DTSP Parking Study
I attended the parking meeting held by the HBDRA last night. Thanks to the HBDRA for sponsoring the meeting. It had solid attendance and it was educational for residents’. It was disappointing that the officials on the panel had not prepared for the meeting by reading the parking study completed by Kimbely-Horn supporting the EIR associated with the recently adopted DTSP. The data presented in the parking study was relevant to the meeting.
Parking facilities are approximately 90% to 100% occupied on typical summer weekends….” Page 2 Par 3
Total downtown parking inventory is 2,703, including the Strand and the private parking lots not available to visitors. The parking inventory available to the general public is 1,927.
Another impact of a meter / permit program may be that it pushes parking demand further out into the neighborhood.” Page 50 par 6
Angela Rainsberger
[EIR Parking Study for the DTSP]
Categories: HB Neigbor Updates, Parking
city council, Downtown Huntington Beach, HBDRA, Kim Kramer, Parking, Police
I was not able to get off work to attend the meeting. What was the outcome? Is the city going to move forward with a parking permit plan?
Nancy
Most of the people in the meeting were AGAINST a permit parking plan. It was an ugly meeting. I thought I was going to be the only one against a permit plan. I was going to talk about my concerns for the cost to the tax payers, but I was never given a chance to talk. Kramer sure had a lot of time to talk. Kramer kept saying that the cost is less than $2 per month per car. But that is the fee charged per car, not the COST. All of HB will end up paying for this program, so all of HB should make sure the costs are known.
After hearing that Dwyer and Carchio didn’t know the available parking capacity downtown to absorbe the cars displaced by a permit parking plan, I should not have been surprised that they didn’t know the cost to the tax payers either. This is just another excuse to expand local government. In times that we are cutting costs it is irresponsible to even consider such a program. Shame on these republicans! What happened to smaller government? What happened to fiscal conservatism? I will not be voting for them again. Shame on me for voting for them the first time!
The plan will only move forward if 75% of the residents agree. I called the city yesterday and was told that no plan had been initiated. 2 years ago when the parking study, noted above, was completed, at most there were 10% or 190 parking places available between 9 pm and 10 pm on a typical summer weekend night. So a parking permit program is not a solution in my book. Less bars and a higher parking ratio for new development is the solution.
Wake up city council. Fix it the problem, don’t just move the problem.
Frank
As I sat and listened to Chief Small and the ill prepared council try explain what solutions they had for the parking problem I was struck by the irony of the location.
In 2005-2006 when the Strand EIR was under consideration the environmental board, which was appointed by the Council, felt the EIR was inadequate. One quote by Frank Caponi, a member of the environmental board, said “I believe the entire basis for the traffic analysis is flawed. The baseline peak hour analysis was weekday, instead of weekends when the greatest level of traffic is found in this area.”
The Strand removed 231 surface street spaces from the area as was pointed out by Bob Bolen, a local realtor and surfboard maker, at one of the meeting about the project. These spaces were used in the evening by many of the “drunks” at the time. This is a forgotten result of another inadequate EIR that was pushed through by the reining city council at the time.
Maybe if the planning department and the city council would review pass mistakes they might make better decision in the future.
Clem Dominguez – hbclem.com
Yes permit parking is a mixed bag. I think all the residents would agree that we need downtown patrons (bar patrons) parking in the city parking and not in the neighborhoods. Permit parking could help this, but it could also push the problems (drunks) further into the neighborhoods where permit parking is not enforced. We have parking problems now and they need to be sorted out before downtown is allowed to dramatically expand.
Seems like there are lots of issues to sort out…
1. There is a lack of parking currently in the Downtown. The DTSP parking study showed that for sure is true. The only way to solve this problem is to add capacity. The only way to do that would be to build additional structures. The obvious problem is where to build them. The best possible scenario now would be to pay future developments to add parking above their required amount to add to the current deficit.
2. Permit parking in the residential zone will likely help to control the bar goers who choose free street parking over paid parking. It will also push the employees somewhere else. Without additional capacity in the Downtown, the permits will only shift the problem, unless the net effect is a decrease in business in downtown.
