The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutParking Study - Parking Requirements Review and Update Downt (2) �pNTiNGro a 2000 Main Street, ofi a �eF Huntington Beach,CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach ��F• coQa t/NTV File #: 23-468 MEETING DATE: 6/6/2023 Parking Study City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/31/2023 powered by LegistarTM 0 0 r) a) mow• ---1 emlls •"--. ,.< 0 (7Q * 0 (D llow S:) D c c....)._ —• 1 . v) = IFNI' CT) r-i- immi• C.J (1) = INJ CD — irn. 7) rD ar4 (-) h— (-I- ,r- ,v' * .., a) a) D D CI_ Cl_ 0:1 (-) C M (--t-' (D /// (-) 0 z% 0" v, c r ,x ,..>... .m ..,:a. (,) -. . . . . -, .. . , ,,-. ,..,,, .. ... P re s e n tat i o n Agenda 01 Study Purpose & Focus Areas 02 Citywide Findings , aa• ` ' 03 Industrial Area Findings a a ' _ ° ,r • 7 s � ,� F # v> a° *max, �• -,-!'•.!7.1..41410113f.ii!!:•'t.E!:-!4.•:•..:::.:.:,..... •••.•. f:-/l';'''' - --' '' ' -''' ' k 3 c• a,p, .,-f} a ►'r ter# . z. • < ,. Y rs 0 ,• _ . a _ Um Pp a h r c,...,..,,.. ... •„ 4„,„,,,, ,..,ietSC 1,r c µ v t ��R 4 s e:k L �' 5 o „fro �� _ x • , ..k 4 t • - *e .., y 40t. .,,,.,., ,ti,i'f ,,,,,..':,,,:,' , ir !..,N-N....;--- 7' ,,-7:: ...., 4 f.,,,....7.,' :-.,- ' \k - . - '` ti 4. Ir , � t-� e y . , u a d i- ,; ` STUDY PURPOSE • Address areas where parking related opportunities and concerns have been raised • Industrial Areas • Downtown l r..it • General assessment of the appropriateness of Citywide parking requirements . ` • Are parking requirements reasonable for parking needs? 3 . a • Is parking a hindrance to the type of flexibility needed for business to grow i_, and expand in the City and if so, how can that be addressed? MI ,. , , ,�¢< 3 { � � A IIIIWALKER CONSULTANTS DATA COLLECTION • Citywidebit ; M • Focused counts at samples of businesses deemed of interest (restaurant, medi-spa, k a , small retail centers) • Review of Citywide minimum off-street parking � @ 6 requirements compared to parking industry _ 4 � lei A standards • Industrial x wa R • Focused counts at select mixed-use -- (commercial/industrial) zoned locations • Opportunities to share parking for efficiency • Visual observation of industrial-zoned areas • Downtown • Summertime parking occupancy data collection on a weekday and a Saturday (July 2022) WALKER CONSULTANTS ' � ° - 14 tisf:• ea b °41'-• -+. ',+` ~._,, c` � tS . r ae* '' 1€ — M � c ;itr � , ..- IrAfir_e . � y , A a :I.,.....,. 1� a „ �!5. -.raw " �$ °*ram.a-✓F 3y r.�- — , e W ,,,. . ,..,,,,,...„0,,,iii ,,i. -,,,. / rem DETERMINING APPROPRIATE PARKING REQUIREMENTS • Transportation Needs • Economic Development Impacts • Accuracy vs. Simplification • Ease of Understanding and Administration • Parking as Public Space • Dedicated Parking vs. Shared Parking WALKER CONSULTANTS` � 7 CITYWIDE - OBSERVATIONS • Walker made observations and collected parking occupancy data at select: 9 Restaurants • Medi-spas 44prk • Retail shopping centers Office buildings • Restaurants had a wide range of needs, depending on the . . . specific restaurant and operating modus operandi. — • Medi-spas generated parking needs similar to medical offices. • Retail centers and mixed-use/office developments had ample - - well-functioning parking supply. WALKER CONSULTANTS s CITYWIDE - MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Land Use Code Requirement ULI Base Ratio Walker Recommendation Health Club 1 per 200 sq.ft. 1 space per 150 sq.ft. 1 space per 150 sq.ft. Class-Based Fitness Studios Not in Code N/A 1 space per 