Discussion of parking analysis and provide direction 12-03-13.pdf

8/13/2019 Discussion of parking analysis and provide direction 12-03-13.pdf

1/57

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEACouncil Report

December 3 2013To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City CouncilFrom: Jason Stilwell, City Adminis tratorSubject: Discussion of parking analysis and provide direction.

Recommendation: Discuss and provide direction.Executive Summary: One of the City s 2013 key init iat ives is to update parking management

plans and studies to enable the City to consider parking policies in 2013and potential modifications in 2014. Staff completed a parking study andanalysis during 2013 and the City Council held a workshop on the issue onNovember 4, 2013. This agenda item provides an opportunity for the CityCouncil to discuss the results of the workshop and provide furtherdirection .A suggested process for the discussion is to answer the question of whatis an improvement from the status quo in terms of; 1 identifyingcomponents of an ideal parking management system; 2) articulatingpolicy goals of a parking management system, and 3) defining policyobjectives relating to the identified goals. A parking management plancan be developed that will meet the articulated goals and objectivesrelative to the ideals and have ident ified actions the City can take to meetthe goals and objectives of the plan.

Analysis Discussion: The 2013 parking analysis demonstrates that the core component of theCitys parking management challenge is a greater demand than supply foron-st reet parking spaces in the commercial downtown district.


2/57

The question the City Council raised at the November 4, 2013 workshopwas what is an improvement relative to the status quo? with a viewthat the existing parking incentives and enforcement practices focus onthe wrong users.Design elements of the ideal parking systemBefore discussing potential improvements it may be beneficial toconsider the design elements of the ideal parking system. Issues of anideal system discussed at the workshop include:

a. Minimal visual impact,b. Improving the availability of parking for visitors,c. Policy target on habitual violators instead of visitors,d. Flexibility for visitors to stay as long as they want,e. Carrots and sticks for frequent users (and abusers?Lf. Reducing or eliminating the two-hour shuffle,g. Tiered financial impact to dissuade habitual offenders, andh. Financial neutrality.

Policy goalsBased on these ideals, four policy goals from the November 4, 2013workshop were:1. Discourage long-term parking in the highest demand locations2. Provide reasonable flexibility for visitor parking keeping the

customer service experience in mind3. Implement policies to encourage long-term parking in lower

demand locations4. Bring underutilized privately owned parking spaces into the public

systemFramework to achieve the goalsWhat is the framework to achieve the identified goals?

I. Community input


3/57

Previous CouncilAction Decision:

Attachments:

VI Recognize publ ic parking in the commercial core is an economicasset with value and a cost to supply/maintain

VII. Demand varies by day, time season and we need flexibility tomanage the system with varying demands on the system

The thought is to have a defined plan with incremental steps to addressthe goals of the plan. A consistent and cohesive system of parking goalsand policies is the essential first step in developing a strategic parkingmanagement framework. Staff will return with components of plan tomeet goals and objectives and potential next steps

Parking management is one of the City s 2013 key initiatives and the CityCouncil held a workshop on the issue on November 4 2013.

Walker 2013 reportReviewed byCity Administrator , J J4 City Attorney 0Asst . City Admin.Public Safety Dir

0D

Dir of CPBLibrary Dir

D0

Administrative Services 0Dir of Public SvcsOther

0D


4/57

218


5/57


6/57

220


7/57

221

Study Area Total* Other includes , spaces reserved for police vehicles , spaces reserved for buses, ADA spaces ,librarv oat ron soaces, and soaces timed for 60 and 90 minutes.Source: Walker Parking Consultants 2013

ot TotalVista Lobos 2 58 6Post Office 18 18Harrison Library Park Branch 4 2 16 22

D City Hall 3 1 4 8E Carmel Plaza 4 1 2 1 6Sunset Center North) Market 2 118 12G Sunset Center San Carlos I Middle 2 3 26 31H Sunset Center Southwest) 3 17 20

Sunset Center Southeast) 4 2 27 33Totals 6 6 386 I 4 8

Source: Walker Parking Consultants 2013


8/57

222

Date of I Time of I Number Occupancy Number Occupancy Number OccupancyCount Count of Cars Percentage of Cars Percentage of Cars Percentage

11:00 AM 1,347 89 208 50 1,555 81Thursday IJuly 11, 2013 2: PM 1,260 83 229 55 1.489 775:00 PM 1.148 76 245 59 1,393 7211 :00 AM 1,214 80 177 42 1,391 72SaturdayJul 13, 2013 I 2:00PM 1,365 90 305 73 1,670 87

y 5: PM 1,313 87 240 57 1,553 81


9/57

223


10/57

224


11/57

225


12/57


13/57

227

Effect ive SupplyDate ofCount

Thu rsdayJuly 11, 2013

SaturdayJuly 13, 2013

Time ofCount

1 340 spacesNumberof Cars

Adequacy/Deficit )

7)80

192

377 spaces I 1,717 spaces-Number Adequacy/ Number Adequacy/of Cars Def ic it ) of Cars Deficit )