3. Multiple structure owners, with varying validation policies make it nearly impossible for people to know how much it might cost to park Downtown. It is my firm belief that one of the reasons that movie theatre at Pierside Pavillion ended up failing was the fact that they did not validate the cost of parking for a full movie… which meant that I could go to a movie lot of places with free parking… or I could go Downtown and pay a couple of bucks after the movie for parking… and that was with the validation. Economic Development and the BID should be working with all the garage owners to have a unified pricing & validation structure.
Downtown is a complicated area that deserves a lot of care and attention. It needs council people who will invest the time needed to understand the issues and write plans for the future that can accommodate all the desired uses, while maintaing the highest possible quality of life for the many residents in the area. Our current councils with their push for density and mixed use have completely lost sight of the reality of Downtown. We need to control density, build additional parking and provide more neighborhood services. Hopefully those who agree with me will vote for me in the November so that I can work hard to bring this vision to Downtown and the rest of Huntington Beach!
Dear Blair,
Would better signs directing visitors off the streets and into the structures improve the % usage of the structures? There is at least one blue surfboard sign on 6th street pointing people towards downtown parking. I realize this might be a minor impact, but every little bit helps. Most visitors do not know that there are several different pay structures downtown. If the city structure is full, most visitors revert to looking for street parking. With additional education they may park in the other underutilized structures.
A man spoke at the parking meeting about his frustration in dealing with the city to find a solution to the parking on 6th street. He explained that 6th street is not eligible for a resident permit parking program because it rests within the “coastal zone” and thus governed by a different set of rules. If residents on 6th street are being heavily impacted by the parking short fall, why hasn’t the city petitioned the California Coastal Commission to approve adding meters, instead of burdening the residents with this costly process? Also, should it be the responsibility of the residents on 6th street to pay for the installation of the meters? After all, the residents are not going to collect the parking meter revenue and they did not create the parking short fall.
Several years ago there was a neighborhood petition circulated, unrelated to parking, but similar in that it impacted property rights and property values with a voluntary building standard. I met with the city attorney and reviewed the city code with her. The city attorney clarified; in that case, only land owners had the right to vote and their vote was weighed by the ratio of sq/ft owned within the affected area. She clarified that the residents did not have the authority to vote on adopting such a proposal. Prior to my meeting with the city attorney, this point had been incorrectly presented at the city council meetings, planning commission meetings and by planning staff answering inquiries at the counter. Has anyone reviewed the city code and verified that the residents have the right to vote to adopt a voluntary permit parking program? It would be very disappointing to residents, if they collected the 75% of residents’ signatures to initiate a permit parking program, only to find out that they collected the wrong signatures on the initiation paperwork. Blair with your knowledge and access to information can you cite the code section that addresses this point?
Angela
Additional signage would help. Smart signage that could read the capacities in the structures and then direct to other garages would be even better! Valet programs are discussed in the current DTSP which would potentially increase some capacity in the garages as well. Also having a comprehensive plan for pricing and validation would make good sense. As it is right now when you go Downtown ever structure pricing is different and validations too.
Parking problems along 6th Street are not unsolvable! The City can pass any kind of plan it would like and then make its case to the Costal Commission who does hold the final say on the street since it does fall within the “Coastal Zone” If the City puts in meters they should pay the cost, and the should shoulder the burden of getting a plan approved. Perhaps it should have even been a required mitigation in the EIR.
As to the code… HB Municipal Code 10.42.030 (a) (1) reads in part… “Upon receipt and verification of the petition signed by persons owning or occupying dwelling units comprising not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the developed frontage of the street proposed for designation, the Director shall undertake such surveys or studies as are deemed necessary to determine whether a street should be designated as a residential parking district.”
It would seem that the petition is meant to query residents and not property owners. Honestly a legal opinion could go either way I am sure, but I would read this to mean that it is residents and dwelling units and not property owners and properties. In and of itself this could pose an interesting legal position for the City if they approve a zone with the vote of the residents of a multi unit dwelling over the objection of the property owner. Hopefully the City Attorney will weigh in on this before any voting takes place.
I did not get a chance to make it to the meeting but has anyone thought about building a structure where the old Mandic Motors was?
