it''"'
Donald Penman, City Manager
JK:PAW:LH:pa
Attachment: Project Area Map and Project Update
r,/,
i
M1 c4,J
''. " ,T f,,,'le . ' ; , ."1 _, fk r.
� _ ,,r -I a , ,
. ''''':,1 I r f
i +� .ma y ' a. •11 I''''''t . ... r
ia.) w3 .*.- - t - odihr , solivfflizi4 , ii .: ' - 1,43* c I z , . 4 el AI +,; 0 , Ai
s Jr i it .4 s r 1 R.
V �
, co U
4 1 . 04, 11 i ,.... ag . eltia.. ... ., E : '' ' 44,1 .1 , A '-,t,
c
fr
Lows , , , y�
IS/11 s r�. ' 'may f'- f 'wfi^". •T ..... .f.
i ,„, /4g7 ' %. 1.:-,1,4' -// " 'rte `""`°``.1 40
ii, �t9y'.. ,/ ,,,,J
�
.__. ,,,
, - �;_ ■ ' ,t. >{ t f 77
,�a9cs� y; "4 r
'.Y.f * s , . ' ?- •S- per`
5_ _-. c, f •p y'
, . i M .... *_ f + At r a 111"'
1, Jill I 4 t . 'Ali '"r''
Lit' 0 —
,
t
111..
p
Tri° f
z
:,,,iS
I W'
E
. 0,'w ;a F- ri, ..,■ 10
co 0
-10 10
0 , ,
a ° IA N>1
0 ti C14°
U
} L
CIN
a
d �, fl
et
_ /
s
CIO
'
CD
lka
L �. ��y�' fAtt .:
CO
a. r..
c
._ .
3
.....
o
,,,„,„,--00.. *i., . , , cy,_a,* Er,. ,.. ... g., ._. ,.. 1
c, .. ..., ,.......
lir
OP
3 F e i
0
x
� erA
CO 4
O M O) CO u, CA up O O ill C(I CA co v. ti M cy
4a M O) T— O) v ti CO ti O) 1— CO 00
!O N N C(� C70 N
Cr)
CU
0 yy1�..+ OD M 'fit M In N O N- O CO CO O
CO CO e- N O) r e- CO CO LO CO Cn M CD Nr Lc) M d..
O N
n.
CU
w
.V CO N e-
O
N M
44 -12
w
O a
to
d
CD
asia' irr' I, O O e— °r CO CO CO f` LO CO OD N
0 6 N N Cn CA r- N CV r 0 N N N e- N N
0 0
C O '
i '6 �L C e.
li. N M n�,t
o C O
�w
C0 O :14: t N! .M 1 n 5 CO{ �0 a _ , ,,-,a) Z & f Y ,t . ,,,,i ,•im ,ae0,v M @' r ..-,.F `' . �, �ID 5� , ^ • ti- V.te
a
e
• vii•
q ,
• 5. ' ".. ' s''',-' •• , " 1 .:', , ' '' " ; 3. , -:,.*'-•
, 8, wii..„,.., , .,.... i , r,,, It va, # ,....,,
elk lill
IA L
$, s= ' 1 4a _ •••• yy ''
*r
. , i ;, -illi lio ,,,,..:. . ..„.... ,...,„„ ,, .... .....
.�
,
, !,,,,
...._
z,,+ l __♦,.._- orb if'
it ` - 1
y Sgp y
A
o N
CO - CU U
N . to C f 0) Q L
N N
CD C 0 U O N C
U ° +r O a) o co N cm = a o +r v O .L E .L Q. V Q J 0 O� E -0 Q N Q = O L % O O N Ca X U ) U)y- 1 O O W O O O .4 C +-, _ 0 O O) O) � .0 U o 0D) � U) V C) .� U
0 — Ci, o = o �, °' "CC21-t1"1,.-C.
� c� � 00 u) a. m "0 oo v a '0 a. I I C
D • •
t
cr ., . ,
U - R
0 J 4 . -:,ti f 4,-, 1 - - -=-
N r�
. > r"
'H` 1,n +m 1 ^' T -, t
;! -.. r I. ■
1 N ` It
olt - in
A ' , *a - .
, : , - . ,,,..:,,,,i..„; : , , ............„. ..4 ........ _....,.... i , - ,:,
mr
11 r r K
E .a
' C .».», Z
I i.10� I 0
'IA'� t r Z V o Ln l.D N 0000
. .: 1 LY f0 ' 1 I I +
u�I N 0 0 00 Ln
�, - ,• „„ d .. s . ,� J * V b tD $ 01
U
0 v- N- Z - co
O d. CO CO CO CO co CO CO CO
-�-- c
-v v V V V V V
C nfl
a a a a a a a
U 0
C
U �
U
C CO O.
O =
0
Cl (L3 CN'• 0
a) •w
as ( 0 0 0 0 0
U a)
O eL L-
a)
0 -
0 co J
.� a) a) �c >,
L. p " o V � p ca _o
U CO L -
Q. ca a) 7 z V �C c° .CO o
CL c > N ( a E ) >
= O v C/) O aQ 0 co 0 < z
V
S
rrr.
C
22 E
= a) 2
U ?
•
' cm
c o
c
co o_
L a)
Q c o y 2 Ti
:2 >1 O U
v) cT3 as c L... cm as a) cm
p 07
Fi S2 c a E � E O
Q. g �A U a) o O cm O a)
O v a) C a - o Q_
I. O ca o N a) a) a)
c O ° C
1 a) .—c a) •C .0 CO
C D TA co - N O c 0 C
a) I- O O E (13 O *Co
LL -0 a) a) O as Q
c D) E Zr) ,a) Q .0 L x
45 m e- 0) Cr) CO 2 0
>,
a) v) cn U a. 2
6 • •
• 0 0
4
_>
Q
•
a) a) •
-0 > L p al
cu
Ea) o LO -C
� -�
O 4) cco `C) o c O
o cm-
_ v) c0 '+r Q
Q)
U T. o G 7) v)
cti O a) co c
Cr tL
.c ti -a >,
• N O 0 a
Q O c O N p N . .4_,
A ca. '- a) O a) c
O) 0 .(7) Q O •E 2 t? =
c E . =
>1 L
0 u),L
" E c.) a) 0- _ a) a)
O •0 2 a � O ce w
Q_ O CD p, a)
U a) c _ x E (r) cn
U a) o O O- p O O
.. O
U 5 a) O O O
m
• O O O O O C C E }' O Co O N CO 2 O o E V) '
.5 0 tj x c/) 7
co 0 ,4e W - Q L c • * 4
S a S
0
L
d)
•L C)
C -
0
cn
C •O
V7
Q.
c o
�-- 11) cu
> J d)
V) C L
1
73 CM+� c
a) 4-.7,0 C
,O �
O Q
Z -0 O L a
D) O O
t6 C
5 C
C 0 • 0
U 0 A=
41- U (+� .�
0 0 N -
E 0 N a) 0
C �' U -C
N 0 C N L "
11 D.. Q 0
• e •