208 169 1,555 162229 148 1,489245 132 1,393


14/57

228

e Effective Parking SupplyParkin dequacy Saturday Afternoon

Detail by Space y e

@ @ ~ ~ v e n u e I. Monte Verde

0 0 0 0 0 0 0l 4 0 2 10 (7) 90 1 0L l_l9L 3 56 0 1 0 (1) (6)(8) (1) 0 1 0 (1) (9) J

0 1 ) 0 1 00 0 0 0 0 10 lO0 0 0 0 0

0 0 06

(6) (1 o 1 o o I ( ) I(8) 4 0 1 0

0 0 04) 0 1) 0 0 0 j

1Torres St. [3rd Avenue [oceanjJunipero Ave. [3rd Avenue [8th Avenue[Mission St. [3rd Avenue _ I8th A v e n _ u ~ _ '[san Carlos St. [3rd Avenue _ _ 10th ~ v ~ ~ u ~ _[Dolores St. [3rd A v ~ ~ L e _ [ [8th A v ~ n u e ~[Lincoln St. J4th Avenue. _ [ 8th Avenue_=:][Monte Verde . .I4th v n u ~ ~ [8th Avenuecasanova St . _[ . A v . e n u e [8th Avenue

[Third Avenue _ [Torres [Mission[ F o u r ~ ~ v e n u e _ [kf_re_s Lincoln [[Fifth Avenlle rres Monte VerdeJocean [ 1 Jnipero IcasanovaSeventh Avenue [Junipero [casanova

] [Junipero [casanova I)lOIS (63) 16 7 12 10

~ o u r c e : t er ar tna o a (]


15/57

229


16/57

230

GreenUnrestricted 7Total LPI area 92 I :; ]Source: Walker Parking onsul tants 2013

During the lunch-time hour, 39 of the 92 spaces surveyed (42 )were occupied by cars staying 3+ hours. 24 of these 39 spaces(26 of the 92 space total were occupied by cars parked for4+ h urs.

Over the course of the day 44 of the 92 time-restricted spacessurveyed (47 ) were occupied by cars staying 3+ hours. Ofthese 44 parking spaces, 40 spaces were two-hour restricteds aces and 4 were green 30-minute spaces.


17/57

231

()0c-:La-0aQa-0~-:>coQ~:>0.c)c(>(

.(.00-0>0(u00(0c-~00>--(

-+~

c:)

(

0t::~

u0

((

~00

c(c

:)

.a

.

G)

1)\J~

()

0

,_(+-

(

c

+-

-c

UO0cUJ-

-+(4

.-()

0

44

:)-oc

()4o.=

()t:)(

()

.-

-+

0()

0(:=

4Ul

~..o-o

(+~+-

,_(u+

~o~

-+

0

+-0

~_Vl0-

~7\u

C~o~

~v

0-+u(0

.x

"

-(C

.

,_

_

-

:SoOEc~

oaEma-o0

.r-o==

O:Jo

Nc-.r

o

0:

c

\J

c

\

.0(

-I()

+-

.

-()-o.

~()(c-o

()

.()>(.0-o-ou

~u

U

-+(

0-.

(

-+-

-

=:

DN+o>

+0c

~

ua.m0_.>a.C

4

nEu0

+-c

C:-a(1

>-.c>

-o-u-o:

(-

~~())cu-~C

0>2J

01

.cQ_cV

(1Q_0>

~-+(0++c

0c(11

0>+-

(11

0

Q_(171uc"=(1(1u

.vE

.-o+

to-7~

,_

(

-(

~0()

.r:J>OO>

O

._U

owocE


18/57


19/57

233

Problemso lved?

Yes.

Spacesavailableto lease orbuy?

Is there apublicp rking

Yes. Whatis the no-tureof the

problem?

Betteridefltifythe nature

of theissue .

Are thereconcentr tedareas ofimp cted andunderutilizedparking

Increase thelevel ofenforcementand Qr priceoR impactedspaces

Yes.Redistributeparkingdemand

regulationsand or price

munderutilized


20/57

234


21/57

235


22/57

236


23/57

VV LKERP RKING CONSULT NTS

October 28 2013

Police Chief and Public Safety Director Michael CalhounCity of Carmel-by-the-Sea Po lice DepartmentP.O. Box 600 (Southeast Junipero and Fourth Avenue)Carmel-by-the-Sea, California 93921

135 Main Street. Suite 1030San Francisco. CA 94105Tel: 415.644.0630Fax: 415.664.0637www walkerparking com

Re : Downtown Parking Analysis and Parking Recommendations DraftCarmel-by-the-Sea, California

Dear Chief Calhoun:Thank you very much for the opportunity to perform this study for you and the City ofCarmel-by-the-Sea. Please find attached our draft findings and analysis of parkingconditions in Carmelby-the-Sea s downtown commercial district along withrecommendations for managing the busy parking system.This report contains a significant amount of data that we collected (which we detail inthe appendices to the report} along wi th summaries and recommendations. We lookforward to discussing the report with you and receiving your feedback at your earliestconvenience.Thank you very much again.SincerelyWALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS

