The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.2 Attch 5 TJKM Residential Guest Parking Eval Transportation Consultants August 7, 2014 Mr. David Clock Vice President of Development Lennar Commercial 500 La Gonda Way, Suite 295 Danville, CA 94526 Subject: Residential Guest Parking Evaluation for The Green Mixed-Use Development in the City of Dublin Dear David: In response to your request, TJKM is providing this evaluation to address the guest parking supply for the proposed project relative to City of Dublin code requirements. Parking Provided The project proposes 1,313 parking stalls of which 744 parking stalls are for the 372 dwelling units, two per unit in individual garages. Additionally, there are 569 stalls on internal streets and parking lots. See the attached drawing. Retail Parking Requirements The retail component consists of 40,000 square feet (sq. ft.) of retail, including up to 35,000 sq. ft. of restaurant space and 5,000 sq. ft. of general retail. City Municipal Code Section 8.76.080D requires one space per 300 sq. ft. of general retail. For restaurants, the requirement is one stall per 100 square feet of customer area and one stall per 300 square feet of non-customer area. For the category described as specialty eating and drinking establishments the requirement is one stall per 200 square feet. In addition, for outdoor dining, the requirement is one stall per three seats for more than 12 seats. The first 12 seats of outdoor dining require no additional parking. rl.�.�'ton 4305 Hacienda Drive The table below summarizes the required parking for the retail/restaurant uses. Suite 550 Pleasanton,CA 94588-2798 Use Area,square feet Required Spaces %Of Area 925.463.061 1 925.463.3690 fax Full Restaurant 23,318 168 57% Ft"aSno Outdoor Dining 3,965 44 10% 516 W.Shaw Avenue Suite 200 Specialty Dining 5,589 28 14% Fresno,CA 93704-2515 Retail 8,109 27 20% 559.325.7530 559.221.4940 fax Total 40,981 267 100% JdCI'3!llC i'1L0 980 Ninth Street Residential Requirements I6th Floor Sacramento,CA For residential condominium uses, City Code Section 8.76.080B requires onsite residential guest 95814-2736 parking at a rate of one stall per dwelling marked for guests. Under the current project proposal 9I6.449.9095 P g P g g P 1 P P that includes 372 residential condominiums and townhomes, 372 residential guest parking spaces snA u 1400 N.Dutton Avenue would therefore be required. e :. Suite 21 Santa Rosa.CA 95401-4643 As noted above, there are 569 stalls proposed on site to satisf y the retail, restaurant and guest 707.575.5800 parking. With 267 stalls required for retail/restaurant uses, the remaining 302 stalls are available 707.575.5888 fax for guest parking. This is a ratio of 0.81 stalls per dwelling unit, which is 70 stalls fewer than required to meet the one guest stall per dwelling unit requirement. IOn t rm ATTACHMENT 5 TiKM 1�ra��ir,irin�ri City Code Requirements and Exceptions The City of Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.76.050 E allows for parking reductions as follows: E. Parking Reductions For An Individual Use. When a reduction of off-street parking is proposed because on applicant for a proposed use believes the number of parking spaces required for their use as specified in Section 8.76.080 is not applicable, because the use would function differently than the generic use type and associated parking standards established in this Chapter, the Zoning Administrator may grant a reduction in off-street parking requirements pursuant to Chapter 8.100. Conditional Use Permit, if I. Conditional Use Permit Findings can be made. 2. The Applicant submits a parking study prepared by a qualified consultant analyzing the parking demands of the proposed use and the parking demands of similar uses in similar situations, demonstrating that the required parking standards are excessive, and proposing alternate parking standards which are appropriate and ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency. 3. Overflow parking will not impact any adjacent use. This letter is intended to supply the parking study and the justification for reduced parking standards. Several factors apply in this case. 1. Expected Guest Parking Demand Is Only 0.15 Stalls Per Unit TJKM reviewed the industry-standard parking publication Shared Parking, published by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), to determine expected parking demand that could be generated by visitors at the proposed residential townhome and condominium component of the project. ULI Shared Parking demand rates are based upon empirical studies of hundreds of similar suburban condominium projects in downtowns and other mixed-use settings in the United States. According to ULI, visitors to any owner-occupied residences typically generate parking demand at the rate of 0.15 vehicles per dwelling unit (DU). Given the project proposal for 372 residential condominiums, a peak onsite parking demand of 56 guest vehicles would therefore be expected (=371 * 0.15). This industry-estimated demand is well below the one guest space per dwelling required by City code. Table I below shows the expected all-day distribution of guest parking demand by time of day during both typical weekdays and weekends. The demand distribution is based upon ULI field observations