HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1March 13, 2012
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
In April of 2011, Walker Parking Consultants, in coordination with Development
Services staff, initiated a Downtown Parking Study. The study included field surveys,
an online user preference survey, three downtown community meetings, parking
analyses, and policy recommendations. A draft study report has been completed.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the policy recommendations
set forth in the Draft Downtown Arcadia Parking Study report and provide directives for
implementation of these policy recommendations. The final Study report along with the
Planning Commission's action will be presented to the City Council at a later date for
approval.
Development Services Department
Arcadia Planning Commission
Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Develop ent Services Director3tk
By: Linda Hui, Transportation Services Manager
Downtown Arcadia Parking Study Draft Report
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 use changes 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 Parking Consultants to conduct the downtown parking study.
The parking study was initiated in April 2011 with a study scope that included 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. The consultant team conducted
several field surveys of both private and public parking within the project area and an
online survey, held three public meetings, and performed parking analyses. Based on the
surveys, public comments and parking analyses, the Study recommends implementation
of a set of policies to manage future parking demand in the downtown area, enhance
Downtown economic development, improve funding for public parking, and improve
parking efficiency.
DISCUSSION
The report starts with an overview of current conditions in the Downtown area.
Questions regarding how much supply, supply location, and peak period demand are
addressed. The next section highlights results of an online survey issued in June 2011
and provides insights regarding parking user groups, behavior and preference. Once
the background is in place, the report addresses how the parking situation may change
over time. New development and the Gold Line station are considered as part of this
discussion. Next is a discussion of how to fund future parking changes. Finally, the
report concludes with a set of recommendations for addressing the parking situation in
Downtown Arcadia over time.
During the months of June and July, the consultant team conducted several field surveys
of both private and public parking within the project area. 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 748 (23 %) are public spaces and the remaining 2,484 (76 %) are private. At the
peak (weekday at 11 AM), 46% of parking spaces within the project area were occupied,
which is considered to be low. Businesses and activities north of Huntington Drive within
the project area seem to enjoy the close proximity and availability of the public Tots in
Parking Districts 1 and 2. However, the area along First Avenue south of Huntington
Drive faces some challenges due to its distance from the public parking lots and lack of
coordination among owners of the private lots.
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
online survey results highlighted that more intense commercial uses such as retail shops
and restaurants were viewed as desirable future uses in the downtown area. Property
assessments for parking and paid parking (meters) were chosen as the least desirable
funding mechanisms for parking. Most respondents noted that parking in the downtown
area is currently adequate, but clearly, if more intense uses locate in the area over time,
additional parking measures will be necessary.
The primary findings show that, if parking is viewed as a shared resource throughout the
study area, the existing parking supply is adequate to support current use levels.
However, there is a desire for more active uses and more development, which will bring
Draft Downtown Arcadia Parking Study Report
March 13, 2012 — page 2
pressure on parking resources. The current levels of parking demand do not justify paid
parking; however, in 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 current conditions represent an inefficient use of resources, but also an opportunity;
businesses need parking spaces to conduct business, attract patrons, and satisfy code
requirements. Downtown Arcadia already has much of this resource available to offer
businesses. The City is also looking for methods by which to fund maintenance and
improvements for the existing public parking facilities. Based on these considerations,
the following recommendations were proposed:
1. Establish a parking credit program by which property owners may pay a monthly
or annual fee per required parking space for the purpose of satisfying its tenants'
or business' parking requirements in the most efficient and inexpensive manner
possible.
2. Identify a pool of publicly available parking that can reasonably satisfy parking
demand generated by the customers and employees of users of the parking
credit program.
3. Reauthorize the City's Parking Assessment Districts.
4. If demand for Gold Line commuter parking exceeds that which the planned Gold
Line parking structure can accommodate, issue and sell a limited number of
monthly and daily all -day parking permits for commuters in selected public
parking locations as a way to manage and control parking demand in the
Downtown area as well as generate revenue for the City.
5. Create a dedicated parking fund within the City's general fund to ensure that at
least a portion of parking revenue generated in the Downtown areas is dedicated
to covering costs in the District including parking maintenance, operations and
capital improvements as well as other Downtown improvements if needed.
6. Monitor, manage, enforce, and adjust as necessary, time limits for public parking
spaces, particularly in popular on- street locations, so as to maximize the
efficiency of the parking system and ensure the availability of (on- street)
customer parking.
7. Eliminate a portion of the 46 30- minute spaces in the Parking District 2 parking
lot. The on- street spaces that are subject to 24- minute time limits should be
eliminated as well. As demand for parking in Downtown Arcadia increases in the
future, there will likely be a need for more time - restricted spaces and greater
enforcement.
8. Consider specific parking planning and management measures for the First
Avenue commercial area south of Huntington Drive owing to its more challenging
Draft Downtown Arcadia Parking Study Report
March 13, 2012 — page 3
access to the downtown's public parking Tots north of Huntington Drive and the
denser nature of these blocks. These measures should focus on sharing
underutilized, privately owned parking lots between businesses and encouraging
employee parking in underutilized parking lots in the area to make the more
convenient on- street parking available to customers.
9. Improve signage for the purpose of more effectively communicating the location
of parking available to the public.
Once the Study report is approved by both the Planning Commission and the City
Council, staff will work toward implementing policies that are appropriate and feasible,
and that address the recommendations above. The Planning Commission will be
presented any items that require the Commission's approval as recommendations are
implemented overtime.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider the policy recommendations
set forth in the Draft Downtown Arcadia Parking Study report and provide any directives
for implementation of these policy recommendations. The Draft Study report along with
the Planning Commission's comments and /or recommendations will be forwarded to the
City Council.
Approved by:
J;•%�asama
ommunity Development Administrator
Attachment: Draft Downtown Arcadia Parking Study
Draft Downtown Arcadia Parking Study Report
March 13, 2012 — page 4
PARKING ANALYSIS AND PARKING
RECOMMENDATIONS
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING STUDY
ARCADIA, CA
Prepared for:
CITY OF ARCADIA
MARCH 1, 2012
PROJECT #37- 8234.00
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
37- 8234.00
1
7
CURRENT CONDITIONS 7
Summary and Analysis of Findings 7
Supply and Demand 7
Parking Turnover 9
Downtown Arcadia Parking Inventory 9
Downtown Arcadia Parking Demand 11
Weekday Demand 12
Weekend Demand 15
Turnover 17
City -Owned ADA (Disabled) Spaces 19
ADA (Disabled) Space Requirements in Parking District Lots 19
Short -Term Spaces 20
30- Minute Spaces 20
East Lot Two -Hour Spaces 20
24- Minute On- Street Spaces 21
Short-Term Spaces — Conclusion and Recommendation 21
PARKING SURVEY OVERVIEW 23
Summary of Survey Findings 23
Parking Preferences 25
More Businesses and Customers and the Supply of Parking 25
Is Parking The Issue? 26
Desired New Businesses and Their Impact on the Parking Supply 26
CONSIDERING FUTURE PARKING IMPACTS 29
Impacts of Future Development 29
Walking Distances and Accommodating Future Parking Demand 31
Future Additions to Parking Supply 32
Signage 32
FUNDING OPTIONS 35
Parking Assessment District 35
Parking Benefit District 36
Parking In -Lieu Fees 37
Setting In -Lieu Fees 39
Parking Credits 40
Limited Number of Paid Parking Permits for Long Term, On- Street Parking 42
Other Methods of Funding 42
Special Tax District 42
Public /Private Partnerships 42
Public Parking Funding Methods in Nearby Cities 43
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA.
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
0. WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012
37- 8234.00
Claremont 43
Pasadena 43
Monrovia 44
South Pasadena 44
Monterey Park 44
RECOMMENDATIONS 45
Summary of the Recommended Parking Credit Program 46
Parking Credit Program Implementation 47
Determining the Price of Parking Credit 47
Determining the Number of Spaces in the "Pool" of Parking 48
Incorporating Underutilized Private Parking — Use of Current Zoning Code Provisions 49
Monitoring the Program —and the Parking 50
Parking Enforcement 50
Parking Credits Recommendations — Conclusion 52
Other Recommendations 52
Utilize Private Lots 52
Remove 30- Minute Parking Spaces in Parking District Two 52
Restripe Parking District One East Lot 53
Improve Parking Signage 53
Parking Signage and Gold Line Users 54
APPENDIX A: License Plate Inventory Data A -1
APPENDIX B: Responses to Survey Questions B -1
APPENDIX C: Model — Shared Use Agreement for Parking Facilities' C -1
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Peak Occupancy Rates Observed in Other California Cities 8
Table 2: Downtown Arcadia Parking Inventory Summary 11
Table 3: Supply and Parking Adequacy by Block — Weekday Peak (1 1 AM) 12
Table 4: Supply and Parking Adequacy for Block Groupings — Weekday Peak (1 1 AM) 14
Table 5: Supply and Parking Adequacy by Block — Weekend Peak (1 1 AM) 15
Table 6: Supply and Parking Adequacy for Block Groupings — Weekend Peak (1 1 AM) 17
Table 7: Parking Spaces for the Disabled (ADA) in Public Parking Lots 19
Table 8: Calculation of Parking Available to Satisfy Code Requirements for New Development 30
Table 9: Walking Distances and Associated Levels of Service 31
Table A -1: License Plate Inventory Data —
Table A -2: License Plate Inventory Data —
Table A -3: License Plate Inventory Data —
Table A -4: License Plate Inventory Data —
Table A -5: License Plate Inventory Data —
Table A -6: License Plate Inventory Data —
Table A -7: License Plate Inventory Data —
Table A -8: Downtown Parking District 2
Downtown Parking District 1- East Lot A -1
North Side of Huntington Drive between 15f Ave and 2' Avenue A -2
East Side of 1" Ave between Alley and Alta Street A -2
West Side of 15' Ave. between Alley and Alta Street A -3
West Side of 15' Ave. between Alta St. and Bonita Street A -3
24 Hour Fitness Surface Parking (Arroyo Restaurant Lot) A-4
24 Hour Fitness Structure A -5
— 30- Minute Spaces A -1 1
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
Figure 1: Study Area — Downtown Arcadia 2
Figure 2: Parking Spaces by Type 3
Figure 3: Downtown Arcadia Study Area 10
Figure 4: On- Street and Off - Street Occupancy — Weekday Peak 13
Figure 5: On- Street and Off - Street Occupancy — Weekend Peak 16
Figure 6: Location of Parking District One East Lot 21
Figure 7: Frequency of Visits to Downtown Arcadia 24
Figure 8: Most Important Factor in Determining Where to Park 25
Figure 9: Parking District One East Lot — City Code Stall Sizes 33
Figure 10: Parking District One East Lot — Walker Recommended Stall Sizes 34
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Having recently completed a General Plan Update including a Downtown Plan, and now preparing for
the opening of the Arcadia Gold Line light rail station, the City of Arcadia and its Redevelopment Agency
have sought to conduct a comprehensive analysis of its Downtown parking system. The purpose of this
analysis is to assess existing conditions, identify opportunities and challenges, and develop specific
parking policy alternatives, plans and recommendations that can be implemented by City staff to
enhance Downtown in the future.
A significant amount of data was collected, ranging from parking supply, demand and turnover data to
an online survey of the public. The boundaries of the study area are shown in Figure 1 below. Each block
was numbered for the purposes of identification.
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012
37-8234.00
FIGURE 1: STUDY AREA — DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
seritrSttvet
cf4,
het- Avencit
te
fy4 '
l-Itiritirigtort Drive
s-1-41-AW
'Alta Street
1.4
Bonita Street
Source: City of Arcadia, Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
2
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
AilpWALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012
37- 8234.00
SUMMARY — CURRENT CONDITIONS
There are 3,232 on- street and off - street parking spaces in the study area. The breakdown of the supply is
as follows:
FIGURE 2: PARKING SPACES BY TYPE
• On- Street
▪ Off- Street Publicly Owned
Off- Street Privately
Owned
Source: City of Arcadia, Walker Parking Consultants, 201 1
We summarize additional findings as follows:
• On- street parking spaces represent 13% of the total Downtown supply. The off- street publicly- and
privately -owned supply of parking represent 10% and 77% of the supply respectively.
• Peak parking occupancy for the study area for both the weekday and weekend occurred at
1 1:00 am when parking occupancy rates for the overall study area were 46% and 32%
respectively.
• Blocks 11 and 12 represent more than 36% of the total parking supply and 40% of parking
demand during the peak hour.
• It is industry standard practice to factor in an "effective supply cushion" of roughly 10% of supply
to provide the public ease in finding available parking spaces and to facilitate traffic circulation.
Even with the effective supply factor taken into account, we found an overall parking space
surplus of 1,454 spaces in the Downtown area during peak weekday occupancy and 1,903
spaces at peak occupancy on weekends. The weekday peak parking surplus is equivalent to
roughly nine acres of land that is not currently serving the public.
• Although occupancy rates varied by block, none of the blocks in the study area were significantly
impacted (full) during the hour of peak demand or at other times of day.
3
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
• Parking occupancy rates at peak are also fairly consistent by parking space type (on- street, off-
street, public and private) although the Parking District One East Lot experienced higher parking
occupancy rates than the other public parking facilities.
30- minute spaces in the Parking District Two public lot showed similar underutilization, with
demand never peaking above 50 %, although the level of utilization depended on the location of
the spaces.
PUBLIC SURVEY
An online survey was developed to learn about parking users' perceptions of parking Downtown,
including their preferences, the duration of their visits and the types of businesses they would like to see in
the future in Downtown Arcadia. Respondents' opinions about parking in the Downtown were generally
positive. Findings included the following:
• Roughly 70 percent of respondents indicated that they spend an hour or less in Downtown during
each visit and they visited Downtown Arcadia at least once a month if not weekly or daily; most
were clearly customers;
• The vast majority cited parking's convenience and close proximity to destination as the most
important factor in their selection of a parking space and said they generally were able to satisfy
that preference;
• Respondents expressed appreciation for free parking and strong distaste for the idea of charging
for parking;
• The new uses that respondents wanted to see most in Downtown were restaurant and retail;
• There was a roughly 50/50 split in opinion regarding whether having new businesses was
desirable in the face of the greater demand for parking that would lessen the availability of
parking spaces;
A number of respondents expressed concern regarding current businesses ability to act as a draw
for customers to come Downtown.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
The large number of vacant parking spaces represents a convenience for some of those who visit or work
in the area. However, the surplus of spaces arguably represents a significant amount of land that is not
being used for car storage, businesses or other destinations that people wish to visit.
The current conditions represent an inefficient use of resources but also an opportunity; businesses need
parking spaces to conduct business, attract patrons and satisfy code requirements. Downtown Arcadia
already has much of this resource available to offer businesses. The City is also looking for methods by
which to fund maintenance and improvements for the existing public parking facilities. Based on these
considerations, we make the following recommendations:
1. Establish a parking credit program by which property owners may pay a monthly or annual fee
per required parking space for the purpose of satisfying its tenants' or business' parking
4
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSM,ras
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
requirements in the most efficient and inexpensive manner possible. Parking in lieu fees and other
potential funding measures were also considered, but deemed inappropriate for Downtown
Arcadia except in very specific circumstances.
2. Identify a pool of publicly available parking that can reasonably satisfy parking demand
generated by the customers and employees of users of the parking credit program. To the extent
possible, the City should make efforts to bring underutilized private parking spaces into the pool
of publicly available parking although this may simply involve maximizing usage of the current
shared parking provisions for the Central Business District contained in the City's Zoning Code.
3. Reauthorize the City's Parking Assessment Districts. As noted earlier, the amount of revenue
generated by the parking credit program depends on a level of growth that cannot be determined
at this time. We recognize, however, the challenges involved in renewing this authorization as a
result of the constraints of Proposition 218.
4. If demand for Gold Line commuter parking exceeds that which the planned Gold Line parking
structure can accommodate, issue and sell a limited number of monthly and daily all -day parking
permits for commuters in selected public parking locations as a way to manage and control
parking demand in the Downtown area as well as generate revenue for the City.
5. Create a dedicated parking fund within the City's general fund to ensure that at least a portion of
parking revenue generated in the Downtown areas is dedicated to covering costs in the District
including parking maintenance, operations and capital improvements as well as other Downtown
improvements if needed. A downtown stakeholder group such as the Downtown Arcadia Business
Association should be consulted as an advisory group regarding decisions related to the
allocation of the parking fund.
6. Monitor, manage, enforce, and adjust as necessary the time limits and their hours of enforcement
for public parking spaces, particularly in popular on- street locations. The purpose of these
measures is to maximize the efficiency of the parking system and ensure the availability of (on-
street) customer parking. Once the Gold Line Station is in operation, or new businesses
participating in the parking credit program open, particular attention should be paid to these
respective impacts on on- street and other public parking located in proximity to the station and
businesses. Where parking availability is scarce after 6:00 pm, time restrictions should be
enforced later into the evening in order to ensure that all businesses in the area can enjoy
available on- street parking and to incentivize the use of underutilized off - street parking.
7. Eliminate a portion of the 46 30- minute spaces in Parking District Two's lot. The on- street spaces
that are subject to 24- minute spaces time limits should be eliminated as well. We recommend
maintaining at least one -third to one -half of the 30 minutes spaces in Parking District Two's lot
(those spaces that were most heavily used) as well as the two -hour spaces in Parking District
One's East lot, but we note that more aggressive enforcement may at times be necessary at these
locations if the time limits are to be respected. As demand for parking in Downtown Arcadia
5
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
aiWALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012
37- 8234.00
increases in the future, there will likely be a need for more time - restricted spaces and greater
enforcement.
8. Consider specific parking planning and management measures for the First Avenue commercial
area south of Huntington Drive owing to its more challenging access to Downtown's public
parking lots north of Huntington Drive and the denser nature of these blocks. These measures
should focus on sharing underutilized, privately owned parking lots between businesses and
encouraging employee parking in underutilized parking lots in the area to make more convenient
parking on the street available to customers. Appendix C contains a sample agreement to
facilitate these measures.
9. Improve signage for the purpose of more effectively communicating the location of parking
available to the public. We discuss this recommendation later in the report and note its increased
importance with the arrival of the Gold Line Station and its new parking structure.
6
CURRENT CONDITIONS
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012 ' 37- 8234.00
INTRODUCTION
The report starts with an overview of current conditions in the Downtown area. Questions regarding how
much supply, where is the supply located and what is peak period demand are addressed. The next
section highlights results of an online survey issued in June 2011 and provides insight regarding parking
user groups, behavior and preferences. Once the background is in place, the report addresses how the
parking situation may change over time. New development and the Gold Line station are considered as
part of this discussion. Next is a discussion of how to possibly fund future parking changes. Finally the
report concludes with a set of recommendations for addressing the parking situation in Downtown
Arcadia over time.
CURRENT CONDITIONS
A downtown is served by at least three different types of parking spaces: on- street, off - street publicly
owned and off - street privately owned spaces. Together they represent the total supply of parking. The
supply and demand for each should be considered when assessing current parking conditions
SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Walker's field survey of the parking inventory and occupancy (the supply and demand) within the
Downtown Arcadia parking system found a significant surplus of parking spaces in virtually all
categories. Peak parking demand for the area was found to occur during the 11:00 am hour, suggesting
that weekday employees are the dominant parking user group in the area. At the peak, 46% of parking
spaces within the study area were occupied; even during the peak hour, more parking spaces were
empty than occupied with a vehicle. Peak parking occupancy on the weekend also occurred at 11:00
am (surveyed on Saturday), but the total occupancy rate at that time was 32 %.
Based on our experience studying parking demand in numerous business districts throughout cities in
California, the parking occupancy rate in Downtown Arcadia is low, but not tremendously lower than the
rates in many other (often seemingly busier) downtowns where peak occupancy rates can be around
60 %. The following table provides some examples from parking studies conducted in older commercial
districts in smaller cities, primarily in Southern California .
7
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012
37- 8234.00
TABLE 1: PEAK OCCUPANCY RATES OBSERVED IN OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES
City
Peak Occupancy
Peak Period
Santa Monica
65%
Weekday, 1 PM
Culver City
62%
Weekday, 1 PM
Pasadena (Lake Avenue District)
57%
Weekday, 1 PM
Glendora
47%
Weekday, 1 1 AM
Camarillo
49%
Weekday, Noon
Goleta
57%
Weekday, 1 PM
Artesia
48%
Weekday, 6PM
Novato
70%
Weekday, 12PM
Note: Peak occupancy for public and private on- street and off- street parking except
for Artesia (on- street only) and Novato (public parking only).
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 201 1
Most busy commercial districts suffer from a parking perception problem in which a few impacted
(crowded) parking locations lead the public to believe that there is a parking shortage, even when many
parking spaces are available within a close proximity. Parking "shortages" tend to be parking
imbalances that result from challenges in managing the parking supply rather than a lack of spaces. On-
street spaces tend to be more impacted than off- street spaces; public spaces tend to have higher
occupancy rates than private Tots or garages.
What is perhaps most notable about parking demand in Downtown Arcadia is the relatively even
distribution of occupancy rates throughout what is a relatively diverse mix of land uses in the downtown.
Total occupancy rates for the 425 on- street spaces in the area during the 1 1:00 am peak were 44 %,
occupancy rates for the three off- street public facilities averaged 47 %1, and occupancy rates for the
area's nearly 2,500 privately owned parking spaces were 46 %. While a few of the roughly 16 square
blocks analyzed experienced total occupancy rates between 70% - 79% at peak, most had occupancy
rates from 40% to 60 %. Two subareas of the district that we studied demonstrated similar peak
occupancy rates.
We also note that a few block faces and occasionally a private surface lot peaked above the desirable
90% level on typically a short and infrequent basis. However, in each of these cases abundant parking
was available a short walk away.
We note that the two Tots in Parking District #1 had significantly higher peak occupancy rates than the Parking
District #2 lot. The differences in occupancy rates are important to note when considering how to use underutilized
spaces.
8
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
While Downtown Arcadia clearly does not suffer from a parking shortage problem, with more than half
of the total 3,232 publicly available parking spaces surveyed in the area unoccupied during the system-
wide peak, we calculate the amount of land in the district occupied by underutilized parking spaces
totals roughly ten acres. Much of this report will be devoted to considering how, from a parking
perspective, to use more efficiently this underutilized resource.
PARKING TURNOVER
The number of parking spaces in a given location determines how many vehicles can park at a given
time, but parking turnover determines how many vehicles and drivers can be accommodated over a
portion or even all of the day. It is an important consideration when analyzing how to best serve business
patrons or other short term visitors. Walker's survey of vehicles' lengths of stay found that, particularly
along some block faces, a significant number of short -term spaces were being occupied by long -term
porkers, beyond the posted time limits. We note that enforcing time limits without the use of parking
meters2 is challenging and time consuming, particularly when long -term parkers seek to frequently move
their vehicles to avoid citations. Given the low parking occupancy rates, however, the fact that some
short -term parking is being used by long -term parkers is very unlikely to impact access to businesses in the
area.
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA PARKING INVENTORY
Walker Parking Consultants performed an inventory of on- street and off - street parking spaces in the 16-
block study area, which is illustrated in the following figure. Blocks were numbered in order to
communicate more clearly the data that were observed.
2 In this report we do not recommend metered parking in Downtown Arcadia now or in the foreseeable future.
9
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
AilWALKER
R4RKMG CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012
37- 8234.00
FIGURE 3: DOWNTOWN ARCADIA STUDY AREA
Parking District 1 '811"1"1""""
Parking District 2 '"'"
San CI a r Strut
tatitoi ry a
Source: City of Arcadia, Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
10
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
The total number of spaces in the approximatelyl6 -block study area totals 3,232 with 425 on- street (13
percent) and 2,805 off - street (87 percent). Of the off - street spaces, 323 (11 percent) are public while the
remaining 2,484 (89 percent) are private. The following table summarizes the Downtown Arcadia
Parking Inventory.