Steffen TuroffProject Manager


24/57

DRAFTPARKING ANALYSIS ANDRECOMMENDATIONSCARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CALIFORNIAPrepared for:CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAOCTOBER 28 2013

l


25/57


26/57


27/57

DR FT P RKING N LYSIS ND RECOMMEND TIONSCARMEL-BY-THE-SEAOCTOBER 28, 2013

W LKERPARKJNG CONSULTANTS

33-1758.00Table 9: LPI Length of Stay Analysis Summary ...................................................................................................... 11Table 10: Criteria for Selecting Comparable Municipalities .......................................... .....................................12Table 11: Parking Rates at Comparable Municipalities ...................................................................................... 13Table A- 1: On-S treet and Off-Street Parking Inventories..................................................................................A-1Table A- 2: Parking Occupancy Counts Weekday ........................................................................................... A-2Table A- 3: Parking Occupancy Counts Weekend ...................................................................................... ..... A-3Table A- 4: Off-Street Parking Inventory and Weekend Occupancy ............................................................. A-4Figure 1 Carmel-by-the-Sea Study Area ................................................................................................................3Figure 2: Peak Parking Demand on Saturday July 13, 2013 at 2:00 PM .............................................................5Figure 3: Map of LPI rea ......................................................................................................................................... 10Figure 4: Sample PbC Screen .................................................................................................................................. 17Figure 5: Sample Mulfispace Meter MSM) ........................................................................................................... 19

raft


28/57


EXECUTIVE SUMM RY

W LKERPARKING CONSUlTANTS

33-1758.00

Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) conducted a quantitative analysis of parking demandand supply in the downtown district of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Among our quantitative findingswere the following:

Peak parking demand was observed on a weekend (Saturday) afternoon during whichtime the occupancy rate for the combined on- and off-street parking system was 87 . The on-street parking occupancy during the (Saturday afternoon) peak was 90 butapproximately two-thirds of the blocks in the area studied exceeded 90 occupancyduring the peak, effectively resulting in a lack of available on-street parking along moststreets in the commercial core. Peak occupancy conditions during the weekday countwere essentially the same for on-street parking though lower for off-street parking. The on-street parking supply of two-hour and unrestric ted parking spaces was found tohave a deficit of 70 spaces during t h e ~ . r t ~ t During the lunch time peak, 39 of 92 l ;ot61kit l@f p ces surveyed hourly along OceanAvenue and Dolores Street were occupied by cars staying 3+ hours, this despite timelimits ranging from 30 minutes to two hours. 24 of these spaces were occupied by carsstaying 4+ hours; we conc lude from this data that , despite a diligent enforcementeffort, long-te rm parkers are occupying a significant number of spaces designated forvisitors and customers. Even during the periods of the highest parking occupancy rates, parking spaces werefound to be available in City-owned off-street parking facilities and on-street parkingspaces not in the immediate center of the commercial district. Carmel-by-the-Sea's parking challenges are more an issue of an imba lance of parkingdemand rather than a shortage of spaces; available spaces exist but proper policiesare needed to redistribute parking demand and increase the availability of parkingspaces in the busiest locations.

The overall, peak occupancy rate of the parking system in Downtown Carmel is among thehighest we have observed among the dozens of parking demand studies that Walker hasperformed in commercial districts throughout Ca liforn ia . Recent improvements in parkingenforcement technology would provide the City with a greater ability to enforce existingparking restrictions, however paid parking, even if implemented only in those spacesexperiencing the highest demand, would result in better management of the parking systemoverall and could lower ticket anxiety for Carmel-by-the-Sea vis itors). All of the comparableCalifornia coastal cities Walker surveyed for this assignment have imp lemented paid parking


29/57


30/57

{

CURRENT P RKING CONDITIONS N LYSIS )


31/57


32/57

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONSCARMEL BY- THE-SEA

W LKERP RKING CONSULT NTS

OCTOBER 28,2013 33-1758.00Table 1: Parking Space Inventory by Type

~ p a e e ~ L l)&e;fi;GJl a n:Gf CGf,.m1rQI ~ e ~ %TmalOn-street 1,511 78Off-street City controlledA 312 16Off-street privately controlled,publicly av ailable8 106 5Total Study Area Parking Supply 1,929 100Alnc ludes the Vista Lobos, Sunset Center, City Hall, Harrison Park Branch Libraryand Post Office parking lots.Bcarmel Plaza.Source: Walker Parking Consultants 2013

raftTable 2: Summary of On-Street Parking Space Inventory


33/57

DR FT P RKING N LYSIS ND RECOMMEND TIONSCARMEL-BY-THE-SEAOCTOBER 28 2 1 3Figure 1: Carmel- -the-Sea Study Area

W LKERPARKJNG CONSUlTANTS

33-1758.00


34/57

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONSCARMEL-BY-THE-SEAOCTOBER 28, 2013OCCUPANCY COUNTS

W LKERPARKING CONSULTANTS

33-1758.00

Field staff performed occupancy counts in the study area on Thursday, July 11, 2013 and onSaturday, July 13. 2013 in order to identify peak weekday and weekend parking conditions.The counts began at :30 AM. 2:30 PM . and 5:30 PM in order to capture parking demandduring lunch time. midafternoon and the dinner hour. Based on our experience, at least one ofthese times would reflect peak parking conditions in a commercial district with Carmel-by-theSea's characteristics. A space was marked as occupied if a vehicle were parked in it or if thespace was otherwise unavailable.Table 4: Summary of District-wide Parking Demand

