The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRDA OLD TOWN PKG 04-20-81DATE: April 20, 1981 4-20-81 Inter-Corn REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY No. 5 TO: Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members FP, OM: Community Development Department SUBJFCT: Old Town Parking Study DISCUSSION The enclosed Old Town Parking Study was origianlly submitted to the Planning Agency at the February 17, 1981 meeting. The matter was referred for review to the April 20, 1981 meeting of the Redevelopment Agency. The report specifically identified four locations for purchase or lease as municipal parking facilities. Each property was given a priority for acquisition, based on the adjacent in- tensity of land use, availability of on-site parking, and a real parking shortage in the area. The number one location was 445 "C" Street, the screen door factory owned by Ms. Magdich. The report indicated that Gfel!er Corporatibn was negotiating with Ms. Magdich to purchase the property for development. Gfeller Corporation has com- pleted an agreement to purchase the property, and will be usi2±zing the s±te as parking for an adjacent proposed development. -~3 n~ ~a~un negotiations with Gfeller Corporation to _= ..... ment of municipally owned parking in addition tc the required ~arking spaces of the Gfeller development. The n~r~er two location was the Tustin School District property, an excellent location to supplement the sub-standard on-site parking facilities in this area. By law, the Redevelopment Agency cannot acquire real property owned by a public body without the consent of such public bodies. The Redevelopment Agency can, though, authorize to pay for any improvements for any public body where those improvements will benefit the pro- ject area. The Redevelopment Agency can enter into a contract, lease, or agreement to facilitate these improvements, and the debt of the Agency is payable out of tax increment funds. Utilizing those measures, the Agency could conceivably lease the property from the School District, and improve the property to provide at-grade municipal parking facilities. In order to amortize the cost to improve the site, the terms of the lease could continue for several years. At the termination of the lease, the Agency could have the option of renewing the lease, Old Town Parking Study April 20, 1981 Page 2 have the city purchase the property, or have the school district exchange this site for another of equal value. The improve- ments to the property, or subsequent purchase would not increase or decrease tax-increment fund generation since the site already enjoys a tax-exempt status as the school district's property. The other two sites (Mitchell property 160-190S. Prospect, and the Utt-Juice site) are not recommended for acquisition at this time. The need to supply on-site parking in these areas is not as great as the cost of acquisition and development. Acquiring the properties would remove them from the tax rolls, reducing the tax increment funds generated. In addition, the Agency would be required to compensate the School District and any other taxing agencies whose tax benefit would be lost by having the property as a tax exempt status. RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the agency direct the staff as follows: 1) Proceed on a priority basis with proposed for participation and development of the Gfeller parking site at 445 "c" Street. 2) Contact the School District Administration to determine interest and feasibility of leased parking facilities. 3) Table consideration of other property considerations until nee~s and feasibility are more evident. DATE: - TO: FROR: SUBJECT: February 16, 1981 Inter - C om Honorable Mayor and Planning Agency Community Development Department Old Town Tustin Parking Study BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Pursuant to a request from the Planning Agency, this report examines on-site parking availability in the Tustin Old Town area and possible solutions to increase parking spaces. The figures in this report are for on-site parking only, no consideration is given for on-street parking. In the late 60's and early 70's, the Old Town area was in basic need of revitalization. As an incentive to encourage new development, the Planning Agency considered variances from the zoning ordinance permitting less parking spaces than required by use. The basic reasoning was that since the area was generating so little traffic, there would be adequate o~-site and on-street parking to accomodate all the uses in the area. On this basis, several variances were granted. By 1971, it became apparent that the variance requests would continue and available parking in the area would become scarce. Therefore, as a portion of the Specific Plan Ordinance No. 510, a parking district was incorporate~ into the downtown plan. All or a portion of the required ~,~n~er cf parking spaces may be waived by depositing with the ~i:y a desi~na:ed amount of cash per parking space not provided. %hese mcnie~ cc!!ected would be utilized for public parking ~omo~a~ions within the area. According to records supplied by the Finance Department, as of 