TABLE 2: DOWNTOWN ARCADIA PARKING INVENTORY SUMMARY
Block Number
On- Street
Off- Street Public
Off- Street Private
Total
1
57
179
236
2
20
278
298
3
20
93
113
4
51
102
146
299
5
9
137
146
6
11
64
75
7
24
65
89
8
23
52
75
9
18
80
98
10
56
184
240
11
21
594
615
12
27
221
317
565
13
25
164
189
14
13
40
53
15
28
56
84
16
22
35
57
425
23
2,484
3,232
Source: City of Arcadia, Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
Blocks 11 and 12, which include the 24 Hour Fitness, IMS Executive Suites, Denny's, Downtown Parking
District 2, Arcadia Medical Center and the Post Office, have significantly more parking spaces than other
blocks. Together they account for over one -third of the inventory in the entire study area. Other blocks
with a large number of spaces are block 4, which includes Downtown Parking District 1, and block 2,
which includes the Hilton Garden Inn and Marriott Spring Hill Suites.
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA PARKING DEMAND
To determine demand for parking in the study area Walker Parking Consultants performed occupancy
counts on one weekday and one weekend day. Based on input from a community workshop held on May
24, 2011, Thursday and Saturday were chosen as typically busy days to perform the occupancy counts.
The actual occupancy counts were performed once per hour from 7 AM to 9 PM on June 9, 2011 and
from 9AMto 10 PM on June 11, 2011.
11
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
AlikWALKER
PARKING CONStxv rrts
MARCH 1, 2012
37- 8234.00
WEEKDAY DEMAND
Peak weekday occupancy was observed at 11 AM, when 1,489 out of 3,232 parking spaces (46
percent) were occupied. During this period, 44 percent of on- street and 46 percent of off- street spaces
were occupied. The following table illustrates weekday occupancy by block in the study area.
TABLE 3: SUPPLY AND PARKING ADEQUACY BY BLOCK — WEEKDAY PEAK (1 1 AM)
Block
Number
On- Street
Occupied
Off -Street
Occupied
Total
Occupied
Total
Supply
236
Overall
Occupancy
40%
1
22
73
95
2
5
81
86
298
29%
3
6
55
61
113
54%
4
26
134
160
299
54%
5
2
34
36
146
25%
6
6
35
41
75
55%
7
9
37
46
89
52%
8
15
5
20
75
27%
9
13
63
76
98
78%
10
18
65
83
240
35%
11
11
360
371
615
60%
12
8
225
233
565
41%
13
10
58
68
189
36%
14
9
29
38
53
72%
15
11
33
44
84
52%
16
18
13
31
57
54%
•.... e. inn ALO/
TOTAL
189
0
Source: City of Arcadia, Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
Figure 4 illustrates graphically on- street occupancy by block face and off - street occupancy.
12
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012
37- 8234.00
FIGURE 4: ON- STREET AND OFF - STREET OCCUPANCY — WEEKDAY PEAK
?`rnPT6sejlh 4tre i
Santa Clara Street
V.J10 ,er Avenue
< 50%
50% - 59%
60% - 69%
70% - 79%
80% - 89%
90%+
Source: City of Arcadia, Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
In addition to individual block analysis, we also analyzed what we feel are logical groupings of blocks.
Specifically, blocks 11 and 12 as a group since Downtown Parking District 2 serves the Post Office and
potentially other uses on block 12, and blocks 6, 7, 8, 14, 15 and 16 as a group due to their orientation
along South 1" Avenue. Table 3 illustrates occupancy for these groupings.
13
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
MIMING CONSUITANTS
MARCH 1, 2012
37- 8234.00
TABLE 4: SUPPLY AND PARKING ADEQUACY FOR BLOCK GROUPINGS — WEEKDAY PEAK (11 AM)
Block
Numbers
On- Street
Occupied
Off- Street
Occupied,
Total
Occupied
Total
Supply
, Occupancy
51%
11,12
19
585
604
1,180
6,7,8,14,15,16
68
152
220
433
51%
Source: City of Arcadia, Walker Parking Consultants, 201 1
During the weekday peak period, none of the individual blocks or block groupings exceeds 85 percent
occupancy, a level which is considered effectively full for on- street parking. Off - street parking is
considered effectively full at a higher occupancy rate, generally 90 percent or higher.
While no individual blocks are effectively full, blocks 9 and 14 experience weekday peak occupancy
rates of over 70 percent. Block 11 experiences weekday peak occupancy of 61 percent.
14
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
V, WALKER
EKING CONSUfl MS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
WEEKEND DEMAND
As it was for weekday, peak weekend occupancy was observed at 11 AM where 1,040 out of 3,232
spaces (32 percent) were occupied. During this period, 39 percent of on- street and 32 percent of off -
street spaces were occupied. The following table illustrates weekend occupancy by block in the study
area.
TABLE 5: SUPPLY AND PARKING ADEQUACY BY BLOCK — WEEKEND PEAK (1 1 AM)
Block
Number
On- Street
Occupied
14
Off- Street
Occupied
41
Total
Occupied
55
Total
Supply
236
Overall
Occupancy.
23%
1
2
1
88
89
298
30%
3
6
12
18
113
16%
4
24
103
127
299
42%
5
4
11
15
146
10%
6
2
12
14
75
19%
7
8
11
19
89
21%
8
10
10
20
75
27%
9
2
7
9
98
9%
10
19
84
103
240
43%
11
13
223
236
615
38%
12
7
153
160
565
28%
13
17
62
79
189
42%
14
8
22
30
53
57%
15
20
22
42
84
50%
16
9
15
24
57
42%
164
876
1,040 3,232
32%
Source: City of Arcadia, Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
Figure 5 graphically illustrates on- street occupancy by block face and off - street occupancy.
15
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
KRKNG CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012
37- 8234.00
FIGURE 5: ON- STREET AND OFF -STREET OCCUPANCY — WEEKEND PEAK
J.EGEND
% Spaces Occupied
< 50%
50% - 59%
60% - 69%
70% - 79%
80% - 89%
90%+
Source: City of Arcadia, Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
16
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012
Table 6 examines the same block groupings during the weekend peak.
37- 8234.00
TABLE 6: SUPPLY AND PARKING ADEQUACY FOR BLOCK GROUPINGS — WEEKEND PEAK (11 AM)
Block
Numbers
On- Street
Occupied
O#- Street
Occupied
Total
Occupied
Total
Supply
Occupancy
11,12
20
376
396
1,180
34%
6,7,8,14,15,16
57
92
149
433
34%
Source: City of Arcadia, Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
Weekend peak occupancies were lower than weekday peak occupancies for these two blocks of spaces
(34 percent versus 51 percent for both block groups).
Block 14 is the only block that exceeds 50 percent during the weekend peak period, likely due to the
Chase Bank. Blocks 9 and 11 have dramatically lower occupancy rates on the weekend, given their uses
(office and a mix of office and health club, respectively).
TURNOVER
Walker performed license plate inventory (LPI) surveys to examine parking space turnover. The focus was
on locations experiencing high occupancy of 85 percent at or near the weekday peak period of 11 AM.
In addition, we wanted to examine 1" Avenue near the Chase bank, turnover at the parking garage and
surface lot serving 24 Hour Fitness, as well as turnover of the 30- minute spaces in Downtown Parking
District 2.
On June 29, 2011, Walker performed hourly turnover counts from 9 AM to 7 PM at Downtown Parking
District 1 — east lot, on the north side of Huntington Drive between 1' and 2nd Avenue, along the west
face of block 6, and along the east faces of block 14 and block 15. In addition, Walker performed
counts of the 24 Hour Fitness surface lot and parking structure at 11 AM, 2 PM and 5 PM in order to
determine whether vehicles were being left at that location all day or longer. On July 7, 2011, Walker
performed 30- minute counts from 12 PM to 5 PM on the 30- minute spaces in Downtown Parking District
2. A summary of the results of the fieldwork follows.
• Downtown Parking District 1 — east lot (45 spaces)
During the course of the day, a total of 111 cars parked in the lot, of which 28 cars (25 percent)
were parked four hours or more. At the 11 AM peak for the study area and the 2 PM peak for the
lot that day, 24 spaces were occupied by vehicles parked for at least three hours, representing
53 percent of the parking spaces in the lot. We assume that most if not all the cars parked at least
three hours were employees at local businesses. A few cars overstayed the two -hour time limit in
three of the two -hour time limited spaces. Incidentally, while the other two two -hour time limited
spaces saw little activity.
• North side of Huntington Drive between 15' and 2nd Avenue (16 spaces)
17
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
VE. WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
Over the entire day, 77 cars parked along this stretch of Huntington Drive. Twenty out of the 77,
or 26 percent, were there at least two hours. At the 11 AM peak period, 44 percent of the 16
spaces were occupied by cars parked for at least two hours. Of these, three spaces were
occupied by vehicles parked three hours or more.
• West face of block 6 (6 spaces)
Twenty cars parked on the east side of 15t Avenue between the alley and Alta Street. Of these,
only three cars (15 percent) parked for at least two hours. At the 11 AM peak period, there were
no cars parked more than two hours on this block. However during most of the day of our counts,
two of the six spaces on this block face were occupied by vehicles parked for six or more hours.
• East face of block 14 (8 spaces)
During the course of the day, 34 cars parked on this block. Five of these cars parked for three
hours or more. At the 11 AM peak period, two parked cars were there for at least three hours (25
percent of spaces).
• East face of block 15 (18 spaces)
Seventy -three cars parked on this block during the entire day. Of these, 22 cars were parked for
at least two hours (30 percent of spaces). At the 11 AM peak period, one car was parked at least
two hours (6 percent of spaces), but no cars were parked for three hours or more. At 6 PM, 11
cars were parked at least two hours (61 percent of spaces), three of these cars were parked for
three or more hours.
• 24 Hour Fitness surface lot and parking structure (279 spaces total)
In the surface lot, only one car out of 93 counted was observed to be parked for more than two of
the survey periods. In the parking structure, 372 cars were surveyed during the three survey
periods. Of these, only 3 percent were there for two or three periods. Overall, cars were
observed to be turning over frequently in both the lot and structure.
• Downtown Parking District 2 — 30- minute spaces (46 spaces)
During the observation period, a total of 101 cars parked. Of these, 12 cars (12 percent)
overstayed the 30- minute time limit. The peak number of cars overstaying the 30- minute time limit
during any observation period was six, which represents 13 percent of the overall 30- minute
parking supply.
In general, most parking spaces are turning over, although not to the extent that posted policy suggests.
This is particularly true on the north side of Huntington Drive between 1st and 2nd Avenue. The exception
is weekday parking in Downtown Parking District 1 — east lot, of which the majority of the parking spaces
are being occupied by employees. However, there appears to be enough availability to accommodate
short -term visitors and the lack of time restrictions on most spaces suggests that this is one purpose of the
lot. We were surprised to see an absence of long -term parkers in the 24 Hour Fitness surface lot and
parking structure. The few that we observed are likely employees of 24 Hour Fitness. Given the proximity
of the lot and structure to the upcoming Gold Line station, there may be opportunities for Gold Line riders
to utilize parking in the lot and structure.
18
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
CITY -OWNED ADA (DISABLED) SPACES
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has numerous requirements with regard to parking spaces for
the disabled. There are a total of 10 such spaces in the three parking district lots. In the east lot of
Parking District), there are two ADA spaces. Only two cars parked in these spaces (for two counts each)
over the entire period of our survey of these spaces.
The west side of First Avenue between the alley and Alta (on block 14's east face) also has one ADA
space which had only one car parked (for one count) during our turnover survey.
As is noted in our discussion of the public survey, responses to the question on ADA parking spaces
suggest that there is no issue as far as the public is concerned (52% of respondents rated availability at 7
or higher out of 10). However, the mode was 5, which seemed to suggest that some people simply had
no opinion because it's not important to them. Based on the occupancy data, with regard to usage there
is no shortage of ADA parking.
ADA (DISABLED) SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN PARKING DISTRICT LOTS
One Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement is how many spaces should be required per the
total amount contained in a given parking facility. Based on these requirements and the number of
spaces in the City's public parking lots, we performed the following calculations regarding the adequacy
of the number of spaces provided.
TABLE 7: PARKING SPACES FOR THE DISABLED (ADA) IN PUBLIC PARKING LOTS
Parking Facility
Inventory -
Standard
Spaces
Total Parking
Spaces in Lot
Minimum ADA
Space
Requirement
Existing
ADA
Spaces
Technical
Surplus (or
Deficit)A
District 1 - East Lot
43
26 - 50
2
2
0
District 1 - West Lot
55
51 - 75
3
2
-1
District 2
221
201-300
7
6
-1
AWe note that some requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act regarding parking are "gray" and subject to
interpretation. In the case of the City's public parking Tots one such area is the age of the facility; the requirements above are for
"new" construction. The facilities in question may be "grandfathered" into lower requirements.
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
Based on our calculations, two of the City's facilities have one Tess ADA space than required per ADA
regulations. However, there are potentially legal and practical reasons why this could be the case. The
first is that these regulations apply to new construction. Another is that, realistically, the public lots do not
in most cases represent the most accessible spaces for nearby destinations. To the extent that these or
other justifications are at work needs further study. If providing the code required number of spaces is
"readily achievable" then the owner would be expected to bring those lots up to compliance. However in
19
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
414 WALKER
PARKING CONSIATAM5
MARCH 1, 2012
37- 8234.00
general we recommend that to the extent possible, the number of ADA facilities meet the requirements for
new construction whether or not an owner is specifically required to do so.
We do not recommend, however, that the City provide more ADA spaces than the regulations for new
construction require.
SHORT -TERM SPACES
30- MINUTE SPACES
Of the 221 spaces in the Parking District 2 lot, 46 spaces (20 %) are designated for parking durations of
30- minutes or Tess. Their locations generally suggest the intention of providing short -term spaces for quick
turnover parking closest to those locations most likely to need them, most notably the post office.
Restrictions of this short duration are extremely difficult to enforce, however on the day these spaces were
surveyed most vehicles were parked for less than 30 minutes. The peak number of vehicles observed in
these spaces was 20 cars; occupancy for these short -term spaces never exceeded 45 %. Four of the cars
that parked more than 30 minutes were parked most of the day in the same portion of the lot and most
likely belong to employees of nearby businesses.
EAST LOT TWO -HOUR SPACES
Parking District One's East Lot shown in the following figure contains five 2 -hour spaces. From 9:00 AM
to 7:00 PM on a weekday, three out of the five spaces (adjacent to the alley portion of the lot) contained
some cars that overstayed the 2 -hour limit. The two spaces closest to the body shop were rarely occupied
and if so only briefly.
20
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
V. WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
FIGURE 6: LOCATION OF PARKING DISTRICT ONE EAST LOT
Source: City of Arcadia, Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
24 MINUTE ON- STREET SPACES
The west side of 1$' between Alta and Bonita (block 15, east face) has two 24- minute spaces. On a
weekday, only one car parked in those spaces over the course of the day, but only after 6:00 pm when
enforcement officially had ended. The car remained in that space for at least one hour.
SHORT-TERM SPACES —CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of time limited parking spaces is to ensure their availability as the most convenient spaces
for customers patronizing nearby businesses. Without these restrictions, or their enforcement, convenient
parking is usually dominated by employees to the customers' detriment. As noted, short-term time limits
are difficult to enforce, but for some spaces in Downtown Arcadia, drivers are respecting the restrictions.
Given the surplus of parking in Downtown Arcadia, the existence of the short-term spaces we have
discussed appears not to be crucial. Most the spaces appear to be utilized infrequently. In other
downtowns, not having designated short -term parking spaces could mean that customers might not find
an acceptable space to park at all, but in the locations discussed above there are spaces available just a
few feet away.' Based on our preliminary findings, a portion of the 46 30- minute spaces in Parking
District Two's lot can and likely should be eliminated (for example the 11 30- minute spaces in which no
one parked all day during our survey). The 24- minute on- street spaces should be eliminated as well. We
recommend maintaining at least one -third to one -half of the 30 minutes spaces in Parking District Two's
This may not be the case for many of the block faces containing on- street spaces that are subject to two -hour limits.
On some of these blocks, not having these short -term restrictions could quickly result in blocks filling up with cars
belonging to employees and other long -term parkers.
21
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
lot (those spaces that were most heavily used) as well as the two -hour spaces in Parking District One's
East lot, but we note that more aggressive enforcement may at times be necessary at these locations if the
time limits are to be respected.4 As demand for parking in Downtown Arcadia increases in the future,
there will likely be a need for more time - restricted spaces and greater enforcement.
4 In the policy recommendations section we recommend adjusting the fee structure for parking citations such that
occasional offenders pay only small fines, but single fines for habitual offender become substantial.
22
PARKING SURVEY OVERVIEW
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012
37- 8234.00
PARKING SURVEY OVERVIEW
The objective of this task was to develop a survey aimed at obtaining input about the parking system from
current users. The survey was designed to solicit information about parking users' current perceptions of
parking Downtown, preferences, duration of visits and desired uses in Downtown Arcadia given the
possible impact on parking of those uses. Travel behavior of those coming Downtown was also surveyed,
including predicted travel behavior related to the opening of the Gold Line. Finally, the survey measured
respondents' reactions to a variety of programs with which to fund public parking in Downtown Arcadia.
The original survey was designed by Walker Parking Consultants and distributed by the City of Arcadia,
Arcadia's Best and the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce. The survey was administered through an online
questionnaire using the website Zoomerang. The question types included multiple choice, psychometric
scale (Likert type scale) and open - ended.
The survey period spanned approximately one month from June 10, 2011 to July 8, 2011. During that
time, 160 surveys were completed. A summary of the results is provided on the following pages.
SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS
Responses to most of the questions in the survey were quantifiable and are shown in the Appendix.
However, for a number of questions respondents had the opportunity to provide comments, which
provided some nuance to the quantitative results. We summarize both below.
Not surprisingly, the majority of visitors to Downtown Arcadia arrive by car. Nearly 70% of respondents
indicated that they spend an hour or less in Downtown during each visit and roughly the same number,
72 %, visit Downtown Arcadia at least once a month if not weekly or daily. These figures indicate that
most respondents were in fact regular customers with reasonable familiarity with Downtown. Most
respondents also indicated that they are residents of Arcadia.
23
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012
37- 8234.00
FIGURE 7: FREQUENCY OF VISITS TO DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
■ Daily
w Weekly
Monthly
Rarely
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
24
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012
37- 8234.00
PARKING PREFERENCES
Consistent with the general parking preferences that we have observed in traditional downtowns, on-
street parking was indicated as the most preferred place to park and a majority of drivers prefer to park
nearest to their destination. Survey results indicate that parking in Downtown Arcadia is generally easy to
find, is adequate in terms of size, ability to enter /exit and time limits and is fine as is overall. The minority
of respondents mentioned in their comments the need to "park around the corner" or not finding parking
just where they wanted it. A few mentioned on- street spaces being overly utilized by business owners or
employees.
FIGURE 8: MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN DETERMINING WHERE TO PARK
2%
■ First available space /easiest
place to find parking
■ Nearest to destination
Employer provides parking at
location
▪ Could not find parking
elsewhere In Downtown
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
We note that a number of respondents expressed concerns regarding the safety of backing out of
diagonal parking spaces.
MORE BUSINESSES AND CUSTOMERS AND THE SUPPLY OF PARKING
Perhaps not surprisingly, there is an almost 50/50 split on the issue of less available parking in
exchange for more business or greater variety of businesses and visitors in Downtown although based on
many of the comments in response to this question, it appears that many survey takers equated "less
available parking" with a reduction in the number of existing spaces. Most commenter's said they simply
did not notice too many or few spaces for drivers with disabled placards. We observed a small number
of commenter's who found time limits either to be too restrictive or acceptable.
A lot of opposition was voiced regarding charging for parking and appreciation was expressed for
Arcadia's free parking, particularly when compared to the rates charged in Pasadena. Four options for
funding the existing public parking lots were listed in the survey to measure the public's initial opinion on
each.' Paid parking (by the driver) overwhelming received the greatest negative response. Based on
survey results, the most favored approach to fund parking, given the choices of a property assessment, in-
5 We describe these four funding options in detail in the Funding Options section of the report.
25
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
40 WALKER
PARKIN CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012
37- 8234.00
lieu fees, parking credits and some form of paid parking, was the in -lieu fee, which averaged 5.4 out of
10 where a response of 1 indicated not at all willing and 10 indicated very willing. Parking space
credits was next with an average of 4.6, followed by property assessment at 4.3. Some form of paid
parking finished last with an average of 3.0. Contributing to the low score was the high percentage of
respondents who scored it with 1 (58 %). Property assessment had the next highest percentage of "1"
responses at 30 %. Monrovia was noted by a number of survey respondents as a city with a pleasant, yet
free, parking experience.
We note that some concerns were raised regarding the Gold Line station's impact on parking in the
Downtown area as well. Approximately 73% of respondents indicated they would drive to the Gold Line
station. Only 23% indicated they would ride it at least once a week.
IS PARKING THE ISSUE?
While ours is a parking study, we understand that parking is an important tool for economic
development. The demand for parking is a "derived" demand; it is ultimately based on the destination.
For this reason, although arguably beyond the scope of this study, we note that a significant number of
comments within the survey referred to the quality of Downtown Arcadia as a destination.
Many survey takers began their comments with parking issues but concluded with a discussion of the mix
of businesses. Respondents indicated a strong preference for more retail shops and restaurants in
Downtown Arcadia. Other use responses were nothing, office uses and bars, beer pubs, wine bars. In
our experience studying dozens of downtowns and commercial centers, the destination is the draw while
the parking is a tool by which one accesses the destination. An increase in the quantity and quality of
destinations in and of itself can and does change people's perceptions of parking, most notably in terms
of willingness to walk longer distances to one's destination. Ultimately, responses from many survey
takers seemed to confirm this observation. The 50/50 split on the issue of Tess available parking in
exchange for more business or greater variety of businesses and visitors in Downtown suggests that some
who are interested in seeing additional businesses in the Downtown area are not willing to accept Tess
parking availability. By contrast, responses from an earlier survey question suggest that parking is fine as
is. The perception of parking availability or lack thereof now and in the future is a primary challenge that
we intend to address later in our recommendations.
DESIRED NEW BUSINESSES AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE PARKING SUPPLY.
When asked what types of uses (businesses) respondents would like to see added Downtown, the
overwhelming response was restaurants and pubs /wine bars (78% and 27% respectively) and more
retail establishments (61%). We note that much of the parking impact of these uses would likely fall
during the evening and weekend period when parking availability is even greater than the current late
morning peak. Nonetheless, restaurants in particular, would also result in a greater demand for parking
spaces during the midday.
Survey respondents' desire not to reduce the already abundant supply of parking yet add businesses
which would increase the demand for parking seemingly result in a conflict. The response would appear
26
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING
MARCH 1, 2012
37- 8234.00
to be the traditional tool of building more parking, which we do not recommend in the Downtown at this
time due to the overabundance of spaces. While we understand the public's apprehension regarding a
possible reduction in the number of available spaces, we suggest that the existing spaces have been built
to serve the public and businesses and should do so. As recommended later in this report, at this time
parking management measures should be used to address localized shortages, not additional parking
spaces.
27
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]
28
CONSIDERING FUTURE
PARKING IMPACTS
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MARCH 1, 2012
V. WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
37- 8234.00
CONSIDERING FUTURE PARKING IMPACTS
Using current parking conditions and the input provided by Downtown stakeholders, we seek to establish
a framework to address issues related to the demand for and supply of parking as changes occur in the
future. The purpose of this section, and ultimately our recommendations, is to discuss possible changes in
Downtown that would impact parking in order to address related issues and opportunities. We have
identified three considerations that will impact the demand for parking in the future and impact how the
supply is used:
• Impacts of future development
• Walking distances within the area
• Redesign of the East Lot in Parking District One
The analysis of current conditions demonstrated a significant surplus of parking spaces within Downtown
Arcadia. Some of these surplus spaces are located in privately owned parking facilities but nonetheless
represent a real value and opportunity to park additional land uses.
IMPACTS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
In examining the Downtown study area and its ability to make productive use of its parking surplus, two
potential changes were seen as possibly impacting the demand for parking in the area. The first is future
private development. The second is the opening of the City's Gold Line station, which will be located
within the study area.