5 p:ace Type O n S f r e e ~ Off Sfee1 sw ry Aree TqtalNumber of Spaces 1,511 spaces 418 spaces 1,929 spaces

Date of Time of Number Occupancy Number Occupancy Number OccupancyCount Count of Cars Percentage of Cars Percentage of Cars Percentage

Thursday 11:00AM 1,347 89 208 50 1.555 812:00PM 1,260 83 229 55 1,489 77July 11 2013 5:00PM 1,1 48 76 245 59 1.393 7211:00AM 1,214 80 177 42 1,391 72Saturday 2:00PM 1,365 90 305 73 1,670 87July 13. 2013 5:00PM 1,313 87 240 57 1,553 81

Source: Walker Parkin Consultants 2013The overall peak parking demand for the study area occurred during the 2:30 PM count onSaturday. During that interval. 87 of the available parking spaces were occupied, including90 of on-street and 73 of the off-street spaces surveyed . While 2:30 PM on Saturdayrepresented the time of peak parking demand we no te the demand for on-street spacesvaried little from the peak observed on the weekday or on Saturday afternoon. However, thedemand for off-street spaces varied considerably more.Table 4 suggests that the parking system overall has enough parking spaces to accommodatepeak demand . not to mention more typical demand . However, further analysis of the datasuggests widespread areas of on-street parking were effectively not available. Meanwhile, atleast 100 off-street parking spaces were observed to be available during the peak. The lack of


35/57

DR FT P RKING N LYSIS ND RECOMMEND TIONSCARMEL-BY-THE-SEAOCTOBER 28 2013


33-1758.00Figure 2 s a heat map that reflects the demand for parking during the period of peakdemand. As will be explained in the following section each red area indicates a location thatbased on our experience and parking industry standards was experiencing an unacceptablyhigh parking occupancy rate.Figure 2: Peak Parking Demand on Saturday July 13 2013 at 2:00PM


36/57


EFFECTIVE SUPPLY


33-1758.00

It s unrealistic to expect parkers to search for and find the last available parking spaceswithout experiencing significant frustration and perce iving that parking is inadequate. Amargin of extra spaces in the supply minimizes circulation problems so that drivers can findspaces in a reasonable amount of time.At the same time, an evaluation of a parking system needs to account for factors that canreduce the number of spaces available to the parking public. In an imperfect world, driverssometimes mispark, taking up more than one space when they park. Some vehicles are solarge that they do not fit into one stalL Workers performing routine work or maintenance on thestreet, in a parking lot or a nearby facility may need additional spaces for their equipment andtheir safety.To account for these factors, Walker Parking ~ J k : J l ' \ S f l / 5 - / e t s s e s s e s the adequacy of a parkingsystem by incorporating a cushion into t h e ~ ~ r 4 c i ~ ~ s L ~ p l y . This cushion, or effective supplyfactor, lowers the calculated number of available parking spaces.Visito rs in particular, who by definition are less familiar with the area in which they are parking,need to be able to find spaces in a conveniently located well-marked area. The effectiveparking supply factor thus allows for a more efficient use of a parking facility. The calculationof the effective supply factor for the study area requires careful consideration of severalfactors.These factors include the size of the parking system, the type of spaces, the users familiaritywith the system, and the level of turnover. Typically parking spaces purposed primarily foremployees need a smaller effective supply factor than spaces intended for visitors . Visitors areless familiar with the parking system tend to have higher turnover rates over the course of aday. They are more likely to park in different places and on different days.Conversely, drivers familiar with the area tend to park more efficiently. This tendency isbecause members of these groups park in the location on a daily basis, are more familiar withthe parking system, typical ly use the same parking areas each day, and frequently park in oneplace all day . As a result, on the one hand , they create less congestion. On the other hand,when they occupy a parking space , one long-term parker parked all day can prevent manyshort-term parkers from finding a space.


37/57


38/57

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS ND RECOMMEND TIONSCARMEL-BY-THE-SEAOCTOBER 28, 2013Table 7: Summary of Effective Supply on Survey ays

Space Ty;pe. On Stt.eet ff leetEffective Supply 1 340 spaces 377 spaces

Dote of Time of Number Adequacy/ Number Adequacy/Count Count of Cars {Deficit) of Cars Deficit)

11:00AM 1,347 7) 208 169Thursday 2:00PM 1,260 80 229 148July 11,2013 5:00PM 1,148 192 245 13211:00AM 1,214 126 177 200Saturday 2:00PM 1,365 25) 305 7July 13, 2013 5:00PM 1,313 27 240 137

Source: Walker Parking Consultants 2013

W LKERP RKING CONSUlT NTS

33-1758.00

Stuay ~ ~ e a Total1,71 7 spaces

Number Adequacy/of Cars Deficit)

1,555 1621,489 2281,393 3241,391 3261,670 471,553 164

During the interval of peak demand, our ove,/;;;;}(nQ;( he parking supply within our studyarea shows an overall surplus of 47 spaces Table 7). The surpluses are many times higherduring other periods when counts were performed. However, this surplus should not distractone s attention away from the 25 space deficit of on-street parking spaces. Table 8, below,provides a summary of the on-street parking adequacy and deficits by street for the interval ofpeak parking demand. Table 8 shows an actual deficit of 63 two-hour on-street parkingspaces and seven unrestricted spaces.