1981, $!7,374 has been payed into the parking fund. This translates to approximately twenty-nine parking spaces. The majority of these spaces belong to 220 E1Camino Real, (31 on the map), adjacent to the office building at 250 E1Camino Real (30). This project waived its entire requirement of twenty-six spaces for retail use, for a total of $15,184. The owner is currently requesting a refund for half of these twenty-six parking spaces, contending that retail shops will never be a viable use for the building and thirteen spaces are adequate for an office use in the building. Both 220 and 250 E1Camino Real are owned by the same company, and the existing parking lot serving 250 E1Camino is adequate enough to provide for an office use at 220 E1Camino. Tustin Parking Study February 16, 1981 Page -2- In analyzing current on-site parking for the downtown, the following methodology was used. The specific plan area from Sixth Street to First Street and "C" Street to Prospect Avenue was divided into four zones. A common concern has been that there is sufficient on-site parking, but it is unevenly distributed in the area. By utilizing the four zones, potential parking surplus or shortages can be determined within a specific block, and areas where the greatest shortages exist can be isolated. Each property within the specific plan area was examined. The square footage, available on-site parking and use was tabulated. This information was compared to the zoning ordinance requirements for on-site parking, with a hypothetical shortage or surplus ascertained. The results of the study is shown on the four charts enclosed. An on-site inspection was performed at several times during business hours on consecutive days to determine the availability of parking i the downtown. Combining the data from the charts and these inspections, the following determinations of parking by zones can be drawn. ZONE I Parking shortages exist for the uses along Main and "C" Streets (7). Employees for the screen door factory (8) on "C" Street park on the street. The auto repair shop has no on-site park- ing (10). Some lots have surplus spaces (5), with' a dumpster utilizing pne space. %nere is adequate on-site parking for each use, with dumpsters utilizing two spaces and a permanently parked trailer in another space. ZONE 2 A. Some retail users are short of the required spaces, (29, 22, 23, 24) but an on-site inspection reveals no parking shortage. One dumpster in a parking space. B. Parking lot behind Utt Juice(18) is underutilized, with an average of three cars parked in a 21 space lot. Parking behind Chamber building (21) is not easily accessible and short of required spaces. ZONE 3 A. Eighty-one space parking lot serves the entire block, even though it was designed for only the office building (30). It is usually full with some on-street parking. Tustin Parking Study February 16, 1981 Page -3- Blacksmith and Ballet studio have no parking, and Tustin Meat is substandard. The retail shop~ (31) adjacemt to the office building waived all of their required spaces by paying into the parking district. With the exception of the Assistance League (38) on the corner of Prospect Avenue and Second Street, no retail use has any available parking. In spite of this, there appears to be no major on-street parking or crowded conditions. ZONE 4 A. Most uses provide adequate parking with the exception of antique shop (57) on the corner of E1Camino Real and Second Street. Some lots are not easily accessible. B. Most uses provide adequate parking or have surplus. Some parking lots are not striped or improved. Basically, under present conditions, there are only some spot shortages of on-site parking with some surplus situations. Conceivably through, if business conditions did improve, shortages could appear. There are some short term and long term solutions to improve the parking situation. Short term solutions include: Utilize storage areas behind uses in zone 3(b) (39, 40, 41, ~'i~.~ fzr ~rkzng.~ Improve alley for access. Demolish sub- s:ani~rg apartments on Second Street behind Ruby's for parking. This should provide adequate parking. 2. Improve and strip substandard parking lots along E1Camlno Real in zone 4(b). 3. Improve alley behind Chamber building (21) to allow easy access to parking in rear. 4. Provide signage to direct people to rear parking lots. 5. Antique shop on the corner of E1Camino Real and Second Street could improve adjacent lot for on-site parking. 