The parking impacts of each development cannot be precisely modeled at this time due to insufficient
data; we know the Gold Line Station Garage will increase the parking supply in the area by 300 spaces
upon opening and the station itself will increase demand as well although near -term ridership projections
are currently not available. Given the new parking facility and current parking surplus, we assume that at
most some parking management policy changes will be sufficient to manage demand. We discuss and
recommend some of these measures later in the report.
With regard to development data, Walker used the City's code requirements to determine theoretically
just how much additional development in the area could be accommodated within 0.25 mile radius of
the new Gold Line given the existing parking surplus and Downtown's reduced code requirements for
development occurring within this zone. Such an analysis therefore does not include the southernmost
four blocks of our study area along First Avenue south of Huntington Drive. The 1,140 spaces available
takes into account the need for an effective supply cushion of spaces for proper circulation; the actual
number of available spaces is higher.
Based only on the City's code requirements, we project that the following amount of development could
theoretically be accommodated in the Downtown area, a significant portion on or around Blocks 11 and
12 given the large amount of total parking spaces located there:
29
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MARCH 1, 2012
• 140,000* sf Office
• 100,000* sf Restaurant
• 280,000* sf Retail
410 WALKER
rlRKUdG CONSULTANTS
37- 8234.00
TABLE 8: CALCULATION OF PARKING AVAILABLE TO SATISFY CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
Use
Residential
Office, General
Parking Ratio for CBD Zoning
(Table 9264.3.4) - Accounts for
Shared Use
Excluded from shared use standards
Office, Medical
Square
Feet
Ratio Per
Thousand"
Required
Parking
per Code
25%
Reduction
for Gold
Lie
n/a
Actual
Parking
Required
3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor
area
Restaurant /Bar
140,000
3.0
420
(105)
315
3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor
area
3.0
1. Restaurant, coffee house, juice bar
under 1,000 square feet of gross usable
area - 3 spaces per 1,000 sf GFA
2. Restaurant over 1,000 square feet of
gross usable area - 5 spaces per 1,000 sf
GFA
3. Outdoor dining areas associated with a
restaurant- 0 spaces
100,000
4.0
400
(100)
300
Regional
Shopping Center
Retail Commercial
not in shared use standards
2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor
area
280,000
2.5
700
(175)
525
TOTAL 520,000 1,520 (380) 1,140
AWe note that the Restaurant /Bar ratio of 4.0 /ksf is a blended ratio of 3.0 and 5.0 spaces per thousand.
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
The availability of 1,140 on- street, off - street, public and private spaces during the peak parking demand
hour, which was identified within 0.25 miles of the Gold Line station, would therefore accommodate the
significant amount of new development indicated. We emphasize that the actual parking demand
generated by such large -scale development could vary from the code requirements and depends in large
part on the specific nature of each of these land uses (i.e. types of restaurants, office and retail) as well
as the impact of the Gold Line on access to the area.° Nonetheless, the purpose of our analysis is to
demonstrate that the significant amount expense of building be wasteful and
new development in the area. The exp 9
discourage new development.
6 Future projections for Gold Line indicate that the vast majority of riders will originate their trip from Arcadia, but such large
scale development could result in the area becoming, relatively, more of a destination for passengers.
30
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
410 WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
The southernmost four blocks along 1st Avenue are not within a quarter mile of the Gold Line station
(study area blocks 7, 8, 15 and 16) and are not eligible for the 25% reduction in required parking.
However that does not preclude those blocks from supporting new uses or development. One of the
recommendations to be discussed later will address this. We note that the commercial parcels along this
portion of First Avenue will likely need to be considered and treated differently than the rest of the study
area as a result of their distance from the public parking lots, the resulting fewer parking options, the
smaller overall scale of the neighborhood and its proximity adjacent to residential areas.
WALKING DISTANCES AND ACCOMMODATING FUTURE PARKING DEMAND
Every trip requiring parking begins and ends with a pedestrian trip. Parking and walking are inextricably
tied. The amount of parking supply serving an area or destination depends on how far visitors and
employees are willing to walk. We note that the longest walk that one may experience going from the
furthest point in one of the public parking lots to the southern -most point (15' and California) is
approximately 0.45 mile or nearly 2,400 feet. The farthest walk from one of the public parking lots to the
Gold Line station is approximately 0.25 mile or approximately 1,300 feet.
As part of our design and study of parking facilities, Walker has extensively researched how far parkers
are willing to walk. The answer varies based on a number of factors including the parking user group
(restaurant patron, shopper, commuter, employee, or event attendee), the pedestrian - friendliness of the
built environment, and weather. Walker has developed levels of service for various parking user groups
and conditions.
TABLE 9: WALKING DISTANCES AND ASSOCIATED LEVELS OF SERVICE
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
We note that the distances for outdoor locations are based on conditions nationwide. Given the mild
climate in Arcadia, we recommend using the "Outdoors, covered" standard. Two thousand feet is
approximately 0.38 mile. Clearly not every driver would be expected or would agree to walk these
distances to park, but levels of service (LOS) C and D would be suitable for many commuters or
employees, while LOS A and B would be reasonable for some shoppers. Given that Downtown Arcadia
has pedestrian- oriented characteristics that one finds in a park -once district, we think that enough
customers would be willing to walk more than 1,000' total during their visit to Downtown if they have
31
Level of Service
Maximum Walking Distances (in Feet)
D
I C
B
A
Within Parking Facilities
Suface Lot
1,400
1,050
700
350
Structure
1,200
900
600
300
From Parking to Destination
Climate Controlled
5,200
3,800
2,400
1,000
Outdoors (Covered)
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Outdoors (Uncovered)
1,600
1,200
800
400
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
We note that the distances for outdoor locations are based on conditions nationwide. Given the mild
climate in Arcadia, we recommend using the "Outdoors, covered" standard. Two thousand feet is
approximately 0.38 mile. Clearly not every driver would be expected or would agree to walk these
distances to park, but levels of service (LOS) C and D would be suitable for many commuters or
employees, while LOS A and B would be reasonable for some shoppers. Given that Downtown Arcadia
has pedestrian- oriented characteristics that one finds in a park -once district, we think that enough
customers would be willing to walk more than 1,000' total during their visit to Downtown if they have
31
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
desirable destinations to walk to. The type of development projected for this exercise would in fact
increase the number of destinations in the area and therefore, presumably, the walking ability of the area
as well.
FUTURE ADDITIONS TO PARKING SUPPLY
There are two plans for increasing the supply of public parking in Downtown Arcadia, the construction of
the Gold Line parking structure and the possible expansion of Parking District One's East lot. The City
requested that Walker evaluate the number of additional parking spaces that could be added to the
supply of the lot if it were expanded by replacing the adjacent street with additional parking spaces.
Based on our analysis we found that the current supply of 45 spaces could be reasonably expanded to
up to 80 spaces if the current lot were reconfigured and expanded into Indiana Street using nine by
eighteen foot stalls; the dimensions are ones that Walker would recommend in this type of situation
although we note that they are two feet shorter than the City's code requirements. Using the City's code
requirements for stall and aisle dimensions as well as turning widths, we project a maximum total lot
capacity of 74 spaces. If the parking lot is not expanded into Indiana Street then the lot may be
expanded to either 54 spaces, using City code requirements, or 61 spaces, using Walker recommended
dimensions.
SIGNAGE
As we have discussed, the perception of parking availability is what drivers tend "to accept as reality. If
parking is available, but difficult to find or access, a driver will believe that parking is challenging in that
area. We feel that Downtown Arcadia could offer better signage directing drivers to its three public
parking Tots.
Drivers approaching the Downtown area need visible signage that directs them to the three public
parking lots. This signage is appropriate near the highest volume intersections. Once within the lot, signs
should alert drivers to time restrictions or other special instructions. After parked, drivers may need
signage directing them to Huntington Drive. There should also be pedestrian signage on Huntington Drive
that directs drivers back to the public lots. We discuss this issue in greater detail in the recommendation
section at the end of the report.
32
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
.461WALKER
. PARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
FIGURE 9: PARKING DISTRICT ONE EAST LOT — CITY CODE STALL SIZES
Scheme A — 54 Stalls @ 9' x 20'
Scheme B — 74 Stalls @ 9' x 20'
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
33
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
BARKING CONSULTANTS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
FIGURE 10: PARKING DISTRICT ONE EAST LOT — WALKER RECOMMENDED STALL SIZES
Scheme A — 61 Stalls @ 9' x 18'
Scheme B — 80 Stalls @ 9' x 18'
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
34
FUNDING OPTIONS
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Alk. WALKER
PARKING CONSULTAMS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
FUNDING OPTIONS
Based on our analysis of the parking system, below we discuss the most promising options for funding
parking in Downtown Arcadia.
PARKING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
In a parking assessment district, property owners are assessed in order to generate a revenue stream
which is then leveraged for funding parking improvements. Until the passage of Proposition 218, the
three public parking Tots in Downtown Arcadia were maintained through the use of two parking
assessment districts. Parking District Funds were created to account for the property tax assessments
received and maintenance expenses incurred relating to parking districts established by the City. The
districts were established to provide adjacent business owners with parking facilities for their customers.
Advantages of Parking Assessment program:
Overall, funding the public parking with property assessments appears to have had significant benefits
including the following:
• Consistent revenue stream. A parking assessment program would provide a consistent revenue
stream to fund the maintenance and potentially the planned capital project to expand a surface
lot in Parking District 2. Revenue from this program would not depend on future development.
• Fairness. Property owners pay for the benefit they receive, including provisions in which those
properties located in closest proximity to the parking lots can pay more than those for whom use
of the lots is less convenient. Further, seeing as the lots benefit Downtown businesses, . residents
and businesses throughout the City need not contribute financially to their upkeep, as is the case if
the facilities are funded by the General Fund.
• Popularity. Based on our meetings with Downtown business owners, the assessment program
seemed to have support. One business owner expressed appreciation for the benefits the
assessment and resulting public parking had provided for years to his business.
Disadvantages of Parking Assessment Program:
The passage of Proposition 218 in California resulted in the requirement that assessment levies follow
strict guidelines of special and general benefit and that all benefited properties be assessed. In the
context of a parking district, in which a large number of properties would potentially benefit (including
publicly owned parcels) approval of this kind of assessment has become increasingly rare and difficult,
making this method of funding parking largely unviable.
Conclusion:
We recognize the challenges associated with reauthorizing the assessments as a result of Proposition
218, but suggest that, given the benefits, it would be worthwhile provided that it is politically viable.
35
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING COIVSI.Y TAtiTS
37- 8234.00
MARCH 1, 2012
PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICT
A parking benefit district is a relatively new policy idea in which parking revenue, or a set portion of the
revenue, generated within the district remains in the district for the purpose of providing public
improvements. In this sense, some revenue from parking is "localized."
Where paid parking exists, the policy typically starts with increasing the price of on- street parking in
order to create turnover of spaces and better manage the parking supply. Political support for the district
and its policies is earned by earmarking all or a set portion of the increased revenue to improvements
within the district. A board of stakeholders is typically given an advisory if not active decision making
role with regard to the funds, providing an incentive to make what may otherwise be politically
unpopular but ultimately a beneficial decision with regard to parking management and funding. The
revenue typically goes first to funding off- street parking facilities and /or street improvements, but may
also be used for street trees, sidewalk repairs and other improvements.
Given that all public parking is free in Downtown Arcadia, we recognize the limitations of a parking
district in Downtown Arcadia although some aspects of this kind of parking funding and management
strategy could be helpful.
Advantages of a parking benefit district:
In the case of Downtown Arcadia, some characteristics of a parking district could be useful. These
include:
• Stakeholder involvement and political support: Whether in an advisory capacity to the City or
actually allocating some funds, a parking benefit district creates buy in and increases knowledge
of the issues among stakeholders who tend to take ownership of parking and funding issues
within the district.
• Revenue and additional support: Some revenue is generated in Downtown Arcadia, by parking
citation. In addition, we have recommended that, if parking demand from Gold Line commuters
were to spill into some public parking areas, particularly on the street, the City should consider
selling daily and monthly on- street parking permits to commuters who wish to park longer than the
posted time limit.' Revenue from a parking credit program (to be discussed) could possibly also
be included in the revenue overseen by a stakeholder board. This would not only improve the
management of parking, but also generate revenue. Having a parking benefit district board
oversee this policy would help balance the interests of providing commuter parking (and earning
additional revenue) and maintaining parking for businesses and destinations downtown.
The most frequently cited case of a successful parking benefit district is that of Old Pasadena although the
district was one of several parking policies instituted. The parking policies were ultimately part of a larger
revitalization plan.
Such permits could be provided on line, similar to the City's permits for temporary overnight parking.
36
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
W,RKJNG CONSt;,TAMS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
Disadvantages of parking benefit districts
Much of the effectiveness of parking benefit districts come from the fact that their stakeholders are
incentivized to properly manage parking based in part on the secondary parking revenue they generate.
In the case of Downtown Arcadia, this revenue would likely be relatively small.
Conclusion — parking benefit district
Features of parking benefit district programs would benefit Downtown Arcadia, the management of its
parking system and its stakeholders. We recommend that the features that promote more active and
comprehensive management of the parking system be incorporated into the overall Downtown Arcadia
parking system management and funding plan.
PARKING IN -LIEU FEES
In -lieu fees are a mechanism for financing parking that is used in cities throughout the country and
particularly in mid -sized to small California cities. A city charges a developer a fee in lieu of each
required parking space that the developer does not build. Practically speaking, a city which uses a
system of in -lieu fees must have specific minimum parking requirements in place in order to determine the
amount of the fee that the developer would have to pay, which Arcadia does.
For example, the minimum parking requirement for a commercial space is 3.0 parking spaces per 1,000
square feet and the City has set the parking in -lieu fee for the area at $20,000 per space. A developer
wants to build a 7,000 square foot commercial building. The developer could build the minimum 21
parking spaces as part of the development or pay, in this example, $20,000 per space. The in -lieu fees
go into a fund that the City uses to fund the development of public parking facilities. Depending on how
the program is structured, the developer could also pay only for those spaces that he /she could not
provide on the site. In California cities, Walker has seen parking in lieu fees that range from less than
$10,000 per space up to $60,000 per space.
Practically speaking, a project cannot be exempt from the in -lieu fee program. It must pay the required in-
lieu fee or provide its own parking. The only possible exception could be a redevelopment project, in
which case a city's redevelopment agency would finance the parking supply for the project.
If the size or shape of the parcel being developed creates a situation that makes incorporating parking
spaces difficult and /or expensive, the developer might gladly pay the in -lieu fee. In some instances, a
developer may choose to provide as many spaces as he /she can build for Tess than the price of the in-
lieu fee. Then, once the marginal cost per provided space goes above the in -lieu fee, he /she would
choose to pay the fee instead of building the more expensive parking spaces. In this way, developers
may choose to build a portion of their required spaces and pay in -lieu fees to satisfy the requirement for
the remaining spaces that are more expensive to build.
In -lieu fees are not necessarily set as the cost of providing a new parking space. An in -lieu fee should fill
the gap between what a space costs to construct and the net revenue that it generates over a set period
of time. In a location where parking is free, in -lieu fees may equal or exceed construction costs. This has
37
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
0. WALKER
;'AR1;ING CoNsu:TA *:t5
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
historically been true in places such as Downtown Palo Alto, where parking is free yet expensive to build.
However, where one is able to charge for a parking space, the in -lieu fee will ideally be set equal to the
difference between costs and net revenue over a set period of time; the higher the parking rate in the
area, the lower the in -lieu fee that the city needs to charge the developer. This consideration, however, is
largely irrelevant in Downtown Arcadia, where parking is free.
A city typically sets its in -lieu fees based on the policy that it wishes to incentivize. If a city wants to be the
entity that develops parking downtown, likely in order to encourage shared parking or to have significant
control over parking and transportation policy, it may set in -lieu fees so low that developers are
encouraged to have the city build their parking spaces for them. If a city only wants to be the developer
of parking as a last resort, it would set in -lieu fees higher.
A policy of funding public parking with in -lieu fees also addresses an important issue of fairness with
regard to current and future property owners. There are times when existing property owners consider it
inequitable for a city to build public parking for the benefit of future developers, while those who had
already developed downtown were required to provide their own parking. On the other hand, if a city
provides parking which in turn enables development and enhances an underutilized area, it can
contribute to rising property values for everyone in the area. However, with an in -lieu fee policy, when
the price is set correctly new developers essentially pay for as much parking as they are required to
have. Developers tend to appreciate the fairness and flexibility, as well as the predictability, of the policy.
In -lieu fees can be negotiated and then set on a case -by -case basis, which may be determined based on
construction and /or land costs. The alternative is that the city may apply the same uniform in -lieu fee per
parking space for each development. The City of Beverly Hills has used both methods and found that
developers preferred the predictability of the latter.
Below are a list of advantages and disadvantages of an in -lieu fee policy for the financing of parking by
municipalities:
Advantages:
• Flexibility for businesses in how to provide (and pay for) parking spaces.
• Flexibility with regard to a change of use (particularly for older buildings). Should the use of the
property change, for example a retail space changes to a restaurant use, additional in -lieu fees
can be assessed for the increase in parking demand.
• Predictability within the system: City staffs are generally provided with a clear method by which to
approve projects and their varied demands for parking.
• Shared Parking: Fewer spaces are required overall as land uses with different peak hours for
parking demand are able to share (public) parking
• Park Once: Customers can park one time to visit several destinations as opposed to having to
move their cars from one private parking lot to another after visiting an establishment.
• Historic Preservation: Buildings that might not be economically viable due to an inability to meet
parking requirements may find it easier to find tenants
38
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MARCH 1, 2012
Disadvantages:
WALKER.
POKING CONSELTANT'S
37- 8234.00
• Unnecessary where a significant supply of public or potentially publicly available parking already
exists. In lieu fees are designed to fund the creation of new parking as demand for parking
increases. Where adequate parking exists, in lieu fees are arguably unnecessary.
• Timing of completion of parking projects: When adequate parking does not exist, a system of in
lieu fee financing presents challenges with regard to when new development and its associated
parking comes on line. Often development may precede the supply of available parking.
• High fees /upfront costs may discourage development: Fees in lieu of providing parking can be
significant. Developers or businesses may be unable or simply refuse to pay them. Low fees may
not be high enough to cover parking space capital and maintenance costs. In -lieu fees may have
to be one of many sources of revenue used to finance the parking system.
• High fees can also defeat the purpose of having parking in -lieu fees at all: If given the option,
developers may choose to build their own parking, which at times may not be available to the
public. The opportunity to share parking would be lost.
• Lack of on -site parking: If given the option, providing parking off-site may be Tess desirable to
many businesses and developers than providing it on -site.
• Parking spaces are not guaranteed: When one provides their own private parking it is easier to
ensure that customers have spaces. When it is provided as part of a public facility, businesses
have less control and cannot guarantee parking.
SETTING IN -LIEU FEES
The assistance of a financial advisor is required in order to set the in -lieu fee at the appropriate rate to
fund construction and cover operating costs. However, in most cases, in -lieu fees are not the only source
of funds to finance a parking structure. Other sources may be required to fund parking facilities. As
stated previously, it is reasonable to set an in -lieu fee only high enough to fill the gap between the cost of
providing the parking space and the amount of revenue received from that parking space.
Walker has not observed a specific method, such as a system of indexing, by which cities adjust the
amount of their in -lieu fees to take into account changes in construction costs. Just as many cities do with
parking rates, in -lieu fees may be revisited every few years and adjusted by the city council.
39
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CON51 TANtS
MARCH 1, 2012
37- 8234.00
PARKING CREDITS
A parking credit system is similar to an in lieu fee program and therefore provides many of the same
benefits to the City, businesses and developers, and the public. However, there are important differences:
• Typically the cost of a parking credit, charged per required parking space, is a relatively small
charge when compared to an in lieu fee. It is ongoing and paid annually or monthly;
• The money is typically not devoted to the construction of new parking facilities, but rather is
devoted to allocating a limited supply of parking, maintaining an existing parking program, and
encouraging the shared use of an available supply of parking.
In Downtown Arcadia where an ample parking supply already exists, a system of parking credits to
satisfy minimum parking requirements is a promising way to encourage economic development and
create a revenue stream to help fund parking maintenance.
A parking credit program takes into account the existing parking supply and demand on a district or
subarea level as opposed to the parcel level; the pool of parking available for parking credits is based
on the available parking surplus within the system, not just the total supply of existing spaces. Arguably,
this is similar to how parking is required for all the businesses in a major shopping center. The policy
allows a city to grant entitlements based on parking that is located within the district and accessible to the
public, in some cases whether that parking is publically or privately owned, and in some cases if it is in a
parking lot or on the street.
When determining the number of spaces that should be considered available, the City should consider
peak parking conditions (which occur on weekdays).8 Property owners /businesses would be able to
satisfy their parking requirements by purchasing the needed number of credits, up to the number of
parking spaces required. The parking requirements or credit pool should factor in shared parking; given
the current parking requirements for businesses, particularly restaurants, in Downtown Arcadia, we
believe that shared parking has already been incorporated into the parking requirements. The number of
credits issued is tracked and the credit pool should be reassessed once a certain number of credits have
been issued. This may include performing occupancy counts and identifying additional proximate
parking to consider for inclusion into the pool.
Advantages of parking credits:
• Flexibility and significantly reduced parking costs for new and expanding businesses. The upfront
cost to property owners for required parking is significantly less than either providing one's own
parking or paying in lieu fees up front.
• New business is developed Downtown without devoting more land area to surface parking lots,
which already represent a significant amount of Downtown land, increase distances between
s The City could also consider a secondary program based on the significantly higher availability of parking on
evenings and weekends for businesses for which parking demand would peak at these off -hour times.
40
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
41iiik WALKER.
PARKING COtiSLPIAMT'S
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
businesses and destinations, discourage pedestrian behavior and "park once" strategies, and
arguably produce an undesirable aesthetic.
• Flexibility with regard to a change of use, particularly for land uses that have higher parking
requirements, such as restaurants. Should the use of the property change, for example a retail
space changes to a restaurant use, additional fees can be paid to cover the increase in required
parking.
• Predictability within the system: Both City staff and local business people are provided with an
understanding of how projects are approved and their costs. Parking credits create a predictable
process for granting entitlements. There would be no need to obtain a zoning variance or
modification in a public hearing.
• Fairness. Until recently, property owners Downtown partly paid for and enjoyed the benefits of
the existing parking supply. A parking credit program relies on those who are opening or
expanding businesses in the future to pay to take advantage of the public parking established
before them.
Shared Parking: Fewer spaces are required overall as land uses with different peak hours for
parking demand are able to share (public) parking.
Park Once: Customers can park one time to visit several destinations as opposed to having to
move their cars from one private parking lot to another after visiting an establishment.
• Historic Preservation: Buildings that might not be economically viable due to an inability to meet
parking requirements may find it easier to find tenants.
• Underutilized parking, which currently serves no purpose, is put to productive use.
• Encourages those types of businesses that respondents to the parking survey indicated they would
like to see more of in Downtown Arcadia. The increased flexibility and reduced cost of providing
parking should encourage those businesses for which providing parking is most challenging,
namely eating and drinking establishments.
• Creates opportunities for development and economic growth by enabling the use of parcels with
limited or no on -site parking
• Revenue. As new or expanding businesses open, parking credits generate a potential revenue
stream to fund maintenance of public parking facilities.
• A "win- win." The parking system benefits from a revenue stream while new businesses are able to
satisfy parking requirements at lower cost. The City has a predictable yet flexible way to analyze
and approve new and expanding businesses.
Disadvantages of parking credits:
• Revenue source to maintain parking is unpredictable, particularly at the inception of the program,
in that revenue depends entirely on expanding or new businesses.
• Requires overhead to administer the program including the active monitoring of parking demand,
supply and impacts of parking management policies. However, the active management of the
parking system provides significant additional benefits with regard to the performance of the
parking system.
• Does not actually increase parking supply
• May require arrangements with private parking owners to make their spaces available to the
public if necessary
41
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKuNG COI SI iTAMTS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
LIMITED NUMBER OF PAID PARKING PERMITS FOR LONG -TERM, ON- STREET PARKING
The impetus for considering this policy is the as yet unknown demand for parking by commuters once the
Gold Line station opens in Downtown Arcadia. Existing Gold Line stations have reinvigorated
surrounding commercial districts that have succeeded in supplying some commuter parking while meeting
their own needs. While parking demand generated by the future Gold Line station in Downtown Arcadia
can also be successfully managed, the extent to which some parking demand may spill into some
Downtown public parking areas, particularly underutilized on- street spaces near the station, is unknown.