39/57


Table 8: Summary of On-Street Parking Supply dequacy

Source: Walker Parking Consultants2013

LENGTH OF STAY ANALYSIS

W LKERPARKING CONSULTANrS

33-1758 .00

To develop a better understanding of parking patterns in the study area, Walker field staffconducted a license p late inventory LPI) on Ocean venue and Dolores Street. The purposeof this LP I was to determine the extent to which long-term parkers likely people who work inthe area) may be parking in on-street spaces for significant intervals, thus depriving visitors tothe area of opportunities to park. Ocean venue was se lected for the LPI sample given itsimportance as a gateway thoroughfare for visitors. Dolores Street was selected as a typicalcommercial side street off of Ocean Avenue.The LPI area on Ocean Avenue consisted of the on-street parking spaces between MissionStreet and Monte Verde Street. Field staff noted the last four digits of license plates belongingto cars parked on both sides of Ocean Avenue on an hourly basis to determine how long theywere parked. Our survey also included a LPI area on Dolores Street from Ocean Avenue toSeventh Street where license plates belonging to cars parked on the west side of DoloresStreet were inventoried. Figure 3, below, shows the areas of Ocean Avenue and Dolores Street


40/57


41/57


Table 9: LPI Length of Stay Analysis Summary

Source: Walker Parking Consult nts 2013.


33-1758.00

Our parking turnover analysis revealed the following: During the lunch time hour, 39 of the 9Qb Q f t eye (42 ) were occupied by carsstaying 3+ hours. 24 of these 39 spaces (26 of the 93 space total) were occupied bycars parked for 4+ hours. Over the course of the day, 44 of the 92 time-restricted spaces surveyed (47 ) were

occupied by cars staying 3+ hours. Of these 44 parking spaces, 40 spaces were two-hour restricted spaces and were green 30-minute spaces. Of the 534 cars inventoried during the LPL 39 vehicles parked for three hours or longer.Of that number of long-term vehicles, four vehicles were parked in green (short-term)spaces. Three of those four vehicles were parked between 3:00 PM and 5:00 PM and allfour of those vehicles were parked from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM. This overlap means that for

one hour, a quarter of the available short-term parking spaces in the LPI area wereunavailable to motorists running brief errands because area employees wereoccupying those spaces while they worked.

In generaL our analysis suggests that during the busiest times in Carmel s business district, asignificant number of the parking spaces specifically designed for use by visitors are likelyoccupied by employees. Once again we emphasize that this problem should not be viewedas a reflection on the efforts of the parking enforcement who we saw diligently doing its jobduring the course of our field work. Having a significant number of visitor spaces occupied bylong-term parkers is a common and vexing problem for popular commercial districts in


42/57

DR FT P RKING N LYSIS ND RECOMMEND TIONSCARMEL BY THE SEAOCTOBER 28, 2013

COMP R BLE MUNICIP LITIES

W LKERP RKING CONSUlT NTS

33-1758.00

Per the scope of services for this assignment. Walker was requested to perform a survey ofparking policies in three comparable municipalities in order to determine how cities similar toCarmel manage their parking systems. In determining the comparable cities, Walker usedcri teria provided by the staff of the City-of-Carmel-by-the Sea. Table 10. below, summarizesthe criteria.Table 10: Criteria for Selecting Comparable Municipalities

Population between 3,500 and 25,000Located in a coastal county of CaliforniaTou rism is an important part of economyStrong sense of place/quality of life communitySimilar scope of services ( hybrid delivery: provides safety andposterity services but does not provide enterprise services like watersewer. transit, harbors or airports)Management/governance reputationSow growthSource: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. 2013

Based upon these criteria Walker understood that Carmel-by-the-Sea has identified thefollowing cities as comparable:Cap itola CarpinteriaLaguna BeachPismo Beach Sausalito Scotts Valley

From this list. Walker determined the following cities in California as the most appropriate forparking policy research: Capitola Laguna Beach. Pismo Beach. and Sausalito . In surveyingeach of these municipalities. Walker sought information on how each cities' parking policiesaddressed on- and off-street parking demand and supply in core commercial areas. Table .below, summarizes the findings of the survey.

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


43/57

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAW LKERP R ING CONSUlTANTS

OCTOBER 28.2013 33-1758.00Table : Parking Rates at Comparable Municipalities

II jd 1 1l, I l f I IO >r 1 ,1 ..t,.. . I 'I ) J I I J II .: J{ , d II L I ' Jl I I I ' ., I ICapitola, CA 2 hours max.$1.50/hour

10 hoursLoguno Beach. CA 1.25 - $2.25/hour

Pismo Beach. CA 8 hours$1.00/hour3 hoursSausali to, CA $1.00 hour

Source: Walker Parkmg onsu an1s 2013

12 hours. $0.50/hour.Free of remote lof.