100 sq.ft. Retail sales not listed under another use classification 1 space per 200 sq,ft. 1 space per 250 sq.ft. 1 space per 250 sq.ft. Medical/Dental Offices 1 spaces per 175 square feet 1 space per 220 sq.ft. 1 space per 220 sq.ft. 1 space per 250 sq.ft.for offices under 100,000 sq.ft. 1 space per 250 square feet Varies between 1 space 1 space per 300 sq.ft.for office over 100,000 Office per 263 and 357 sq.ft. sq.ft. 1 space per 200 sq.ft., retail shopping center can include restaurants, Medi-spas,gyms, fitness studios,and personal services to occupy up to 40%of gross leasable area after which a parking study would be required to determine continued adequacy of the parking Retail Shopping Center(Large) Not in Code 1 space per 250 sq.ft. supply 1 space per 200 sq.ft., retail shopping center can include restaurants, Medi-spas,gyms, fitness studios,and personal services to occupy up to 40%of gross leasable area after which a parking study would be required to determine continued adequacy of the parking Retail Shopping Center(Small) Not in Code 1 space per 250 sq.ft. supply Medi-Spas Not in Code 1 space per 220 sq.ft. 1 space per 250 sq.ft. • 1 space per 200 sq.ft. if less than 12 seats Restaurants 1 space per 60 sq.ft.if more than 12 seats, but 1 space per 70 sq.ft. 7 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. 1 space per 100 sq ft.if on a site with 3 or more uses Hospitals 1 space per 250 square feet 1.5 spaces per bed As determined by Parking Study 03 Industrial ._ „,,. ...., ,,,•••_,„-„•_, ..,,,,, _,,,,..,__•,.. •.,- -• , . , _,--- -,•,- ,:•••:,,,. - .- ,,,,-•• ., ,,,,, ,,K,.. . '',..,--: = -,,,„f-•:.,....--2,-,-;:-,-,.,:„..---,-,- ,.-- . ,'....' • - ' • '-- 8 - .- 'L---• .,, '-‘. . ---",-;'-'.,...t:;.- '..-,-.'t,:i'-to.,„ ,.-.4.--:,-..-- -i '.-. , , ,.,, ,, ,,,..,. _ ..,=5.4,,,„..,,,-.),..,,,,,....,,,...„1A.t..•A'':71,'''i '':'; k 7.:7*.: di::;;... -- - I-,,,-, .,, ,! 110 .1.' .. .1 - ,* .,,..! Tks, • ;,.'‘ '. :,....:4...,:!.::. '4i71-4z...,;-.„-...::-',-:,--6• :!--•.--:--..,.-,-51i. . - -- 0,s 4,,,, ,nitl.i.c.: :).:',..,;-.7... -- ..., -:'4 ", ___ ' .,-...-' . ., ''''.---.;',:::.!'t-,.,..- i. t.i4Fr'',,,',';'(----' , '74- ,7 rillahwi 4 - - - 4•' -44- ''-' 7, , _, ,,,,,.4;,.,,,,,,,.1 4.•:_ ,,,,,4-: ' 4 — ...-- _ , .e.......„. -- t __...,— .t . .... . '-- ,-,..- ..--.7,0i....-• ' ' ___ . .,..........., , . _._._ .,,..,,.,...........,.... . ..::. . i Jt, - - --- '' -4.- ---,.,-.--- ... ----.- - ... INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT PARKING REQUIREMENT ISSUES • Parking issue is the requirement not the adequacy • City staff identified lack of clarity with the application of current e, 4 requirements in the City's Industrial Districts. • New businesses not contemplated in the code including breweries and distilleries, which also offer tasting rooms. • Non-industrial uses which seek out large buildings and ample parking • such as churches and activity centers for children • Current restrictions on businesses in front or back of (mixed-use) - u Industrial centers. •a • Navigating lack of claritytakes staff time and creates unknowns and g g delays for businesses wanting to open, particularly land uses not r included in the codes °-` • Except for a few concentrated areas of full parking lots and block faces, there is an abundance of available parking. .sue ',r✓3� i4.` .,. # _ S.'i�,ty. ,`., • Mixed-industrial center parking less than 50%full, parking demand under 2.0 spaces per thousand square feet observed. WALKER CONSULTANTS ...