The immediate answer to manage this parking demand is likely short -term time restrictions to protect
customer parking for local businesses. However, to the extent that a significant number of additional
spaces remain unused and can serve commuters, the sale of Tong -term parking permits would likely
benefit the City, commuters and some local businesses. One -day or monthly permits could be sold to
commuters online, similar to the City's system for selling permits in residential neighborhoods. The City
should also consider selling these permits at both City of Arcadia resident and non - resident rates. Such a
policy is used by some cities that have Metrolink stations.
OTHER METHODS OF FUNDING
We note the use of the following policies to fund parking although their inclusion is not meant to
recommend their use at the current time in Downtown Arcadia. Among other challenges with these
methods, we note a significant disconnect between those who use the parking, whether drivers or
businesses, and those who pay the costs and manage the parking. Ultimately, this tends to result in
greater inefficiency than when parking users or providers pay, at least partially, the costs to provide
parking.
SPECIAL TAX DISTRICT
Under the California Mello Roos Act, parking facilities can be financed by the levy of a special tax and
approval of the tax and the financing by two- thirds (of the landowner or registered voter vote). A special
tax district is formed and established to effect such funding.
PUBLIC /PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
In instances where municipalities, or other large entities such as hospitals, find themselves unable to come
up with adequate funding to construct a parking facility, they may choose to enter into a public - private
partnership with a firm that will build the facility for them. In this case, the municipality and the firm enter
into a public - private partnership in which the private firm builds and finances the new facility, which it
then leases to the municipality for a period of time after which ownership of the parking facility and the
land it occupies reverts back to the municipality. Typically, a non - profit (501 c3) corporation must be set
up to undertake this type of development. While the upfront costs of financing are significantly reduced
for the cities, ultimately the city must pay more for the facility as it is (albeit slowly) covering the
developer's profit. Ultimately, this type of arrangement may provide flexibility, but will not reduce a city's
costs.
42
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ViWALKER.
pARKING COh1SU 047s
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
PUBLIC PARKING METHODS IN NEARBY CITIES
Walker surveyed several local municipalities in the San Gabriel Valley to gain an understanding of how
they fund the operation and maintenance of existing parking as well any future parking lots or garages.
As expected, practices vary and the general theme expressed suggests there is no "silver bullet" solution
to addressing the funding of parking.
CLAREMONT
The City of Claremont uses gas tax funds to maintain smaller surface lots. Maintenance of the large 477 -
space structure in the Village is funded by the General Fund. The City recognizes that this is not ideal, but
hasn't focused on finding an alternate revenue stream to fund this. Parking in the structure is currently
free.
Future parking facilities are funded through an in -lieu fee. It was originally set at $9,000 per space, but
was reduced to $1,000 per space during the recession. An allocation of spaces to be funded by the in-
lieu fee was established and is approximately one -third sold. Parking credits have not been employed in
Claremont.
PASADENA
The City of Pasadena is generally regarded as a leader in parking policy. With regard to off - street
parking, the most innovative concept they have implemented is a Zoning Parking Credit (ZPC) program in
the Old Pasadena district.
The ZPC program was established in 1986 based on zoning code provisions that allow properties to
meet parking requirements through contracts with nearby parking providers. Property owners may pay
the City a nominal annual fee of approximately $150 per required space that they are not able to satisfy
on -site for a credit in a City parking garage. The annual fee adjusts annually based on the Consumer
Price Index. The credit pool consists of seven garages, with the recent addition of the Del Mar garage in
September 2011. Due to shared parking requirements each space translates into 1.5 credits. There are
approximately 3,800 credits total in the program, with approximately 800 available today.
The ZPC fees fund administration of the program and contribute towards operating the parking garages.
The biggest benefit of the ZPC program is that it has removed a major barrier to the development of Old
Pasadena, the on -site parking requirement. As a result, historic buildings have been retained and put
back into productive economic use. And new development has not been burdened with the high cost of
on -site parking. Based on the success of the ZPC program in Old Pasadena, the City is looking to expand
it to other parts of the City experiencing densification. There is no longer an in -lieu fee program in
Pasadena, as it was supplanted by the ZPC program.
We note that the parking credit program has been just one of a number of policies brought together to
fund and manage the City's parking structures. Other measures include or have included:
• Garage operating income
• Tax increment funds
43
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
40 CAWING CClNSt ?,ik*.`TS
MARCH 1, 2012
• Garage commercial tenants (rent)
• To a small extent the City's general fund
37- 8234.00
MONROVIA
Parking in Downtown Monrovia was originally funded by an assessment district created in the 1950s.
The district no longer exists and maintenance of parking is funded by the City's General Fund. The City
has no plans for additional parking in Downtown as it is mostly built -out. Instead new development is
being directed into the Downtown Extension area, located between Downtown and the future Gold Line
station. For this area, an in -lieu fee program is being explored, but zoning credits have been ruled out.
Another approach the City employs is to encourage new residential development to make guest parking
spaces available for free public parking during certain hours of the day.
SOUTH PASADENA
Off- street public parking in the City of South Pasadena is, by and large, entirely supported by the general
fund. There is one exception; capital costs for the City's subterranean public parking structure was funded
with Proposition A funds based on its use as a garage serving the City's Gold Line station. There is paid
parking within the structure although problems with the pay stations currently result in drivers generally
parking without paying; the pay stations are currently bagged. Parking permits in the City are free of
charge.
MONTEREY PARK
The City of Monterey Park does not have any formal programs in place to fund existing or future parking.
The process is managed entirely on a case -by -case basis.
44
RECOMMENDATIONS
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MARCH 1, 2012
ANE, WALKER
MRR KIG WhistaANTs
RECOMMENDATIONS
37- 8234.00
The recommendations contained in this section are designed to address the following goals:
• Management of parking demand to best serve Downtown customers and businesses;
• Enhancement of Downtown economic development including the increase in new and expansion
of existing businesses;
• Improved funding for public parking; and
• Improved efficiency of publicly available parking including increased sharing of parking spaces.
Based on these goals, we recommend that the City implement the following policies.
1. Establish a parking credit program by which property owners may pay a monthly or annual fee
per required parking space for the purpose of satisfying its tenants' or business' parking
requirements in the most efficient and inexpensive manner possible. We provide greater detail
regarding this recommendation later in this section.
2. Identify a pool of publicly available parking that can reasonably satisfy parking demand
generated by the customers and employees of users of the parking credit program. To the extent
possible, the City should make efforts to bring underutilized private parking spaces into the pool
of publicly available parking although this may simply involve maximizing usage of the current
shared parking provisions for the Central Business District contained in the City's Zoning Code.
3. Reauthorize the City's Parking Assessment Districts. As noted earlier, the amount of revenue
generated by the parking credit program depends on a level of growth that cannot be determined
at this time. We recognize, however, the challenges involved in renewing this authorization as a
result of the constraints of Proposition 218.
4. If demand for Gold Line commuter parking exceeds that which the planned Gold Line parking
structure can accommodate, issue and sell a limited number of monthly and daily all -day parking
permits for commuters in selected public parking locations as a way to manage and control
parking demand in the Downtown area as well as generate revenue for the City.
5. Create a dedicated parking fund within the City's general fund to ensure that at least a portion of
parking revenue generated in the Downtown areas is dedicated to covering costs in the District
including parking maintenance, operations and capital improvements as well as other Downtown
improvements if needed. A downtown stakeholder group such as the Downtown Arcadia Business
Association should be consulted as an advisory group regarding decisions related to the
allocation of the parking fund.
6. Monitor, manage, enforce, and adjust as necessary, time limits for public parking spaces,
particularly in popular on- street locations, so as to maximize the efficiency of the parking system
and ensure the availability of (on- street) customer parking. Once the Gold Line Station is in
45
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONS `.rAKTS
37- 8234.00
MARCH 1, 2012
operation, or new businesses participating in the parking credit program open, particular
attention should be paid to these respective impacts on on- street and other public parking located
in proximity to the station and businesses.
7. Eliminate a portion of the 46 30- minute spaces in Parking District Two's lot. The on- street spaces
that are subject to 24- minute spaces time limits should be eliminated as well. We recommend
maintaining at (east one -third to one -half of the 30 minutes spaces in Parking District Two's lot
(those spaces that were most heavily used) as well cis the two -hour spaces in Parking District
One's East lot, but we note that more aggressive enforcement may at times be necessary at these
locations if the time limits are to be respected. As demand for parking in Downtown Arcadia
increases in the future, there will likely be a need for more time - restricted spaces and greater
enforcement.
8. Consider specific parking planning and management measures for the First Avenue commercial
area south of Huntington Drive owing to its more challenging access to Downtown's public
parking lots north of Huntington Drive and the denser nature of these blocks. These measures
should focus on sharing underutilized, privately owned parking lots between businesses and
encouraging employee parking in underutilized parking lots in the area to make more convenient
parking on the street available to customers. Appendix C contains a sample agreement to
facilitate these measures.
9. Improve signage for the purpose of more effectively communicating the location of parking
available to the public. We discuss this recommendation further in this section.
SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDED PARKING CREDIT PROGRAM
• Establish a system of parking credits that requires an ongoing financial commitment from property
owners for the purpose of receiving an allocation of parking (e.g. $30 per code - required stall per
month). 9 We recommend linking the program to property rather than business ownership as the
former is likely to experience Tess frequent changes and therefore makes tracking of the system by
the City easier;
• Identify an individual at the City who will act as the parking credit program manager, a contact
person for the program who is responsible for tracking the allocation of parking credits;
• Establish that the manager of the parking credit program can issue a credit to the property owner
that satisfies their parking requirements on a one-to -one (credit per required space) basis. The
credit will be renewed annually; if it is not, the property owner is in violation of their permit;
9 We note that this figure is an example and that the fee should be determined by the City's financial advisor. We
also note that a common parking policy practice is to set such fees at a level that is (often significantly) Tess than the
cost of providing new on -site parking in order to incentivize property owners to share public parking and not
building their own, which results in significant efficiencies and aesthetic benefits in a commercial district.
46
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PAEKING c WSlftANrS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
• Many existing businesses currently depend on the supply of public parking in Downtown and
many property owners have paid assessments to the two existing parking districts. Existing
businesses should be grandfathered into the proposed parking credit system. The parking credit
system would apply to new development and intensification of land uses;
• Establish a revenue arrangement for the funds collected through the program so that revenue
collected is dedicated to the maintenance, administration, operations and ideally some capital
costs of providing parking in Downtown Arcadia;
• Require that the City staff member overseeing the parking credit program prepare a brief report
regarding the purchasers of parking credits, parking inventory, demand, and status of the
program once to twice per year, depending on the amount of activity occurring within the
program;
• Identify specific criteria for defining the supply of and demand for the public parking that is linked
to parking occupancy counts during peak demand periods;
• Verify the number of public parking spaces in Downtown committed to the parking credit program
per criteria that is established as part of the program;
• Reevaluate the program periodically to ensure that the measures undertaken are serving the needs
of City staff, businesses, the public, and other stakeholders with regard to the allocation of public
parking in Downtown.
PARKING CREDIT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The establishment of a parking credit program would likely require an amendment to the City's zoning
ordinance. However, the successful implementation of the program would also require attention to a
number of operational considerations once the program has been established. We discuss these
considerations below.
DETERMINING THE PRICE OF THE PARKING CREDIT
The precise dollar amount of a parking credit should be determined by the City's Administrative Services
Department or Financial Advisor. However, the amount is not usually the result of a formula or simple
calculation. Instead, in most cities the amount depends on the policy priorities of the program. The
amount may be tied to the City's cost to administer the program or the maintenance and capital costs of
the parking district. Clearly, a smaller amount increases the incentive to private interests to create or
expand businesses. Compared to the cost to business of providing additional parking or most parking in-
lieu-fees, which are ultimately used to construct more parking, parking credits are less expensive.
Example parking credit costs from Pasadena were discussed earlier in the report. For illustrative
purposes, we note that based on a parking credit of $30 per month, an expansion or conversion of
15,000 square footage from office or retail space to restaurant uses in Downtown Arcadia would
generate a total of $5,400 annually. Square footage of 25,000 square foot in the program would
generate a total of $9,000 annually. Per the City's 2010 budget, $9,100 and $14,790 represent the
annual costs of maintenance for Downtown Parking Districts One and Two respectively.
Parking credit fees are at times subsidized in order to incentivize businesses to open or expand. At the
same time if fees are so high as to hinder participation in the program neither business expansion nor
revenue generation to help fund public parking will occur.
47
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER
PAWNS CON5U.Ws S
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF SPACES IN THE "POOL" OF PARKING
A parking credit program does not reserve or even allocate specific parking spaces to those who pay
into the program. Nonetheless, the number of spaces that are contained in the parking credit "pool"
should be determined so that the number of credits purchased can be tracked and compared to the
available supply.
The following are three primary considerations for determining the size of the parking credit pool:
• Number of spaces that are unutilized and reasonably available during the peak weekday hours
as well as off -peak evening and weekend hours for businesses that may be open only during
those times.
• Which spaces to include in the pool? Public spaces are obviously more readily utilized and
available than private spaces, but to the extent that underutilized private spaces exist they
represent a valuable resource and should not be overlooked. Later in the report we discuss ways
to utilize private spaces for public use, which may not require use of the parking credit program.
We note that in some locations, the inclusion of underutilized on- street spaces in the parking
credit pool may be justified.
Location of spaces. Based on Walker's research and standards for walking distances, most
parcels within the Downtown study area are located within an acceptable walking distance of
underutilized parking spaces. This is certainly true for employee parking and generally true for
customer parking. However, although there were over 1,700 vacant parking spaces noted in the
Downtown study area during peak occupancy (equating to over 1,400 parking spaces after
• calculating the effective supply), these spaces are not uniformly distributed throughout the area.
One challenge is whether the City can reasonably put in place sufficient enforcement and policy
tools to ensure that parking demand generated in one location can be distributed to underutilized
parking spaces so as not to unacceptably impact an area around a new business that participates
in the parking credit program.
Given these considerations and the fact that the level of demand for parking credits by businesses is at
present unknown, we preliminarily suggest a pilot or phased approach whereby parking credits are
provided A) by location or proximity and B) a limited number of spaces is designated for a "first round"
of parking credits. In terms of location and types of spaces, parking credits could initially be allocated as
follows:
• Zoning Credit District "A" — Blocks 1 & 2 (North of Gold Line right of way, west of Second
Avenue and south of St. Joseph Street) could consist of some underutilized on- street parking
spaces;
• Zoning Credit District "B" — Blocks 3 — 5 (South of Gold Line right of way, east of First Avenue,
both sides of Huntington Drive) would include the limited number of underutilized spaces
contained in Parking District #1 public parking lots;
• Zoning Credit District "C" — Blocks 10 — 13 (South of Gold Line right of way, west of First
Avenue, both sides of Huntington Drive) would include the limited number of unutilized spaces
contained only in Parking District #2 public parking lots;
48
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER.
PARKING CONSU:TANTS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
• Zoning Credit District "D" — Blocks 6 — 8, 14 - 16 (South of Huntington Drive along First Avenue)
could include a limited number of employee parking permits assigned to adjacent residential
streets.
A more precise, but potentially more complicated way to measure the appropriate supply of spaces that
could serve a business and the parking credit program would be to include spaces from selected parking
facilities within a specific distance from the parcel, for example 1,000 feet.10
Including all 1,400 surplus spaces into a zoning parking credit pool (or more, if one considers parking
demand during evenings and weekends only) may be premature and an overly ambitious way to begin
the program. However, limiting the number of available spaces by location could result in those
businesses that are most in need of the flexibility provided by the parking credit program from being
served.
The City may wish to begin by allocating a total of 5% to 10% of the total surplus from throughout the
study area to the credit program. Those parking spaces located in the public parking lots in Parking
Districts, particularly Parking District 2, would be the easiest to make available for this purpose. We note
that whatever method is used to determine the supply, there are likely to be tradeoffs between creating a
program that is user friendly for both City staff and businesses and one that accurately determines just
how many spaces are reasonably available to accommodate increased parking demand.
INCORPORATING UNDERUTILIZED PRIVATE PARKING — USE OF CURRENT ZONING CODE
PROVISIONS
Occupancy surveys demonstrated that much of the private parking supply in Downtown Arcadia is
significantly underutilized, even during the times of overall peak occupancy. This supply of parking
represents a significant amount of land and resources in the area; it is too valuable to be "written off."
Sharing private parking utilizes parking that otherwise might sit vacant and may actually be located in a
more convenient location than the parking located in the centralized public parking Tots; private parking
lots exist almost everywhere in the district.
10 Walker's recommended walking distances exceed 1,600 feet for employees or commuters in some cases.
49
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PARKING CONSt3.TAKTS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
Incorporating private parking into the parking credit pool could therefore be useful to some businesses or
property owners. However, the City's zoning code already contains provisions for businesses to share
parking in Downtown Arcadia." Unlike the parking credit program, these provisions assign specific
parking spaces to the land uses that require them. However, for all intents and purposes, this provision
appears to achieve most of the primary objectives of the parking credit program, providing businesses
flexibility to satisfy their parking requirements and reducing the overbuilding of parking. For this reason, it
may not be necessary to include private parking in the pool eligible for parking credits, unless City staff
has determined that the current zoning code has not provided the flexibility that was intended.
Appendix C contains a sample agreement between a city and private parking lot owner designed to
address this issue.
MONITORING THE PROGRAM — AND THE PARKING
Our experience with both public and private parking systems suggests a tendency to underemphasize the
importance of parking management as a means to address parking supply and demand challenges that
arise. The establishment of a framework for the parking credit program is crucial, but active monitoring of
the program, including the utilization of the parking system, is crucial as well.
Fragmentation of the responsibility for parking can make effective management of the parking system
more challenging. To the extent possible, we recommend that one individual or at least one department
oversee the following measures which will be necessary for the proper functioning of a parking credit
program and the parking system as a whole:
• Allocation of parking credits among property owners;
• Determination of the supply of parking that can be considered part of parking credit pool;
• Parking occupancy rates particularly during peak hours;
• Interface with a stakeholder group (Arcadia Downtown Business Association) that provides input
regarding parking policy decisions related to the parking credit program; and
• Recommendations to adjust on- and off - street parking restrictions in order to address changes in
parking occupancy rates that may occur as a result of changes in parking demand in Downtown
Arcadia.
PARKING ENFORCEMENT
Increased and extended hours for on- street enforcement should increase the use of underutilized private
spaces and therefore the availability of on- street spaces for shared public parking by the public,
effectively increasing the supply of the most convenient spaces Downtown. When parking demand
increases in a given area, without active enforcement on- street spaces tend to bear the brunt of the
increase in demand. For this reason, additional parking policy tools could be necessary to ensure that
increased parking demand does not adversely affect the availability of on- street parking for customers.
These policies would likely include:
• An extension of the hours of enforcement for time restrictions along commercial blocks. This is
particularly helpful in areas where restaurants are opened in the evening; when time restrictions
"Article IX, Chapter 2 Zoning Regulations, Division 4 Central Business District Zone, 9264.3.4 — Parking.
50
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DJQpj tOiCER
pnakirau toN5txtAr.,rty
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
are only enforced until 6:00 pm, short-term/on-street parking spaces tend to be dominated by
employee parkers who arrive before customers and park in the most convenient spaces until their
shift is complete, making parking for customers inconvenient. Where evening on- street parking
demand exceeds 85 %, we suggest that the hours of parking enforcement should be extended until
9:00 pm.
• More active enforcement. As noted earlier, the use of time limits to manage parking demand is
challenging and time consuming to enforce as well as easily subject to abuse by Tong -term
parkers. Our analysis of the "turnover" of on- street porkers in Downtown Arcadia indicated that
short-term parking availability in Downtown Arcadia may be impacted by employees. In most
commercial districts where short-term parking regulations are enforced only with the use of time
limits, employees frequently move their cars to avoid a penalty for parking longer than two hours,
yet the presence of the vehicle for long periods of time still has the same negative impact on the
availability of parking for short-term (customer) porkers. Increased enforcement or use of
enforcement technology can help address and mitigate these issues. For example, we understand
that the City currently has license plate recognition (LPR) technology though does not use it for
purposes of parking enforcement.
• Paid parking not recommended in Downtown Arcadia. We do not recommend paid parking in
Downtown Arcadia now or in the foreseeable future. Paid parking is the most efficient and
effective way to reallocate parking demand across a parking system, but we typically only
recommend paid parking in cases where parking demand in certain areas consistently exceeds
85% to 90 %. However, as noted, one possible exception that could trigger a recommendation for
paid parking is the potential for parking demand generated by the future Gold Line Station to spill
over into some public parking areas, both on- and off-street. In this case, selling a limited number
of commuter parking passes in these areas would help the City manage parking demand and
generate some revenue for the service it would provide to commuters. Maximize the use of
underutilized, privately owned parking Tots located on the First Avenue commercial blocks south
of Huntington Drive using either agreements between businesses and commercial property owners
in the area or agreements between the City and the property owners to make the Tots available
for public parking. In the case of agreements between the City and the property owners typically
a fee (e.g. monthly) and issues of the property owners' liability are addressed. Signage that
clearly indicates the availability of the spaces to the general public or designated user group (e.g.
customers and employees) must also be put in place. The desirability of different policies in this
portion of the study area is the result of the smaller parcels and more challenging proximity to the
public parking Tots located north of Huntington Drive.
• Graduated fine structure for parking citations. Given the emphasis on parking enforcement that
we recommend would be necessary for effective parking management in the face of future growth
in the area, we also recommend a change in the parking citation fine structure in Downtown
Arcadia to one that is not unduly onerous or unfair to the occasional forgetful offender but
penalizes the habitual offender. The purpose is to be fair and to avoid "ticket anxiety" and a
negative impression of Downtown Arcadia for visitors. For illustration purposes, a first violation
could be ten dollars or even free, a second violation would then be $25 and a third violation $80
or higher. We recognize potential impacts on revenues but would expect some offset resulting
51
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4ii#WALKER
PARKING CONSIITANITS
MARCH 1, 2012 37-8234.00
• from the higher fines for habitual offenders. We would also expect increased goodwill on the part
of visitors to the Downtown and enhanced public relations for the City.
PARKING CREDITS RECOMMENDATIONS — CONCLUSION
Despite the emphasis on a parking credit program's ability to create flexibility and predictability within
the development process, a few points should be noted. First, the City's current parking requirements for
businesses in Downtown are not onerous, particularly for restaurant uses. Nonetheless, a system of
parking credits is meant to address older properties built to or nearly to the lot line, which may have little
or no options for on -site parking and therefore cannot even meet reasonable parking requirements.
A second point concerns a parking credit program's ability to enhance economic development which
readers will know intuitively but may be worth repeating. Parking credits can help stimulate economic
development only insofar as the lack of flexibility in the current code requirements specifically hinders
business development. Obviously, the policy cannot address larger economic development questions that
the Downtown area may face. In short, parking management and funding policies in and of themselves
are not revenue or economic development plans. However, they can be very useful tools to enhance such
plans given the significant costs that are typically involved for a business to provide parking.
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to the parking credit program, the City of Arcadia can implement other changes to improve
the efficiency of the parking system in the Downtown area.
UTILIZE PRIVATE LOTS
As indicated earlier in the report, a large share of the Downtown area's parking supply is in private lots.
In order to have an effective parking management strategy for the entire Downtown area, utilizing these
private Tots will be necessary. Some options for doing so are as follows:
• Lease spaces from private parking owners: As compared to building additional parking spaces,
the City may consider leasing spaces from private lot owners and making them available for
public parking and for inclusion into a parking credit pool.
• Facilitate sharing of spaces between private parking owners. This option may be especially useful
along First Avenue south of Huntington Drive, where limited on- street parking and the proximity of
residential development limit parking options. Utilization of private lots may establish small
parking "districts" to share parking among active uses.