I have heard this suggested from a number of people. It is my impression that the City would have to purchase the land and pay to develop it.
This is what “parking in lieu” fees are intended for. Basically, the City collects “in lieu” fees from properties that don’t have sufficient parking to support their use. For example, if a retaurant owner bought a lot that only had two parking spots, but the restaurant had occupancy of 50, they would still be allowed to operate, but would have to pay the City for the parking deficiency (in lieu fees). These “in lieu” fees are saved and supposed to go toward developing more parking. The big problem is that the fee’s collected for a space are not close to paying to build a new space. It seems like it is the City’s responsibility to manage an “in lieu” program that is capable of actually acquiring more property and building more parking.
All that said, this would help with some of the parking deficiencies, however I still think we’d have visitors parking in the neighborhoods because;
a) They want free parking (who doesn’t)
b) They want to be as far away from the Police when they get in their car’s at the end of the night and drive drunk and or they want to sit in their cars and drink.
I bet some of the Planning Commissioners who are running for city council could provide more color on this.
The shared parking concept that has been in effect in downtown has operated with a parking deficiency for many years, but un-leased space has balanced this deficit. For instance the movie theatres have been closed for years and thus have generated no parking need. As the offices and futures used come on line that parking will again be needed. The deficit will again begin to be felt in that structure.
In Lieu fees have been a tool used to allow businesses to expand. Not enough thought has been given to how parking paid for would ever be provided. The City does not own enough land and is not able to consolidate enough land to build structures. Under the new DTSP there is a requirement for each project to provide enough parking, but even so there will likely always be a deficit. And when something like a Tuesday Surf City Night happens and all the parking on Main is blocked out… again, it creates problems.
So what is the answer? Lower density, more parking in future projects and using remote parking and shuttles.
It seems there are a few areas to address. First, if occupancy with the current number of businesses exceeds the current available parking, why is the City looking to expand the number of businesses in Downtown prior to having the parking problem solved?
Second, if it is a simple desire to reduce excessive debt created by our City leaders,there are definately other ways to reduce the debt rather than pretending they will increase revenue to do so.
Third, if Permit Parking is the best solution for the surrounding homes, why should the residents bear any burden of cost? Doesn’t each home already pay taxes? Why shouldn’t each home receive “free” parking passes. 2 per home plus one guest. Then perhaps a nominal fee if a homeowner desires an additional permit.
Fourth, has any of our City leaders asked any of the residents in the Downtown area if they want to double the amount of liquor licenses and / or dramatically increase the commercial presence in Downtown? For that matter, has the City asked any of the residents of HB in they want an increase the commercial presence in Downtown?
This problem seems to be more than just Downtown parking, the problem seems to be with our City leadership and the direction of our city. This not only includes our current City Council, but Fred Wilson and his management staff as well.
I agree with most of Blair’s analysis. He’s got most of the parking equation right.
I personally think that permit parking would help alleviate the problems downtown, and further, I don’t think we should charge for the permits.
Fountain Valley does not charge for their permit parking system. I would like to see the numbers, because I believe the parking tickets resulting from this program would pay for it. There’s no reason to charge $80 to give someone a piece of paper and enter their address into a computer. And then $30 every year after.
A parking permit system will result in some parking further out, but I believe the net effect would be to also drive some people into the parking garages and to the beach to park. The more neighborhoods adopt the plan, the more effective it would be. But it’s got to be free for residents.
We can no longer give new businesses downtown a pass on having an adequate number of parking spaces…and there’s no easily identified place for more parking garages. The answer is parking elsewhere and finding other ways to get people downtown besides cars.
More neighborhood services are needed to prevent more downtown car trips.
We could even make some streets bike only…I know, a radical concept, but what if we allowed people to park at City Hall or HBHS and then allowed them to rent bikes down 17th street, which could be made a bike only street….there are a lot of schools there so it would make it safer for kids too.
You may not agree with that idea, but it’s those kind of out-of-the-box ideas we need, if we’re going to solve our intractable parking problems downtown.