„ _ INDUSTRIAL - RECOMMENDATIONSg. .a. ti � �' ,,,,* , ,, ...,.,..., ,,, • Add a catch-all blended requirement that allows ,. for non-industrial potential uses interspersed withL traditional light industrial for land uses not ` .. � ' #40,,, litt ,�. .! - 414k. 4 already in the code . :, . • Allow submission of parking study in lieu of adhering to parking requirements. ,-u, . r • Eliminate additional parking requirements for xrt change of use in existing industrial areas. } ' �7, � it e 3 r WALKER CONSULTANTS ✓.= vJa'b".hra,n 4+x.+.'ae.+a e fi:L: i. -, .. ..,« ¢aae Rig.. _ ,..a.w .in$K*+,ed. e T,4t`., v=,x.. a,.+z.,,...,a,,, ,.>x._a.�..w,1:«d.•.: FINIIN .. ' ,,,,...',.':.';'i_14:".6",z'",,-,,,,,V4'4'.".„-.':',-:.:7,4",,,,,Ili4i.,,zi.-4<ii.,:ai,i-,°:•% .':":.,..tip..-'w.-',-,-.. ,, C pA .11 ..„,..,...,„,..„,„....,_... ..,...,,,.......„. ..,...„4„.„..:....,„„......„7....,„..„:„„:„.„,,,,,..4.„,,,..,..,„,....„.„. ... __,. .. . . . .. , ptiou. , .. . . ......a,,„,.....,...„,..„..,w..=:_„,...a„... .,.. . . ....._lc . ,,.,.. _ „ ......_. ir , . . .. ., .. . ....,.....,.,...1i*.i.,A4.41*:•14yie•-‘ 1 „,„I'f,,,:',,.„4.7,,o.,Aci,:'t,..r`,,,.,' 411■04110, . . ' , -:,,:7,1t.,:,::>,If-, ''-'---;:1-;.1;'75 1,-7.i.-..27,,t”•„ , _ .. , . ,, ' ''-''''.,, ENTRANCE . ... . , . . ‘.,----ii, SECTION 8' 2 . „. .:. .0-,.:,,,,,,..,. ,_ # 7:,..:?„-„,-„-2,1,4-, .._, .:.,- . .: . '' - ,..:,- • ', c€:' ..''. .., . , - I' Ai , Z'-'- , 4a.11111 ., - -_- ....-,......, I ' 1 - . . ,.-.1;',1 it • . , . :, ., ----- ( r-% . , • - ' , - - . , - ,-,. . ...e - •`. *-4-. , , , . . ... _.,_ - -,-- ,- - . ,.. . , ,-.„,...„. - ,,..,......,,,, .... . . . ' '- .,,....- ''.'1-;.,'.,,-,' ri. ' ' <, e ,' '. .." N''',:-'2''.-,1'.4 ' . • . •,,:-,,,or-:' 4.,,,w4 , . . .,..._ . <': -:'•-. Xr.,,..r_...L, r. • ,,,—..-•-.40 -' . - DOWNTOWN EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY (SPACES) ,., Study Area Publicly Other Parking °. ` , . , , .. , 4 ." \ ^ .., ., lif, �� m Public Spaces: Available Spaces: '' = �.�. .' .. Private Off- • , , '°,. ,. P' zIfl Street Spaces: 983 ; , ` e.,�w �.r $,� ; � ,, ' 1,331 rt , , ,ir � , ,,� Beach Lots 7 4 qIrk § r:._ � a 4'. -; i ♦ 4�". 1_ S+ T 1 7 +, 10 14 ICs 19� �> ' :�4' a 3 p _ ■gam ..4,..4ilio ,.-4..,;.-,....14, . . , . , s . *,,,,,,x 1 ,i Huntington Pacific " ,A -4 i s ►'�" W . r ; , „a �. ,, 11 15 17 - - 20� � s_ yy Surface Lots:95 t I Pacific City:9t43 .: s ; , _ i a Off-Street: 4e.. 12 18 "'"� 2 oaf i"3a 1,305 HB Arts Center:21 Other Private Off ' 1 3 ^x '* Street: 164 r a s ,�:,�,._ ^.,� � ]4tte�z;�[� � 24 25 6 ti 2 a, 28 ia' '.rx ' 8`-'.., 2 7.. �r di Off-Street parking inventory excludes resident parking except visible Huntington Pacific surface lots adjacent to PCH WALKER CONSULTANTSH. WEEKDAY PARKING ,.. L- 4. 1. Thursday 1 PM Peak ' r °.. OCCUPANCY -�s Parking UnliZatton , .. ° III 85%or greater • Peak demand: 70-84% i/ 50-60 ` '�' k 9 t I, 1:00 PM under 50% ''` '► r fi . r ', # No parking .e°�" ` lij " 1 3 i, ` .� • Beach Lots Full �'f 'Free' €'� m 6 . .4' .A% a - :sum '� ,igi ... "s • and core -. . .e, on-street full ' - ;-..,441-," - ,--- _ • On-Street — 81/ '0" �" • Public O/S — 51% `'Ir � .> x _ 8 12 1% 17 ` )0 • Public/Private " O/S — 58% �� • Private 0/S — 38% 1 • Beach Lots — 88% ro �i . 24 1'-25 '26 IT t 27 - - 28 2 L3rt `'m -`, • Overall— 64% '" ;� WALKER CONSULTANTS �. : ,_ WEEKEND PARKING • Saturday 4 PM Peak OCCUPANCY Partefl �. 85%ing ar greaterUni�zaon . t Ili • Peak demand: f Under 50% �. , t " fi " t r 4:00 PM No parking • Most parking full ma ` • On-Street — 100% • Public 0/S — 92% , Public/Private w Private 0/S — 53% { i 4 Y �,y> RP" � a�o 6• k 5 4 ' 12 i .,., , : .. , . • Beach Lots — 96% , �x • Overall — 92% �> , . p st 4".. 5 WALKER CONSULTANTS DEMAND OVER TIME - WEEKDAY 3000 70% 2500 60% 50% 2000 40% 1500 30% 1000 20% 500 10% 0 0% 10:00 AM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM Parking Demand Occupancy (%) WALKER CONSULTANTS 17 DEMAND OVER TIME - WEEKEND 4500 100% 4000 90% 3500 80 3000 70 60% 2500 50% 2000 40% 1500 30% 1000 20% 500 10% 0 0% 10:00 AM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM Parking Demand Occupancy (%) WALKER CONSULTANTS 1: DOWNTOWN - RECOMMENDATIONS • Consider further fine-tuning the demand-based parking prices currently employed in the downtown by: • Increasing hourly parking prices further at parking meters on summer weekends, and w r t t t weekends in general. Curb space is finite. Demand is high. 0 Q ® ';;` • Increasing parking prices at Main Promenade Parking Structure on summer weekends. 0 0 411) • Loweringparkingprices in Main Promenade ParkingStructure on weekdays in the offseason. Y • A nexus between demand and price is warranted and increases capacity. Do recent rate increases accomplish this? • Utilize revenues generated from rate increases to fund parking management. programs to increase the efficiency of the parking system on summer weekends. • Downtown Valet Program. Work with applicable stakeholders/jurisdictions to right- size the valet parking area in the beach lot that does not appear to be fully utilized for restaurant valet. Walker recognizes this may be out of the City's jurisdiction entirely. • Reconfigure In-Lieu Fee Program to increase Downtown access „ �. . WALKER CONSULTANTS 19 N EXT STE PS • Finalize recommendations with Parking Consultant • Outreach to interested stakeholders • Prepare and present Zone Text and Local Coastal Program Amendment to PC for recommendation • Return to City Council with action documents for Council review and approval WALKER CONSULTANTS ,...,.„,„,,,..., ,..* A."; 0 `' '.44,1-:,,,p..-.:mI.i.1 0* • • ' > :u t* - XI Cn x i * ••. '''':isti ,iggA440#0.441re*-4.-4 i f' '';,.., (,,D, .:''.,.• .'--.."" . m. • s • ,roc m ' . :1,..i:S.',.,,... -".1` .�` ' P � . -.. ; �. 4. e,... elg a. �, yid p r K` 'F.' ga._ d- Q ^,ra y a`+g. °T i n 6 Ll y , 4't- r -a rM,'. - .i. ° ,' ' y 4 � ; a- fir ' � .• d -¥ter f x' Switzer, Donna From: Cathy Edman <cathyedman@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 11:57 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Cc: jtillotson.pelican@gmail.com; Mike Adams Subject: H.B Council Meeting 6/6/23 (Agenda item 23-468) Mayor Strickland and members of the City Council, Plaza Almeria, located at 301 Main Street in downtown Huntington Beach, has a great deal of concern with the issue of parking in the downtown area. With the exception of a few days around the 4th of July and the U.S. Open of Surfing there is sufficient parking available for the public. A number of parking studies have been conducted in the past and all have concluded the same thing that the existing available parking supply is adequate for the downtown demand. We would very much like to continue to be involved with any future discussion on the downtown parking concerns. The City needs to continue to master plan the future growth and development of the downtown as a whole and not treat parking as an issue which is addressed on a project by project basis. Thank you, John Tillotson Plaza Almeria Owner 1