REMOVE 30- MINUTE PARKING SPACES IN PARKING DISTRICT TWO
Based on our observations, the 30- minute parking spaces in Parking District Two are generally not well
utilized with no more than 20 out of the 46 spaces occupied during the peak period on the day of our
fieldwork. A few of these spaces were occupied by cars parked much longer than the 30- minute limit
including the spaces adjacent to the Arcadia Medical Center. Over the course of the day, the spaces that
received the most use were those next to the Post Office.
We would recommend maintaining the 30- minute time restriction on the 24 spaces near the Post Office.
However, the City may consider removing the time restriction on the other 22 spaces. As a consideration,
52
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER.
WAKING CONSU TAMS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
note that it is typically more difficult politically to institute a time restriction compared to maintaining one
that is already in place.
RESTRIPE PARKING DISTRICT ONE EAST LOT
We recommend expanding the capacity of the Parking District One East Lot by restriping and also
incorporating the portion of Indiana Street, south of Wheeler Avenue, into the lot. Doing so would
increase the capacity from 45 spaces today to either 74 or 80 spaces, depending on whether city code
or Walker's recommended parking dimensions are followed.
Given the generous length (20 feet) required for parking spaces within the City's code, we suggest that
shortening that length would allow for more the larger number of spaces without impacting the level of
service to the driver.
IMPROVE PARKING SIGNAGE
It should be noted that signage and wayfinding are not the same thing. The term
" wayfinding" was first used in 1960 by Kevin Lynch in The Image of the City,
where he referred to maps, street numbers, directional signs and other elements
as "way- finding" devices. Lynch's early description may explain the current
misunderstanding that wayfinding is essentially the same as "signage."
Though the two terms are often used interchangeably, wayfinding and signage
are not synonymous. Signs and signage specifically refers to the size, shape,
design and fabrication of signs. Wayfinding is a term that refers to one's ability
to help navigate unfamiliar environments while not relying exclusively on signs.
People who find themselves in unfamiliar environments need to know where they actually are in t e
relation to the area, the layout and location of their destination, in order to formulate their action plans.
Faulty sign design can cause navigation problems in unfamiliar environments. Some signs lack
conspicuousness or visibility, because lettering lacks legibility when viewed from a distance. Others
contain inaccurate, ambiguous or unfamiliar messages; many are obscured by trees or other obstructions,
or contain reflective surfaces that hinder readability. Often there are just not enough signs or enough
consistency of directional signs in the area to help people navigate. Consequently, many people do not
see or read signs. Under these conditions, it is easier to ask for directions than to read the signs.
Because wayfinding problems are not confined to signs alone, they typically cannot be solved by
randomly adding more signs. Instead, such problems can be unraveled by designing an environment that
identifies logical traffic patterns that enable people to move easily from one spot to another without
confusion.
Walker staff reviewed signage that directs traffic to public parking in the Downtown district. Most of this
signage is located along Huntington Drive. We note that signage could arguably convey its message
more clearly and efficiently than is currently the case. Doing so could even reduce the amount of vehicles
"cruising" for available on- street spaces and direct more vehicles into the public Tots more quickly and
53
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WALKER.
PARKING CONStt..TANTS
MARCH 1, 2012 37- 8234.00
efficiently. The current signage explaining "Parking Available Behind Stores" may explain where the
parking is located, but a clear arrow and branded or universal parking sign for the area would direct
drivers to the entrances to these facilities, the location of which may not be intuitive to first time visitors.
PARKING SIGNAGE AND GOLD LINE USERS
With the opening of the Gold Line station, a new parking user group will be introduced to Downtown
Arcadia and signage will need to be considered to direct new commuters quickly and efficiently to the
station parking facility or possibly to lots where they can park and patronize neighborhood businesses.
Signage will also be needed to distinguish between locations where Gold Line Station parking is
permissible or desirable per City policy. Signage that directs drivers who have parked in other locations
throughout Downtown and then may also access the facility as pedestrians will also be needed.
It should be noted that commuters who park at transit stations have somewhat unique signage needs;
some make the decision, during their commute, to pull off a freeway or arterial street, and seek parking
in the transit facility structure or continue driving to their destination for concern of not being able to find
parking. Signs that direct drivers from major thoroughfares and assure them of the location and
availability of parking have been shown to increase transit ridership. The most useful of these signs
provide real time parking space availability displays. Similarly, ensuring that both the name and the
address of the transit facility garage are included in on -line and mobile application mapping software is
helpful to commuters as well.
As preparation is made for the new Gold Line Station and its parking structure, wayfinding needs are
best resolved during initial planning stages through a collaborative effort by all design professionals -
architects, designers and sign makers - to address a project's intended communication. The primary
generator of environmental communication, architecture and design, helps to delineate spatial
organization, destination zones and information sequencing- factors that contribute to wayfinding's
success or failure. To more intuitively direct drivers to parking, and to the station once they park
Downtown, it is important to furnish architectural clues:
• Clearly identify entrances to parking areas.
• Locate information in public areas.
• Provide parking maps and guides at public buildings, businesses, restaurants and hotels.
• Add a parking map to the City's website and encourage business to Zink to the map.
• Use consistent lighting, surfaces, and architectural finishes in public areas.
• Situate memorable landmarks along corridors and at key decision points.
54
APPENDIX A: LICENSE PLATE
INVENTORY DATA
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX A: LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY DATA
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
37- 8234.00
TABLE A- 1: LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY DATA — DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT 1 — EAST LOT
Space Description
1 Space l ...:,
12
NMI
9:00 AM 10:00 AM
14
r
Space 4
Space 5
Space 6
Space 7
859
Time Circuit Bea ins
11:00 AM 12 :00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 1 4:00 PM T 1 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 1 7:00 PM
4 1. ; 034 . 034.
448
859
907 I 907 J
114
t15
Space 8
Space 9 2 hou
724 72.E
1
Space 10 (2 hour
Space 11
Space 12
814
19
X20
121
122
23
Space 19
Space 20
Space 21
326 I 326
869 1- 869
565 565
054
209 209 I
1
589 1
1
126
28
r29
X30
31
Space 28
Space 29
our (2 30 ace
S howl.
L
Space 31 (2 hour
S•ace 33
ua r
148
148 - r -955
03W
I
838
_ 582
681
13 I 613
822 1
CAR
a *` r 41is t.r a
3
138
3
14
141
14
44 Space 44
`45 Space 45
Space 36
Space 37
Space 38
Space 39
Space 40
Space 41
Space 42
451
' 881 1
_ 316
976
Space 43 2 hour
956
Legend
No color - parked one hour or less
2 heus
More than 2 hours
N.P. - no license plate
56 903
8a9 L. 869
212 Y 212
1 901 4
84
212 "' 212_ i'312 _ 1
9
r -174 ^179
a.
__
j 653
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 201 1
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX A: LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY DATA
WALKER
RA,RKJNG CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
37- 8234.00
TABLE A- 2: LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY DATA - NORTH SIDE OF HUNTINGTON DRIVE BETWEEN 1sT
AVENUE AND 2ND AVENUE
Time Circuit Be ins
Space Description
9:00 AM,10:00 AM
11:00 AMI 12:00 PM
1 :00 PM1 2:00 PM
3:00 PM 1 4:00 PM
5:00 PM 1 6:00 PM
7:00 PM
i 1
1 2
Space 1
Space 2
I 865
1 238
6:00 PM
863 _ i- 8f5_
238 L 238
— — 7+ _ — —
238 1 238
1 23$
1
238 1 238
1
238
I
F- 3�S2ace3
L 4JS2ace
15
4
Space 5
-,}_ ^.
4` 1 ;: 6 :
477 i
_ I
071' ^ 1
I
1 726
130 1 267
526
481
700
I
1
TIM
127
_
071
f - --
L
1
— 135_+ - --
,4 _332
3 ;`L ,.�
- -- I
_ _ I
854 _ 1
1
1 65.ace6
I
211
902
886
086
N.P.
(
's* .
194 1 955
598
7
I- 8
Space 7
P
Space 8
_ --
+ 429
584 i
�
823...,'4
371 ..-
52I
141
--
I
- -
1
928
--
-. ,,,.m r
s q
?,� `<
-
5 •,,� -�f s1�g.'
413_ ■
--
884 1
1 9
Space 9
390 1 N.P.
1
+ 290 1
e.
s
591',
487
�:
_ N.P.
.�.'N�,
149
1
609
56 1 884
I
950 214
110
111
12
Space 10
S ace 11 reen curb
S2 ace (�
Space 12
804 � �:
465 � 46$
x�
ts�'L
65 I
1
_ _ _
N.P.
_
972
�
I
_�3�
r
126 I
I
045 1
113
Space 13
i
694
515
324
I
500
795
560 I
114
Space 14
I
407
1
853
I
256
115 Space 15
16,Space 16
1
1 273
I
1
547
433
N.P.
I
1
531
577
523
577
577
925
_ 2_31 _I
8 1
Lama
No color - parked one hour or less
3hAdit
More than 2 hours
N.P. - no license plate
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 201 1
TABLE A- 3: LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY DATA - EAST SIDE OF 1" AVENUE BETWEEN ALLEY AND ALTA STREET
Space Descri•tion
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
1 _1
1 2
Space 1
S• ace 2
S
~
_ 273
563
053
~
320
952
071
071
_ I
071' ^ 1
071
369 1
071 I R
_
071
071 `
_
071
3
S•ace 3
211
I N.P. -a-
N: P.
N.P.
N.P.
N.P.
4
Space 4
883
319
1 5tSSpace 5
1 6 Space 6
_
980
213
543
1
+ 290 1
416
549 i
I
487
Legend
No color = parked one hour or less
2 houi
More than 2 hours
N.P. - no license plate
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 201 1
A -2
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX A: LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY DATA
40 WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
37- 8234.00
TABLE A- 4: LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY DATA — WEST SIDE OF 1ST AVENUE BETWEEN ALLEY AND ALTA STREET
Time Circuit Begins
Space Description
9:00 AM 1 10:00 AM I 11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM 2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM 1 5:00 PM 1 6:00 PM
7:00 PM
1
Space l
1
- 836 1
741
741
741 I 741
129
1-2
Space 2
1 L
FAB 748
BEE
379 1 1
505 1
I 3
Space 3
I t 748
- 748
748.
950
950 1 1
� 4
Space 4
- - - - 1 1
- -
_ _95_0_
- 573 r 070
OC1
570 L 1 WAY
_N.P._
` 977 i
1
Space 5
I I 385
ETR
729
483 i I 766
135 I
_5
I 6
Space 6
P
_
I L
582 N,P:
N.P: N.R.
266
9. ..
224 1 681. L 681
-
1 7
Space 7
} 1
164 4A1
�
4A1
4A1
316 I 372 1 876
N.P. i
1 8
Space 8 (handicapped)
1 1
_
685
1 1
1 1
:eond
No color - parked one hour or less
2 hews,
More than 2 hours
N.P. - no license plate
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
TABLE A- 5: PLATE INVENTORY DATA — WEST SIDE OF 1ST AVENUE BETWEEN ALTA STREET AND BONITA STREET
Time Circuit Begins
Space Description 9
9:00 AM 1 10:00 AMI1 1:00 AM 1
12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2
2:00 PM 1 3:00 PM 1 4:00 PM 5
5:00 PM 1 6:00 PM 7
7:00 PM I
_ S
Space 1 4
t- :97 i
441 145,'1 1
- 836 1
1 836 8
189 1 4
462 4
444
i- .
JAN _ 1 7
759 7
759 7
754 032 1 N.P. 1
1 9
_ I
I 5 S
S•ace 5 �
190 1
131 ;
;; k NAP I'J P 9
985, 9
986 775
1 6 S
Space 6 1
155 2
274 �r 1)5 l r
586 5
5✓ 6 586
7 S
Space 7 1
1 138 1 1
197 r
r 037 N
N.P.' 073 073 _
_ 073 t _
_073 _073
1 _9 S
Space_9 (24 minutes) I
I 1 1
- - -- 1
1 1
1 1 1
1 _
_ _
_ _ _ ,
111 S
S ace 11 1
1 1
t-- -
- +
r
269 1 0
`- =,x -
- --
i 13 S
Space 13 1
1 1
1 1 276 6
658 0
095 ` 0
095:
94 S
Space 14 �
� 352 ,
1 218 r
r 1.22 1 506 0
069 4
432
�
15 S
Space 15 1
1 I 4
470 L
LAN 7
796 .
01 - 3
301 1
16 S
S•ace 16 4
432 1 1 6
642 7
706 LYN •
. 0
128
117 S
Space 17 _
_ _ _
_ 706 _
479 I
I 1
1 ADE 1 ADE A
ADE
_i _
N.P. i
Leg*nd
No color = parked one hour or less
2
hours
More than 2 hours
N.P. = no license plate
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
A -3
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX A: LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY DATA
WALKER
HARKING CONSULTANTS NTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
37- 8234.00
TABLE A- 6: LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY DATA - 24 HOUR FITNESS SURFACE PARKING (ARROYO RESTAURANT LOT)
Time Circuit Begins
La
No color parked one hour or less
2 hoUts
More than 2 hours
N.P. - no license plate
xyz a license plate number different from prior period
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 201 1
A -4
S •ace Descri • tion
11:00 AM 2:00 PM 5:00 PM
1
Space
4___ - -_-1
2
Space 2
1 955
3
Space 3
450i xyz I
4
Space 4
2711 xyz 1
5
Space 5
2637 _ 1
-t --- _ --1
6
Space 6
_ 9821 _ _ 558 xyz _ _ J
7
S•ace 7
9601 788 1
8
Space 8
1 545 I
9Space9
1
+___ xv__i
10
Space 10
1 571 -I
11
Space 11
I 760 xyz 1
12
Space 12
2631 620 xyz I
13
Space 13
0211 676 xyz i
14
Space 14
6621 919 xyz I
15
Space 15
3341 i
16
Space 16
2111 201 I
17
S•ace 17
1 570 I
18
Space 18
7971 961 xe
19
Space 19
7421 3165a _ _ I
20
Space 20
8231 207
xyz I
21
Space 21
095 622
xyz I
22
Spoce 22
0441
xyz
23
Space 23
2091 837
xyz
24
Space 24
I 431
xyz
25
Space 25
1 646
I
x�z -
26
Space 26
0364 _ _ 844
xyz _ _ _1
27
Space 27
1 367
xyz J
28Space
28
I 190xyz__I
29
Space 29
} 1
xyz
30
Seoce 30
L 1 802
xyz 1
31
Space 31
I 275
xyz
32
Space 32
6551 655
33
Space 33
5137 957
,
34Lpace
34
N.P.
xe _ _ _,
35
Space 35
1
xy _1
36
Space 36
I 925
xyz
37
Space 37
} 388i
xyz
38
Space 38
4661 107
39
Space 39
1
xyz I
40
Space 40
8561 232
xyz I
41
S•ace 41
638
z ,
42
Space 42
-t
xv - _ _1
43
Space 43
1
xyz J
44
Space 44
I 388
xyz 1
45
Space 45
1731 610
1
46
- -
Space 46
7221 1131xyz
1
La
No color parked one hour or less
2 hoUts
More than 2 hours
N.P. - no license plate
xyz a license plate number different from prior period
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 201 1
A -4
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX A: LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY DATA
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
37- 8234.00
TABLE A- 7: LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY DATA —24 HOUR FITNESS STRUCTURE
Time Circuit Begins
�S•ace
•
S •ace Descri • tion
11:00 AM
2:00 PM
5:00 PM
1
'
'
S. ace 2
614
z
Space 3
Space4
Space 5 j
Space 6
Space7
Space 8
610
789
-t -t___
828
855
_ _xyz
_ xyz
_ 855
Space 9
376
376
Space 10
xyz
Space 11
656
S •ace 12
IS5
Space 13
Space 14
739
279 526
•
Space 15
Space 16
Space17
Space 18
_ _ 5_47 _
_ _ 0_45 _ 973
__9_87 ___
582 N.P.
_ xYz
_ xyz
_ xyz
z
MN
NEM
NM
S•ace 19
935 384
S •ace 20
792 288
S•ace 21
160
489
MOMIIIIM
S•ace 22
718
23
24
25
_26
_27
_28
29
Space 23
Space 24
Space 25
Space 26
Space 27
Space 28
Space 29
665 204
371 776
882 415
097 803
690 429
562 588
271 949
_ xyz
_ xyz
_ xyz
_ _ xyz
_ _ xyz
_ _ xyrz
30
Space 30
559
S•ace 31
216 800
z
S•ace 32
236 950
S•ace 33
521 058
z
Space 34
590 590
xyz
•
Space 35
Space 36
Space 37
Space 38
140 261
RD1 932
499 499
xyz
xyz
xyz
xyz
39
Space 39 5411. 668
xyz
40
_
Space 40 r 724
_
xyz
A -5
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX A: LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY DATA
WALKER
MARKING CONSU[TANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
Time Circuit Begins
S •ace Descri s tion
]S•ace41
11:00 AM
2:00 PM
5:00 PM
177
MEE
S•ace 42
43
Space 43
935
533
44
S •ace 44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Space 45
Space 46
Space 47
Space 48
Space 49
Space 50
518
4037
4
3294
593
_ _ _
_ _ xYz
_ xyz
_ xyz
_ xyz
_ xyz
Space 51
243
Space 52
S•ace 53
753
Space 54
r 020
xyz
Space 55
737
z
56
57
58
Space 56
Space 57
Space 58
-4--- _ _ _
737j
_ xyz
_ xyz
xyz
59
60
61
Space 59
Space 60
Space 61
_ _ xiz
_ xlz
z
ItSI
Ea
ilag
66
67
68
69
70
71
S •ace 62
Space 63
S•ace 64
Space 65
z
Space 66
Space 67
Space 68
Space 69
Space 70
Space 71
r 't
_ _ xxz
_ xyz
z
OE
S•ace 72
z
S•ace 73
z
Space 74 J
S•ace 75
Space 76
Space 77
1 Space 78
79 Space 79
—
80 Space 80
r-- --t - --
L 1
- --
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX A: LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY DATA
WALKER
PARKING CONSUl7ANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
Time Circuit Be ins
S •ace Descri . tion
11:00 AM
2:00 PM
5:00 PM
Space 81
Space 82
•
Space 83
Space 84
Space 85
S • ace 86
CRS
• ace 87
an
S•ace 88
ea
S•ace 89
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
in
Space 90
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
91
S•ace 91
Space 92
_92
Space 93
_93
94
Space 94
95
Space 95
96
S • ace 96
S•ace 97
98
Space 98
99
S •ace 99
100
S •ace 100
101
Space 101
_ _ _
102
S•ace 102
10_3
Space 103
104
Space 104
105
Space 105
•
S • ace 106
MINI
107
S • ace 107
IIIIM
108
S •ace 108
109
S •ace 109
NM
110
Space 110
xyz
111
_
Space 111 _
_
_ _ _
_ xyz
11_2
Space 112 _
_�
113
Space 113
xyz
114
Space 114
_
115
Space 115
_ _xxz
z
116
Space 116
117S•ace117
118
Space 118
xyz
119
Space 119
xyz
1 20
Space 120
_
xyz
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX A: LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY DATA
WALKER
TAnns
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
Time Circuit Begins
S • ace Descri • tion
11:00 AM
2:00 PM
5:00 PM
S•ace 121
S•ace 122
123
Space 123
124
S •ace 124
rialla
125
Space 125
12_6
Space 1_26___
___
___
127
Space 127 __
___
___
12_8
Space 1_28_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
12_9
Space_ 1_29_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ ?ryz
130
Space 130
S• ace 131
132
S•ace 132
NM
133
Space 133
NM
134
S•ace 134
NM
S•ace 135
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
z
13_6
Space 136
xyz
13_7
Space 137
xyz
138
Space 138
1_39
Space 139
1_40
Space 140
EN
141
Space 141
S•ace 142
wines
mm
5 ace 143
111111111
z
Ern
S •ace 144
051
z
In
S•ace 145
146
z
146
Space 146
_ _ x1z
1_47
Space 147
_ _ xyz
148
Space 148
1
_49
Space 149
_ _ x1z
1155_O
1
Space_ 1_50_ _ _
S•ace 151
_ _ _
317
_ _ _
_ ?ryz
S•ace 152
391
egg
Space 153
111111011111111
z
154
Space 154
xyz
155
S • ace 155
798
z
156
Space 156
496
338
x1z
157
Space 157
437
xlz
158
Space 158
848
xyz
159
Space 159
._ _ _ _
_ _32_9
_ xyz
160
Space 160
L 547
485
xyz
A -8
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX A: LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY DATA
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
Time Circuit Begins
S • ace Descri • tion
11:00 AM
2:00 PM
5:00 PM
S•ace 161
096
932
162
Space 162
1 401
830
xyz
1_63
1_64
1_65
166
Space 163
Space 164
Space 165
Space 166
1 858
624
724
120
124
_ _ xyz
_ _ xr
z
a31
Space 167
121
—
z
ea
S • ace 168
894
894
iim
S • ace 169
292
D44
63
S•ace 170
c
z
171
S•ace 171
1_72
Space 172 978
1_73
Space 173 489
xr
17_4
Space 174 409
- - -_-
470
_ _
xyz
17_5
Space_ 1_75_— _— r
—
- - -_ -
—_ xyzi
176
1- 074
S • ace 176
S•ace 177
229
z
178
Space 178 549
xyz
179
S•ace 179
180
S•ace 180
337
1_81
Space 181 633
200
x�rz
182
Space 182 683
085
_
xyz
183
Space 183 735
351
xyz
18_4
Space 184 LV
280
_
xyz
185
S•ace 185 ADY
078
_
z
S•ace 186]
187
Space 187 388
459
188
S•ace 188 167
261
261
189
S•ace 189 564
824
190
Space_ 1_90 _ 635
567
xyz
191
_ _
Space l_91_ _ _ 095
_
xyz
192
Space 1_92_ _ 3_03
_
_
xyz
193
---
_ _
Space 1_93_ _ _ _
_196
_
xyz
1_94
_173
Space 194 812
_ _09_8
945
_
xyz
195
Space 195 163
752
_ _
z
196
S•ace 196 BSD
296—
197
S•ace 197 692
387
NM
198
S•ace 198
744
IIIIM
X199
Space 199 565
351
xyz
L200
Space 200 020
290
xyz
A -9
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX A: LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY DATA
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
Time Circuit Begins
leans!
No color = parked one hour or Tess
hours
More than 2 hours
N.P. = no license plate
xyz = license plate number different from prior period
37- 8234.00
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
S •ace Descri. tion
11:00 AM 2:00 PM
5:00 PM
_
201
S • ace 201
590
572
202
Space 202
345
866
x1z
203
S • ace 203
727
129
z
NM
rim
204
Space 204
614
428
205
S • ace 205
716
049
206
S • ace 206
392
786
207
20_8
20_9
210
Space 207
Space 208
Space 209
Space 210
434
766
930
985
780
738
680
601
_ xyz
_ xyz
_ xyz
211
Space 211
212
Space 212
213
S • ace 213
720
214
Space 214
699
699
S •ace 215
Space 216
Space 217 _ _
Space 218
Space 219
Space 220
Space 221
526 482
1111101111111111
_ _ 7_27 _ _57_7
370 428
383 227
816 614
r 020r 012
z
_ xyz
_ _ xyz
_ ....xyz
_ _xyz
z
21_7
2_18
2_19
2_20
221
222
Space 222
940'
580
xyz
223
EMI
Space 223
' 843r
375
Space 224
206
381
S•ace 225
211
390
z
226
Space 226
825
826
xyz
2_27
2_28
2_29
230
Space 227
Space 228
Space 229
Space 230
1881 805
r 0911 Q91=
359h 755
5501 292
xyz
_ _ xyz
xyz
z
S•ace 231
044
0
z
S•ace 232
' 380
914
z
S•ace 233
735
735, 735
leans!