I am actually surprised that more people have not commented on the cost of the parking permits. Even in this tight budget time, there is no reason to ask people to pay for these. The initial setup cost should be paid by the Redevelopment Agency since this whole parking plan is needed really as a mitigation for the headaches caused by the businesses in the redevelopment area. This is not a general fund cost, though.
Once in place I believe that the revenue from the parking tickets should be more than enough to sustain the parking control and ongoing program costs.
Off the top of my head these are the costs/revenue I think we need to consider.
ONETIME COSTS OF IMPLEMENTATION:
* Cost of signs – printing signs, poles & cement
* Installation of signs – replacing grass and landscaping with cement as needed
* Cost of notification to residents
* Cost to have the California Coastal Commission bless the plan if it impacts beach access
* Cost to establish program documentation at the city
* City staff time to training, manage and implement the new program
* City staff time for IT to establish process / rules for issuing and processing permits
ONGING REVENUE SOURCES:
* Parking tickets revenue for tickets issued after 10 pm –will decrease as the visitors become compliant
* Parking permit revenue collected from each resident
* Parking structure revenue – at most 10% increase as they are at 90% to 100% capacity on a typical summer weekend
ONGOING COSTS:
* City personnel time to process permit forms, receive payments, answer resident’s questions and resolve disputes
* Police time to patrol area, monitor cars for violations and issue tickets
* Police time to patrol the neighborhoods on the outskirts of the permit parking area, where the drunks will park to avoid the structure
* Maintaining and replacing damaged signs as needed
The argument that the city staff already work for the city, so the costs are not relevant, is a fallacy. If resources are shifted to this program the costs are still relevant, as the staff would otherwise be performing other functions.
When we consider the cost of staff there is a system of overhead and support services within the city that is incrementally expanded to cover the increase in staff hours. It’s not just wages. If we add up the true costs we need to include: IT services, HR services, benefits, long-term pensions, cost of facilities, computer, furniture, telephone, employer payroll taxes & software licensing costs.
Being a cost accountant, my training and experience have taught me that the bigger the organization the more hidden incremental costs for each program. Let’s make sure that we have a solid understanding of the costs at the tax payer’s level and that the program is comprehensive enough so that we do not just push the problem around from one neighborhood to another.
The residents are not the cause of this problem but they are going to end up paying for it. The businesses are yielding profits from the visitors, but the businesses didn’t cause the shortage in parking either. The shortage was caused by developments with less than adequate parking requirements. Who is profiting from these developments?
Once again our city council has been successfully lobbied by developers to reduce the parking requirements under the new DTSP. Ironically two of the city council members that voted to adopt the lesser parking requirement, were on the panel at the parking meeting last week, to offer solutions to this growing problem.
Angela
The problem is with the number taverns more than the parking. If we give the patrons more parking then we will end up with more bars. Why don’t we give them less parking and smother out some of the kiddie bars. Let’s make a point and all park our cars overnight in the structures on Saint Patrick’s day and then walk home. I would like to be proud of my downtown and feel it is safe to walk down to Longboard’s for a drink after dark. Norm Newland
I have an idea – I will volunteer to contract with the city. I will start a company to handle downtown permit parking, pay for the signage and implementation, hire and staff the enforcement team and I will collect the citation fees. With no cost to the residents, I bet I could retire in a year or two…
From many of the posts on HBNEIGHBORS, HBDRA and past council comments there seems to be a consensus that the in-lieu fees charged for parking is not working. It’s not working because the city won’t or can’t find property on which to put parking on.
So what do we do and how do we do it. Do we cancel the program, if so how. Do we modify it, if so how. Or do we just do nothing and let the problem get even worst. And what do we do with all the money in the in-lieu account? Maybe we can use it for the downtown parking permit program since the in-lieu fee program is partly responsible for creating the problem in the first place.
It will be interesting to see what ideas are out there, especially from the Council candidates.
The In-Lieu program is not bad in and of itself. It just needs to be able to provide the service that the In-Lieu payment is received for. If the City has no prospect for construction of parking in the Downtown, then it needs to suspend the program in the DTSP area.
Here is why the current Council would never do that. The In-Lieu spots are actually a bargaining chip used in negotiations. The City will often allow an In-Lieu fee to be paid, but not collect it all at once. They will often allow it to be paid over a number of years. They do this right now since for the most part they know it will never go toward anything.