Three Hours. 6Doily, 7 10

Summer Festival, 20

8 ho urs,0.75- 1 .00/ho ur

3-12 hours.1 .00-$3.00/hour

$25/overnighl

Two permits per residence. Zoned parking .Resident Shoppers Two Years. 80 for each of first tw o. 150 for eoch of

next two .Non -Resident Senior- $130/yeor.Residential. $200/yeor for two permits.School District $120/yeor for first permit. 150 / yeor for second permit .Downtown Employee, $300Jyeor.Residential/business permits allow discounted roles in designated lots.3 months/$45.00; 6 mon ths/$60.00; 12 months/$100.00.Doily Poss, 4Residential Permit. $35/yeor per permi f. Residents allowed two guestperm its .

All four cities use paid parking to encourage turnover. Of the four, Capitola and Sausalitohave established rates for paid pa rking that are demand based in that they are clearlydesigned to discourage long-term parking on the street by turning over high demand onstreet parking spaces. At the same time these cities provide significantly less expensive andtypically lower demand parking in off-street surface lots. The survey also sought information onthe use of parking permits. especially in regards to permits available to area employees. Thesefindings are included in Table as well.

DR FT P RKING N LYSIS ND RECOMMEND TIONS


44/57

CARMEL -BY-THE-SEAW LKERPARKJNG CONSULTANTS

OCTOBER 28 2013 33-1758.00

FINDINGSCarmel-by-the-Sea experiences a high demand for on-street parking spaces in its commercialcore. While a preliminary review of data provided by City staff and observations of theenforcement operation suggest a diligent effort at enforcement our findings indicate that theoperation of a parking management system in the study area suffers from structuralchallenges:

Policies are inadequate to addre and manage the high demand for parking in thed istrict; Outdated and inefficient technology ; and An insufficient number of enforcemen t staff, particularly g iven the large area that isenforced, the type of technology and the po licies in place.

Walker reviewed a number of parking system r > O i i c t i ~ / O I t i c e s procedures and technologiesfor the purpose of addressing the h l l e n g e s ~ f ' f c l ~ e ~ I : J s l o f the parking system in Carmel-bythe-Sea s commercial core. Notable among these considerations, City staff instructed Walkerthat any new parking policies should minimally impact the streetscape in terms of theinfrastructure needed to implement the new policies.We have determined that options for improving management of the parking system andparking space availability include improving the enforcement technology and relatedprocedures, establishing some measure of pa id parking , or a combination of these twomeasures.We believe that the goals and recommendations contained in this section are consis tent withthe City s Circulation Element based on its policies related to parking s impacts on overall landuse goals an d , by extension, the efficiencies gained through shared parking. The goal of theserecommendations is to maximize the efficiency of the parking system in order to improve thecustomer service experience of drivers to Carmel s commercial distric t while minimizing theneed for parking spaces that may sit empty for significant periods of time, thus harming thespecial nature of the district.P ID P RKING S A P RKING M N GEMENT TOOLWithout paid parking, popular commercial districts suffer from the same challenge. Businessowners and employees arrive at the destination first and park in the most convenient andvisible spaces. Visitors and customers who arrive later, and are less familiar w ith area, then

DR FT P RKING N LYSIS ND RECOMMEND TIONS W LKER


45/57

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAOCTOBER 28,2013

PARKING CONSULTANTS

33-1758.00

Paid parking s especially important where the demand for free parking s higher than thesupply. The first parking meter was invented and ins talled by a business owner to prevent longterm parkers from dominating customer spaces, not to generate revenue. Counter intuitively,the implementation of paid parking in a high demand location increases the number of visitorswho access a destination. For this reason we generally recommend the implementation ofpaid parking in locations where parking occupancy rates exceed a certain threshold .Raising parking rates in areas of high demand (and lowering rates or increasing conveniencewhere there s a low demand for spaces) should not be seen as an effort to force peopleout of their cars. Managing parking demand through rate adjustments is an effort toreallocate a small percentage of parked cars from high parking demand to low demandlocations, thus efficiently utilizing the entire parking system. Cities such as Santa Monica havesignificantly increased the number of cars parked in their system by raising and loweringparking prices in this way. When we use paid parking to manage demand, we do not try to

a d j ~ s t every drivers behavior, but rather j u s t / 0 \ f f U ~ o j /Older to make a few parking spacesaVailable. l /1 IIn Carmel-by-the-Sea, many blocks of on-street parking have no parking spaces availableduring busy periods while public and private off-street parking lots have an abundant numberof vacan t spaces. Our policy goal s effectively to move at most one car per b lock face to anarea where parking spaces are underutilized. To the extent that on-street parking spacesremain between 80 and 90 an increase in parking rates does not reduce the number ofcustomers and visitors; on the contrary they increase. In high demand areas, parkin gavailability is more important to parkers than whether or not parking s free. The destination,not free parking, s the draw.P RKING RESTRICTIONS ND TIME UMITSUntil very recently, a parking management policy that consisted solely of time limits toencourage turnover was labor intensive and extremely difficult for cities to properly enforce.Within just the past few years, time limit monitoring and enforcement technology has beendeveloped and tested that is more effective and less labor intensive than has been the casein years past. The new technology generally s still not as effective in monitoring time limits andencouraging turnover as s paid parking. Further, we suggest that a destination location likeCarmel may wish to consider other factors. Effective time limit enforcement tends to rely onarbitrary time limits that restrict visitors behavior. Receiving a parking ticket for overstaying atime limit may leave a more negative impression on a visitor than having to pay a relativelysmall amount for parking.2