No color = parked one hour or Tess
hours
More than 2 hours
N.P. = no license plate
xyz = license plate number different from prior period
37- 8234.00
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX A: LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY DATA
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
37- 8234.00
TABLE A- 8: DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT 2 — 30- MINUTE SPACES
Time Circuit Begins
Space Description
12:00 PM
12:30 PM
1:00 PM
1:30 PM
2:00 PM
2:30 PM
3:00 PM
3:30 PM
4:00 PM
4:30 PM
5:00 PM
1
Space 1
IRY
IRY
IRY
IRY
IRY
IRY
IRY
1RY
IRY
IRY
2
Space 2
659
659
659
659
659
659
659
659
659
659
659
3
Space 3
609
609
609
609
609
609
4
Space 4
HRT
HRT
HRT
HRT
HRT
HRT
HRT
HRT
5
Space 5
394
TRT
292
572
276
112
294
6
Space 6
148
529
198
322
297
697
7
Space 7
ITA
188
101
802
8
Space 8
294
WWP
467
338
697
9
Space 9
803
614
302
LOV
916
916
602
10
Space 10
11
Space 11
12
Space 12
588
13
Space 13
225
14
Space 14
823
78
450
388
15
Space 15
079
376
076
789
16
Space 16
329
213
977
17
Space 17
NP
155
199
841
WUN
011
000
181
18
Space 18
256
770
326
793
266
033
589
19
Space 19
083
083
538
784
484
20
Space 20
733
481
21
Space 21
822
992
979
22
Space 22
665
23
Space 23
24
Space 24
25
Space 25
626
626
626
626
26
Space 26
27
Space 27
634
189
189
28
Space 28
719
590
754
567
028
29
Space 29
104
30
Space 30
31
Space 31
32
Space 32
33
Space 33
674
674
34
Space 34
318
35
Space 35
36
Space 36
825
976
37
Space 37
38
Space 38
199
39
Space 39
004
004
004
ZZ3
ZZ3
ZZ3
40
Space 40
884
884
41
Space 41
42
Space 42
LM1
43
Space 43
903
62A
44
Space 44
413
627
45
Space 45
159
834
074
46
Space 46
952
945
354
785
375
Lsttend
No color - parked 30 minutes or less
More thon 30 minutes
N.P.- no license plate
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES
TO OPEN -ENDED SURVEY
QUESTIONS
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
Ail. WALKER
PARKING COhSUBANTS
37- 8234.00
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONS
QUESTION 1 — HOW OFTEN DO YOU VISIT DOWNTOWN ARCADIA?
Over half of the survey respondents indicated that they visit Downtown Arcadia at least weekly.
Another 25 percent indicated that they rarely visit Downtown Arcadia.
QUESTION 1 — FREQUENCY OF RESPONDENTS' VISITS TO DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
• Daily
■ Weekly
Monthly
• Rarely
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
B -1
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
AliWALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
37-8234.00
QUESTION 2 — ARE YOU A (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY): DOWNTOWN BUSINESS OWNER,
DOWNTOWN PROPERTY OWNER, RESIDENT OF ARCADIA, DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEE,
RESIDENT OF ANOTHER CITY
Since respondents were able to select multiple responses, the total adds up to over 100 percent.
Eighty -four percent of respondents were residents of Arcadia, 13 percent of respondents were
residents of another city, and six percent of respondents were Downtown business owners. Less
than 5 percent of respondents indicated Downtown property owner or Downtown employee.
QUESTION 2 — WHO IS THE SURVEY TAKER?
Resident of another city 131/4
Downtown employee
Resident of Arcadia
Downtown property owner
Downtown business owner
%of Rgspondehts
84%
0% 20% 40% 60%
80% 100%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
B -2
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
bARKNJG CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
QUESTION 3 — HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU TYPICALLY SPEND IN DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
DURING EACH VISIT?
Over 70 percent of respondents spend less than one hour in Downtown Arcadia during each visit.
Forty -one percent of respondents indicated that they spend Tess than 30 minutes.
QUESTION 3 — TIME TYPICALLY SPENT IN DOWNTOWN ARCADIA PER VISIT
■ Less than 30 minutes
■ Between 30 minutes
and one hour
Between one hour and
two hours
* More than two hours
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 201 1
QUESTION 4 — HOW DO YOU TYPICALLY VISIT DOWNTOWN ARCADIA?
Almost all respondents indicated that they visit Downtown Arcadia by car, with walking (3
percent) and other (1 percent) being the other modes indicated. Respondents who selected other
indicated multiple modes, one of which was a car.
8 -3
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
*ilkWALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
QUESTION 4 — TYPICAL MODE USED TO VISIT DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
• Car
as Walk
Bus
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
QUESTION 5 — IF BY CAR, WHERE DO YOU PREFER TO PARK WHEN YOU VISIT?
The largest group of respondents indicated that they prefer to park on the street (47 percent),
which is consistent with parking preferences in general. Off- street in City public lot was only
selected by 20 percent of respondents. Those who selected other were more specific about their
preferences such as stating that they prefer to park on the street unless the location has a parking
lot or stating their desire to avoid diagonal parking. Note — 158 out of 160 survey respondents
provided an answer to this question.
QUESTION 5 —TYPE OF PARKING PREFERRED
▪ On- street
• Off- street -- City public lot
Off- street -- private lot
belonging to business
rr Other, please explain
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 201 1
8-4
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
QUESTION 6 — IF BY CAR, WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN DETERMINING
WHERE YOU PARK?
Over 60 percent of respondents indicated that proximity to destination was the most important
factor. Thirty percent of respondents selected first available space /easiest place to find parking.
Only two percent indicated that they could not find parking elsewhere in Downtown. Note — 157
out of 160 survey respondents provided an answer to this question.
QUESTION 6 —MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN DETERMINING WHERE TO PARK
2%
la First available space /easiest
place to find parking
is Nearest to destination
Employer provides parking at
location
IN Could not find parking
elsewhere in Downtown
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
8-5
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
PARKNVG CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
QUESTION 7 — IF BY CAR, RATE THE FOLLOWING ON A SCALE OF 1 -10 WITH A 1 BEING
POOR AND 10 BEING EXCELLENT
Question 7 assesses the parking situation on a number of factors. Respondents were asked to rate
each on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent. The value 5 was commonly
selected, likely in cases where respondents did not have a strong opinion. Note — number of
responses to each sub - question does not equate to the respondents who indicated that they drive
to Downtown Arcadia.
QUESTION 7A — EASE OF FINDING PARKING
Regarding ease of finding parking in Downtown Arcadia, nearly 60 percent of respondents
provided a score of 7 or higher. The average mark was 6.6 with 157 total responses. The mode,
or the value that occurs most frequently, was 7. These results suggest that finding parking in
Downtown Arcadia is not as difficult as some have perceived it to be. In the additional comments,
several respondents commented on the planters taking up parking spaces and a couple comments
indicate that the general public may not be aware of off - street public parking in the Downtown
area.
QUESTION 7A - EASE OF FINDING PARKING
10 10%
9
8
7
6 8%
5
4 10%
3 3%
3%
3%
w % of Responses
13%
15%
15%
20%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 201 1
B -6
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
QUESTION 78 — ADEQUACY OF PARKING SPACE SIZE AND ABILITY TO ENTER /EXIT
Less than half the respondents rated parking space size and ability to enter /exit with a score of 7
or higher. The average score was 6.1 with 156 total responses. The mode for this sub - question
was 5. Several respondents commented on the dangers associated with backing out of diagonal
parking spaces.
QUESTION 7B — ADEQUACY OF PARKING SPACES (SIZE AND ABILITY TO ENTER /EXIT SPACE)
10
9 8g
8
- I
7
6 10%
5
4 E'10%
3 € 8 %,
2 4%
1 Imo 2%
■ % of Responses
13%
17%
18 °,
T
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
QUESTION 7C — AVAILABILITY OF SPACES FOR DISABLED DRIVERS
Slightly over half the respondents rated availability of spaces for disabled drivers with a score of
7 or higher. The average score was 6.4 with 122 total responses. The mode was 5. The lower
number of responses (compared to other questions) is not surprising given that disabled parking is
not a concern to most drivers. The comments in response to this question generally indicated that
the number of spaces available for drivers with disabled placards was not an issue.
B -7
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
37-8234.00
QUESTION 7C — AVAILABILITY OF SPACES FOR DISABLED DRIVERS
10
9 11%
8
7 7%
6 =mat 3 %';
5
4
3 mss 4%
2 Ids 3%
1 1111■1111=11111611• 7%
20%
1r4% r % of Responses
22%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 201 1
QUESTION 70 — PROXIMITY OF AVAILABLE SPACES TO DESTINATION
Half the respondents rated proximity of available spaces to destination with a score of 7 or
higher. The average score was 6.4 with 151 total responses. The mode was 5, with 8 following
closely behind. The comments in response to this sub - question ranged from most commenters, who
indicated that they did not have a problem finding parking that was proximate to their destination
to others who indicated they would park "around the corner." A small number complained that
the number of spaces for businesses was not enough and in one specific case that "some other
business owners and employees park in the only available spaces on the street."
QUESTION 7D — PROXIMITY OF AVAILABLE SPACES TO YOUR DESTINATION(S)
10 7%
9 13 %' s % of'Responses
8 19%
7 11%
6 11%
5 20%
4 7%
3 7%
2 5%
1 0%
r T
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 201 1
8 -8
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
V. WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
QUESTION 7E — ADEQUACY OF TIME LIMITS
Nearly 60 percent of respondents rated adequacy of time limits with a score of 7 or higher. The
average score was 6.6 with 151 total responses. The mode was 8. The intent of this question was
to obtain feedback regarding the 2 -hour time limits on- street and any 2 -hour or 30- minute spaces
in the public off - street parking Tots. The comments seem to express some confusion, with some
unaware of time limits, while others interpreting them as the overnight parking restrictions. A
couple of respondents commented that the 2 -hour time limits are too short.
QUESTION 7E — ADEQUACY OF TIME LIMITS ON PARKING SPACES
10 13%
9 13%
8
7
6 8%
17%
16%
5 15%
4 7%
3 ININ■■im 6%
2 3°,4
1 IMONINN 3 %i
T T
■ % of Responses
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
8 -9
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
410 WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
QUESTION 7F — PERCEIVED SAFETY
Nearly 70 percent of respondents rated safety of parking with a score of 7 or higher. The
average score was 7.0 with 154 total responses. The mode was 8. The average score for this
sub - question is the highest across all Question 7 sub - questions. Several respondents' comments
focused on the unsafe conditions created when backing out of diagonal parking.
QUESTION 7F — SAFETY OF PARKING
10
9
8
13%
16%
7
6 3%
5
u
4 5/0
3-=111111111m4 %0
2 2%
3%
-t
09'0 5%
20%
19%
15%
% of Responses
-'r
y
10% 15% 20% 25%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 201 1
B -10
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
A* WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
QUESTION 8 — WHAT TYPES OF USES WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN DOWNTOWN
ARCADIA?
For this question, respondents were asked to indicate one or more of the following uses that they
wish to see in Downtown Arcadia:
• Restaurants
• Bars, Beer Pubs, Wine Bars
• Retail Shops
• Office Uses
They could also indicate "nothing" if they felt that Downtown is fine the way it is. The uses that
garnered the highest interest were restaurants (78 percent) and retail shops (61 percent), both by
a significant margin. The "nothing" option received the fewest votes (9 percent). All 160 survey
respondents selected at least one item.
QUESTION 8 — BUSINESSES DESIRED IN DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
Nothing NM 9%
Office Uses h.7%
Retail Shops
Bars, Beer Pubs, Wine Bars
Restaurants
• % of Respondents
61%
27%
7—
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
8-11
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
V. WALKER
PARKING CONS(I1ANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
QUESTION 9 — ARE YOU WILLING TO ACCEPT LESS AVAILABLE PARKING SPACES IN THE
DOWNTOWN AREA IN EXCHANGE FOR MORE BUSINESSES OR A GREATER VARIETY OF
BUSINESSES AND VISITORS IN DOWNTOWN?
The responses to this question were almost even, with only a few more selecting "no," than yes.
Many of the comments were from people who indicated "no," and generally did not offer
significant reasoning behind their position. The total number of respondents was 156. A
complete, unedited list of comments provided by respondents has been included later in the
Appendix.
QUESTION 9 - ACCEPTABILITY OF FEWER AVAILABLE SPACES IN EXCHANGE FOR MORE /GREATER
VARIETY OF BUSINESSES
D Yes
e No
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
QUESTION 10 — IF YOU ARE A DOWNTOWN PROPERTY OR BUSINESS OWNER, HOW
WILLING ARE YOU TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOLLOWING FUNDING
MEASURES TO PAY FOR A MORE VARIED MIX OF USES AND ADDITIONAL
BUSINESSES /VISITORS IN DOWNTOWN (ON A SCALE OF 1 -10 WITH 1 BEING NOT AT ALL
WILLING TO 10 BEING VERY WILLING)?
Question 10 assesses the potential acceptance by business /property owners of funding measures
that would support additional visitors and business in Downtown. Only 10 respondents indicated
that they are a business and /or property owner. However many others responded to this set of
sub - questions. The mode for all these sub - questions was 1, perhaps illustrating displeasure for any
funding measure discussion. A complete, unedited list of comments provided by respondents has
been included later in the Appendix.
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
QUESTION 10A — SUPPORT FOR PROPERTY ASSESSMENT TO FUND PARKING
The average score for all 67 respondents who answered the first sub - question on Property
Assessment was 4.3 with over half giving it a score of 4 or lower. The business /property owner
average (all 10 respondents) was similar at 4.2. Comments on this sub - question were varied with
no central theme.
37- 8234.00
QUESTION 10A — PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
10 10%
9 1%
8 3%
7 9°%
6 10%
5 13%
4 4%
3 13%
2 4%
1
■ % of Response
30%
-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
QUESTION 10B — SUPPORT FOR PARKING IN LIEU FEES
The average score of 70 respondents who answered this sub - question was 5.4 with nearly half
giving it a score of 7 or higher. The business /property owner average (all 10 respondents) was
similar at 5.5. Comments on this sub - question were varied as well.
B -13
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
QUESTION 10B — PARKING IN -LIEU FEES
10
9 6%
8 !9%
7 13%
6 1%
5 11%
4 3%
3 10%
2 6 °f
1
19%
23%
■ % of Resppnses
-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 201 1
QUESTION 10C — SUPPORT FOR PARKING SPACE CREDITS
The average score of 67 respondents who answered this sub - question was 4.6 with over half
giving it a score of 4 or lower. The business /property owner average (eight out of 10
respondents} was lower at 3.6. Not a lot of comments were submitted for this sub - question. An
interesting response from a business owner recommends grandfathering free parking for retail
and short -term uses while initiating parking passes for office and employment- generating uses.
QUESTION 10C — PARKING SPACE CREDITS
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
7%
3%
3%
12%
i %iof Responses
-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 201 1
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
40. WALKER
KRKtNG CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
QUESTION 10D — SUPPORT FOR PAID PARKING
The average score of 74 respondents who answered this sub - question was 3.0 with nearly three -
quarters scoring it 4 or lower and nearly 60 percent scoring it 1. The business /property owner
average (eight out of 10 respondents) was, not surprisingly, slightly higher at 3.6. The comments
on this sub - question tended to be vocal against paid parking, consistent with the wide margin in
which the value 1 was selected by respondents.
QUESTION 10D — SOME FORM OF PAID PARKING
i--
10 3%
9 44
8 7%
7 4%
6 4%
5 4%
4 8%
3 5"!
2 3%
1
%'o of Responses
8%
-10% 0% 1O% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
B -15
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
AilWALKER
Ri RKWG CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
37- 8234.00
QUESTION 11 — HOW OFTEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE TAKING THE GOLD LINE LIGHT RAIL
TRAIN FROM THE DOWNTOWN ARCADIA STATION AFTER STATION OPENS IN 2014?
Almost half the respondents indicated that they would take the Gold Line only occasionally.
Nearly one quarter indicated that they would take it at least once a week. The total number of
respondents was 155.
QUESTION 1 1: ANTICIPATED USE OF GOLD LINE FROM DOWNTOWN ARCADIA STATION
Never
Occasionally
Once a month
Once a Week
More than once a week
17%
149%
10%
0% of Respondents
13%
O% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
B -16
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
QUESTION 12 — IF YES, HOW WOULD YOU ARRIVE AT THE GOLD LINE STATION?
Nearly three - quarters of all respondents who would take the Gold Line indicated that they would
arrive to the station by car. The next largest mode was walking with a 16 percent share. The total
number of respondents was 134.
QUESTION 1 2: MEANS OF TRANSPORT TO GOLD LINE STATION
Other, please explain
Bicycle
Bus
Walk
Car
E 4°
® 5%
WALKER
'T-
t %of Respondents
-+ -r
73%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2011
QUESTION 13 — WHAT DO YOU LIKE ABOUT PARKING IN DOWNTOWN ARCADIA?
Question 13 was open -ended and offered respondents an opportunity to comment on what they
like about parking in Downtown Arcadia. Several themes that emerged are how parking is
plentiful, free and close to businesses that they frequent. While not related to the question, a few
comments discussed the lack of interesting businesses to frequent in Downtown Arcadia.
A complete, unedited list of all responses to Questions 13 to 15 can be found later in the
Appendix.
QUESTION 14 — WHAT DO YOU DISLIKE ABOUT PARKING IN DOWNTOWN ARCADIA?
Question 14 was open -ended and offered respondents an opportunity to comment on what they
dislike about parking in Downtown Arcadia. Perhaps the most dominant theme is that people
think parking in Downtown is fine. Other common themes are the lack of parking and dangers of
backing out of diagonal parking spaces. An unedited list of all responses to Questions 14 can be
found later in the Appendix.
B-17
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
37- 8234.00
QUESTION 15 — PLEASE SHARE ANY THOUGHTS YOU HAVE REGARDING PARKING IN
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA BOTH CURRENTLY AND IN THE FUTURE, ASSUMING A GREATER
VARIETY AND NUMBER OF BUSINESSES
Question 15 was open -ended and asked respondents for thoughts on parking currently and in the
future, assuming a greater variety and number of businesses. The dominant themes of the
comments are adding more parking and keeping it free. In addition, several comments discussed
the potential negative impact of the Gold Line station on existing parking supply. A complete,
unedited list of all responses to Questions 15 can be found later in the Appendix.
QUESTION 9 - ARE YOU WILLING TO ACCEPT LESS AVAILABLE PARKING SPACES IN
THE DOWNTOWN AREA IN EXCHANGE FOR MORE BUSINESSES OR A GREATER VARIETY OF
BUSINESSES AND VISITORS IN DOWNTOWN?
• that would not be a good thing.
• We need new businesses and more resturants, retail, etc, but what good would that do if
there is no parking to enjoy it?
• It does not make sense to accept less available parking spaces in exchange for more
businesses and visitors in Downtown.
Do you really expect residents to WALK to downtown to shop with no support services?
• People do not just teleport to their destination. The fact that you can not trust or rely on
public transportation, the only means of travel is by automobiles. So by reducing parking
spaces, this will result in decrease in visitors to downtown. I drive to Monrovia,
Pasadena, Glendale, West Hollywood Santa Monica, I like everyone else drive to where I
need to go. The issue is there is no such place as downtown Arcadia because all the
buildings are one story and all the uses are lousy and dull. No one goes and spend time
in Arcadia, they rather drive further to Monoriva, Pasadena, or Glendale. Arcadia's
General Plan and Zoning is so outdated and stuck in the 80's its a joke. Time to get with
the times and bring some money to the City. The fact that the Curoso project has died just
shows how bad Arcadia Planning Department is and the lack of experience to secure
large project to the City.
• Absolutely not. If there are not adequate parking spaces for businesses / activities in the
downtown area, then this is a terrible location to have as your downtown. Any overflow
parking makes gridlock of the residential areas, destroying the qualiy of those residential
areas.
No adequate parking = no additional businesses.
• Well..no more business mean more parking needs to be made available somehow.Less
• parking would make it difficult to visit those buiness' in that area .
• if we can park on the street yes!
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
414. WALKER
PARKING CONSUMNIS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
37- 8234.00
• To a certain degree. Willing to accept Tess, but not that is becomes extremely difficult to
find a parking space.
• downtown is dead. just visit the place after 4pm. 1st just becomes a thoroughfare for
traffic & not a place for business.
• With a more developed Downtown, more parking spaces must also be made available.
Such as public parking Tots /structures. Otherwise the human traffic will not increase due
to inconvenience also.
• I would like to see more variety in downtown Arcadia.
• The parking needs to be shifted to an easily seen, accessible area(s).
• Ultimatly we have parking deficit. We do not have enough parking to acommodate the
legal or targeted uses we have. Sadly there are many businesses that are running today in
DT Arcadia that I feel should not be part of the mix in a DT. for example there are
business that trat are fronting other uses that are actually operating as warehouses,
storages, office without retail, party rental, medical offices, educational, professional
offices. These type of uses should not be fronting space that should be specialty retail and
services, resturant, entertainment, etc.
• keeping it quaint is what attracts people, but they won't come and stay if there is little
parking and if they are going to be ticketed.
• It defeats the purpose to have more businesses where no-one can park close enough to get
to them...
• Its traffic that scares away the foot traffice needed to support the area
• Quality goes a long way. If the present is any indicator of the choice of what type of
businesses will grow, then no I would not exchange that opportunity. However, if better
choices are made for businesses I would support it.
• Without the addition of parking meters or paid parking Tots.
• As long as the number of parking spaces would not be drastically reduced, this would be
accepable.
• More attractive businesses will require more parking. The current businesses in the area
can limit parking availability.
• yes, to certain extent. i prefer main street, independent retailers currently located there.
do not need additional restaurants or shops like those on huntington drive or baldwin. this
is a district intended for residents and to that end, would welcome a variety of
businesses /retailers for neighborhood shoppers.
• Everyone shops online, retail is dead & we don't need anymore Chinese resturants.
• of course you have to plan for more parking /traffic or you will lose the opportunity to be
successful.
• It would be good though, to try to create more spaces to park.
B-1 9
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
naRMNG co*4..UCmnrts
37- 8234.00
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
• No, if there is Tess parking, it would hurt the buinesses because customers will not tolerate
lack of parking spaces or paying meters. You could see how high the turn over rate in
Old Town Pasadena due to lack of parking.
• Object strongly,
• if you're driving more traffic, you need the spaces to accomodate that, not frustrate people
• Why can the parking to stay the same or increase and still have more businesses?
• Downtown seems "dead" most of the time. Not attractive.
• Keep it small and local cis it is now. More events such as Saturday's parade would be
nice also.
• If you make the spaces smaller you would get more cars parked
• It is already a business loser the only lot that is not full is the one by the post office.
• If we get more business but have no place to park, people will not come downtown.
Parking has to be tied to business or you will defeat your purpose of revitalizing
downtown.
• Downtown seem under - utilized right now because there's always lots of space; but any
development must also provide adequate free parking nearby.
• But - without adequate parking business won't stay. Adequate parking MUST be part of
any development plan.
• No, I like the parking right now. I don't want it to get too crowded.
• See previous comments
• Downtown needs a more social atmosphere, so more cars and the same parking spaces
does not mean parking Tots should be constructed.
The Pasadena paradigm is excellent; the city should meter all spots and set the price
according to congestion pricing theory. The method works, and there is no reason not to
try it.
The only investment the city should make is to convert the downtown roads to concrete or
cobblestone (I say cobblestone for punishing fast drivers - remember Alice Zhang) these
materials are more durable than asphalt, which tends to warp and crack.
To see an example of warped asphalt, the border of Arcadia / Monrovia at Huntington
has it pretty bad.
• How about linked parking behind business instead of having to go in and out of
drvieways to the street to find spaces.
• BUT... the city lot could be turned into a structure...
•
More parking, not less, is needed to sustain downtown growth, particularly with the
additional parking necessary for the Gold Line extension.
• THERE IS NOT ENOUGH PARKING NOW. CAN YOU INCREASE PARKING SPACES?
THEN MORE BUSINESSES WOULD BE WELCOME
B -20
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
37- 8234.00
• If you have Tess parking space in the downtown area. How can people park? No parking
spaces mean no visit.
• More interested in the quality of businesses. More of the same type businesses will not
improve downtown.