To truly make the program function, the money should be held on an area by area basis and have a requirement that the money be spent within a limited period of time from being paid. And the money should be paid before the Certificate of Occupancy is granted. That way In-Lieu money paid in Downtown would stay in Downtown and the money would come in around the same time as the cars the business would generate. If the money cannot be expended within the time period then the City should no accept In-Lieu payments.
Joe Carchio, I know you are running again, but please if you are reading…….. please do not offer any solutions. I have limited time on this planet. If I hear you say “It’s only a temporary fix, we can go back and change it later” again, I may take my own life. I’m done with temporary fixes. We need a well thought out long term plan. Norm
Good suggestion.
Something has to be done for the number street residents, permit parking with marked spots is the correct path. I am tired of damage to family and friends cars as non-residents cram their cars into spots they don’t belong in. I am tired of the trash & diapers dumped in our streets and alleys. I am tired of urination, defecation and fornication by the drunks walking to their cars at 2am distrubing the peace as they yell into their cell phones. I have young children that have experienced sleeping drunks in our alleys, used condoms in our planters, cuts from broken beer and booze bottles. I don’t want my tax dollars wasted removing “tagging” on our homes, walls and sidewalks. If permit parking is covered on all numbered streets and far enough up Main to support a certain range of non-number streets, the walking distance will be just to far for these idiots.
Hi Kirk, There was a parking study done that illustrates where people park on a typical weekend night, on the hour, each hour. I’ll post the image of this study this morning so people will not need to hunt for it. A plan to get 75% of the residents to participate in the program will require an army of volunteers to organize. Another option is to have the city institute the parking plan without the participation requirements. This is one of our goals. Angela
Unfortunately there is no “silver bullet” solution to the downtown parking. I believe the new parking strategies should focus on reducing parking congestion during the summer, major events, and some non-summer weekends.
Section 5.6.3. of the recently approved Downtown Specific Plan has some ideas worth exploring. For instance, a well designed permit system in residential areas can prevent parking encroachment by visitors in residential neighborhoods during the summer (such a system must be well designed to address concerns I raised about permits in the Planning Commission meeting). Shuttle access from remote parking lots can reduce parking demands during major events (H.B. Surfing Open) and hot summer weekends. Some underutilized parking lots and parcels in the downtown can be used for visitor parking on a pay basis on evenings and weekends. Having downtown employees park in underutilized parking garages (like Plaza Almeria) or the aforementioned parcels can reduce parking congestion on streets around the downtown. Once constructed, the 1776 parking spaces in Pacific City can help alleviate the downtown parking problem, particularly if there is a good shuttle service between the downtown and Pacific City.
Much of the traffic congestion on Main Street is caused by people searching for parking or backing out of parking spaces on Main Street. I know the downtown businesses have opposed this, but we need to rethink having parking on Main Street south of Orange. Most visitors already walk some distance to get to a business on Main because the chances of securing a parking space is very small even during the off-season. Getting visitors to park in parking garages, beach parking lots (except during the summer), and remote lots serviced by shuttles instead of on Main Street can do much to reduce the congestion on that street.
John – yes all great points. A few comments;
While I agree that cars searching for parking on Main is a problem, I see the larger problem is that Main Street is a destination for “cruisers”. I spend a great deal of time on Main and the pier plaza area. Most of the drivers; old, young, male and female of hot rods, rice rockets, harley’s, tuners, etc. visit to be seen/noticed and make noise. Anyone who visits downtown on a regular basis knows you can’t find parking on Main and to avoid it. Most of those who use it don’t intend on parking there.
One fear (of many associated with the DTSP) is that this problem of noise and traffic will extend onto 5th, 6th, 3rd, etc. The EIR does not analyze any of the REAL noise problems (ear piercing 110 db harley’s and raced out supper cars without mufflers, etc.) that will absolutely extend beyond Main.
Remote parking as suggested in the DTSP could help with major events – but the people who live in the area’s where the remote parking lots were proposed should have been notified of the EIR and DTSP – they were not.