Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 Attmt 5 Parking Evaluation by J. Bourgeois 04-28-2009CITY OF DUBLIN Public Works Department City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin California 94568 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 28, 2009 TO: Jamie Rojo, Planning FROM: Jaimee Bourgeois, Public Works (Traffic) SUBJECT: New Evolution Fitness Facility CUP - Parking Evaluation The Applicant of the project is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a parking reduction and off-site parking for a health club facility proposed within Parcel A of Enea Plaza. To assess the feasibility and safety implications of granting such a permit, the City hired Omni Means, a transportation consultant, to conduct a parking study. The study was completed in February 2009.. Because the project could not provide adequate on-site parking to satisfy the Zoning Ordinance parking regulations for a health/athletic club, the Parking Study was completed to determine whether existing parking demand combined with the expected parking demand of the, proposed health club could be accommodated on-site. The study took into account the concept of "shared parking"; that is, that parking demand for different uses peaks at different times, resulting in less total parking required than if all uses peaked at the same timEl. Shared parking opportunity is analyzed by counting the actual number of parked vehicles each hour over the course of a typical day. Unoccupied parking spaces at each hourly snapshot are then compared to the expected parking demand for the health club, which is estimated based on actual data collected at similar sites. Following is a brief summary of the study results: At peak operations, the health club would require 197 parking spaces (this peak occurs on weekdays around 6:00 p.m.). At the same time, Parcel A has 131 available parking spaces. Thus, there would be an on-site deficit of 66 spaces. The excess demand could be accommodated within the Parcels B-D parking lots. • If 74 parking spaces on Parcel A are reserved for the existing retail/restaurant businesses so as not to inconvenience their patrons, then the worst-case on-site deficit would increase to 108 spaces. The on-site deficit would not occur only on weekdays at 6:00 p.m. but also at the following additional times: o Weekdays at 9:00 a.m. - 23 spaces o Weekdays at 10:00 a.m. - 80 spaces o Weekdays at 11:00 a.m. - 51 spaces Attachment 5 Jamie Rojo April 28, 2009 Page 2 o Weekdays at 12:00 p.m. - 15 spaces o Weekdays at 1:00 p.m. - 8 spaces o Weekdays at 3:00 p.m. - 8 spaces o Weekdays at 4:00 p.m. - 61 spaces o Weekdays at 5:00 p.m. - 84 spaces o Weekdays at 6:00 p.m.- 108 spaces o Weekdays at 7:00 p.m. - 63 spaces o Weekdays at 8:00 p.m. - 33 spaces o Friday at 6:00 p.m. -- 33 spaces The excess demand could be accommodated within the Parcels B-D parking lots at each of these times; however, allowing overflow parking to occur off-site raises several safety concerns with respect to pedestrian circulation. Although some vehicles parking off-site may be owned by employees (up to 10 at one time), most would be owned by club patrons. Assuming that the total parking duration for patrons is approximately 90 minutes, then the expected on-site parking deficit would result in 356 patrons parking off-site, which equates to 712 pedestrian crossings across Amador Plaza Road over the course of one day. With such a large volume of pedestrians crossing Amador Plaza Road, Public Works has thED following concerns: Some patrons may try to cross mid-block across Amador Plaza Road. A signalized crossing is available at the Amador Plaza Road/St. Patrick Way intersection. The eastern leg of the intersection is the 1-680 freeway off-ramp, so motorists are often traveling at higher speeds as they approach the intersection. Most motorists exiting the freeway turn right onto northbound Amador Plaza Road and would travel through the pedestrian crosswalk in which the gym patrons would be crossing. During the weekday evening peak hour, approximately 400 vehicles make this right turn. The traffic signal operates with permissive phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches; that is, St. Patrick Way and 1-680 off-ramp traffic get a green light at the same time without protected left-turn phases (i.e., left-turn arrows). Without protected left-turn phasing, motorists turning from eastbound St. Patrick Way onto northbound Amador Plaza would travel through the pedestrian crosswalk in which the gym patrons would be crossing. Allowing off-site parking if the project is approved would result in a large volume of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Mr. Enea proposed to the City to build several improvements or incorporate several measures into the project to help address these safety concerns. Staff has reviewed each and has determined that they would not adequately respond to the safety concerns. A response to each proposal is provided in the table on the following page. Please let me know if you have any questions about Public Works' assessment of the requested Conditional Use Permit. Cc: Melissa Morton, Public Works Director Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager Mark Lander, City Engineer Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner Jamie Rojo April 28, 2009 Page 3 GATRANSPORTATIOMI-ocal Traffic\CUP Planning Projects\Enea Center Fitness Club\memo_EneaGym_Parking_042809.doc Enea P First, we are proposing, at our sole cost and expense, to fund the implementation and construction of an illuminated embedded flashing light system (embedded in all four sides of the crosswalk) that would be automatically activated each time a pedestrian crosses the intersection at St. Patrick Way and Amador Plaza Blvd. Second, to further expand on Omni-Means recommendation we would propose that each new member of the health club would be required to review and sign, as part of their membership agreement, an acknowledgment indicating that they will agree to park in only designated overflow parking areas of the center and use only the crosswalk located at the intersection of St. Patrick Ways and Amador Plaza Road to access the Fitness Club from the overflow parking. Third, signs would be installed in the parking areas further directing health club members where to and where not to park. The idea is to keep all overflow parking as close to the St. Patrick Way / Amador Plaza Road intersection as possible. This in itself would deter people from walking across Amador Plaza Road. Fourth, although we do not think it would be very effective, we would agree to construct a barrier along the west side of Amador Plaza Road between the first and third driveway entrances. Fifth, I believe can also pick up about 8 to 9 parking spaces by allowing tandem employee parking in the current truck loading area. Since employees working the same shift would come and go at the same time this does not pose a significant inconvenience for employees. While in-roadway warning lights at crosswalks do have many valuable applications, they are strictly prohibited for use at controlled crossings, such as at the signal-controlled intersection of Amador Plaza Road and St. Patrick Way. This is stated in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This suggested improvement would therefore not be appropriate. This proposal is consistent with Omni Means' recommendation to provide parking location information to new members and has some merit. Mr. Enea proposes to extend the acknowledgement to also cover crossing at the signalized intersection only. While having members sign an acknowledgement may contribute toward their compliance with parking only in the des gnated areas and crossing only at the signalized crossing, it does not guarantee that such behavior will occur. Even with patrons parking in designated areas and crossing only at the signal, this would still result in a large number of patrons having to cross Amador Plaza Road. Public Works agrees that signage would be beneficial in communicating the appropriate locations to park. As stated above, concern remains about the number of patrons that would have to cross Amador Plaza Road. Public Works does not recommend the installation of a barrier. This would not preclude patrons from trying to cross at the driveway openings. Although employees on the same shift generally arrive and leave at the same time, this type of parking scenario would likely not be very efficient or even feasible. If shifts are staggered, then there is no guarantee that employees of the same shift only would be parking tandem. More likely, the first vehicle to arrivE? will be the first to leave, requiring other employees to leave in the middle of their shift to move their vehicle.