Look at the major flaws in parking section of the VSP (Prop J)
1. Claim of 200-plus additional public parking spaces in public lots or structures, when the only discussion is of a future 200-space parking structure at the City Hall site, which will be the amount of parking spaces required for the City Hall and any other development on that site.
2. Claim of additional capacity on CDM, where the plan chart indicates 30 public spaces, which is the number required for only approximately 9,000 of the proposed 220,000 sq. ft. new construction.
3. Claim of a “Park-Once” strategy that claims more “public” parking spaces by calling 773 existing “private” spaces as “public,” without creating one new “public” parking space.
4. Claim that a “Park-Once” strategy promotes “shared parking” by reducing the required number of spaces. But the strategy is “elective”, and I, for one, will not elect to take away my tenants parking to give to anyone of the public that visits other properties, the beach, or the Fairgrounds.
5. Claim that the 200-plus “public” parking space structure to be built sometime in the future will be partially paid for by “in-lieu” fees paid by developers for parking spaces not provided for on their own development, and 50 such fees can be collected before the parking structure is ever built. Approximately 15,000 sq.ft. of new “private” development could be built, without ever providing the 50 new spaces!
6. Claim of providing over 500 public parking spaces. The exact figure is 495, including the existing 265 street parking spaces, plus the 230 in items 1 and 2 above. The fact is, there is really nothing in the VSP that will decrease the “public” parking shortage.
Numbers used in the VSP are confusing and misleading!
Vote No on Prop J.
- Does that sound like anything in the General Plan?
- Del Mar council OKs more off-hour parking options
- Businessman serves up two lawsuits over Del Mar’s restaurant parking rules
- Del Mar reduces parking fees to encourage shopping
- City of Del Mar’s proposed parking plan should be strongly opposed
Short URL: http://www.delmartimes.net/?p=41812