QUESTION 8A - IF YOU ARE A DOWNTOWN PROPERTY OR BUSINESS OWNER, HOW WILLING ARE
YOU TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOLLOWING FUNDING MEASURES TO PAY FOR A
MORE VARIED MIX OF USES AND ADDITIONAL BUSINESSES /VISITORS IN DOWNTOWN (ON A
SCALE OF 1 -10 WITH 1 BEING NOT AT ALL WILLING TO 10 BEING VERY WILLING)?
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT - PERIODIC ASSESSMENT CHARGED TO PROPERTY OWNERS TO SUPPORT
PARKING IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE; AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT BASED ON PROPERTY
SIZE
• I am not a downtown property owner
• Business /property owners are the one who benefit the most with more visitors to the area.
• The City should pay because this is a City plan. Arcadia needs to be in the business of
making money to make require improvements and not ask the business owners whom are
already burden to pay for City fees. The fact that the City of Arcadia tried to have home
owners pay for street Tight fees is a joke and I am assamed of living in a city that cannot
provide the basic services and necessities of a a regular city in california. Every City pays
for their only services and not the home owners.
• not willing to pay for the current street parking option. need a centralized parking lot
• I am not a business owner in downtown Arcadia so this does not apply to me.
• Property based improvement districts are horrendous. We already pay very high property
taxes now.
• If I'm a business owner providing a service or product, bringing revenue to your town, I
would expect parking to be provided for the convience of the customer. No customer, no
business. You do the math.
• Only if it's to the benefit of the store owner and customers.
• na
• Not a business owner.
• If they want to do business in Arcadia, sure.
• Parking improvements will benefit the property owners therefore they should pay for it.
• To Arcadia City: Do not allow business owner transfer all costs to the consummer
• n/a
• N/A
• don't know
8 -21
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
Vi WALKER
fNRK NG CONSULTANTS
37- 8234.00
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
• Property size alone does not determine the potential benefit. For example, some types of
businesses (such as food and retail) would benefit more than industrial /office of the some
property size. New development fees should be used for this.
• I AM CONCERNED THAT THE BUSINESSES THAT GO IN ON FIRST AVE ARE NOT
CONDUCIVE TO INCREASED BUSINESS OR VISITORS TO ARCADIA
QUESTION 9B - IF YOU ARE A DOWNTOWN PROPERTY OR BUSINESS OWNER,
HOW WILLING ARE
YOU TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOLLOWING FUNDING MEASURES TO PAY FOR A
MORE VARIED MIX OF USES AND ADDITIONAL BUSINESSES /VISITORS IN DOWNTOWN (ON A
SCALE OF 1 -10 WITH 1 BEING NOT AT ALL WILLING TO 10 BEING VERY WILLING)?
PARKING DEVELOP ENT FEES - UP-FRONT FEE
PARKING SPACES PACES REQU REDS TO SUPPORT OWNER TO
AND SATISFY
DEVELOPMENT
CODE REQUIREMENTS
• If parking is required for more intense uses such as restaurant compared to retail, then
yes, they should pay more because they use more.
• depends on what the proposed parking improvements are
• Yes, because the businesses will reap the benefits with more patrons.
• Very good idea. Grandfather existing legal uses and new users need to pay and comply
with codes.
• That's their job, not mine. My job is bringing revenue to your city. That's why a business
owner pays taxes. Why should a business owner pay more or twice?
• Only if it's to the benefit of the store owner and customers.
• not a good idea no need to discourage him now a fee to the restaurant owner to help
defray costs maybe necessary than the patrons pay
• I think it should a shared cost.
• My main concern is parking with the new Gold Line station.
• n/a
• N/A
• N/A
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
PARKMG CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
QUESTION 1 OC - IF YOU ARE A DOWNTOWN PROPERTY OR BUSINESS OWNER, HOW WILLING
ARE YOU TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOLLOWING FUNDING MEASURES TO PAY
FOR A MORE VARIED MIX OF USES AND ADDITIONAL BUSINESSES/VISITORS IN DOWNTOWN (ON
A SCALE OF 1 -10 WITH 1 BEING NOT AT ALL WILLING TO 10 BEING VERY WILLING)?
PARKING SPACE CREDITS - MONTHLY FEE CHARGED TO PROPERTY OWNER TO COVER USE
OF ADDITIONAL REQUIRED PARKING SPACE(S) TO SUPPORT BUSINESS AND SATISFY CODE
REQUIREMENTS; ADDITIONAL SPACES WOULD LIKELY BE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING PARKING
SUPPLY
• Special property assessment should be sufficient. OKAY if not.
• This idea was probably taken from Pasadena. If it works there, then it should work in
Arcadia. The problem now is how large would this parking credit boundary be because
the boundary in Pasadena is too small to accommodate the large growth of restaurant
uses in the Old Towne Pasadena area.
• how would you differentiate the credits between customers for a dry cleaner & a
restaurant? 1 customer parks for 2 mins & the other 1 hour? how are you going to
segregate the costs?
• We located here because there was no fee and parking was grandfathered in for retail
use and short term uses. Parking needs to be paid for by office and employee uses
through parking parking passes.
• Paid parking vs. free parking. How many customers will that retain?
• Should be shared cost.
• Property owners would feel entitled to certain spaces near their business, leading to
disputes /complaints.
• Sure, why not.
• n/a
• N/A
• N/A
QUESTION 1 1 D - IF YOU ARE A DOWNTOWN PROPERTY OR BUSINESS OWNER, HOW WILLING
ARE YOU TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOLLOWING FUNDING MEASURES TO PAY
FOR A MORE VARIED MIX OF USES AND ADDITIONAL BUSINESSES /VISITORS IN DOWNTOWN (ON
A SCALE OF 1 -10 WITH 1 BEING NOT AT ALL WILLING TO 10 BEING VERY WILLING)?
SOME FORM OF PAID PARKING - CHARGE DRIVERS /USERS TO OFFSET THE COST OF PARKING
IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE. REVENUE GENERATED BY PAID PARKING (E.G. PARKING
METERS) IN DOWNTOWN COULD BE KEPT EXCLUSIVELY FOR USE IN DOWNTOWN THROUGH THE
USE OF A PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICT OR OTHER FINANCIAL MECHANISM.
• Other cities such as Monrovia have ample downtown parking both on the street and
behind businesses with no charge to drivers.
B -23
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
BARKING conuUnrarrrs
37- 8234.00
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
• Not from beginning when we are trying to bring in more visitors. Maybe later on when
parking become a problem.
• Parking should be paid by the City or portion paid by the business owner. Visitors should
not carry that burden because they are there to enjoy and spend money. Do not impose
more fees than what is fair and just.
• this is not downtown LA, why are you charge paid parking.
• customers aren't going to pay for parking. they will just park on huntington or the side
residential streets, which are pretty full already. local residents will be upset and where's
the money for the meter readers?
• Drivers /users are the ones supporting the businesses. They should not also have to pay
fees to park as they will have Tess money to buy the products /services that the businesses
are offering.
• Paid parking for all day users and employees is good. Free parking for short term users,
night users, retail customers is good. If your charge short term user, retail customers and
night users you are going to lose the edge you might have had (like when dana point
harbor put in parking meters in the lots.) it died. they took it out and it is starting to come
back. the all days users and long term parkers still pay.
• Personally, I hate going into a town and have to worry about my time limit for a parking
space and then getting a ticket for being parked over my limit. What about a credit for
time not used? That happens also.
• people run from pd parking
• Should not punish consumers for lack of planning of the city and /or business owners
planning.
• No meters for locals!
• Paying for parking will deter customer from supporting the businesses.
• Why stick it to the visitors? Pasadena lost all credibility (and my business) when it became
money conscious for parking.
• This will encourage public to use side streets rather than pay meters. It will not help the
businesses.
QUESTION 12 — WHAT DO YOU LIKE ABOUT PARKING IN DOWNTOWN ARCADIA?
• Lots of available parking behind the shops on Huntington, which is wonderful. If it is busy
on First, then that can be annoying.
• If you go early afternoon parking is mostly a great spot but other hours are a pain to find
anything.
• that there are no parking meters.
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
• It's easy for the most part, once again that could be because there is not a variety in the
retail downtown. I have never seen that area croweded by any means. A good crowded
where people are drawn to downtown.
• Not very crowded.
• There is NOTHING to talk about it is a disgrace to the City.
• Proximity to businesses and the fact that it is free. I try to avoid areas that have parking
meters.
• New parking structure built to accommodate GoldLine Station traffic.
• Nothing. There is no sense of downtown in Arcadia. There is no large commercial center
to hang out at, no movie theathers, no pedestrian oriented uses, just a few restaurant here
and there. The real uses are along Huntington Drive which alot of people think there are
in Arcadia but in fact thoses uses belong to the City of Monrovia. The City of Aracadia
need to be more like Morovia where large restaurant chains large big box retailers all
threive. That is the reason why Monrovia does not a fasical crisis like Arcadia because
they have a large tax base ranging from car dealerships, to Walmart, to Home Depot,
McDonalds, Yoshinoya, Popeye Chicken, Churches Chicken, etc. As a resident of
Arcadia I am ashamed to be spending my hard earned money in a different city helping
them pay for their services when there is nothing in Arcadia that I end up paying more
fees for. What a Joke. Arcadia cannot keep relying on the Westfield Mall as the only
source of major revenue in the City. Learn from Moravia and Pasadena please.
• Nothing. You take your life in your hands with people backing out without looking and
running stop signs. Stay away during school dropoff and pickup times each day.
• The cutsie concrete islands need to be removed.
• Its free and should stay free since most city's now charge to park and the economy being
what it is ,isn't helping.
• Close to businesses I frequent.
• so far there is enough parking for everyone now.
• dont like it.
• streets /spaces are clean and well maintained
• nothing to add
• The availability of spaces near my destination, due partly to the little human traffic/activity
in the existing Downtown.
• It's convenient and free.
• Its reasonable safety & ready availability (at least at the time when I need it, which is in
the evening).
• The area is unsuccessful, so parking is easy.
• It's free.
8-25
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
37- 8234.00
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
• Conveniece to customers once we can educate them there is free parking in the park and
city Tots.
• Sufficient parking space for restuarants or easy to find parking space nearby
• PARKING IS FINE
• able to park close to my distination
• no having to worry about time limits
• Adequate spaces - at least, at the present time
• Stalls are wider than most.
• Two hours parking limit, enforce disable parking (not being used by claimed "disable"
plate.
• Usually easy to find parking
• There's plenty of it.
• There is parking that's available just not all in the right places.
• There aren't any parking meters.
• clean
• not crowded
• Big City parking lot north of Huntington
• Plenty of parking spaces
• There is free parking in the lot I need to use.
• I can usually find a space.
• 1) available spots
2) near my destination
3) free
• The free, easily accessabiliy is great & I live how It's free.
• parking is easy on the nearby streets
• Now it is fine as there are not many reasons to be there. If that were to change the
parking situation would change for the worse. You would have to have city Tots or
something.
• Easy to park on the street now because there aren't many businesses I patronize.
• Plenty of spaces and easy to get into.
• Easy parking.
• I rarely go into Downtown Arcadia. I do like going to the Book Rack and I'm always able
to find parking. Old Town Monrovia did a fantastic job on creating a fun atmosphere
and really promoting the city. It is a big turn off to see Chinese signs and writing in the
windows. It doesn't make it very vistor friendly.
• I don't park or shop there so really can't comment.
• The parking is free.
B -26
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSt ITANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
• It's fine the way it is.
• There's usually enough spots available everywhere.
• Most of the time, there is no problem, but when there are community events and /or the
races, it can be a problem especially for those using public transportation.
• Free
• Hassle -free and convienient
• The space area by the post office and the back of stores off first avenue is nice.
• Currently, it's convenient
• Adequate for now
• Always able to find parking.
• close to the business area.
• No one goes there so parking isn't an issue .
• It's easy and not difficult to find parking
• diagonal is effective and visually pleasing
• not too difficult to find a spot on the street.
• Convenient, easy, safe
• Availability of spaces as it seems there are not too many people who shop there.
• Easy to park near the business I use.
• It is Free!
• really, nothing!
• street parking is good
• Easy most of the time
• I rarely shop downtown and prefer a Westfield expansion.
• Easy parking for the post office.
• There's always a lot of spaces close by
• In the main p.o. area, no parking meters
• Easy, generally plentiful and right -sized spaces. No meters!
• Parking is sufficient right now.
• Safe parking areas and spaces are freely available.
• Again, where is downtown Arcadia?
• Finding shade under trees and being able to have an adequate spacious parking spot.
• It is OK I can usually find a space There are no parking meterslt is true Downtown Arcadia
would perhaps need more parking if it had more businesses. But, as a resident here for
49 yrs. I haven't seen any significant increase in businesses to make parking even an
issue. Seems like most businesses are at the mall, the city's favorite place. Arcadia has
and will continue to be " a town without a vision" until it recognises and corrects traffic
• flow through West Arcadia (only existing for Band Review in the fall).Baldwin Ave. area is
in serious trouble as are the businesses surrounding it. Fix that first.
8 -27
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
• Ease, vacancy, proximity, space, and safety.
• How easy it is to fit my truck in there
• the parking lot attached to the dennys is a good size
• Can usually find a spot
• Sizes of spaces are no overly confining.
• I feel safe in this area.
• usually always available when I need it
• Parking is convenient to the businesses I visit.
• COST
• Convenient when I visit businesses.
• THE PARKING SPACES ARE CLOSE TO THE BUSINESS YOU WISH TO PATRONIZE
• I can usually find a space rather quickly.
• Easy access and availability.
• Availability of parking to banks. I do not patronize any of the other businesses.
37- 8234.00
QUESTION 13 -- WHAT DO YOU DISLIKE ABOUT PARKING IN DOWNTOWN ARCADIA?
• after work hours are the worse to park in Arcadia.
• it seems fine at this time
• Pavement is rough, afraid of damage to my car. Not clearly marked cars park too close to
each other. Driveways need better access to get in and out.
• It is difficult to find parking to my destinations Also, I do not feel safe for my personal
well beings and my personal asset...a luxury car.
• So far, it's okay.
• No incentive to park away from destinations.
• Everything. There is no sense of downtown in Arcadia. There is no large commercial
center to hang out at, no movie theathers, no pedestrian oriented uses, just a few
restaurant here and there. The real uses are along Huntington Drive which alot of people
think there are in Arcadia but in fact thoses uses belong to the City of Monrovia. The City
of Aracadia need to be more like Morovia where large restaurant chains large big box
retailers all threive. That is the reason why Monrovia does not a fasical crisis like Arcadia
because they have a large tax base ranging from car dealerships, to Walmart, to Home
Depot, McDonalds, Yoshinoya, Popeye Chicken, Churches Chicken, etc. As a resident of
Arcadia I am ashamed to be spending my hard earned money in a different city helping
them pay for their services when there is nothing in Arcadia that I end up paying more
fees for. What a Joke. Arcadia cannot keep relying on the Westfield Mall as the only
source of major revenue in the City. Learn from Moravia and Pasadena please.
• Everything. See #'s 9 and 13.
• Remove the stupid concrete islands.
8 -28
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
37- 8234.00
• Not alot of parking along 1st ave .
• not enough parking
• Not enough parking. Bad drivers. Frequent car burglaries.
• No over night parking.
• Drop off and pick up times of the school....it is extremely busy w/ cars and people
walking. Keeping everyone safe should be of first concern.
• never enough parking.
• the angled parking is easy to enter but dangerous to exit. one car exiting a space can
completely block off access to the entire street, depending on the drivers ability. drivers on
1st drive too fast and don't stop for exiting cars
• nothing to add
• Nothing at present time.
• Nothing that I have personally experienced.
• There is very little reason to go to the area.
• walking distance, homelesss, signage, no clear cooradors. the Woman's club at 2nd and
Diamond does not have ANY private parking lot and there is no public lot anywhere near
for their guests to use. Usually this is not a problem until they use it as a rental hall. When
they rent it out to Quincenera partys and various outsiders they take up all the street
parking in the surrounding residential community on Diamond and First to Second Street.
The outsider guests disrespect our community, frequently uninate in our alleys, graffitti/
leave trash. They hire DJs who play very loud sound equipment inside the building which
is louder than our tv's in our homes. The bass shakes our windows. We have complained
numberous times but nothing seems to be done about it. This type of unregulated business
activity is a menace at this location.
• None at this point
• NOTHING
• Business owner and employee using other business's parking lot to free up their space for
their customer
• time limits
• Not enough parking for my employees and customers.
• Some spaces in private lots are way too narrow - hard to exit vehicle or so close that
vehicle damage likely to occur
• Backing out of stalls.
• Main streets are to busy and not easy to park (such as Baldwin and First Stree).
• on busy days the lake of availability and the additional drive thru traffic plus patronage
traffic
• Nothing really
B -29
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
4i4WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
37- 8234.00
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
• Its too much surface parking for my liking. Parking structures free up more land for future
development.
• Not enough handicap, too congested and there should be trams for the mall during high
buying times like Christmas.
• The street planters on Huntington Drive and First Avenue waster parking.
• rushy
• Parking on Huntington and also first ave
• nothing
• There are an insufficient number of on- street parking spaces.
• Somewhat narrow ... need to be careful about cars backing into traffic.
• nothing
• I'm concerned when the Gold Line us completed.
• parking is limited near businesses
• nothing
• Nothing. It's fine for now.
• Backing out is difficult and unsafe as the cars are not willing to yield. Having a stop sign
and a traffic light so close makes it tough to get out of parking spaces and driveways.
• always park across the street from my destination because of limited parking.
• I rarely go into Downtown Arcadia,but when I do, there is always ample parking.
• I find it hard to find so don't frequent the shops.
• Parking space is lacking.
• There's no problems so far.
• That there's no overnight parking on the streets. People end up driving drunk sometimes
rather than take a cab and picking up their car the next day to avoid that ordinance.
• I don't dislike anything ...
• not enough spaces
• too many cars, over developed
• some areas does not have a smooth transition from business to business
• There's no other stores to visit other than Citibank
• nothing
• So far none.
• Too few parking spaces.Ch
• No problems.
• Nothing - it's fine to me
• having the whole area pedestrian only would be very cool,with all parking on periphery
• Timespan is short.
• Have to park in the direction you are driving... okay if everyone would do that, but they
don't and could easily cause accidents.
8 -30
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULIANIS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
•
• nothing
• It is crowded, poorly marked and the spaces are tight. Never enough parking on East
Huntington, i regularly drive to monrovia at lunch if i cannot find a space and eat there.
• artificial "islands" using space that could be an additional parking space or 2 and
facilitate curb parking
• parking lots too much
• Curtain areas it is harder to find spaces
• I dont go downtown often enough for there to be a problem. I always find parking for the
places I want to visit.
• Difficult to back out of parking spaces between the stop signs.
• Don't like backing out into traffic from the diagonal parking spaces on First Av south of
Huntington Dr.
• on Baldwin avenue, parking limited to 1 hr. beter if at leasst 2 hrs.
• Sometimes it's difficult because of traffic to exit parking spaces, sometimes there is nothing
available near where I need to be.
• just not enough parking already, you need a large parking lot
• I have not had any negative experiences with the parking.
• Arcadia "missed the boat" many years ago by not including public parking lots in the
right places. It is questionable whether Arcadia can recover now by putting in pay -for-
parking lots or be able to cover the cost of parking lots with just city money. The creation
of parking lots by investment with future return to cover investment and maintenance is not
a simple task.
• Nothing
• Nothing.
• How no one knows how to park nor drive
• Difficult to get out of parking spaces.
• Right now? The shops are not consistent public "draws ". There are more businesses with
limited clientele limiting the people who need or want to go there.
• the parking behind polk a dots and matt dennys is okay but its an awkward shape and
the parking on first ave is not the greatest but most of the businesses have a back parking
lot which isnt usually too filled
• Mostly it's fine - just Town Center building spaces are WAY too small!
• Time limits are sometimes too short for our appointments.
• There is not enough parking and the parking spaces that are available are the ones where
it is difficult to get out of the spaces.
• AVAILABILITY
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
37- 8234.00
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
• No time restrictions sometimes make it more difficult to find parking closer to destination.
Concerned that this will only get worse as downtown is developed and addition of Gold
Line station.
• NOT ENOUGH
• not enough
• Trying to back out of the parking The traffic just will not let up long enough for you to zip
out.
• Nothing.
• Availability.
QUESTION 14 - PLEASE SHARE ANY THOUGHTS YOU HAVE REGARDING PARKING IN DOWNTOWN
ARCADIA BOTH CURRENTLY AND IN THE FUTURE, ASSUMING A GREATER VARIETY AND NUMBER
OF BUSINESSES.
• Do not have any idea.
• the parking seems to be adequate at this time, I would not like to have parking meters or
pay parking lots!
• If there are more businesses and varieties I would hope arcadia would be able to
accomodate the parking situation. It is all about bringing in a clientel but it's hard to do
so when there is no variety. Parking should accommodate what is being offered and right
now it is.
• Better lightning and more security needs to be increased.
• My thoughts
Presently....have more City personnel in patroling the parking in downtown
Future built parking structure (pay per use) to support a greater variety and number of
businesses.
• One of the main reasons that I shop in Arcadia is because the parking is free and usually
close to the business I want to patronize. I would not like to see this change.
• More free public parking available. Restaurants should have their own Parking Services
for the diners.
• Parking is just a small issue to a larger problem. The City of Arcadia need to establish a
strong Economic Development Department and get large corporations, large restaurant
chains, big box retailers to want to operate in the City of Arcadia and result in increase
revenue for the City in which it desperately needs. Mom and pop stores just dont cut it
anymore because they cannot afford the rent.
• Unlike Monrovia, which has mainly businesses for a block on either side of Myrtle
Avenue, Arcadia has no buffer for First Avenue. The area is not set up to handle
increased traffic without making the residential area a miserable place to be. The area on
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
AliWALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
• First Avenue between Huntington and Duarte Road, with the school and residential areas
and no buffer areas, has possibly the worst setup to place your hopes of a thriving
downtown / business area.
Keep shoppers from parking in the residential areas. Add parking lots and parking
structures to First Avenue and permit parking only for residents and guests on side streets.
Better idea: move the main focus of downtown to north of Huntington Drive.
• The concrete islands need to go.
• The parking should remain free or at the minimum fees should be kept low in order to
attract visitors and residents as well..
• to much parking is used by employees of business establishments
• I think you need to clarify what is "Downtown Arcadia." I'm assuming it's the First Ave.
area around Duarte and Huntington... But a lot of people might think you're referring to
the mall area or Baldwin /Duarte...
• I live in monrovia, old town monrovia has better parking. Arcadia needs improvement.
plus they offer for free.
• Good communication with signs for visitors to know where they can park.
• who ever designed the parking, really messed it up.
now less parking than before.
buy up some property for use as parking Tots.
• downtown needs more foot traffic & customers to linger /shop in the area. right now, all
the store customers can finish their business in 5 -10 mins and then they leave the area. the
only people you see walking on 1st are people going to /from their cars. need a better
mix of MODERN businesses that are sustainable all week & until the evening hours.
however, the current parking situation will not sustain /invite people into that environment.
need a centralized parking lot
• nada
• More parking spaces must be made available if more businesses are anticipated in the
Downtown area. Most people get around by driving and you cannot attract people to the
area if no parking access is available.
Many people don't even realize there is a Downtown in Arcadia; it is too quiet /deserted.
• In my opinion, the parking should remain free to downtown Arcadia shoppers.
• Parking should be adequate but there should be a real effort to encourage people to use
alternatives to the car and to each person parking their own car in the immediate vicinity
of each business to which they want to go to. Cars are increasingly expensive to buy,
lease, maintain, insure, and operate (especially gas, which over the long run is only going
to continue to go up, up & up.) Therefore let's not spend a ton of money on a new
parking structure. If we do build a parking structure, make sure that it is built in such a
B -33
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
37-8234.00
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
• way that it could be used for something else if the need for the structure declines. Maybe
there should be a shuttle between the Gold line & downtown.
• If the area is to be successful, it needs to have off - street parking that is easily seen and
reached, PLUS a greater variety of businesses.