46/57

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAOCTOBER 28 2013

P RKING CONSUlT NTS

33-1758.00area ould improve availability for the general public, typically improved parkingmanagement measures are more effective in improving parking availability than is simplycreating more spaces because the biggest issue is not a lack of parking spaces but anuneven distribution of the demand for parking spaces between on-street spaces for whichthere is high demand and off-street spaces for which there is lower demand .

raft



47/57

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAOCTOBER 28,2013

RECOMMEND TIONSThrough our analysis and experience we conclude that:

P RKING CONSUlT NTS

33-1758.00

On-street parking in Carmel-by-the-Sea s commercial district experiences a consistentlyhigh demand for on-street parking; A significant number of parking spaces for visitors are being used by long-term parkers; There s a need to redistribute some parked vehicles from high demand to lowerdemand locations; The lack of available on-street parking is a greater detriment to the district than amodest fee for parking; Given the mix of businesses, a two-hour time limit s arguably arbitrary and visitors would

benefit from the ability to spend more time in the district; A longer time limit by itself could result in more long-term parkers utilizing short-termspaces; and r j

Cities comparable in nature to Carmel 3 ~ f t l ~ to paid parking in order to manageparking demand in their commercial districts.Based on these conclusions we believe that paid parking would greatly improve parking and(traffic) circulation in the districf.3City staff have stated that it is imperative for the City to maintain its attractive and openstreetscape. The impact on the streetscape has been a key consideration and the majorchallenge in developing re commendations which minimize paid parking apparatus. Ba sedon the specific needs, characteristics, and constraints of Carmel-by-the-Sea, we recommendthe following plan to improve the availability and convenience of parking in the commercialdistrict.

RECOMMENDED POLICYImplement paid parking in spaces along the busiest commercial blocks in order to makespaces available for shorter-term (customers) rather than longer-term (business owner andemployee) parkers while providing flexibility for the length of stay and eliminating the arbitrarytime limit for those customers that wish to stay longer.

DR FT P RKING N LYSIS AND RECOMMEND TIONS WALKER


48/57

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAOCTOBER 28, 2013

METHODS OF IMPLEMENTING P ID P RKING

RECOMMENDED: PAY-BY-CELL

PARKING CONSULTANTS

33-1758.00

A credit card and a cellular (not necessarily a smart) phone is all the motorist needs to use thissystem: The cell-by-phone vendor sets up an account with/for the City; Signage advises motorists to call a designated phone number to pay for parking; Upon parking, the motorist calls the pay-by-cell vendor's automated paymentline; First time users register their license plate and provide credit card paymentinformation; The motorist is prompted to e l e A f { j i i ~ i ~ parking time; The pay-by-cell vendor c h r g ~ ~ o f i s t or the City a convenience fee,typically 0.35 per transaction; and The pay-by-cell vendor deposits the parking fees into the City's established bank

account, keeping the convenience fees.PbC systems can send a text message to the cell phone to advise oftime expiration and can offer the option to add time if within theCity's time limits.While PbC systems are currently being implemented throughout thecountry only in rare (though an increasing number of) cases has PbCbeen implemented by itself, without an additional method by whichto pay at a parking meter. The PbC option would provide Carmel-by the-Sea with the attractive option of paid parking with no parkingmeters. However, challenges with a PbC only system in Ca rmel wouldconsist primarily of the need to inform the public of the existence ofthe system as well as how to use it. Signage on the sidewalk in someform would likely be necessary to com munica te this information to thepublic; something that we understand should be avoided orminimized.

r OUICJ\ P lfk ' '

-

IM;; i~ t Zono 2004: End : :22 N 1

TN68579 >)


49/57

DR FTP RKING N LYSIS ND RECOMMEND TIONS W LKERPARKING CONSUlTANTS


50/57

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAOCTOBER 28, 2013

To m1n1m1ze the impact on the streetscape, Wa lker considered theinstallation of MSMs at one or several strategic locations around but no tin the commercial district, such as the Vista Lobos and Sunset Center)lots for those parkers who chose not to pay for parking with their cellphones. Drivers could be directed to these lots using signage and eitherA) pay for parking in the peripheral location and drive to theirdestination, parking on street or B choose to park free in these lots,thereby furthering the goal of redistributing parking demand away fromthe busy core of the commercial district. A pay by plate PbP) MSMsystem could be integrated with a PbC system. However, Walkerrejected the employment of PbP MSMs in these peripheral locations. Werecommend PbP only if the MSMs are located in close proximity towhere paid on-street parking is being implemented, basically on thestreet.RECOMMENDED RESIDENTI L PARKING PERM I aft

33-1758.00

We note the use of residential parking permits at me ters in a number of coastal cities includingseveral of the comparable cities noted earlier. To implement this policy,City residents would register their license p lates as special parking Figure 5: Sample Multispacepermits, entitling them to park in paid parking spaces without needing Meter MSM)to purchase time. In other words, such a policy would likely fit with the - parking enforcement regimen of pay by-plate MSMs and pay by-cell.To the extent that the California Coastal Commission CCC) must approve new pa rkingpolicies in the City, the creation of this policy of preferential parking permits could be subjectto scrutiny or challenge. However, as noted , there are other California coastal ci t ies that allowres idents to purchase parking permits for use at parking metered spaces.

ENFORCEMENTThe proposed system would be enforced via mobile license plate recognition LPR) with fullyintegrated multi space meter, pay-by-cell, permit and mobile LPR software systems. Walkertypically recommends system capab ilities and performance based specifications, no t systemproviders; however, a T2-based system brought to market in the last two years is one of veryfew installed systems that incorporates all these capabilities has been beta tested.

DR FT P RKING N LYSIS ND RECOMMEND TIONS W LKERPARKING CONSULTANTS


51/57

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAOCTOBER 28,2013 33 1 758.00contracted with T2 Systems to manage their paid parking and permit p rogram. LM Ucontracted Digital Payment Technologies for pay-by-pla te multi-space meters, ParkmobileUSA for pay-by-cellphone payments, and Genetec for mobile license p late recognition.LMU's system 'went live' in the fall of 2012 and while there were in itia lly a few glitches thesystem is reportedly working fairly well; the challenges reportedly have been occasiona l andnot insurmountable. LMU was an early adapter, and as such expected hiccups. The mostcomplex part of the integration is the mobile LPR interfacing successfully with the permit, multispace meter and pay-by-cell software. This is where most of the hicc ups have occurred.LMU uses handheld enforcement devises as a back-up solution if and when the mobile LPRinterface malfunctions.RE OMMENDED SYST M OSTPa rking kiosks (MSM} typically cost 9,000 to $12,000 per unit inc lud ing installation, withreplacement required approximately every eight years. Annua l expenses are likely to be1 ,000 annually per unit. Cities typically d e p I 5 Y \ ~ f - l . . per 10 on s treet spaces in order tolocate the machines proximate to where ~ ~ ~ - For an initial p ilot of 350 on-streetspaces, we project that approximately twenty to thirty five MSMs would be needed.Pay-by-cell (PbC} systems should be cost-neutral to the City, as the PbC vendors willimplement and adm inister the system in exchange for charging user fees to the end users(typically $0.35 per transaction) , which could be passed on to the parkers, included in theparking fees, or covered by the City. The City would be responsible for paying merchantcredit card fees.Mobile license plate recognition (LPR) systems cost approximately $50,000 includ ing softwareand hardware to equip one enforcement vehicle, including installation and training. T2 doesnot provide specific cost information to Walker, as there are too many variables in thesepreliminary design stages; however they typically include monthly fees and / or a portion ofpermit and citation revenue. The increased efficiency in pa rking enforcement and associatedincrease in citation revenue should allow the system to more than cover its costs.The purpose of the recommended system is to better manage the valuable asset tha t is theCity's parking system. However, despite the hardware and annual operations costs, based onthe level of parking demand observed in Carmel-by-the-Sea, the recommended paid parkingsystem would more than cover its capital and operating costs.


52/57


53/57

PPENDIX INVENTORY ND OCCUP NCY D T


54/57

268

DR FT P RKING N LYSIS AND RECOMMEND TIONSCARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

PROJECT NUMBER 33-1758.00Table A- 1: n-Stree t and ff-Street Parking Inventories

SotoCOilo tl

-_. ... ._I .. ~ ~ ~ I j J ~ q - J: : ;]

. ..... -__

~ ~ ~ 'OCTOBER 28 2013

A I

_


55/57

269

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS ND RECOMMEND TIONSCARMELBY THE SE APROJECT NUMBER 331758.00

Table A 2: Parking Occupancy Counts Weekdayl hun doy 11 J11l) 2 1311 ;00 AM

lhunda. , 11 July 201.) 2 00 M

W LKER'CONSU.Wf

OCTOB ER 28. 2013

A2


56/57

270

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONSCARMEL BYTHE SEA

PRO JECT NUMBER 331758.Table A 3: Parl:lng Occupancy Counts Weekend

rutOAY. 11 July 201J 11:00A M

SATUIIOA Y t July2 132:l0 M

S TUftOAY 11 Niy 20135:00PM

WALKERI MK.INC CONSUltANTS

OCTOBER 28. 20 13

A 3


57/57

271

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONSCARMEl-BY-THE-SEA

PROJECT NUMBER 33- 1758.00Tab le A- 4:OH-Sl reel Parking Occupancy

-- tel i . ~ N a l l l &A Vista LobosB Post O fficec Harrison Library Park BranchD Ci ty HallE Carmel Plaza

D

F Sunset Center North) M:lrketG Sunset Center (San Carlo s I Mdd le)H Sunset Center ( S o u t h w e s I J .I Su nset Center (Southeast)

TotalsSot~ . , ; ; ~ " J """'"rOt r l t e ~~ ecm c Cn Oct:upfe.d

33 25 42 32 5350 7 39 4 2286 22 100 18 8225 4 50 4 5070 67 63 37 3518 31 26 67 5665 29 94 30 9780 17 85 20 10079 27 82 33 10050 229 55 245 59

A-4

Discussion of parking analysis and provide direction 12-03-13.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Discussion of parking analysis and provide direction 12-03-13.pdf