6. These five short-term solutions could result in an additional 45-50 parking spaces. Long term solutions basically involve the city with purchasing or leasing land, or developing agreements with potential developers to provide additional parking above the required for new development. The city would then lease these spaces for public parking. Tustin Parking Study February 16, 1981 Page -4- The areas where the most critical shortages occur with no short-term or quick solutions are along Main Street near the corner of "C" Street, and zone 3(a). In order to provide adequate on-site public parking in these areas, the city will have to look to other sites. In the Main Street and "C" Street area, 445 "C" Street, the screen door factory, is a suitable location. The owner, a Ms. Magdich, is currently negotiating with Gfeller Corporation for the development of office buildings. These negotiations are still in the preliminary stage with several factors still unresolved, but nevertheless, this site represents a perfect location to excercise an agreement with developers to provide additional parking and lease it to the city. This could be public parking to serve the shops and restaurants along Main Steet. Staff recommends the Magdich property as the number one location to pursue for public parking. The Tustin School District property represents an excellent location for public parking. It could provide parking for existing developments in zone 3(a), and parking for any new developments that may occur along "C" Street. Additionally, it could provide parking for Peppertree Park. Staff recommends the Tustin School District Property as the number two location for public parking. The Mitchell property 160-190 So. Prospect,could conceivably be ~_~zed for public parking in the future. This area of the downtown ~es not suffer from parking shortages and the short-term solutions m?~ber 1 and 2 shcu!d provide additional parking. Staff recommends ~xe Mitchell ?rpperty as the number three location to pursue for =ublic ~: - The Utt Juice property on the corner of Prospect and Main Street could provide addi=io~al public parking in the future. The area has surplus parking at :his time, mainly due to underuse or vacancies. New developmen~ in this area could provide surplus parking to serve the Chamber building and shops on Main Street. Staff recommends the UTT Juice property as the number four location to pursue. EK/hn Attachments MAIN STREET 'ZONE 1 I IN~~ ~ A407~.- ~;~/~ 7/,~... EL CAMINO REAL DESIGN STUDY WALLACE McHARG ROBERTS & TODD and ALFRED J, GOBAR and CO., INC. Consultants to the City ZONE 1 ADDRESS USE SQ. FOOTAGE 1. 500 ELCamino Real Retail 17,600 2. 460 ELCamino Real SFD 3. 450 ELCamino Real SFD 4. 440 ElCamino Real Retail 945 5. 420-43 " " 6. 110 Main Street 7. 158-138 Main St. 8. 435 "C" Street 9. 505 "C" Street 10. 560 ELCamino Real 11. 555 "C" Street ~. 445 E1Camino Real 13. 405 E1Camino Real 14. 160 Main Street 15. 170 Main S:reet 16. 180 Main $:reet -- 17. 275 EiCaminp Real Office 3,800 Office 5,400 Rest. 3,950/82 seats Office 4,525 Retail 1,300 Indust 1,600 Indust 17,800 Vacant Auto/ Repair 4,150 SFD Office/' 6,692 Retail[ Office! 9,100 Retail Indus< 3,200 Rest. 2,000 Office~ 16,500 Vacan:~ # of PRKNG # of PRKNG SPACES SPACES REQ.'D 98 88 +10 6 5 + 1 19 13 + 6 18 18 0 7 27 -20 0 15 -15 0 6 -6 0 2 - 2 2 17 -15 0 14 -14 22 22 0 44 44 0 3 3 0 16 16 0 64 55 + 9 COMMENTS Parking in adjacent Lot. Parking lot is under- utilized. Compact tandem parking. Employees park on street, ZONE 2 USE SQ. FOOTAGE ADDRESS # of PRKNG # of PRKNG SPACES SPACES REQ.'D COMMENTS 18. 193 Main Street Retail/ office 9,300 19.Corner of Prospect Wrhse and Third 14,950 22 25 -3 0 0 0 Underutilized, average of their cars in lot. No need for parking. 20. 301E1Camino Real Retail 6,500 29 32 -36 21. 395 E1Camino Real Office/' Retail 11,850 22. 115 Main Street Retail 2,500 23. 125 Main Street Retail 3,400 24. 135 Main Street Indust 5,200 _25. 335 "C" Street Office 1,722 .6. 325 "C" Street Retail 1,754 27. 315 "C" Street SFD 28. 305 "C" Street SFD 29. 300 E1Camino Real Bank 6,576 29a.330 E1Cami~o Real Retail 3,300 11 37 6 12 8 8 0 5 11 7 4 6 i1 7 -26 Vacant uses, no park- ing problems. - 6 Trash can in one space 0 -5 -2 21 ' -10 16 -9 ZONE 3 ADDRESS USE SQ. FOOTAGE 30. 250 ELCamino Real Office 24,310 31. 220 ElCamino Real Office/ Retail[ 6,000 32. 200 E1Camino Real Indust/ Retail 7,900 33. 245 "C" Street Indust 2,750 34. 155 Third Street dance studio 3,360 35. 245 E1Camino Real Vacant 36. 240 Prospect St. SFD 37. 230 Prospect St. SFD 38. 160 Second St. Office/ Retail 4,821 39. 235 ElCamino Real 1,900 '~. 225 ELCmmino Real Retail 2,000 ,~. 215 EiCamino Real Retail 2,000 42. 205 E1Camino Real rest/ 1,100/48 apts. seats, 2,000apts. # of PRKNG # of PRKNG SPACES SPACES REQ.'D 90 81 0 2O 5 15 0 3 0 lO 6 0 +9 -20 -10 - 3 -10 + 6 19 19 0 0 10 -10 0 I0 -10 0 10 -10 3 16 -13 COMMENTS Vacant -- ZONg 4 USE SQ. - FOOTAGE _ ADDRESS 43. 190 Prospect 44. 180 Prospect 45. 170 Prospect 46. 160 Prospect 47. 140 Prospect 48. 130 Prospect 49. 110 Prospect 50. 105 ElCamino Real 51, 125 ElCamino Real 52. 145 E1Camino Real 53. 155 E1Camino Real 54. 165 E1Camino Real 55. 175 E1Camino Real 56. 195 E1Camino Real 57. 190 EICamino Real 58. 180 E1Camino Real 59. 170 E1Camino Real 60. 150 EICamino Real 61. 140 E1Camino Real 62. 130 E1Camino Real 63. 100 First Street 64. 140 First Street 65. 175 "C*~ ~reet 66. 185 "C" Snreet 67. 195 "C~ 3~reet # of PRKNG f~ of PRKNG SPACES SPACES REQo'D SFD SFD SFD SFD Office 3,018 11 11 0 TVshop 1,000 3 3 0 War Memorl 3,000 27 10 +17 Rest. 1,530/30 seats 23 10 +13 SFD Bar 1,300 12 8 + 4 Retail 2,200 0 11 -11 Vacant 0 6 0 + 6 TVshop 1,950 2 4 -2 Office/ Retail 1,500 4 6 -2 Retail 2,100 2 10 -8 SFD SFD Vacant Retail 1,200 6 6 0 Office 3,200 6 10 -4 Retail! 6,000 25 30 -5 Motel 43 rooms 39 39 0 SFD SFD SFD COMMENTS Not striped. Fast food. 0 ~0 ~ o cD I ;-" I 1 I