• Parking should be easy, convenient and free. Monrovia has free parking but it is so
crowded now and parking hard to find, don't go there anymore. Old Town Pas.
charges...don't go there anymore either.
• There is a parking deficit. Public Trains need to contribute for all the parking they will take
up. I have covered quite a bit in earlier questions and consider it all repeated.
• Make sure there will be sufficient parking for the new businesses
• PARKING IS FINE
• Public parking structure is necessary. Help keep the current building architectural in the
Downtown area.
• Sharing of the back parking lot with other businesses so we have enough parking spaces
of our employees.
• If number of businesses is increased and additional parking therefore becomes necessary,
it would probably behoove the "powers that be" to erect structures instead of a single
(ground) level lot.
• It would be nice if the off street parking is well paved and well lit. Hopefully there will be
no charge for parking.
• More space in the "rare parking" instead of in the street.
• Do you have any buildings that offer services that encourage business to open up shop in
them
If the city were to propose a more Transit rider oriented scenario with a greater parking
density and affordable housing with more residential amenities the other businesses would
benefit from this and a downtown type situation is more likely to be realized.
• A public parking lot(s) should be developed south of Huntington if 1 st Ave. is to be
developed.
• First Avenue is an ideal area but the type of businesses need to be revamped. Take a
page out of Monrovia's book on Myrtle.
• How about some parking structures and more businesses
• We would probably need a traffic light near Dana School instead of a stop sign for safety
of the children.
• i love this area because its easy to get in & out for my errands. parking on Baldwin south
of Huntington is a pain. Downtown arcadia still feels like a neighborhood main street for
residents.
• The parking us great the way it is now. Again, my concerns are when the station is
built. More dial a ride, bike lockers & security will be needed.
B -34
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
RMRKRVG CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 37- 8234.00
•
Now it is fine as there are not many reasons to be there. If that were to change the
parking situation would change for the worse. You would have to have city lots or
something.
• I'm just happy that you are trying to do something to revitalize the area. It needs it!
• I do not think there are enough parking spaces on the street if busier businesses come in.
• Not enough exciting businesses to venture to Downtown Arcadia all the time. Need to
make it a Grove type atmosphere. Possibly even close down the streets and turn this into
a Grove and build up the businesses where people can walk at night.
• I rarely shop in Arcadia due to the parking. The mall is too crowded. It is difficult for me to
walk for long periods of time.
• Most centers that charge for parking are not doing very well
Hollywood and Highland, Beverly Center and similar locations.
Coast Plaza does very well with plenty of free parking.
• Currently, I have no problems to find a parking spot to park my
please don't bring too many businesses in Downtown Arcadia
nightmare there in the future.
• I hope that more restaurants and bars come into the area. With the mall, I don't feel that
we're hurting for retail shops, but food and drink choices can be lacking at times.
• Arcadia has grown in population, businesses and I am sure more to come ... I am sure
that these planning sessions will come up with a solution. Good job!
• Arcadia is no longer a desired living place for seniors
• Currently fine, but if more people come in the future may need more parking space.
Instead of building a parking structure, how about an underground light rail shuttle from
the mall to downtown? Then you can park at one or the other and visit both without
driving and having to re -park.
• Parking right now is adequate. I'm not sure how it would be with the increased number of
businesses in the future.
• If there are more and safer bike lanes, then parking would not be so much an issue.
• Need more parking spots as well as sidewalk space.
• Parking directional signs and lighting. We need to be ready for the Gold Line!!
• I'm not too worried about Arcadia becoming the next Old Town Pasadena ... I'm not
seeing the market nor draw for outside business expansion ... If you're not a chain or
Asian restaurant , discount shopping /mall type of retail your business is pretty much
doomed... Cheap. fast, and corporation owned is what works ... Very sad .
• I'm willing to sacrifice parking for a more vibrant downtown
• With the new Gold line, it may get crowded and we may need a parking structure.
ie the Grove, Americana,
Unlike these place, South
car every time I shop, and
and makes the parking a
P-35
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
WALKER
R4R■NG CONSUDANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
• Would like it to be more attractive. Seems like their is very food traffic due to the type of
business presently there. We need to attract better businesses.
• Please do something about coordinating the lights on Duarte and First and on Huntington.
Sometimes the pile up of cars goes from Santa Clara all the way down to Dana Junior
High.
• Please. Let's get more businesses in our lovely city
• More parking garages like in Santa Barbara just off state street, they are well signed easy
to find but not an eyesore. They give first 90 minutes free.
• Sounds like a disastrous situation!
• Where are you going to find more parking ? ?? Will you have to build something ??
• I have taken the Gold Line from Pasadena to L A. The stations appear quaint but small
and convenient. I see no benefit to expanding the downtown area other than a block or 2
surrounding the station.
• I LOVE riding the Gold Line into LA and look forward to the dedication. I like the Old
Town feel of Monrovia and wish we had more shops /restaurants to draw us to the
downtown area.
• Please maintain free parking close by
• Would not like to have parking meters
• No parking fees. Like Monrovia, ensure longer -term parking is available so visitors to
downtown will be encouraged to stay and play. Have short-term parking available near
business (as with the lot near the post office).
• Would prefer having a number of public Tots available for parking. The set up in Old
Town Monrovia works very well.
• The downtown area needs adequate convenient parking. Arcadia needs to examine how
other cities have successfully accomplished this. Arcadia does not have to invent any new
ways to accomplish this. Is it not logical to follow and use the examples of success in
other cities? Has this study ever been accomplished by others? If it exists, is it available to
Arcadia?
• See my answer to question 13 above
• Summary of my opinion:
No. of spots - SAME
Road surface - IMPROVE
Businesses - MORE NIGHTLIFE
After traffic increase - IMPLEMENT CONGESTION PRICING
• Free parking is only fair when we are encouraged to come in and shop, eat and
purchase.
• i would definitely like to see some cooler businesses especially restaurants there are some
pretty lame ones out there. there is pretty good parking right now, but with increased
37- 8234.00
DOWNTOWN ARCADIA
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS
VE. WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
37- 8234.00
• business obviously you're going to need more parking you could probably create a
parking structure behind Dennys that parking lot is really large. but as a 20yr arcadia
citizen i would hate to be charged to park there because I've been going to that Dennys
since i was a little kid. maybe Arcadians could show their ID and park for free.
• The area really does need a bit of a face lift... Once accomplished, and more people are
attracted to the area, a parking structure will probably be necessary where the current
open lot now is.
• I would like to support the businesses in downtown, but the lack of parking makes it
difficult. I've rather go to the mall.
• NEED MORE ON FIRST AVE
• Thank you for making parking a priority to help grow our downtown. Many I know avoid
the mall because of the inconvenience and length of time it can take just to find a parking
spot.
• Side walks should be open and clear enough for baby strollers, dogs..etc. Downtown
should have more of a small town, sit around the tables and talk feel to it. Dog and kid
friendly of course. (A lot like Sierra Madre)
Speed limits around the cross walks should be reduced, and police presence on bike
should be present at all times. Unless more lighting is added.
• Any plans for future development should include a parking structure similar to the one
proposed for the Gold Line station.
• I would like some good quality American cuisine restaurants. I go to Monrovia or
Pasadena.
8 -37
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]
APPENDIX C:
MODEL: SHARED USE
AGREEMENT
Appendix C: Model - Shared Use Agreement for Parking Facilities'
Effective:
This Shared Use Agreement for Parking Facilities, entered into this day of , between
, hereinafter called lessor and , hereinafter called lessee.
In consideration of the covenants herein, lessor agrees to share with lessee certain parking facilities, as is situated in
the City of , County of and State of , hereinafter called the
facilities, described as:
[Include legal description of location and spaces to be shared here, and as shown
on attachment _.]
The facilities shall be shared commencing with the day of , and ending at 1 1:59 PM on
the _ day of for [insert negotiated compensation figures, as appropriate]. [The lessee
agrees to pay at [insert payment address] to lessor by the day of each month [or other payment
arrangements].]
Lessor hereby represents that it holds legal title to the facilities
The parties agree:
1. USE OF FACILITIES
This section should describe the nature of the shared use (exclusive, joint sections, time(s) and day(s) of week of
usage.
- SAMPLE CLAUSE -
[Lessee shall have exclusive use of the facilities. The use shall only be between the hours of 5:30 PM Friday
through 5:30 AM Monday and between the hours of 5:30 PM and 5:30 AM Monday through Thursday.]
2. MAINTENANCE
This section should describe responsibility for aspects of maintenance of the facilities. This could include
cleaning, striping, seal coating, asphalt repair and more.
- SAMPLE CLAUSE -
[Lessor shall provide, as reasonably necessary asphalt repair work. Lessee and Lessor agree to share striping,
seal coating and lot sweeping at a 50 %/50% split based upon mutually accepted maintenance contracts with
outside vendors. Lessor shall maintain lot and landscaping at or above the current condition, at no additional
cost to the lessee.]
3. UTILITIES and TAXES
This section should describe responsibility for utilities and taxes. This could include electrical, water, sewage,
and more.
- SAMPLE CLAUSE -
[Lessor shall pay all taxes and utilities associated with the facilities, including maintenance of existing facility
lighting as directed by standard safety practices.]
4. SIGNAGE
This section should describe signage allowances and restrictions.
- SAMPLE CLAUSE-
[Lessee may provide signage, meeting with the written approval of lessor, designating usage allowances.
5. ENFORCEMENT
This section should describe any facility usage enforcement methods.
- SAMPLE CLAUSE -
[Lessee may provide a surveillance officer(s) for parking safety and usage only for the period of its exclusive use.
Lessee and lessor reserve the right to tow, at owners expense, vehicles improperly parked or abandoned. All
towing shall be with the approval of the lessor.]
6. COOPERATION
This section should describe communication relationship.
- SAMPLE CLAUSE -
[Lessor and lessee agree to cooperate to the best of their abilities to mutually use the facilities without disrupting
the other party. The parties agree to meet on occasion to work out any problems that may arise to the shared
use.]
7. INSURANCE
This section should describe insurance requirements for the facilities.
- SAMPLE CLAUSE -
[At their own expense, lessor and lessee agree to maintain liability insurance for the facilities as is standard for
their own business usage.]
8. INDEMNIFICATION
This section should describe indemnification as applicable and negotiated. This is a very technical section and
legal counsel should be consulted for appropriate language to each and every agreement.
-NO SAMPLE CLAUSE PROVIDED-
9. TERMINATION
This section should describe how to or if this agreement can be terminated and post termination responsibilities.
- SAMPLE CLAUSE -
[If lessor transfers ownership, or if part of all of the facilities are condemned, or access to the facilities is
changed or limited, lessee may, in its sole discretion terminate this agreement without further liability by giving
Lessor not less than 60 days prior written notice.
Upon termination of this agreement, Lessee agrees to remove all signage and repair damage due to excessive
use or abuse. Lessor agrees to give lessee the right of first refusal on subsequent renewal of this agreement.]
10. SUPPLEMENTAL COVENANTS
This section should contain any additional covenants, rights, responsibilities and /or agreements.
-NO SAMPLE CLAUSE PROVIDED
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
forth at the outset hereof.
[Signature and notarization as appropriate to a legal document and
process negotiated between parties.]
as of the Effective Date Set
as appropriate to recording
PARKING LOT LEASE AGREEMENT
This PARKING LOT LEASE AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is made and entered into as
of this day of , 200_, by and between the [PLEASE PROVIDE EXACT
NAME OF TRUST AND NAMES OF (CO)- TRUSTEES] ( "Owner "), and the CITY OF
ARCADIA, a California municipal corporation ( "City"). Owner and City are hereinafter
sometimes referred to collectively as "parties" and individually as a "party."
RECITALS
A. Owner is the owner in fee of that certain real property located at [ADDRESS],
Assessor's Parcel Numbers ( "APN ") [APN NUMBER] located in the downtown area of the City
of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California (the "Property").
B. City has requested to lease, and Owner is willing to lease, those portions of the
Property more particularly depicted in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated by this
reference (the "Premises "), for the purpose of providing public parking according to the terms
and conditions of this Agreement.
COVENANTS
Based upon the foregoing Recitals, which are incorporated into this Agreement by
reference, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged by both parties, Owner and City hereby agree as follows:
1. Grant of Lease. Owner hereby leases to City, and City hereby leases from Owner,
the Premises and all landscaping, improvements, and structures that will be used for the
Permitted Uses (defined below) according to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
2. Term.
2.1 Initial Term. The lease of the Premises shall be for an initial term of
five (5) years (the "Initial Term "), commencing upon the date that the City Council approves in
accordance with law this fully executed Agreement (the "Commencement Date ") and expiring
on the date that is the fifth (5th) anniversary of the Commencement Date.
2.2 Automatic Renewal. Upon the expiration of the Initial Term, the lease of
the Premises shall be divided into one (1) year renewable terms, wherein each one (1) year term
is hereinafter referred to as a "Renewable Term." The first Renewable Term shall automatically
commence upon the date that is the day immediately after the expiration of the Initial Term, and
each subsequent Renewable Term shall automatically commence on the date that is the day
immediately after the expiration of the previous Renewable Term. The lease of the Premises for
any time after the expiration of the Initial Term (i.e., for any time during any and all Renewable
Terms) is hereinafter referred to as the "Extended Term." The Initial Term and Extended Term
are collectively referred to in this Agreement as the "Term."
2.3 Termination of Lease. Either party, in its sole and absolute discretion,
may terminate the lease of the Premises either: (i) at the expiration of the Initial Term, or (ii) at
any time during the Extended Term. The party seeking to terminate the lease shall deliver to the
other party written notice thereof no later than sixty (60) days prior to the date of termination.
3. Rent and Security Deposit.
3.1 Rent. City shall pay to Owner as rent for the Premises [AMOUNT] per
month (the "Rent "). The first payment of Rent shall be prorated pursuant to Section 3.4 below
(if applicable) and shall be delivered to Owner no later than the date that is three (3) weeks after
the Commencement Date. Each and every subsequent payment of Rent shall be delivered to
Owner no later than the tenth (10th) day of the month for which the Rent is due.
3.2 Security Deposit. City shall deliver to Owner, no later than the date that is
three (3) weeks after the Commencement Date, a security deposit in the amount of [AMOUNT]
(the "Security Deposit "). The Security Deposit shall be held by Owner as security for the
performance by City of the terms and conditions of this Agreement to be kept and performed by
City. Prior to the use of the Security Deposit for any obligation to be performed by City
pursuant to this Agreement, Owner shall deliver written notice to City of the reason for the use,
and Owner shall provide City with an opportunity to cure any failure to perform said obligation
prior to the use of the Security Deposit pursuant to the cure provisions set forth in Section 10
below. If City fully performs every obligation of this Agreement to be performed by it, the
Security Deposit or any balance thereof shall be returned to City upon termination of this
Agreement.
3.3 Delivery. All payments and charges due under this Agreement shall be
paid by City in lawful money of the United States of America, which shall be legal tender at the
time of payment, at:
Attn:
or to such other person or at such other place as Owner may from time to time designate
in writing. Owner shall promptly deliver to City any change in address or person responsible for
receiving payment of Rent. City shall not be in default of this Agreement if Owner fails to
receive any payment of Rent when Owner fails to promptly deliver any change in address or
person responsible for receiving payment.
3.4 Prorated Amounts. Any Rent due under this Agreement for any fractional
part of a calendar month shall be prorated based on the ratio that the number of days in that
month during the Term bears to the total number of days in that month.
4. Permitted Uses. For the duration of the Term, the Premises shall be used for
parking by the general public and incidental uses relating thereto (the "Permitted Uses "), and for
no other purpose, subject to the following conditions: (i) no overnight parking shall be
permitted; (ii) parking for each vehicle used by a member of the general public shall be limited
-2
to four (4) hours for any twenty -four (24) hour period, provided, however, that the time limits
may be adjusted by mutual consent of the parties; (iii) any vehicle used by a current employee of
[NAME] may park all day on the Premises, but only if such vehicle has a parking permit or
sticker for such all day use clearly posted on the vehicle's bumper or windshield; and (iv) any
other rules and regulations that City may impose on the general public for the use of the
Premises. With respect to the condition concerning the ability of [NAME]employees to park on
the Premises pursuant to clause (iii) above, the parties agree that this parking condition shall
remain in effect only so long as [NAME] remains in business at its location as of the
Commencement Date, and that in the event [NAME] no longer continues its business operations
at such location, City shall have no obligation to comply with the parking condition set forth in
clause (iii) above.
5. Improvement and Maintenance of Premises. City, *at its own cost and expense,
shall be responsible for the improvement and maintenance, as needed, of the Premises for use as
a public parking lot, including but not limited to: (i) surfacing the parking lot; (ii) striping
parking lot spaces; and (iii) providing signage, as needed. Signage shall indicate, where City
determines is appropriate, that the parking lot is open for use by the general public.
6. Insurance.
6.1 General Liabilitv. City shall obtain and keep in force and effect for the
entire Term a commercial general liability insurance policy which names Owner as an additional
insured, protecting against claims of bodily injury, personal injury and property damage based
upon, involving, or arising out of the use or maintenance of the Premises by City. Such
insurance shall be on an occurrence basis providing single limit coverage in an amount not less
than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence.
6.2 Certificates. City shall provide to Owner a certificate of insurance
evidencing insurance coverage as provided herein no later than the date that is three (3) weeks
after the Commencement Date, and thereafter as requested by Owner until the termination of this
Agreement.
6.3 Self - Insurance. In lieu of the obligations set forth in Section 6.1 and 6.2
above, City may satisfy its obligation to provide general liability insurance for the Premises
through a self - insurance program, but only if City remains self - insured for no less than One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) in liability claims. In the event that City is self - insured, City
shall deliver to Owner, no later than the date that is three (3) weeks after the Commencement
Date, a statement, certificate, or other proof of financial responsibility, duly acknowledged by
City's authorized representative, for One Million Dollar ($1,000,000.00) in self - insurance.
7. Indemnity City shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Owner and its
officers, officials, employees, agents, or representatives (collectively the "Indemnitees ") against
any and all claims, demands, causes of action, damages, costs, expenses, losses and liabilities, at
law or in equity arising out of or relating to (i) any activity or work done, permitted, or suffered
on the Premises; (ii) use of the Premises by City and its officers, officials, employees, agents,
representatives, invitees, patrons, or sub - lessees; or (iii) the acts or omissions of City or its
officers, officials, employees, agents, or representatives acting in an official capacity. This
-3
indemnity shall specifically include the right to indemnification for any claims, demands, causes
of action, damages, costs, expenses, losses and liabilities, at law or in equity arising from the acts
or omissions, whether negligent, reckless, willful or otherwise, of any member of the public (as
that term is defined below) while that member of the public is or was on or about the Premises.
Notwithstanding the forgoing sentences in this Section 7, City shall have no obligation to
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Indemnitees for any claim, demand, cause of action,
damages, costs, expenses, losses and liabilities arising from or relating to (i) a pre - existing
environmental condition concerning hazardous substances on or under the Premises; or (ii) any
negligent, reckless, or willful act or omission of Indemnitee(s) while on or about the Premises.
For purposes this Agreement, the term "hazardous substance" shall mean any
substance or material defined or designated as hazardous or toxic waste, hazardous or toxic
material, a hazardous or toxic substance, or other similar term by any federal, state, or local
environmental statute, regulation, or ordinance. For purposes of this Section 7, the term
"member of the public" shall mean any person other the officers, officials, employees, agents, or
representatives, acting in an official capacity, of Owner or City.
8. Peaceable Possession. Owner hereby warrants and represents that it has the
authority to lease the Premises and to execute this Agreement. Owner further covenants and
agrees that City, upon performing and quietly observing the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, shall have the right to hold, occupy, and enjoy the Premises for the Permitted Uses
during the Term without any interruption or hindrance from Owner, its successors or assigns, or
any person or entity lawfully claiming by or through it.
9. Assignment and Subletting. Upon Owner's approval, which shall not be
unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed, City shall have the right to assign or transfer this
Agreement or any interest in this Agreement, and shall have the right to sublet the Premises or
any part thereof, for the purpose of operating and maintaining the Premises for the Permitted
Uses.
10. Default. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall
constitute a material default ( "default "): (i) the vacating or abandonment of the Premises by
City; (ii) the failure by City to pay Rent when due pursuant to this Agreement, and such failure
continues for a period of ten (10) days after delivery of written notice from Owner to City of said
failure; and (iii) the failure by either party to observe or perform any of the obligations of this
Agreement to be observed or performed by the responsible party (other than the obligation
described in clause (ii) above), where such failure either: (A) continues for a period of
thirty (30) days after delivery of written notice thereof from the party seeking performance, or
(B) if performance cannot be completed with thirty (30) days, cure of such failure has not
commenced within thirty (30) days after delivery of written notice thereof and diligently
prosecuted until completion within sixty (60) days of the expiration of the thirty (30) day period
(for a total of ninety (90) days). Upon an event of default and after the expiration of the
applicable cure period, this Agreement and City's right to lease the Premises shall terminate
upon the date that is one day after the date of expiration of the applicable cure period unless the
party in default cures the default within the applicable cure period.
-4
11. Miscellaneous.
11.1 Binding on Heirs. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties
hereto and inure to their respective representatives, transferees, successors, and assigns.
11.2 Litigation Expenses. If either party to this Agreement commences an
action against the other party to this Agreement arising out of or in connection with this
Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, expert
witness fees, costs of investigation, and costs of suit from the losing party.
11.3 Notices. All notices required to be delivered under this Agreement to
another party must be in writing and shall be effective: (i) when personally delivered by the
other party or messenger or courier thereof; (ii) three (3) business days after deposit in the United
States mail, registered or certified; (iii) one (1) business day after deposit before the daily
deadline time with a reputable overnight courier or service; or (iv) upon receipt of a telecopy or
fax transmission, provided a hard copy of such transmission shall be thereafter delivered in one
of the methods described in the foregoing (i) through (iii); in each case postage fully prepaid and
addressed to the respective parties as set forth below or to such other address and to such other
persons as the parties may hereafter designate by written notice to the other parties hereto:
To City:
Copy to:
To Owner:
Copy to:
City of Arcadia
Attn:
Attn:
11.4 Entire Agreement, Waivers, and Amendments. This Agreement
incorporates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein, or incidental hereto, and
supersedes all negotiations and previous agreements between the parties with respect to all or
part of the subject matter hereof. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in
writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the party to be charged. A waiver of the
breach of the covenants, conditions or obligations under this Agreement by either party shall not
be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or other covenants, conditions or
obligations of this Agreement. Any amendment or modification to this Agreement must be in
writing and executed by the appropriate authorities of City and Owner.
11.5 Interpretation; Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed
according to its fair meaning and as if prepared by all of the parties hereto. This Agreement shall
be construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of California without regard to any
conflict of law principles in effect at the time of the execution of this Agreement.
11.6 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will
nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.
11.7 Force Majeure. In the event that either party is delayed, hindered, or
prevented from performing any act required hereunder by reason of strikes, lockouts, or other
labor troubles, inability to procure or shortage of materials or supplies, failure of power, energy
shortages, restrictive governmental laws or regulations, inclement weather, fire, explosion,
earthquake or other casualty, riots, insurrection, war, act of God, or other causes that are without
the fault and beyond the reasonable control of such Party, then the performance of the party
obligated to perform under this Agreement shall be excused for and extended by the period of
such delay.
11.8 Headings. Section and Subsection headings in this Agreement have been
inserted solely for the convenience of the parties, and such captions, headings, and titles shall in
no way define or limit the scope, intent, or application of any provision of this Agreement.
11.9 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to every
provision of this Agreement.
11.10 Computation of Time. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, use
of the word "days" shall mean calendar days, and any provision requiring the computation of
time shall be based upon a standard calendar of three hundred sixty five and one - quarter (365 %)
days.
11.11 Execution in Counterpart. This Agreement may be executed in several
counterparts, and all so executed shall constitute one agreement binding on all parties hereto,
notwithstanding that all parties are not signatories to the original or the same counterpart.
[signatures on next page]
-6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date
first set forth above.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
"CITY"
CITY OF ARCADIA,
a California municipal corporation
By:
Mayor
"OWNER"
By:
Its:
By:
Its: