DOWNTOWN PARKING DEMAND STUDY - Home - City of … · · 2006-04-20downtown parking study escondido, ca prepared for: community development department, city of escondido project

DOWNTOWN PARKING DEMAND STUDY Prepared for: Community Development Department City of Escondido February 24, 2006

WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS

2550 Hollywood Way, Suite 303 Burbank, CA 91505 Voice: 818.953.9130 Fax: 818.953.9331 www.walkerparking.com

February 24, 2006 Mr. Charles Grimm Director of Community Development City Hall, First Floor 201 North Broadway Escondido, CA 92025 Re: Downtown Parking Supply and Demand Study Walker Project # 37-7621.00 Dear Mr. Grimm: Walker Parking Consultants is pleased to present the following parking study for Escondido’s downtown core. Pursuant to our meeting with the Downtown Business Association’s Parking Management Committee and City staff on January 23, 2006, we have included additional data in order to clarify our findings in this report. The most notable addition is a second weekday of parking counts. The report therefore contains an analysis of the parking demand in the study area on three separate weekdays as well as the impacts of new development that we can expect to see on the public parking system. We have incorporated parking surveys performed both by our staff and City staff as well as clarifications in response to comments made by the public. Thank you very much for the opportunity to work on this interesting and challenging project. Sincerely, WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Steffen Turoff Parking Consultant Enclosure

DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY ESCONDIDO, CA Prepared for: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CITY OF ESCONDIDO PROJECT NO. 37-7621.00 FEBRUARY 24, 2006

DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY CITY OF ESCONDIDO FEBRUARY 24, 2006 PROJECT # 37-7621.00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………..ii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 BASELINE PARKING DEMAND................................................. 2 Study Area ......................................................................... 2 Wednesday Parking Demand at Peak Hour ...................... 3 Tuesday Parking Demand at Peak Hour............................ 7 On-street Occupancies........................................... 7 Off-street Occupancies........................................... 9 Parking Adequacy Tuesday ................................. 11 “Cruisin’ Grand” – Parking at Peak Demand.................... 15 NEW DEVELOPMENT ............................................................. 18 New Development in the Study Area ............................... 19 Marriott Hotel ................................................................... 23 Garage, Condos, and Maple Avenue Closure ................. 26 Reduced Parking Requirements for Mixed-use Development 28 Garage Space Allocation ................................................. 29 Parking Space Allocation & the Benefits of Shared Parking...30 CONCLUSION.......................................................................... 32 Construction and Parking Alternatives............................. 32 APPENDIX A - ON-STREET COUNTS, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2005 APPENDIX B - WOODWARD LOT COUNTS, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2005 APPENDIX C - ON-STREET COUNTS, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2006 APPENDIX D - WOODWARD LOT COUNTS, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2006 APPENDIX E – ON-STREET COUNTS, FRIDAY, APRIL 15, 2005 (EVENING OF “CRUISIN’ GRAND”)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Occupancy by Portion of Study Area Page 3 Table 2: Occupancies of Public Lots Page 4 Table 3: Impact on Public Parking of New Development in the Study Area (excluding the Marriott and Condo/Garage Projects) Page 10 Table 4: Hotel Parking Requirements pre Code and Per Parking Generation Model Page 12 Table 5: Comparisons of Parking Requirements and Projected Parking Demand Page 16 Table 6: Parking Space Allocation in New Garage Page 17 Table 7: Parking Alternatives During Construction Page 19 Figure 1: Map of Study Area Page 5

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Study Area Boundaries Page 3 Table 2: On-street Occupancies – Wednesday 10/12/05 Page 4 Table 3: Public Parking Occupancies Wednesday 10/12/05 Page 4 Table 4: Combined On- & Off-Street Occupancies, Weds 10/12/05 Page 5 Table 5: On-street Occupancies – Tuesday 2/7/06 Page 8 Table 6: Off-street Occupancies – Tuesday 2/7/06 Page 8 Table 7: Woodward Lots Occupancy – Major CCAE Events Page 10 Table 9: “Cruisin’ Grand” Public Parking Occupancies Page 15 Table 10: “Cruisin’ Grand” Public Lots Occupancies Page 16 Table 11: Impact of Public Parking on New Development Page 22 Table 12: Hotel Parking per Code and per Model Page 24 Table 13: Hotel Parking Generation Daytime Page 25 Table 14: Comparison of Condo Parking Requirements and Demand Page 27 Table 15: Parking Space Allocation in New Garage Page 30 Figure 1: Map of Study Area, Wednesday Peak Hour Page 6 Figure 1.1: Map of Study Area, Tuesday Peak Hour Page 14 Figure 2: Map of Study Area, “Cruisin’ Grand” Evening Page 17

DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY CITY OF ESCONDIDO FEBRUARY 24, 2006 PROJECT # 37-7621.00

ii

Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) has been retained by the City of Escondido to update and expand upon a parking demand study of the City’s downtown area that was performed by Walker in 2001. This new study looks at a significantly larger portion of the downtown than was studied four years ago. It also examines the effect that several new developments in and around the downtown area will have on the public parking supply. The two most significant of these new developments are a Marriott Hotel and a new mixed-use condominium and parking structure, which will also contain a ground floor retail component. Both of these new developments will be located on Valley Parkway and both will eliminate surface parking lots when they are constructed. The purpose of this study is to determine to what extent public parking in the area is currently impacted and whether or not new development planned in the area may impact the parking situation. Two different weekdays, a Tuesday and a Wednesday, were surveyed. In the study area as a whole, parking demand was found to be slightly higher on Tuesday than on Wednesday. Walker found that at the peak hour of 11:00 AM on the Tuesday surveyed, the overall occupancy rate for public parking spaces in the study area was 57%.1 Walker divided the study area into four sub-areas in order to better gauge specific areas of high parking demand. None of the areas recorded parking occupancy rates higher than 71%, which occurred in Area 2.2 This data is contained in Table 7 on page 13. This is not to say that concentrated areas of highly utilized or even impacted parking were not observed. Of the seven City parking lots included in the survey, at 11:00 AM we recorded an occupancy rate of 99% in Lot 4 (located at 2nd Avenue and Kalmia Street). Occupancy rates of 83% were recorded for both of the public lots in Area 2. However, with regard to on-street parking, the majority of blocks had less than 60% of their on-street spaces full. Based on information received from the City, Walker found that the new development planned for the study area is not expected to increase parking occupancy rates, as each of the developments will have enough parking spaces built or allocated (in the case of the library expansion) to accommodate the new parking demand they are expected to generate. This includes the new Marriott Hotel and the combined condominium and parking structure

1 The borders of the study area were roughly Valley Parkway on the north, Third Avenue on the south, Centre City Parkway on the west and Fig Street on the east. 2 Area 2 is bounded by Valley Parkway on the north, 3rd Avenue on the south, Escondido Boulevard on the west and Broadway on the east.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


iii

development planned for Valley Parkway and Maple Street. The purpose of the parking structure that is planned for Valley Parkway and Maple Avenue is to accommodate parking for the new condominiums that will be located above the parking structure, parking for the ground floor retail, and public parking to offset those public spaces that will be displaced by the new hotel and structure/condominiums. The public parking supply could potentially be increased if some or all of the residential parking spaces were not reserved and was instead made available to the public during the day, when many residents take their cars to work. In addition to our Tuesday and Wednesday counts, Walker also observed parking occupancies at an unusually busy time, a Friday evening in April on which the “Cruisin’ Grand” event was being held. At 7:00 PM on that day overall occupancy in the study area was 74%, but Area 2 as a whole (both on-street and off-street parking spaces) experienced a parking occupancy rate of 91%. The average parking occupancy for the seven public lots on this evening was 98%. Whether it is the day before Christmas at a shopping mall or the day before Thanksgiving at an airport, Walker typically does not recommend planning a parking system for the busiest few days of the year. It is extremely expensive to build parking spaces that may not be used more than a few times a year when one parking space in an above ground parking structure may cost $25,000 to build. Underground parking spaces can cost $40,000 per space. The parking demand that is generated on “Cruisin’ Grand,” nights, however, occurs more than a few times a year; Walker understands that “Cruisin’ Grand” is held roughly 26 times a year (every Friday night from April through September). Whether or not this many evenings of impacted parking in certain sections of downtown3 warrant the construction of additional parking is a decision to be made by citizens and City officials. Parking is generally available within 1,200 feet of the most impacted areas and people can be expected to walk a little farther for a special event than for a regular shopping or dining trip. Building more parking spaces in the downtown to meet demand on just 26 evenings a year is an expensive proposition when parking spaces on nearby blocks are available. At the busiest hour on a typical weekday, Walker determined that there is an ample supply of parking spaces not only in the downtown area as a whole, but also in each of the four sub-areas. Overall, parking in the downtown area is not impacted. In those individual blocks and city public lots where localized parking impacts do occur, based on Walker’s research and experience,

3 Area 2 was the only one of the 4 sub-areas to experience parking occupancies above 90%.


iv

there are parking spaces located within an acceptable walking distance. Enhanced signage and streetscape can make the use of these nearby spaces more attractive to the general public. Ultimately, however, it is a political and financial decision as to whether or not additional spaces should be built to ameliorate very localized parking impacts. It is also a question of how the public wishes to use the limited amount of space available in their downtown. While having parking available adjacent to one’s destination is extremely convenient, locating parking in a prime location may occupy land that could otherwise be used for businesses, residences, and public space and effectively make distances between downtown destinations longer, unless the parking is designed carefully so as to minimize any ill effects. Central cities that have plenty of free and convenient parking located immediately adjacent to businesses are often cities that face economic challenges. In more popular downtowns, the land prices and desirability of prime locations often result in the concentration of parking into large structures, which are often not located on the busiest streets. Many of the successful business districts in California, such as in Pasadena or Santa Monica, require their visitors to walk significant distances between where they park and their destinations.

DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY CITY OF ESCONDIDO FEBRUARY 24, 2006

1

Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) has been retained by the City of Escondido to conduct a parking demand analysis of the City’s downtown core. In 2001, Walker Parking Consultants completed a parking demand study of downtown for the City. Since that time, a number of new developments have either been built, are under construction, or are in the planning stages. Probably the most significant of these developments are the planned Marriott Hotel and Conference Center that will be built on the parcel adjacent to the existing Conference Center and will include that center as part of the development, and the parking structure and condominiums that are to be constructed at Valley Parkway and Maple Avenue. The purpose of this study is to determine what, if any, effect the new development will have on the parking situation within the study area and approaches for dealing with those effects. The study area was expanded from 18 blocks in 2001 to roughly 30 square blocks for the current study, including the lots located to the south of Woodward Avenue, but north of the Civic Center and California Center for the Arts and Entertainment (CCAE).

INTRODUCTION


2

In order to determine the parking demand generated under current conditions by existing land uses, Walker field staff conducted a baseline inventory of parking spaces, and then conducted occupancy counts on three different weekdays. Walker staff initially performed parking space inventories and car counts on Friday, April 15, 2005. Based on discussions with City staff we determined that, on that day, the effects of “Cruisin’ Grand” resulted in an unusually high parking occupancy rate in the early evening hours. Therefore, not only was parking demand higher on that day, it occurred at an hour which typically experiences the lowest parking demand during the day, at 7:00 PM. Walker staff therefore conducted a second parking occupancy survey on Wednesday, October 12, 2005. On that day, parking demand peaked at roughly the 11:00 AM hour, which is typical of what Walker has observed in the downtowns of other municipalities we have studied. On January 23, 2006, Walker met with City staff and members of the Downtown Business Association’s (DBA) Parking Committee, who expressed concern that Tuesday, rather than Wednesday, represented a significantly higher demand day for parking in the downtown area. Walker therefore conducted a third set of occupancy counts on Tuesday February 7, 2006. The difference in parking demand observed for the overall area was roughly 1%. Peak demand for both days was in the 11:00 hour. Based on these observations, we assume the 11:00 AM hour on Tuesday to be representative of peak parking demand during the week. In this report, in order to present as complete a picture as possible, we look at both Tuesday and Wednesday. In addition, we also look at counts conducted on an evening when “Cruisin’ Grand” was held in order to measure parking demand representative of one of the busiest parking days throughout the year. STUDY AREA The study area consists of roughly 30 blocks,4 bounded by Centre City Parkway on the west, Valley Parkway on the north, 3rd Avenue on the south, and Fig Street (between Valley and Grand), Second Avenue (between Grand and Ivy), and Ivy (between Second and Third) on the East. In addition, City of Escondido staff performed a total of three sets of counts in the public parking area located north of Valley Parkway and the Civic Center area, south of Woodward Avenue, east of Escondido Boulevard and west of Broadway.5 With the exception of the Woodward Lots, each city block was assigned a letter or set of letters for

4 Most of the blocks along the perimeter of the study area represent one block face and not full city blocks, making an exact block count difficult. 5 A breakdown of these spaces is provided in the appendix.

BASELINE PARKING DEMAND


3

identification purposes, which are shown in the maps contained in Figures 1, 1.1, and 2. In order to get a better snapshot of the current parking situation, we divided the study area into four sub-areas with the boundaries indicated in Table 1. The sub-areas are also shown in the maps contained in the Figures.

Table 1: Area Boundaries

Northern/ Southern Boundary W estern/ Eastern Boundary

Area 1 Valley Prkwy/ 3rd AvenueCentre City Prkwy/ Escondido

Blvd.Area 2 Valley Prkwy/ 3rd Avenue Escondido Blvd./ BroadwayArea 3 Valley Prkwy/ 3rd Avenue Broadway/ Ivy Street

Area 4Valley Prkwy/ 2nd Ave. &

Grand Ave. Ivy Street/ Fig Street Although it does not fall within the boundaries of Area 2, it should be noted that, where indicated in the report, we also show the parking space inventory and occupancy counts for the Woodward lots located north of Valley Parkway. We include the Woodward lots because of their proximity to the Civic Center and the CCAE, both of which are major parking generators.

WEDNESDAY PARKING DEMAND AT THE PEAK HOUR On the following page, Table 2 shows the number of on-street parking spaces (which we refer to as the on-street parking space inventory) in each of the sub-areas and in the study area as a whole. It then shows the results of our on-street occupancy counts for Wednesday, October 12, 2005. Occupancy counts were performed three times on that day, at 11:00 AM, 3:00 PM, and 7:00 PM. We observed the peak demand for on-street parking during the 11:00 AM count. The occupancy rate for on-street spaces in the entire area averaged 49% although in Area 4 on-street parking demand was 64%, likely as a result of spillover demand from Palomar Hospital. Table 2: On-street Occupancy by Sub-Area – October 12, 2005


4

Escondido Downtown Core

On-Street Space

Inventory11 AM

Occ11 AM %

Occ3 PM Occ

3 PM % Occ

7 PM Occ

7 PM % Occ

Area 1 187 96 51% 108 58% 21 11%Area 2 257 131 51% 103 40% 58 23%Area 3 478 205 43% 185 38% 90 19%Area 4 156 100 64% 84 54% 7 4%Total 1078 532 49% 480 45% 176 16%Source: W alker Parking Consultants

In Table 3 we show the number of off-street parking spaces available in the seven public lots located within the study area, as well as those located in the Woodward lots, which were surveyed by City of Escondido staff.6 We then show the results of our occupancy counts. Table 3 shows that, during the peak hour several of the lots were highly utilized, including two with occupancy rates over 90%. Both Lots 1 and 7 were 83% utilized. The on-street parking spaces along the block in which Lot 1 is located (Block B) were more highly utilized than Area 2 as a whole, with 23 of the 32 parking spaces (72%) along the block in use.7 Table 3: Occupancies of Public Lots – Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Lot # Block Inventory 11:00 AM % Occ 3:00 PM % Occ 7:00 PM % Occ

1 B 120 100 83% 80 67% 28 23%2 L 96 62 65% 67 70% 1 1%3 C 54 50 93% 44 81% 17 31%4 H 83 60 72% 70 84% 16 19%5 D 35 29 83% 21 60% 3 9%6 I 62 28 45% 30 48% 21 34%7 D 47 43 91% 39 83% 2 4%

Totals: 497 372 75% 351 71% 88 18%

906 334 37% 328 36%

Source: W alker Parking Consultants and City of Escondido

W oodward Lots

In Table 4, we combine the data contained in Tables 2 and 3, showing the combined on- and off-street inventories and occupancy counts for each of the four areas and the entire study area as a whole. In order to make the presentation of the data as clear as possible, we do not include the Woodward lots in this total. Peak parking occupancy occurred during the 11:00 AM counts. For the study area as a whole, not including the Woodward lots, total occupancy at 11:00 AM was 57%. By 7:00 6 A breakdown of these parking spaces in the Woodward lots is provided in the appendices. 7 The block by block occupancy breakdown for on-street parking is included in Appendix A.


5

PM, not including the Woodward lots, it was just 17%. Looking at the study sub-areas, Area 4 had the highest utilized parking, with 64% of its 156 parking spaces occupied at 11:00 AM. Public parking spaces in Area 2, where City Hall and the future Marriott Hotel are located were 62% occupied, not including the Woodward lots. Table 4: Combined On- and Off-Street Counts, Wednesday 10/12/05

Parking Space

Inventory11 AM

Occ11 AM %

Occ3 PM Occ

3 PM % Occ

7 PM Occ

7 PM % Occ

Area 1 (On-Street Only) 187 96 51% 108 58% 21 11%

Area 2 On-Street 257 131 51% 103 40% 58 23%Area 2 Off-Street 215 162 75% 147 68% 29 13%Area 2 Total 472 293 62% 250 53% 87 18%


Area 4 On-Street 156 100 64% 84 54% 7 4%

Total Study Area W ednesday 1575 904 57% 831 53% 264 17%

Source: W alker Parking Consultants In Figure 1, we use colors on a map of the study area to indicate the percentage of occupancy of public parking spaces on a block by block basis for the 11:00 am counts on Wednesday, October 12, 2005, the hour of peak parking demand for the study area as a whole. The borders of each of the four sub-areas are also shown. Despite the localized, highly-utilized areas, most of the downtown study area had ample parking available at 11:00 am on Wednesday. As shown in the map in Figure 1, most of the blocks in the study area south of Grand Avenue showed occupancies of less than 50%. Appendix A shows percentage occupancies for on-street parking on a block-by-block basis on Wednesday.



7

PARKING DEMAND ON A TUESDAY AT THE PEAK HOUR On January 23, 2006, at a meeting held at Escondido City Hall, members of the Downtown Business Association’s (DBA) Parking Committee expressed to Walker their concerns that Wednesday was not representative of a busy weekday. Because of Rotary Club meetings held at the California Center for the Arts, Escondido (CCAE) and a Farmers Market held on Tuesday afternoons, members of the Parking Committee suggested that Tuesday would be more representative of peak parking demand downtown. Walker and the City therefore agreed to conduct additional counts on a Tuesday. On-street Parking Occupancy On Tuesday, February 7, Walker surveyors conducted parking occupancy counts of all the on-street and public off-street parking spaces within the study area. Counts were conducted at two hour intervals. In addition, on the same day, City of Escondido staff conducted occupancy counts to determine the number of cars that were parked throughout the day at the Woodward lots, located north of the CCAE. In each of the four areas the highest occupancy rates for on-street spaces were observed at 11:00 AM. The overall occupancy rate for on-street spaces at that time was 49%. The highest occupancy rate for any of the four areas was 60%, which was observed in Area 2 at 11:00 AM. This does not mean that the on-street parking spaces on specific blocks were not more severely impacted. Parking spaces on Block AC in Area 1 and Block B in Area 2 were 84% occupied at 11:00 AM. On-street spaces in Block G (in Area 2) were 88% occupied at the peak hour.8 Table 5 shows the parking occupancy rates, by area and for the study area as a whole, for the on-street spaces throughout the day on Tuesday.

8 See Appendix C.


8

Table 5: On-street occupancies, Tuesday February 7, 2006

Area Inven-tory 11:00 AM % Occ 1:00 PM % Occ 3:00 PM % Occ 5:00 PM % Occ 7:00 PM % Occ 9:00 PM % OccArea 1 187 81 43% 68 36% 59 32% 42 22% 25 13% 21 11%Area 2 257 154 60% 139 54% 141 55% 83 32% 69 27% 47 18%Area 3 478 213 45% 220 46% 230 48% 185 39% 119 25% 67 14%Area 4 156 78 50% 62 40% 54 35% 42 27% 41 26% 32 21%

Total On-Street 1078 526 49% 489 45% 484 45% 352 33% 254 24% 167 15%

Table 6: Off-street Occupancies

Lot # Block Inventory 11:00 AM % Occ 1:00 PM % Occ 3:00 PM % Occ 5:00 PM % Occ 7:00 PM % Occ 9:00 PM % Occ1 B 119 99 83% 104 87% 102 86% 89 75% 46 39% 12 10%2 L 96 80 83% 73 76% 65 68% 29 30% 5 5% 0 0%3 C 54 39 72% 47 87% 52 96% 8 15% 28 52% 25 46%4 H 83 82 99% 69 83% 78 94% 44 53% 18 22% 8 10%5 D 36 13 36% 14 39% 2 6% 11 31% 2 6% 1 3%6 I 62 38 61% 40 65% 39 63% 38 61% 9 15% 9 15%7 D 47 25 53% 23 49% 2 4% 3 6% 2 4% 1 2%

Totals: 497 376 76% 370 74% 340 68% 222 45% 159 26% 126 21%


9

Off-street Parking Occupancy The occupancies observed in the public parking lots in the study area are shown in Table 6. Occupancies in the public lots also peak at 11:00 AM, but are, in some cases, significantly higher than the on-street occupancies. Total occupancy in the seven public lots averages 76% at 11:00 AM. Lot 4 in Area 3 was 99% full at the peak hour. Lots 1 and 2 in Area 2 were both 83% full at the peak hour. Occupancy in Lots 1 and 4 remained high through the 3 PM counts, when the lots recorded an 86% and 94% occupancy rate respectively. On February 7, City staff collected parking occupancy data for the Woodward Lots, located north of City Hall, at three separate times throughout the day. The City’s survey showed that parking occupancy in the Woodward Lots peaked at 3:00 PM with an occupancy rate of 48%. At the 11:00 AM hour, parking occupancy was 41%. That data is included in Appendix D of this report. California Center for Arts and Entertainment At least one member of the DBA’s Parking Committee expressed concern that the survey results may not project demand fully for the California Center for Arts and Entertainment (CCAE) as, in the future, the Center plans on having more and larger events. According to CCAE staff, on February 7, three meetings were taking place:

1) The Rotary Club held a meeting from 11:30 AM to roughly 2:00 PM. CCAE staff estimated attendance at slightly more than 100 people.

2) Union Bank held an all-day meeting that began at 8:45 AM. The estimated attendance was 30 people.

3) California State University, San Marcos held classes for adults between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM, with attendance at any one time estimated at 10 people.9

The CCAE staff person with whom Walker spoke stated that, at the largest conferences currently held at the CCAE, attendance could reach roughly 400 people, which she said occurred roughly twice per month; an example of that occurred on February 9, during a conference held by the Escondido school district. According to the staff member, attendees typically park in the Woodward lots. On February 7, parking demand at the Woodward lots peaked at 439 cars at 1:00 PM. If we assume that 100 of those cars belonged to people attending the events noted above, we can project parking adequacy in the Woodward Lots on a day on which a major event was held at the CCAE:

9 The organizer estimated that there were a total of 15 students total for the morning and afternoon classes.


10

Table 7: Woodward Lots Occupancy – Major CCAE Events

Occupancy Including some CCAE Attendees at 1:00 PM:A & B 378Subtracting CCAE Event-related Demand: -100Total N on-CCAE Attendee Occupancy: 278

N umber of Cars for Attendees on Peak Day: 400Adjustment Factor:C 95%Total Spaces Occupied by Event Attendees 380

Spaces Reserved for Hospital - Occupied 61Spaces Reserved for Hospital - UnoccupiedD 22Total Spaces 83

Total Projected Occupancy at Peak CCAE Attendance: 741

W oodward Lots Inventory 906Subtracting 75 spaces lost when Hotel Construction Begins -75Total Future W oodward Inventory 831

Occupancy Rate on a Busy CCAE Event Day 89%


D Those spaces reserved for Palomar Hospital, but not occupied, were still not available for public parking. W e therefore include them as "occupied" spaces.

A As noted earlier, peak parking demand for the study area as a whole occurred at 11:00 AM. At that time, 369 spaces were occupied in the W oodward lots. In this instance we use the (higher) 1:00 PM occupancy number in order to determine a peak demand situation at the W oodward lots resulting from a busy day at the CCAE.

C N ot everyone who attends an event at the CCAE will drive their own car. Typically, at least a few people drive together for meetings or conferences. The adjustment factor takes that into account. In this case we assume that 1 of every 20 attendees will drive with someone else.

B This number does not include the 61 cars parked in the 83 spaces reserved for Palomar Hospital, which are indicated separately in another section of the table.

The table above indicates that, currently, on days that large events are held at the CCAE, parking occupancy in the Woodward Lots can run as high as 89%.10 It should be noted that, on the day 10 This occupancy figure takes into account the elimination of 75 spaces resulting from the construction of the Marriott Hotel.


11

the count was performed103 of the 906 spaces in the lots were roped off and not available for parking due to construction.11 According to City staff, this was a temporary situation and would not affect the ability of the public to park in the Woodward lots in the future. Parking Adequacy on Tuesday Our Tuesday counts revealed several localized areas of highly utilized parking. The most notable was Block B. At the 11:00 AM peak hour, 27 of the 32 on-street parking spaces (84%) along Block B were occupied. In addition, 100 of the 119 (83%) parking spaces contained in Lot 1, which is located on Block B, were occupied at this peak hour. Along the neighboring block to the south, Block G, 37 of the 42 spaces (88%) were occupied during the 11:00 AM count, a level of occupancy for on-street parking that we would consider impacted.12 However, the blocks bordering Block B and Block G, such as Blocks A, F, C, and H showed a significant amount of street parking available, with those blocks showing on-street occupancies ranging from 41% to 56%. Lot 4 located on Block H was 99% full (82 of 83 of the spaces were occupied) at the peak hour. However, during that same hour, on-street parking along Block H showed that 23 of the 50 spaces located along the block were vacant, including 12 of the 15 spaces located on Grand Avenue. Overall, the study area as a whole does not suffer from an impacted parking situation, nor do any of the four sub-areas. Of the four sub-areas, Area 2 has the highest overall (combined on- and off-street) parking occupancy rate, with 71% of all spaces occupied during the 11:00 AM hour. In Table 7 we show the combined parking demand for on- and off- street spaces for both our Tuesday and Wednesday counts and the difference in parking demand on the two days. Overall, a slightly higher demand for parking (1%) was observed on Wednesday than on Tuesday, although the difference in Area 4

11 If the 103 spaces were permanently unavailable, we project that the occupancy rate in the Woodward lots on a busy day would reach 93%. 12 We consider occupancy rates for on-street parking above 85% as impacted.


12

was 14% higher on Wednesday than on Tuesday (though still only 63%).


13

Table 8: Comparison of Tuesday and Wednesday Peak Parking Demand

AreaInven-

tory

Tues 2/ 7/ 2006

11 AM % Occ

W eds 10/ 12/ 05

11 AM % Occ

Difference in Demand

(Spaces)

Difference as % of

InventoryArea 1 On-Street 187 81 43% 86 46% -5 -3%Area 1 Off-street N / A 0Area 1 Total 187 81 43% 86 46% -5 -3%


Area 3 On-Street 478 213 44% 222 46% -9 -2%Area 3 Off-Street 282 197 70% 172 61% 25 9%Area 3 Total 760 410 54% 394 52% 16 2%

Area 4 On-Street 156 78 52% 99 63% -21 -13%Area 4 Off-Street N / AArea 4 Total 156 78 52% 99 63% -21 -13%

Total Study Area 1575 902 57% 888 56% 14 1%

W oodward Lots 906 367 41% 334 37% 34 4%Source: W alker Parking Consultants (On- and Off- Street Counts) and City of Escondido (W oodward Lot Counts)


14


15

“CRUISIN’ GRAND” – PARKING AT PEAK DEMAND Walker initially surveyed parking demand on Friday, April 15, 2005. Because “Cruisin’ Grand,” Downtown Escondido’s weekly classic car event, occurred that evening, it represented an opportunity to measure peak parking demand for the downtown. It should be noted that, in the meeting that Walker attended with the Downtown Business Association’s Parking Committee on January 23, 2006, some members in the group suggested that Cruisin’ Grand” attendance was typically higher during summer evenings than in April. The overall public parking occupancy rate at 11:00 AM, not including the Woodward lots,13 was 58%, slightly higher than the 57% overall occupancy rate observed at 11:00 AM on Tuesday. However, by 7:00 PM on Friday, public parking occupancy for the overall study area was 74% compared to just 11% on the typical weekday. The occupancy rate was 91% for the on-street parking in Area 2 (located between Escondido Boulevard and Broadway). Not all of downtown was so significantly impacted by “Cruisin’ Grand.” Area 1, located between Centre City Parkway and Escondido Boulevard experienced a total 7:00 PM occupancy rate of 40% on Friday night. Area 4, surrounding Palomar Hospital experienced a public parking occupancy rate of just 37%. The occupancy rate for each of the sub-areas and the study area as a whole for Friday, April 15th, 2005 is shown below. The map contained in Figure 2 shows the extent to which parking is impacted during an evening on which “Cruisin’ Grand” is held on a block by block basis. We show the parking counts for that evening in the appendices. Table 9: Public Parking Occupancy Rates by Sub-Area – “Cruisin’ Grand”

Escondido Downtown Core

Total Parking Space

Inventory11 AM

Occ % Occ3 PM Occ % Occ

7 PM Occ % Occ

Area 1 187 86 46% 90 48% 74 40%

Area 2 472 309 66% 344 74% 425 91%

Area 3 760 418 55% 483 63% 610 80%

Area 4 156 99 63% 77 49% 57 37%

Total 1575 912 58% 994 63% 1166 74%

Source: W alker Parking Consultants On the following table we show the occupancy rates for each of the City’s seven public parking lots located in the study area on the same Friday evening. The average occupancy rate for the 13 Counts for the Woodward lots were not available for a day on which “Cruisin’ Grand” was held.


16

City’s 7 public parking lots located in the study area was 98% on this evening in the 7:00 hour. Table 10: City Lots Occupancy Rates – “Cruisin’ Grand”

Lot # BlockInven-

tory 11:00 AM% Occ

11:00 AM 3:00 PM% Occ

3:00 PM 7:00 PM% Occ

7:00 PM1 B 119 109 92% 119 100% 120 101%2 L 96 60 63% 49 51% 93 97%3 C 54 52 96% 40 74% 52 96%4 H 83 58 70% 63 76% 83 100%5 D 36 20 56% 21 58% 35 97%6 I 62 16 26% 28 45% 58 94%7 D 47 26 55% 30 64% 47 100%

Totals: 497 341 69% 350 70% 488 98%Source: W alker Parking Consultants


17


18

The City of Escondido asked Walker to examine the impacts that new development in the downtown core would have on the parking system. Much of the proposed new development consists of multifamily residential property, often combined with retail or other uses. The question was raised as to whether the introduction of these new residential properties in the downtown area would result in a lower demand for parking. It is true that residents of the new residential properties as well as guests at the planned Marriott Hotel will have a much greater likelihood of walking to nearby restaurants, shopping, and offices. However, due to the auto-dependent nature of the area as a whole, we do not expect this fact to significantly influence the number of vehicles parked by each household. Further, while the presence of these pedestrians may increase the share of customers that arrive on foot to downtown businesses, it is unlikely to diminish the total number of people who drive from other places (and park) to patronize these businesses. Escondido’s Community Development Department presented Walker with a list of eighteen new development projects that could potentially impact the parking supply in the study area. Of these eighteen projects, five had already been completed at the time that Walker conducted parking counts; the impact that these new projects have on the parking system is therefore already included in the occupancy counts recorded by Walker’s field surveyors.14 Seven of the thirteen remaining projects that are planned for the future are not located within the study area; all but one of these projects are located several blocks from the study area boundary.15

14 These five projects include 1) the Signature Theatres, restaurants, and bank at North Centre Parkway and West Valley Parkway 2) a new office building at 300 West Grand Avenue 3) Mi Guadalajara restaurant on 2nd Avenue 4) the Mingei International Museum on West Grand Avenue and 5) an office building at Orange Street and 5th Street. 15 The development projects that are planned for the downtown area but are not located in the study area are 1) condominiums on the NE corner of Centre City Parkway and Washington 2) the Fireside apartments on the SE corner of Centre City Parkway and Washington 3) a mixed-use project between Escondido and Maple, 4th and 5th Avenues 4) condominiums on Juniper Street, south of the flood control channel 5) condominiums on the corner of Pennsylvania and Kalmia 6) the Paramount Condominiums near Centre City Parkway and Washington and 7) a development of single family homes on South Tulip Street.

NEW DEVELOPMENT


19

NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE STUDY AREA The six projects that are planned for the study area (including those currently under construction) are therefore the projects that could potentially impact the parking system in that part of town. They are:

• 102 condominiums to be located on 2nd Avenue between Centre City Parkway and Orange Street

• Mixed-use 24 residential units and medical office space at Valley Parkway and Ivy Street

• Mixed-use 83 residential units and ground floor retail at Escondido Boulevard and 3rd Avenue

• 86,000 square foot library expansion • 196-room Marriott Hotel on Valley Parkway • 127 condominiums atop a garage and ground floor retail

on Valley Parkway and Maple Street. We first look at the four projects planned for the study area that are not related to the larger hotel-condominium-garage project. Table 3 on page 22 shows that, based on our assumptions and information provided by the City, three of these four projects will provide enough off-street parking to meet the parking demand that we project they will generate. For the 102 condos planned for the corner of North Centre Parkway and 2nd Avenue in Area 1, Walker calculated parking demand at 2 cars per unit because of the large unit sizes (2- and 3- bedroom units, with no studio or 1-bedroom units). According to City staff, 233 parking spaces will be constructed, which Walker projects will be more than adequate to meet the parking demand for the development. We assumed that the unit mix for the 83-unit mixed use development planned for Escondido Boulevard and 3rd Avenue in Area 2 would average 2 bedrooms per unit and that the parking supply would be based on the regular City parking requirement of 1.75 spaces per unit and 1 guest space per 4 units. We also assumed a supply of 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail for 9,671 square feet, a calculation based on an estimate of the building’s footprint. However, we project that residential and guest demand will be slightly lower than City code. The result is a parking supply that we forecast will be more than adequate to meet the parking demand that the building will generate. According to staff, in March 2002 City Council determined that 320 parking spaces would be required to meet the parking demand generated by the new library. Based on this determination, the City plans to make a total of 320 parking spaces available to library patrons as follows: 80 parking spaces at grade, 140


20

spaces in a new parking structure, 50 off-street spaces that will be made available to library patrons through a sharing of parking with a nearby church and medical office building, and another 50 on-street spaces that will be available for patrons.16 Walker analyzed parking demand for the new library. Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Parking Generation 3rd Edition, Walker observed a sample of 7 libraries from large suburbs or satellite cities, and found an average parking generation rate for the seven libraries of 2.61 spaces per 1000 sf. Applying this number to the planned 86,000-square foot Escondido Library results in a parking demand of 225 spaces. Staff indicated that special circumstances, such as the presence of community meeting rooms, were factors in the Council’s determination of parking demand for the new library. For the purposes of this report, we therefore go with the higher parking demand number for the library to be conservative. For the remaining development listed in the table, Walker projects a shortfall in the supply of parking in only one, the mixed-use residential and ground floor medical office planned for East Valley Parkway and North Ivy Street (Etiffe). For this project, to be located in Area 3, City staff has reported that the developer has proposed 43 parking spaces, which would result in a large parking shortfall. This is assuming that all the residential spaces are reserved and cannot be used for parking by visitors to the medical office during the day, when most residential tenants are likely to have taken their cars with them to work. If the residential parking were unreserved, and therefore shared, this parking shortfall would be eliminated. In our experience, residential units generally do reserve at least one space per unit. It should be noted that whether or not these new developments supply more off-street parking spaces than will be necessary to meet the demand they generate, the new buildings will still have some impact on the on-street parking system. All else being equal, people typically prefer to park in a convenient on-street parking space rather than parking off street. The preference for parking on-street becomes even greater if their off-street parking option is a parking garage (as opposed to a parking lot), in which many people prefer not to park. However, placing time limits or a fee on on-street parking spaces encourages drivers to use off-street facilities and frees up on-street spaces for other, short-term public parking users. The two-hour time limit on Escondido’s downtown streets will limit the extent to which residents and other long term parkers will park on the street, but some people who

16 City staff said that a reconfiguration of on-street parking spaces would result in a net gain in the number of parking spaces on the street.


21

park for the purpose of visiting the new commercial spaces in the mixed use developments may prefer to use the on-street parking when it is available. However, because public parking on each of the blocks where these developments are planned is no more than 69% full, and in most cases less than 50% full, the new development is not likely to overly impact the public parking system available in the vicinity.


22

Table 11: Impact on Public Parking of New Development in the Study Area (excluding the Marriott and Condo/Garage Projects)

Area Block

Project Description / Land Use Location Units

Square Footage

Data

Parking Demand Metric

Projected Parking Demand

Generated

Assumed Parking Supply

Parking Adequacy

1 AD Condos1

W est 2nd Avenue

between Centre Prkwy and Orange 102

1287-1849 sf,

2 - 3 bdrms

2.15 spaces/ unit 219 233 14

3 E

Mixed Use Med Office

Project2

E. Valley Pkwy @ Ivy Street near Palomar

Hospital 24 2,813

2.15 cars/ unit and

4.5 cars / 1000 sf for MOB (85%

gsf) 66 43 -23

2 AK Mixed Use3

S. Escondido Blvd at East 3rd Avenue 83

Assuming 9671 sf of retail

1.85/ unit & 4/ 1000 sf

retail 193 205 12

3 M

Library Expansion Project4

239 S. Kalmia Street 86,000

Per Determination by the City4 320 320 0

Source: City of Escondido and W alker Parking Consultants

1 Parking demand of 2.15 spaces per unit represents 2 reserved spaces plus 0.15 guest spaces per residential unit. W e use a higher 2 cars per unit rather than the typical 1.7 cars per unit because there are no 1-bdrm units in this development. Per City staff, parking supply of 233 is 20 spaces more than required.

4 Per discussions with staff, W alker understands that, in March 2002, Escondido City Council approved a 320-space supply of parking spaces for the new library based on a determination that 320 spaces would be needed to meet parking demand for the library. Per Parking Generation 3rd Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, W alker examined 7 libraries from large suburbs or satellite cities and found an average parking generation rate of 2.61 spaces per 1000 sf. Based on 86,000 sf in the new library, resulting parking demand would be 225 parking spaces. In this report, we therefore use the higher number as noted in the text.

2W e assume 16 2-bedroom and 8 3-bedroom units. W e use a higher 2 cars per unit rather than the typical 1.7 cars per unit because there are no 1-bdrm units in this development. Per City staff, the developer is proposing 43 parking spaces.3 9,671 sf of retail represents a building footprint roughly equal to 1/ 3 of a city block (320 X 320). W e then assumed that retail would cover 1/ 3 of this footprint and that 85% of the space would be gross leasable.


23

MARRIOTT HOTEL The City is currently working with a developer to build a 196-room Marriott Hotel on the north side of Valley Parkway just west of the intersection with Maple. The Hotel will include a 3,028 square foot (sf) restaurant, 1,672 sf of office space, and 1,976 sf fitness center. We assume that the restaurant will primarily serve hotel guests and that the office space and fitness center will serve only hotel guests. The hotel will also include roughly 1,200 sf of conference space, which we assume will draw people from outside the hotel as well as hotel guests. The construction of the hotel will eliminate the surface parking lot located between the CCAE and City Hall that contains roughly 75 parking spaces.17 Of these spaces, roughly 1/3 represents parking for CCAE business use, 1/3 represents parking for City uses, and 1/3 represents parking for the public. Once hotel construction begins, we assume that all of the parking demand from this lot will move to the closest public parking facilities. City staff has said that 12 surface spaces from the lot will remain, but that these spaces will continue to serve the conference area as they do now and are not allocated to the hotel. We assume that the hotel’s parking supply will consist of a total of 209 parking spaces, all of which will be located on the hotel site. Using the Walker Shared Parking Model, we determined that the hotel will generate a demand for 199 parking spaces at the peak hour of 11:00 pm and 198 spaces at the daytime peak hour of 8:00 am. High demand in the evening is the result of guests returning to the hotel at the end of the day. A significant amount of the parking demand generated at 8:00 am represents parking by employees. While other uses within the hotel, such as the restaurant and conference space, peak closer to the middle of the day, the driver of parking demand is not these uses, but hotel guests who return to their rooms at night. All of these parking demand numbers incorporate an “optimum utilization factor,” which is a cushion above the actual demand of 5% to 10% (depending on the user of the garage). This cushion in the number of parking spaces allows for parkers to find an empty space quickly so as to allow a reasonable circulation of vehicles in the parking facility. It also provides a reserve of parking spaces to meet demand on the hotel’s absolute busiest days. Walker’s calculation of the Hotel’s parking demand is considerably lower than the City’s code requirement for parking. Based on City code, the hotel would require 239 parking spaces; the additional

17 The number of parking spaces was provided by City of Escondido staff.


24

spaces would need to come from the new parking structure to be located on Valley Parkway. The table below compares the City’s code requirement with our findings using our shared parking model. Table 12: Hotel Parking Requirements per Code and per Parking Generation Model

Parking Generators Size Unit

Required Parking

Spaces per City Code

Total Parking

Required per Code

W alker Shared Parking Model1

Hotel Guests 188Hotel Employees 5Total 196 rooms 1 per room 196 193Executive Offices 1672 sf N / A 0 N / ARestaurant/ Lounge 3028 sf 1 per 100 sf 30 6Business Center 644 sf N / A 0 N / AN ew conference rooms 1299 sf 1 per 100 sf 13 0Total Hotel2 : 239 199Hotel On-site Parking Supply 209 209Surplus (Deficit) of Spaces (30) 10

Source: W alker Parking Consultants

1The W alker Shared Parking Model forecasts an overall peak demand for the hotel at 11 PM during the week. Therefore, while the peak numbers for individual hotel uses (i.e. the restaurant, the conference center) might be higher during the day, the numbers above reflect what the model projects they will be at 11 PM.2 The hotel's offices, kitchen, and health club are not considered parking generators as they do not increase parking demand, but serve the hotel's guests and employees.

It should be noted that members of the public have expressed concern that the parking demand numbers projected by Walker seemed low, particularly the number of employees. It should again be emphasized that the parking demand generated by hotels typically peaks in the evening, when all the guests have arrived, but only a small number of staff remain on the premises. Table 13 demonstrates output from the Walker model for parking demand at the hotel throughout the day. It shows that while the demand by employees might be as high as 47 spaces during the day, at that time demand for parking by guests is at its lowest. Parking demand reverses in the evening when employees go home and guests have checked in to their rooms.


25

Table 13: 196-Room Hotel Parking Demand Generated - Daytime

6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 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 PMHotel-Business 177 167 149 131 112 112 102 102 112 112 121 130 140 140Restaurant/ Lounge 0 2 5 2 2 1 15 15 5 2 2 5 8 9Meeting/ Conference 0 0 5 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 18 18 18Employee 2 14 37 42 47 47 47 47 47 47 42 33 20 10Total Parking Spaces Required 179 183 196 186 172 171 175 175 175 172 176 186 186 177

Parking Demand - 196 Room Hotel


26

Based on the peak demand of 199 spaces, and a supply of 209 spaces, we project that the construction of the hotel will not generate more parking demand than the parking supply will be able to accommodate. However, the elimination of parking spaces resulting from the new hotel being located on an existing surface parking lot will result in an increased demand for public parking in the immediate vicinity of 75 spaces18. However, City staff surveyed the 906 parking spaces located in the surface lots just south of Woodward Avenue and found that less than half of these parking spaces were occupied at the peak hour of 11:00 AM on a weekday. Most of these 906 spaces are located within approximately 1,100 feet from the Civic Center; none are further than 1,400 feet, which at typical walking speed translates into no more than a 7 minute walk. Walker research on walking distances between where one parks and one’s final destination has shown that, particularly in a pleasant walking environment, walking distances of as much as 1,400 feet are acceptable for employees and other long term parkers. This is not the case for retail or restaurant customers and others who park for a short stay or who may be unfamiliar with the area. The Woodward surface lots therefore provide a significant amount of parking for Civic Center and CCAE employees and visitors during construction on Lot 1 and thereafter. Currently, there are only a few on-street parking spaces on Valley Parkway along the block where the hotel is to be constructed. On-street parking spaces are most people’s preferred choice for parking. It is likely that, both during construction and after the hotel is completed, demand for these on-street spaces will remain high and the spaces will remain impacted. GARAGE, CONDOS, AND MAPLE AVENUE CLOSURE Across Valley Parkway, on the eastern side of Maple Street, the hotel developer also plans to build 127 condominiums atop a 488-space parking garage with a small ground floor retail component. Below we compare the City parking code requirements with the special mixed-use standard allowed per the Downtown Specific Plan and Walker’s projection of parking demand for the project.

18 The number of spaces was provided by City staff. Although we did not observe the lot this full, we understand that during Rotary meetings and other functions the lot may fill.


27

Table 14: Comparisons of Parking Requirements and Projected Parking Demand

Unit Type UnitsParking per City Code1

Spaces Req'd

Parking per M ixed-Use Ratio

Spaces Req'd

W alker Ratio2

Spaces Req'd

1 bdrm 24 1.75 42 1 241 bdrm + den 17 1.75 30 1 172 bdrm 45 2 90 1.2 542 bdrm + den 26 2 52 1.2 313 bdrm 15 2.25 34 1.4 21Total 127 248 147 1.7 2161Includes 0.25 spaces per unit for guest parking2 Blended ratio for all units.Source: City of Escondido and W alker Parking Consultants

Walker projects total parking demand to be 1.7 residential spaces per unit, or 216 spaces for the residential portion of the project.19 Based on the City code’s parking requirements, the project requires 248 spaces.20 Based on the parking requirements for the Downtown Specific Plan’s special ratio for mixed-use projects, the parking required would be significantly less, 147 spaces. We therefore note that the developer is building more than the amount of parking spaces required for the residential portion of the project under the special ratio for mixed-use projects (as discussed later in this report, 248 residential spaces will be provided by the developer). Because the residential spaces will be reserved 1) there is no need for an optimum utilization cushion and 2) there is no opportunity to share the parking with other uses during the day when residents are not present. In addition to the parking demand generated by residents of the condominiums, the new development will result in parking demand generated by their guests. We calculate this demand at approximately 0.15 cars per unit at peak, which occurs in the evening (when residents are at home). Our model adjusts this number downward slightly to take into account the possibility of that some these guests will be parked in other locations downtown based on earlier business that they had there. The result is a demand for guest parking of 17 spaces on weekday evenings, which we assume will be provided in the public area of the garage. During the peak business day hours, guests for the condominiums 19 Per emails from City staff, Walker assumes the unit breakdown for the condos to be 24 1-bedroom units, 17 1-bedroom plus den units, 45 2-bedroom units, and 26 2-bedroom plus den units, and 15 3-bedroom units. 20 This number includes 0.25 spaces for guest parking per residential unit.


28

will be few and generate demand for no more than three parking spaces. City code requires 1 guest space per 4 units, but under the Downtown Specific Plan’s special ratio for mixed use, guest spaces are not required to be provided. Approximately 2,500 sf of retail is also planned for the ground floor of the garage, the parking for which will be provided as part of the garage’s 224 public spaces. We assume that this space will be “convenience,” retail such as a copy store, dry cleaners, or convenience store; having made an adjustment for the high percentage of “captive” customers who will have parked somewhere else in the downtown area, or for a different primary destination, we project that the retail is likely to generate demand for eleven parking spaces at its peak hour in the afternoon. Reduced Parking Requirements for Mixed-use Development: Generally speaking, a residential component of a mixed-use development is unlikely to experience a reduction in residential demand due to the presence of other land uses on site. Retail, dining and other service/entertainment components are likely to experience some reduction in demand due to the proximity of residences. However, it is difficult to establish a rule of thumb to quantify the impact. For example, if there are 40 high-end units and 75,000 sf of destination retail (Gap, Crate and Barrel), the reduction in parking demand will be minimal. This is because, at any given time, residents of the 40 units would represent a very small proportion of the number of shoppers in the stores. On the other hand, if there are 200 units and 15,000 sf of service retail (dry cleaners, take-out restaurant, convenience store), the retail will experience less parking demand than code dictates. This is because residents of the 200 units, any of whom would walk to the service retail when patronizing the business, would make up a significant percentage of the customers present in the commercial space at any given time. Given the range of possibilities, we believe that reductions should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account:

• the ratio of commercial square footage to residential units • type of retail • type of residences

GARAGE SPACE ALLOCATION The garage will be built on the site of what is currently Lot 1, and will eliminate all of the lot’s 119 parking spaces. In addition to the Marriott and Garage development above, staff has informed Walker that Maple Avenue will be closed between Valley Parkway and the alley which runs perpendicular to Maple, between Valley and Grand Avenue. The result of these changes to Maple Avenue


29

will be the elimination of 16 on-street parking spaces on Maple Avenue; a total of 135 spaces will therefore be eliminated within Block B of the study area by the new condominium/garage development and the closure of Maple Avenue. We have projected that parking demand generated by the condominiums located atop the new Valley Parkway garage will be less than City code requires. However, staff has verified that it will conform to the City’s parking requirements by making sure that sufficient parking is available in the new garage. According to City staff, parking demand in the 488-space garage will be allocated as follows:

• A minimum of 221 of the 488 spaces will be allocated to public parking. These spaces will be available to replace the parking spaces formally located in either the two City lots (194 spaces) or on Maple Street (16 spaces) as well for parking for the garage’s ground floor commercial space (11 spaces). Per Walker’s shared parking model we project that the peak demand for retail parking will be 11 spaces throughout the afternoon until 4:00 PM.

• No more than 267 of the garage’s 488 spaces will be allocated to condominium residents.

• 248 of these 267 spaces will be dedicated to the condos. • The difference between the 267 spaces and 248 spaces

referred to above leaves a surplus of 19 parking spaces that could be added to the supply of 221 public parking spaces noted above.


30

Below we show the allocation of parking spaces in the new garage: Table 15: Parking Space Allocation in New Garage

Parking Generator DemandElimination of Lot 1 119Elimination of CCAE Lot 75Elimination of Parking Spaces on Maple Street 16Demand for Retail Spaces 11Minimum N umber of Spaces Allocated to Public Use 221Spaces Allocated to Condominiums 248Possible Surplus Spaces 19Maximum Spaces Allocated to Condominiums 267Total Parking Spaces in Garage 4 8 8Source: W alker Parking Consultants and City of Escondido Parking Space Allocation and the Benefits of Shared Parking: It is important to note that the more flexibility that is allowed in how parking spaces are assigned to different uses, the more easily peaks in parking demand can be accommodated. For example, as stated earlier in the report, Walker forecasts peak parking demand for residents of the condominiums to be 216 spaces plus an additional 19 guest spaces for a total of 235 spaces. This is 13 spaces less than the 248 spaces allocated for residential parking above in the garage. However, it should be noted that the peak demand for these 235 spaces occurs late in the evening (likely at around 10:00 or 11:00 PM) when residents are home and guests are visiting. This is also an hour at which demand for public parking would be near its lowest point. Conversely, the demand for public parking spaces occurs at midday, when the demand for residential and residential guest parking spaces would be at its lowest point. Because peaks for residential parking and public parking demand occur at roughly opposite times of the day, allowing the sharing of spaces opens up more spaces to accommodate peak demand for both groups. When a parking space is reserved, it is no different than if the space were occupied for 24 hours a day; the space is never available to other parkers. For this reason, in areas where real estate is expensive or space is limited, the policy adopted in some parking structures that serve multiple land uses is to limit the number of residential parking spaces that are reserved so that spaces may be used in the most efficient manner throughout the day. Walker has observed many instances in which the residents are allowed one reserved parking space while any additional spaces are unreserved (they are simply assured that they will


31

have a space somewhere in the structure). In some urban locations, no spaces are reserved. The fewer reserved spaces that exist, the more opportunity there is for shared parking and increasing, in effect, the amount of parking available throughout the day.


32

Despite the development planned for the downtown core, the significant amount of off-street parking spaces that will accompany the new development, along with an existing cushion of public parking still available on most blocks, means that there will be no serious impact to the public parking system as a whole. As discussed above, however, some localized impacted areas will still exist. Block B already has relatively impacted parking, compared to the rest of downtown, and will experience large-scale development with the addition of the Marriott Hotel and 127 new condominiums. The new 488-car garage, with a minimum of 221 spaces of available public parking, should be able to meet the demand for existing public parking that will be displaced by the projects and the demand for public parking that these projects generate. It will not, however, provide a large amount of additional parking for the impacted block B.21 It is important to recognize that within one block of Block B, or roughly 400 feet, there is still ample street parking available. Within 800 feet there is considerably more. Typically, Walker’s design standards advise that a 400 foot walk from where one parks to one’s destination in an outdoor, uncovered environment qualifies as a level of service A. An 800 foot walk is a level of service B. In the case of downtown Escondido, with its mild climate and pleasant streetscapes, longer walking distances would be acceptable for employees. CONSTRUCTION AND PARKING ALTERNATIVES Walker has calculated that a combined 210 parking spaces, which are currently located in Parking Lot 1, the lot next to the California Center for the Arts and Entertainment, and on along Maple Street will be eliminated during construction. Our surveys showed that, on a typical weekday, the parking spaces along the portion of Maple Street that is to be closed fill completely but that Lot 1 was less than 85% full, and the CCAE lot was roughly 60% full. The most likely alternatives to these spaces, particularly for employee parking but also for public parking, are the Woodward Avenue surface parking lots. As mentioned previously, surveys conducted by City of Escondido staff indicated that the 906 spaces contained in these surface lots were typically less than half full. In one survey, the lots were roughly 35% full.22 Most of the long term parkers who use the CCAE lot are likely visiting the CCAE or the Civic Center. It is likely that most of those who park in Lot 1 also have one of those two locations as their destination and, as mentioned previously in this report, the distance between the Woodward Avenue surface lots and these two buildings is a reasonable distance to walk. With regard to the 16 on-street

21 Unless parking for residents is made available to the public during the day, as was discussed earlier in the report. 22 See appendix.

CONCLUSION


33

spaces along Maple that will be eliminated, during our survey we observed significant on-street parking available along blocks to the west and south (such as blocks A and F), which in many instances were less than 60% occupied. Although not as convenient to the City Hall area as the stretch of Maple Street where the on-street parking spaces will be lost, parking spaces along streets bordering those blocks is within what Walker research has determined to be an acceptable walking distance from that block of Maple Street. For those people who park in Lot 1 for the purpose of visiting businesses or other destinations on Grand Avenue, the Woodward Avenue lots are also an option although they would present a walking distance of 0.3 miles (just under 1,600 feet), and involve crossing Valley Parkway, both of which might deter a significant number of people. A much closer option for people coming to shop, dine, or conduct business on Grand Avenue would be to park one or two blocks away to the south of Grand Avenue, where our surveys showed that on-street parking spaces are less than 50% occupied. According to City staff, during the construction period, additional parking spaces will be available within walking distance of Parking Lot 1. Since Walker’s initial parking counts were taken, City staff informed Walker that on Broadway, just north of Valley, the number of on-street parking spaces was increased from 18 to 24 (a net increase of 6 spaces) as a result of the addition of angled parking spaces on that block. City staff has also informed Walker that it currently has a 34-parking space parcel, the former A & P Auto property, located north of Valley and East of Kalmia, in escrow. While these parking spaces lie just outside of the study area, they will add to the supply of parking in the area and, to some extent, lessen the impact of those spaces lost during construction. City staff has emphasized to Walker that construction impacts will be addressed during the project review of the construction and that, during construction, operational restrictions will be placed on parking for construction workers and construction staging. City staff sent Walker a list of possible alternative sites for parking, none of which can accommodate the full number of cars, but combined can meet virtually the entire unmet demand when it arises. While an efficient use of land often requires shuttling in parkers from parking facilities too far away to walk, shuttling can be costly (costing roughly $40 - $50 per hour to run) and inconvenient to put into place. In addition, the public tends to dislike shuttle lots. Parkers, particularly employees, can reasonably be expected to walk distances of 1,000 feet or so (a roughly 5-minute walk). While the entire temporary, replacement parking supply need not


34

nor cannot be located immediately next to big parking generators such as City Hall, it is important to provide some spaces for those who need them, such as the mobility impaired or people visiting for short visits and people going to City Hall on quick business for whom it is unrealistic to park 1,000 feet away. Table 16: Future Parking Options

Site Alt # Site

Spaces Available for

M ore Parking

N umber of Additional

Spaces Possible

Total Spaces

1

Heller Parking Lot (SE Corner of Valley Pkwy and O range St.) 46 0 46

2 Lot 5A 6 0 63 Lot 7A 4 0 4

4

Former La Jolla Bank (SE Corner of Valley Pkwy and Broadway) 19 15 34

5N orth County Times Parking Lot (Pennsylvania near Kalmia) 10 0 10

Total 100


A On the 3 different weekdays surveyed, the number of spaces occupied at 11:00 AM in Lot 5 varied considerably, from 23 spaces on Tuesday to 16 spaces on the Cruisin' Grand Friday to 6 spaces on W ednesday. Above, we use the number reflecting the highest occupancy observed.

B On the 3 different weekdays surveyed, the number of spaces ooccupied at 11:00 AM in Lot 7 varied considerably, from 22 spaces on Tuesday to 21 spaces on the Cruisin' Grand Friday to 4 spaces on W ednesday. Above we use the number reflecting the highest occupancy observed.

APPENDIX A: WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 12, 2005 ON-STREET PARKING COUNTS

Block Face Street Inventory 11:00 AM 3:00 PM 7:00 PM AreaArea 1 - Centre City Parkway to Escondido Blvd.

AA EN Escondido Blvd 0 0 0 0 1

AA S W Valley Pkwy 0 0 0 0

AA WN Centre City Pkwy 0 0 0 0

AA Total AA 0 0 0 0

AB N W Valley Pkwy 6 4 6 0 1

AB EN Orange Street 8 8 7 0

AB S W Grand Ave 3 3 1 1

AB WN Centre City Pkwy 0 0 0 0Total AB 17 15 14 1

AC N W Grand Ave 9 6 9 6 1

AC ES Orange Street 11 6 8 2

AC S W 2nd Ave 5 3 5 1

AC WS Centre City Pkwy 0 0 0 0Total AC 25 15 22 9

AD N W 2nd Ave 6 3 5 0 1

AD ES Orange Street 5 2 4 0

AD S W 3rd Ave 14 0 0 0

AD WS Centre City Pkwy 0 0 0 0Total AD 25 5 9 0

AE N W 3rd Ave 7 0 0 0 1

AE ES Orange Street 6 1 0 3

AE WS Centre City Pkwy 0 0 0 0Total AE 13 1 0 3

AF N W Valley Pkwy 10 5 8 0 1

AF EN Escondido Blvd 0 0 0 0

AF S W Grand Ave 10 4 6 0

AF WS Orange Street 5 3 2 0Total AF 25 12 16 0

CITY OF ESCONDIDOOn-Street Occupancy Counts

Wednesday 10/12/05

AG N W Grand Ave 13 10 9 0 1

AG ES Escondido Blvd 0 0 0 0

AG S W 2nd Ave 9 9 6 0

AG WS Orange Street 6 6 3 0Total AG 28 25 18 0

AH N W 2nd Ave 9 6 7 0 1

AH ES Escondido Blvd 4 0 1 0

AH S W 3rd Ave 12 6 6 1

AH WS Orange Street 7 5 7 0Total AH 32 17 21 1

AI N W 3rd Ave 12 3 5 7 1

ES Escondido Blvd 4 1 0 0

WS Orange Street 6 2 3 0Total AI 22 6 8 7

Total Area 1 187 96 108 21 Area 1

Area 2A N Valley Pkwy 2 0 0 0 2A S Grand Ave 12 1 1 0A E Maple Street 7 7 7 1A W Escondido Bl 0 0 0 0

Total A 21 8 8 1

B N Valley Pkwy 6 1 0 0 2B S Grand Ave 12 11 10 9

B EBroadway Street 5 3 1 3

B W Maple Street 9 8 1 3Total B 32 23 12 15

F N Grand Ave 13 3 6 0 2F S 2nd Avenue 11 2 3 0F E Maple Street 8 7 4 0F W Escondido 0 0 0 0

Total F 32 12 13 0

G N Grand Ave 11 10 10 11 2G S 2nd Ave 13 2 3 0G E Broadway* 10 11 6 5G W Maple Street 8 8 3 0

Total G 42 31 22 16

K N 2nd Avenue 8 2 6 1 2K S 3rd Avenue 13 3 2 3K E Maple Street 8 9 5 0K W Escondido Bl. 0 0 0 0

Total K 29 14 13 4

L N 2nd Avenue 7 0 0 0 2L S 3rd Avenue 16 1 1 0L E Broadway 7 4 2 2L W Maple Street 14 10 5 0

Total L 44 15 8 2

AJ E N Broadway 0 0 0 0 2S W Valley Pkwy 5 4 4 0

WN Escondido Blvd 0 0 0 0Total AJ 5 4 4 0

AK N W 3rd Ave 15 7 7 8 2E S Maple Street 8 9 7 8

WS Escondido Blvd 1 0 1 0Total AK 24 16 15 16

AL N W 3rd Ave 15 5 5 2 2E S Broadway 6 3 1 0W S Maple Street 6 2 2 2

Total AL 27 10 8 4

Total Area 2 Area 2

Area 3C N Valley Pkwy 8 1 0 0 3C S Grand Ave 15 11 11 13C E Kalmia Street 14 3 7 2C W Broadway 6 2 4 0

Total C 43 17 22 15

D N Valley Pkwy 9 2 3 0 3D S Grand Ave 12 12 6 7D E Juniper Street 7 0 1 0D W Kalimia Street 10 4 7 1

Total D 38 18 17 8

E N Valley Pkwy 11 10 4 4 3E S Grand Ave 15 4 6 6E E Ivy Street 8 3 8 0E W Juniper Street 5 1 0 0

Total E 39 18 18 10

H N Grand Ave 15 8 4 15 3H S 2nd Avenue 7 0 4 0H E Kalmia Street 15 5 6 8H W Broadway 13 8 2 8

Total H 50 21 16 31

I N Grand Ave 13 7 9 6 3I S 2nd Avenue 11 0 1 2I E Juniper Street 5 5 3 0I W Kalmia Street 16 9 12 14

Total I 45 21 25 22

J N Grand Ave 9 6 4 2 3J S 2nd Avenue 12 4 2 0J E Ivy Street 14 10 14 0J W Juniper Street 8 6 8 0

Total J 43 26 28 2

M N 2nd Street 12 0 0 1 3M S 3rd Street 10 4 3 0M E Kalmia Street 11 11 11 0M W Broadway 10 1 0 0

Total M 43 16 14 1

N N 2nd Street 12 2 4 0 3N S 3rd Street 12 5 2 0N E Juniper Street 8 6 2 0N W Kalmia Street 11 4 5 0

Total N 43 17 13 0

O N 2nd Avenue 7 2 1 0 3O S 3rd Avenue 13 4 4 0O E Ivy Street 12 9 4 0O W Juniper Street 8 3 5 0

Total O 40 18 14 0

AM E N Kalmia Street 2 1 0 0 3S W Valley Pkwy 0 0 0 0W N Broadway 3 0 0 0

Total AM 5 1 0 0

AN N E 3rd Street 14 8 5 1 3E S Kalmia Street 6 3 0 0W S Broadway 1 0 0 0

Total AN 21 11 5 1

AO EN Juniper Street 3 3 0 0 3

S W Valley Pkwy 14 0 0 0W N Kalmia Street 4 3 0 0

Total AO 21 6 0 0

AP N E 3rd Ave 14 3 4 0 3

ES Juniper Street 6 0 1 0

W S Kalmia Street 6 0 0 0Total AP 26 3 5 0

AQ E N Ivy Street 0 0 0 0 3S W Valley Pkwy 9 1 1 0

WN Juniper Street 2 1 0 0Total AQ 11 2 1 0

AR N E 3rd Ave 7 1 1 0 3E S Ivy Street 4 2 5 0

WS Juniper Street 7 7 1 0Total AR 18 10 7 0

Total Area 3 Area 3

Area 4AS S W Valley Pkwy 15 11 8 0 4

W N Ivy Street 0 1 1 0Total AS 15 12 9 0

AT N W Valley Pkwy 9 5 3 0 4E Valley Blvd 10 9 6 0S E Grand Ave 6 4 4 0W N Ivy St 9 2 9 0

Total AT 34 20 22 0

AU N E Grand Ave 4 3 2 0 4S E 2nd Ave 0 0 0 0W S Ivy Street 10 8 2 1

Total AU 14 11 4 1

AV N E 2nd Ave 4 0 0 0 4W S Ivy Street 18 9 3 0

Total AV 22 9 3 0

AW S W Valley Pkwy 0 0 0 0 4Total AW 0 0 0 0

AX N/a E Pennsyvania 10 3 4N/b E Valley Pkwy 0 0 0 0E N Fig Street 12 12 12 3S E Grand Ave 0 0 0 0W Valley Blvd 9 8 6 0

Total AX 31 23 18 3

AY N E Grand Ave 0 0 0 0 4Total AY 0 0 0 0

AZ N W Valley Pkwy 6 1 1 0 4E S Fig Street 0 0 0 0

SE Pennsylvania Ave 20 10 13 0Total AZ 26 11 14 0

BA N E Grand Ave 0 0 0 0 4Total BA 0 0 0 0

BB W N Fig Street 10 10 10 3 4Total BB 10 10 10 3

BC W N Fig Street 4 4 4 0 4Total BC 4 4 4 0

Total Area 4 156 100 84 7 Area 4

APPENDIX B: WOODWARD LOTS TUESDAY AND THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 2005 COUNTS

W oodward Avenue Surface Lot Counts

Counts of Occupied Parking Spaces from September 27th: ST - TuesdayLocations Inventory 11 a.m. Occ % Occ 1 p.m. Occ % Occ 3 p.m. Occ % Occ 5 p.m. Occ % Occ % Overall

W oodward North Area 283 31 11% 46 16% 35 12% 17 6% 11%W oodward South Area 323 91 28% 130 40% 104 32% 65 20% 30%W oodward Pool Area 143 129 90% 125 87% 130 91% 108 76% 86%Council Chambers Lot 16 10 63% 9 56% 14 88% 13 81% 72%City Hall Entry Loop 18 12 67% 5 28% 4 22% 8 44% 40%City Hall South Lot 30 25 83% 27 90% 28 93% 23 77% 86%Credit Union Lot 75 48 64% 66 88% 39 52% 25 33% 59%Conf Ctr Employee Lot 11 9 82% 9 82% 9 82% 4 36% 70%Escondido CCAE Loop 7 1 14% 2 29% 1 14% 0 0% 14%

Totals 906 356 39% 419 46% 364 40% 263 29% 39%

Counts of Occupied Parking Spaces from September 29th: ST - ThursdayLocations Inventory 11 a.m. Occ % Occ 1 p.m. Occ % Occ 3 p.m. Occ % Occ 5 p.m. Occ % Occ % Overall

W oodward North Area 283 31 11% 38 13% 30 11% 15 5% 10%W oodward South Area 323 102 32% 94 29% 80 25% 74 23% 27%W oodward Pool Area 143 112 78% 111 78% 109 76% 107 75% 77%Council Chambers Lot 16 13 81% 12 75% 14 88% 12 75% 80%City Hall Entry Loop 18 8 44% 3 17% 8 44% 4 22% 32%City Hall South Lot 30 19 63% 22 73% 25 83% 23 77% 74%Credit Union Lot 75 35 47% 34 45% 41 55% 33 44% 48%Conf Ctr Employee Lot 11 6 55% 6 55% 8 73% 4 36% 55%Escondido CCAE Loop 7 0 0% 0 0% 1 14% 1 14% 7%

Totals 906 326 36% 320 35% 316 35% 273 30% 34%

AverageW oodward North Area 283 31 11% 42 15% 33 11% 16 6% 11%W oodward South Area 323 97 30% 112 35% 92 28% 70 22% 29%W oodward Pool Area 143 121 84% 118 83% 120 84% 108 75% 81%Council Chambers Lot 16 12 72% 10.5 66% 14 88% 13 78% 76%City Hall Entry Loop 18 10 56% 4 22% 6 33% 6 33% 36%City Hall South Lot 30 22 73% 25 82% 27 88% 23 77% 80%Credit Union Lot 75 42 55% 50 67% 40 53% 29 39% 54%Conf Ctr Employee Lot 11 8 68% 8 68% 9 77% 4 36% 63%Escondido CCAE Loop 7 1 7% 1 14% 1 14% 1 7% 11%

Totals 906 341 38% 370 41% 340 38% 268 30% 36%Source: City of Escondido

APPENDIX C: TUESDAY FEBRUARY 7, 2006 ON-STREET COUNTS

Block Face Street Inventory 11:00 AM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 9:00 PM AreaArea 1

AA EN Escondido Blvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

S W Valley Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WN Centre City Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total AA 0 0 n./a. 0 n./a. 0 n./a. 0 n./a. 0 n./a. 0 n./a.

AB N W Valley Pkwy 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

E N Orange Street 8 6 1 1 0 1 1S W Grand Ave 3 0 0 0 0 2 1

WN Centre City Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total AB 17 6 35% 1 6% 1 6% 0 0% 3 18% 2 12%

AF N W Valley Pkwy 10 1 2 0 0 0 0 1

EN Escondido Blvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

S W Grand Ave 10 2 2 1 6 1 0

W S Orange Street 5 3 1 3 0 0Total AF 25 6 24% 5 20% 4 16% 6 24% 1 4% 0 0%

0AC N W Grand Ave 9 10 6 5 4 6 4 1

E S Orange Street 11 8 5 6 7 2 0S W 2nd Ave 5 3 0 1 0 0

WS Centre City Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total AC 25 21 84% 11 44% 12 48% 11 44% 8 32% 4 16%

AG N W Grand Ave 13 9 12 11 7 0 0 1

ES Escondido Blvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

S W 2nd Ave 9 2 2 2 2 0 0

W S Orange Street 6 2 3 2 1 2 0Total AG 28 13 46% 17 61% 15 54% 10 36% 2 7% 0 0%

February 7, 2006

CITY OF ESCONDIDOTuesday

AD N W 2nd Ave 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

E S Orange Street 5 7 5 5 2 0 0S W 3rd Ave 14 7 7 2 1 0 0

WS Centre City Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total AD 25 14 56% 12 48% 7 28% 3 12% 0 0% 0 0%

AH N W 2nd Ave 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 1


S W 3rd Ave 12 2 6 6 0 1 1

W S Orange Street 7 3 3 5 4 2 0Total AH 32 7 22% 10 31% 11 34% 4 13% 3 9% 1 3%

AE N W 3rd Ave 7 2 2 0 0 0 0 1

E S Orange Street 6 1 0 0 0 0 1

WS Centre City Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total AE 13 3 23% 2 15% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 8%

AI N W 3rd Ave 12 9 8 7 6 6 11 1


W S Orange Street 6 1 1 1 1 1 1Total AI 22 11 50% 10 45% 9 41% 8 36% 8 36% 13 59%

Total Area 1 187 81 43% 68 36% 59 32% 42 22% 25 13% 21 11% Area 1

Area 2AJ E N Broadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

S W.Valley Pkwy 5 3 2 1 3 5 2

WN Escondido Blvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total AJ 5 3 60% 2 40% 1 20% 3 60% 5 100% 2 40%

AK N W 3rd Ave 15 5 4 7 9 6 7 2E S Maple Street 8 8 4 8 4 5 5

WS Escondido Blvd 1 0 1 0 0 0 0Total AK 24 13 54% 9 38% 15 63% 13 54% 11 46% 12 50%

AL N W 3rd Ave 15 3 1 1 0 0 0 2E S Broadway 6 3 4 4 0 0 0W S Maple Street 6 3 3 3 0 3 4

Total AL 27 9 33% 8 30% 8 30% 0 0% 3 11% 4 15%

A N Valley Pkwy 2 1 0 0 0 0 2S Grand Ave. 12 1 3 2 1 0 0E Maple Street 7 7 7 7 4 2 0W Escondido Bl 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Total A 22 9 41% 11 50% 9 41% 5 23% 2 9% 0 0%

B N Valley Pkwy 6 3 2 5 0 0 0 2S Grand Ave. 12 11 11 9 1 9 4

EBroadway Street 5 4 3 5 4 4 1

W Maple Street 9 9 9 8 0 8 3Total B 32 27 84% 25 78% 27 84% 5 16% 21 66% 8 25%

F N Grand Ave. 13 8 12 12 7 0 0 2S 2nd Avenue 11 7 4 3 3 0 0E Maple Street 8 6 6 5 5 2 0W Escondido 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total F 32 21 66% 22 69% 20 63% 15 47% 2 6% 0 0%

G N Grand Ave. 11 11 10 11 9 8 5 2S 2nd Ave 13 7 5 7 0 0 0E Broadway* 10 11 10 10 10 8 8W Maple Street 8 8 8 9 8 2 1

Total G 42 37 88% 33 79% 37 88% 27 64% 18 43% 14 33%

K N 2nd Avenue 8 3 2 5 3 0 0 2S 3rd Avenue 13 4 5 5 9 6 5E Maple Street 8 9 7 7 1 0 0W Escondido Bl. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total K 29 16 55% 14 48% 17 59% 13 45% 6 21% 5 17%

L N 2nd Avenue 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2S 3rd Avenue 16 3 3 2 0 0 0E Broadway 7 4 2 1 1 1 2W Maple Street 14 12 10 4 1 0 0

Total L 44 19 43% 15 34% 7 16% 2 5% 1 2% 2 5%

Total Area 2 257 154 60% 139 54% 141 55% 83 32% 69 27% 47 18% Area 2

Area 3AM E N Kalmia Street 2 2 2 1 0 0 0

S W Valley Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0W N Broadway 3 1 0 0 1 0 0

Total AM 5 3 60% 2 40% 1 20% 1 20% 0 0% 0 0%

AO E N Juniper Street 3 0 0 2 0 0 0S W Valley Pkwy 14 0 0 0 0 0 0W N Kalmia Street 4 4 4 2 0 0 1

Total AO 21 4 19% 4 19% 4 19% 0 0% 0 0% 1 5%

AQ E N Ivy Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0S W Valley Pkwy 9 2 2 4 1 1 0

W N Juniper Street 2 1 1 2 0 0 1Total AQ 11 3 27% 3 27% 6 55% 1 9% 1 9% 1 9%

AN N E 3rd Street 14 6 3 2 7 7 0E S Kalmia Street 6 4 1 6 2 1 0W S Broadway 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Total AN 21 10 48% 5 24% 8 38% 9 43% 8 38% 0 0%

AP N E 3rd Ave 14 3 0 4 1 2 0

E S Juniper Street 6 1 1 0 0 0 0W S Kalmia Street 6 5 0 2 3 0 0

Total AP 26 9 35% 1 4% 6 23% 4 15% 2 8% 0 0%

AR N E 3rd Ave 7 1 2 3 1 0 0E S Ivy Street 4 3 2 1 3 0 0

W S Juniper Street 6 6 5 2 1 0 0Total AR 17 10 59% 9 53% 6 35% 5 29% 0 0% 0 0%

C N Valley Pkwy 8 0 3 4 0 0 0S Grand Ave. 15 11 10 FM FM 0 12E Kalmia Street 14 9 13 11 11 8 7W Broadway 6 4 6 5 5 3 2

Total C 43 24 56% 32 74% 20 47% 16 37% 11 26% 21 49%

D N Valley Pkwy 9 2 2 4 0 0 0S Grand Ave. 12 9 11 12 9 6 7E Juniper Street 7 2 1 2 2 0 0W Kalimia Street 10 7 9 10 9 6 3

Total D 38 20 53% 23 61% 28 74% 20 53% 12 32% 10 26%

E N Valley Pkwy 11 4 7 10 8 3 0S Grand Ave. 15 3 3 6 8 7 1E Ivy Street 8 2 4 4 2 0 0W Juniper Street 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total E 39 9 23% 14 36% 20 51% 18 46% 10 26% 1 3%

H N Grand Ave. 15 3 9 FM FM 8 7S 2nd Avenue 7 3 5 3 4 2 0E Kalmia Street 15 11 7 14 15 9 2W Broadway 13 10 8 11 8 5 3

Total H 50 27 54% 29 58% 28 56% 27 54% 24 48% 12 24%

I N Grand Ave 13 10 7 6 10 5 10S 2nd Avenue 11 0 1 2 5 2 3E Juniper Street 5 0 3 2 3 1 0W Kalmia Street 16 15 12 16 16 10 4

Total I 45 25 56% 23 51% 26 58% 34 76% 18 40% 17 38%

J N Grand Ave. 9 6 8 3 6 5 2S 2nd Avenue 12 2 1 6 2 1 0E Ivy Street 14 8 5 6 4 4 0W Juniper Street 8 6 5 6 5 3 0

Total J 43 22 51% 19 44% 21 49% 17 40% 13 30% 2 5%

M N 2nd Street 12 0 4 4 0 2 0S 3rd Street 10 3 3 2 8 5 1E Kalmia Street 11 9 11 11 7 7 1W Broadway 10 3 5 4 3 0 0

Total M 43 15 35% 23 53% 21 49% 18 42% 14 33% 2 5%

N N 2nd Street 12 3 7 4 2 0 0S 3rd Street 12 5 5 10 1 0 0E Juniper Street 8 2 3 1 0 0 0W Kalmia Street 11 6 5 11 8 4 0

Total N 43 16 37% 20 47% 26 60% 11 26% 4 9% 0 0%

O N 2nd Avenue 7 3 1 1 1 0 0S 3rd Avenue 13 5 6 4 1 1 0E Ivy Street 12 5 2 0 0 0 0W Juniper Street 8 3 4 4 2 1 0

Total O 40 16 40% 13 33% 9 23% 4 10% 2 5% 0 0%

Total Area 3 442 189 43% 188 43% 210 48% 169 38% 108 24% 46 10%

Area 4AS S W Valley Pkwy 15 4 8 6 1 0 0

W N Ivy Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total AS 15 4 27% 8 53% 6 40% 1 7% 0 0% 0 0%

AW S W Valley Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total AW 0 0 n./a. 0 n./a. 0 n./a. 0 n./a. 0 n./a. 0 n./a.

AZ N W Valley Pkwy 6 2 5 4 1 0 0E S Fig Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SE Pennsylvania Ave 20 13 1 7 12 18 14Total AZ 26 15 58% 6 23% 11 42% 13 50% 18 69% 14 54%

AT N W Valley Pkwy 9 6 7 5 6 3 1E Valley Blvd 10 0 4 3 2 1 1S E Grand Ave 6 2 1 1 1 0 0W N Ivy St 9 2 5 5 0 0 0

Total AT 34 10 29% 17 50% 14 41% 9 26% 4 12% 2 6%

AX N/a E Pennsyvania 10 9 5 0 0 6 5N/b E Valley Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0E N Fig Street 12 11 6 6 3 2 5S E Grand Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0W Valley Blvd 9 8 6 4 4 4 1

Total AX 31 28 90% 17 55% 10 32% 7 23% 12 39% 11 35%

BB W N Fig Street 10 6 5 5 3 4 5Total BB 10 6 60% 5 50% 5 50% 3 30% 4 40% 5 50%

BC W N Fig Street 4 5 1 1 0 0 0Total BC 4 5 125% 1 25% 1 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

AU N E Grand Ave 4 1 1 0 2 0 0S E 2nd Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0W S Ivy Street 10 7 5 4 7 2 0

Total AU 14 8 57% 6 43% 4 29% 9 64% 2 14% 0 0%

AY N E Grand Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total AY 0 0 n./a. 0 n./a. 0 n./a. 0 n./a. 0 n./a. 0 n./a.

BA N E Grand Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total BA 0 0 n./a. 0 n./a. 0 n./a. 0 n./a. 0 n./a. 0 n./a.

AV N E 2nd Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0W S Ivy Street 18 2 2 3 0 1 0

Total AV 18 2 11% 2 11% 3 17% 0 0% 1 6% 0 0%

Total Area 4 118 68 58% 45 38% 40 34% 33 28% 37 31% 30 25%

APPENDIX D: TUESDAY FEBRUARY 7, 2006 ON-STREET COUNTS

W oodward lot counts, Tuesday 2 / 7 / 0 6

Locations N ormal Inventory 11 a.m. Occ % Occ 1 p.m. Occ % Occ 3 p.m. Occ % Occ 5 p.m. Occ % Occ

W oodward N orth Area* 283 80 28% 85 30% 83 29% 48 17%W oodward South Area* * 323 75 23% 99 31% 77 24% 111 34%W oodward Pool Area* * * 143 126 88% 127 89% 111 78% 105 73%Council Chambers Lot 16 12 75% 12 75% 15 94% 10 63%City Hall Entry Loop 18 6 33% 10 56% 9 50% 5 28%City Hall South Lot 30 21 70% 28 93% 28 93% 22 73%Credit Union Lot 75 36 48% 67 89% 52 69% 47 63%Conf Ctr Employee Lot 11 9 82% 8 73% 6 55% 7 64%Escondido CCAE Loop 7 2 29% 3 43% 2 29% 0 0%

Totals (see below) 906 367 41% 439 48% 383 42% 355 39%

IMPORTAN T N OTES:* 83 spaces temporarily marked and used for Palomar Hospital parking* * 100 spaces temporarily unavailable: 52=CCAE, 44=plant construction, 4=sea-tainers* * * 3 spaces temporarily taken up by dumpsters

APPENDIX E: FRIDAY APRIL 15, 2005 ON-STREET OCCUAPANCY COUNTS

Block Face StreetInven-tory 11:00 AM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 7:00 PM 9:00 PM Area

AA EN Escondido Blvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

S W Valley Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WN Centre City Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AB N W Valley Pkwy 6 0 0 2 1 0 0 1

E N Orange Street 8 1 3 3 2 0 0S W Grand Ave 3 2 3 3 3 3 1

WN Centre City Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AF N W Valley Pkwy 10 5 4 0 0 0 0 1

EN Escondido Blvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

S W Grand Ave 10 10 10 10 10 10 1

W S Orange Street 5 2 3 3 2 2 0

AC N W Grand Ave 9 4 7 9 9 9 8 1

E S Orange Street 11 9 9 6 8 9 8S W 2nd Ave 5 2 2 2 1 1 0

WS Centre City Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AG N W Grand Ave 13 10 11 13 12 7 6 1


S W 2nd Ave 9 3 3 4 4 1 0


AD N W 2nd Ave 6 2 2 1 0 0 0 1

E S Orange Street 5 5 4 4 5 4 4S W 3rd Ave 14 0 0 0 0 0 0

WS Centre City Pkwy

AH N W 2nd Ave 9 4 2 1 0 5 0 1


S W 3rd Ave 12 4 6 7 9 9 9


AE N W 3rd Ave 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

E S Orange Street 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

WS Centre City Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

April 15, 2005

CITY OF ESCONDIDOFriday

AI N W 3rd Ave 12 10 10 10 4 5 7 1



AJ E N Broadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2S W.Valley Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0

WN Escondido Blvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AK N W 3rd Ave 15 8 8 8 8 8 5 2E S Maple Street 8 8 6 7 6 8 8

WS Escondido Blvd 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

AL N W 3rd Ave 15 6 6 6 8 8 5 2E S Broadway 6 5 3 3 6 3 0W S Maple Street 6 3 3 3 6 6 6

A N Valley Pkwy 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2A S Grand Ave. 12 5 10 12 0 12 3A E Maple Street 7 5 5 7 5 7 7A W Escondido Bl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B N Valley Pkwy 6 3 5 5 5 6 2 2B S Grand Ave. 12 12 12 12 11 12 10

B EBroadway Street 5 4 3 5 5 5 5

B W Maple Street 9 7 8 9 9 9 9

F N Grand Ave. 13 8 4 8 13 13 7 2F S 2nd Avenue 11 4 6 4 11 11 1F E Maple Street 8 5 1 4 4 4 5F W Escondido 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

G N Grand Ave. 11 10 10 10 11 11 11 2G S 2nd Ave 13 5 6 8 13 13 3G E Broadway* 10 7 7 10 10 10 8G W Maple Street 8 7 6 8 8 7 4

K N 2nd Avenue 8 2 3 8 8 8 1 2K S 3rd Avenue 13 3 3 6 8 8 5K E Maple Street 8 8 6 8 8 7 1K W Escondido Bl. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

L N 2nd Avenue 7 0 2 3 7 7 7 2L S 3rd Avenue 16 3 3 8 9 8 8L E Broadway 7 3 4 5 5 5 4L W Maple Street 14 9 6 9 14 14 1

AM E N Kalmia Street 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 3S W Valley Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0W N Broadway 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

AO E N Juniper Street 3 3 3 2 2 0 0 3S W Valley Pkwy 14 2 2 0 0 4 2W N Kalmia Street 4 2 2 1 1 1 0

AQ E N Ivy Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3S W Valley Pkwy 9 0 2 3 2 3 0

W N Juniper Street 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

AN N E 3rd Street 14 6 6 6 9 8 4 3E S Kalmia Street 6 1 1 1 6 6 1W S Broadway 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

AP N E 3rd Ave 14 3 3 2 0 0 2 3

E S Juniper Street 6 0 0 0 0 0 0W S Kalmia Street 6 0 0 0 6 6 1

AR N E 3rd Ave 7 2 2 3 0 0 0 3E S Ivy Street 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

W S Juniper Street

C N Valley Pkwy 8 5 5 5 8 8 4 3C S Grand Ave. 15 15 12 15 15 15 11C E Kalmia Street 14 9 9 14 14 14 8C W Broadway 6 6 6 6 6 6 0

D N Valley Pkwy 9 3 7 8 8 2 7 3D S Grand Ave. 12 9 9 6 7 12 7D E Juniper Street 7 0 0 0 0 7 2D W Kalimia Street 10 10 10 10 10 10 4

E N Valley Pkwy 11 4 6 6 6 11 5 3E S Grand Ave. 15 15 1 15 15 15 5E E Ivy Street 8 4 3 0 1 3 0E W Juniper Street 5 1 1 5 5 5 1

H N Grand Ave. 15 13 12 15 15 15 10 3H S 2nd Avenue 7 3 4 7 8 8 3H E Kalmia Street 15 10 11 12 15 15 8H W Broadway 13 12 12 13 13 13 8

I N Grand Ave 13 13 13 13 13 13 10 3I S 2nd Avenue 11 2 3 11 11 11 3I E Juniper Street 5 2 4 3 5 5 4I W Kalmia Street 16 12 11 10 16 16 6

J N Grand Ave. 9 5 5 9 10 10 8 3J S 2nd Avenue 12 2 4 4 5 5 1J E Ivy Street 14 14 11 12 12 7 0J W Juniper Street 8 6 8 8 7 7 5

M N 2nd Street 12 0 4 8 12 12 3 3M S 3rd Street 10 4 4 5 5 6 3M E Kalmia Street 11 11 10 10 9 8 3M W Broadway 10 1

N N 2nd Street 12 2 4 7 12 12 1 3N S 3rd Street 12 7 7 6 1 3 5N E Juniper Street 8 1 1 5 8 8 0N W Kalmia Street 11 5 2 8 11 11 13

O N 2nd Avenue 7 1 3 3 6 5 0 3O S 3rd Avenue 13 3 3 3 2 2 1O E Ivy Street 12 10 7 8 8 1 0O W Juniper Street 8 2 2 8 8 8 1

AS S W Valley Pkwy 15 7 4 4 2 0 0 4W N Ivy Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AW S W Valley Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

AZ N W Valley Pkwy 6 6 6 4 4 2 1 4E S Fig Street

SE Pennsylvania Ave 20 20 20 12 16 17 11

AT N W Valley Pkwy 9 2 3 2 3 0 0 4E Valley Blvd 10 10 8 5 1 2 0S E Grand Ave 6 0 5 4 3 3 2W N Ivy St 9 5 4 6 8 4 2

AX N/a E Pennsyvania 10 10 10 7 4 6 4 4N/b E Valley Pkwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0E N Fig Street 12 4 5 5 5 3 2S E Grand Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0W Valley Blvd 9 9 6 6 3 2 3

BB W N Fig Street 10 6 6 4 3 4 5 4

BC W N Fig Street 4 4 4 4 3 2 0 4

AU N E Grand Ave 4 2 2 0 0 2 0 4S E 2nd Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0W S Ivy Street 10 10 10 10 10 10 3

AY N E Grand Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

BA N E Grand Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

AY N E 2nd Ave 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4W S Ivy Street 18 4 2 4 3 0 0

Documents

DOWNTOWN PARKING DEMAND STUDY - Home - City of … · · 2006-04-20downtown parking study escondido, ca prepared for: community development department, city of escondido project