of typical time-of-day guest parking activity. As the table shows, resident guest demand typically peaks in the evenings after 7:00 PM on both weekdays and weekends. Table I: Expected Guest Parking Demand for Proposed 372 Residential Condominium Units (number of vehicles) 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 11 PM 1 PM 1 PM 3 PM Weekday II II II II II II II II II Weekend II II II II II II II II II 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 11 AM Weekday II 22 34 56 56 56 56 46 29 Weekend II 22 34 56 56 56 56 46 29 Sources:TJKM (2014), Urban Land Institute(2 005) T.;KN1 Tt utmport.tnon c .:;tacit It is expected based upon the preceding demand analysis that the available 302 spaces for residential guest parking within the project site would sufficiently serve expected guest demand during all times of day, both on weekdays and weekends. With a maximum demand of 56 parked vehicles expected during a typical day, about 246 spaces are expected to be available at any time within the residential areas. Given that resident garage parking is provided at the rate of two stalls per unit, consistent with City code requirements, there is not expected to be a conflict of resident parking overflow with this available guest parking supply onsite. 2. "Guest" Parking is a Misnomer When east Dublin residential development began to occur, parking problems were observed in some of the condominium and townhouse developments that appeared to be caused by a significant undersupply of parking. In reality, two factors caused many residents to not park in their own reserved parking spaces: • Some of the developments were equipped with tandem parking stalls (front to back rather than side-by-side parking); many residents were unwilling to subject themselves to the bother of shifting cars when the car intended to be used next was blocked by a second car in the same garage. So, residents parked the second car on the street and used the extra garage space for storage. Dublin's Municipal Code now bans the use of tandem stalls in these cases. • The design of many of the housing units placed the garage in the rear of the unit (accessible by a court or alley) while the front door faced the street or, if not actually facing the street, was a very short walk to on-street parking. With street parking stalls as, or more, convenient as their own garage parking stalls, many residents use their second (and third, in some cases) garage parking stalls for storage. In most cases, this practice is forbidden by homeowner association (HOA) rules, which are difficult to enforce. Again, residents park on the street even though garage space is available. This is attributed to convenience and the fact that it is generally felt to be safe to park a personal vehicle on the street in Dublin. These two factors are likely the main reason that Dublin requires one stall per unit for guests, even though most realize that only a fraction of a stall is needed for each unit. In reality, "guest" parking is actually overflow parking for residents who choose not to use their garages because of the availability of safe and convenient alternative parking spaces. 3. Layout of The Green Encourages Garage Parking As noted above, in many east Dublin residential condominium and townhome complexes that have garages in the rear and street parking at the front door, street parking is very convenient. This is contrasted by the layout of The Green, which can be characterized as having a general absence of parking spaces at a typical unit's front door. In most cases, with no on-street parking nearby, it is TJKM's opinion that Green residents will make more effort to park in their garage instead of making a two or three block walk to available parking. We believe this fact alone is a major justification for reduced parking stalls. 4. Actual Parking Demand Is Much Lower than 3 stalls per unit TJKM considered the parking supply rates of the proposed project in light of parking industry rates established through multiple empirical studies of similar sites. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) reference Shored Parking recommends that ownership residential units should have a minimum parking supply rate of 1.85 spaces per unit, including one space per unit dedicated to residents, 0.15 spaces per unit dedicated to guests, and the balance open to either residents or their guests. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) reference Parking Generation does not break out TjKM, . Trr i_portaao,, parking supply allocations dedicated to residents and their guests, but rather provides a composite rate. In the ITE reference, the 85th percentile observed composite rate was 1.52 spaces per unit (meaning 85 percent of observed parking supply values for all sites were at or below 1.52), while the maximum observed parking supply was 1.96 spaces per unit. By contrast, the proposed project is providing onsite parking at a minimum composite rate of 2.81 spaces per unit (two per resident and 0.81 per guest), which exceeds both the ULI and ITE industry observed rates. 5. BART and Other Uses Are Within Walking Distance The Green is located close to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The center of the Green is located within a nine-minute walk of the BART station; the nearest point is within a six-minute walk. One portion of the Pleasanton side of the BART station is a six-minute walk from the most distant portion of the BART lot itself. The BART riders who park along Arnold Drive north of Dublin Boulevard have a 12-minute walk. Some employees of Hacienda Crossings regularly walk from the BART station, about 18 minutes away. This transit option has the potential to reduce expected parking demand for residents, guests, and employees of the Green, as BART is within typical walking and bicycling distance for residential transit users. In addition, project provision of bicycle/pedestrian connections between the site and the BART station has the potential to increase bicycle and pedestrian travel that would further offset expected parking demand. A potential issue on site is parking demand spillover from the nearby Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. In order to minimize BART patrons parking on The Green project site, TJKM recommends that the project owner conduct rigorous enforcement such that only project residents, retail employees, and residential/retail guests will park onsite. Mechanisms for such enforcement can include, but not be limited to, establishing parking time limits onsite for nonresidents and also a temporary parking permit program for employee and residential / other guests. Conclusion It is TJKM's opinion that the rationale for requiring three stalls per residential dwelling unit do not apply at The Green. The true demand for guest parking is much lower than one stall; the third unit is actually for people who choose to not use their garage. The layout of the Green, unlike other east Dublin residential complexes with problematic parking, does not incentivize residents to not use their garages in favor on convenient on-street parking. In fact, it is quite to the contrary. The proximity of BART should result in somewhat lower auto ownership at this complex and the opportunity for shared parking also exists. TJKM also feels a strong HOA requirement for residents to observe parking rules should also be instituted. TJKM is of the opinion that the 2.81 stalls per unit proposed can easily satisfy the parking demand at The Green, when considering and applying the factors described in this letter. TyKM Thank you for the opportunity to provide this evaluation of project residential guest parking. Please do not hesitate to contact us with your questions or comments at (925) 264-5006. Sincerely, Andrew Kluter, P.E. Project Manager ,-I Chris Kinzel, P.E. Vice President JAJURISDICTION\D\Dublin\157-231 The Green\Shared Parking Task\L080714The Green Parking Evaluatian.docx � I r-1 �w N a a a a Q N Qi I'I N a a V) V) LLJ V) V7 V7 0 UN'.. o I.. c-i e-1 r-1 o'',., m 00 Q xt ' v o 0 V) V) ci a', a a Q U )--1 O O ' O O O O r-1 Ol '6 Q O O m CL fl- O LA V) U r1 N I M N o Q Q Q Q Q Q a a Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q V) (A V) V) VI V) V) u1 VI V) V) V) V) V) VI VI V) Q M m I m m m d' M O U m N m O L!1! M Ill e-i )--I Ol tB Ql I- )--I Ol M l0 N 00 z ` N N L(l )m-I r, N M Q 7 �k 'n N co Q Q Q' QI Q'. ci Q Q Q Q.., Q. Q ci II V) VI V1 N V) V) 0 N V) In V) VI N m O )--I c ci O O O cT O LL) rI d C> u fu Q Q QI� Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q H � Ln I LA L LA LA I 'A V) L � V) C dU O W u 00 O Ol I- )-1 ct I\ O M lD rp l0 Ill r-1 m 00 �' lD I- rl •� N i N N LIl N I, N N O U I I � O QII Q Q�li Q, Q QI Q CL Q'. Q Q Q II V) V) V) Ln V) LO V) N Q V) V)1 V) V) 00 zT Kt Ln O c} 't z Ql 0) m Ln ru cu Q M m I L(1 .--1 i-1 � 0D W - - E @ N L E c0 7 I'. 110 tw N T OD ro o p O v Y E o NIO�1 O1 OI ^' m' ro co LO I to O m Ln 0A .r p O , OI C:) 0 r, U -a a N m m co v p {�cu m J m ,� C C Q 4J H N o -p i 6 U tp o V) •(O -0 -0 -0 t N Q III J v N 3 CL, �_ (p �3_ O Q N V) i its I- z z LU LJ W LLI �. cc: W LJ a I '� a �� L■� h L■' 'J III � ■f ��■��I !�f ■!! ��/. .a� �� rl � . . I �■CICI■�� I�� - � r' _^ �; �� •wig � ��• II■G �i5 ■1 Mill _. NEI � 1� :��C�Ci II: -4 i :I_�' o�>lo�! �c�Ti■III I :�;' ,I�:` ?��i -- �� -I II I��it II��I� �■�I �■�� y�l ii ' , naml, II I I I I I i 1 Idi ■ ■� i5� 'au_.�Iq III II i"�in I u'III�111I'u`IIIIII�III�I IIIIII�II1'I�IIII�IIII I IILii�4111�I IIII I��'u�wll•�.��w+�7IIlIIIII 1� I I �� - IIII-11 _ I I I x111 I u II�.��,,,,,,,,,� �_ m=m lim-,In1� Ipu n°4�W4YIP`WWIriwl�IliWW�IIL1911111um =- �II Ilu��"�IIh��al��'llln'�i 11,HIM -::-:IIIIIpppllll II IIII I I il lI �■'III _.,m.mfi�d—LEI_ I� II ., .. 111 II 1-■�1 � ....I -.rl-�Ir r •�I .1 I.11'.'...........�r � i 4 li ' i i 11111111 _I—i I .. I Ala I�I�11"'� ��! �UWW� ins I'n wnnunnum m II I (ICi�Iif�l�ilfinnnl;III ,, r_— ulYll �� t�a+fill ��:��I�Illllildidl�t1�19�II��I��IIi�.h�urlll�llllllll �• I�L�� ■I �■� ��11�+ r — �.III4JI:--�" I;'�'i�illlcl--**�,�,;�,!,.IDiI � -°= -- r,l--�:—: —r■1 Lam' �ii��l��liiiiiii��im�iiii�i�i fuu�i u��l�mimflmmimflmmu,=III r'' ■'-' �I■ � .. ■i■ ■i■ 11111111111 hi oil I ��1r�1r�1r��1�,�1r .� ■` � !t'-_!��■�Iii ter. �.�-� � �_s 11.■...®1 '��■�]�' ' �_�� ■fir r�■ ■��I;�� + '.■.��....I�� 1��■.-� ■1 ■il■tii■ ■f�i ■ice• •I ■'ICI■ 11 I■ ■ I�' -a ■... ...^�I 11■�i5 IIII oouuool, 1 � 7: r' } ;•"'tea•.:,. � '" ��p, ��. ltltlt t ds1 j t s ��• t tWl is t 1 t r _ Summary of Recommended Base Parking Ratios (Spaces per Unit Land Use) Land Use Weekday Weekend Unit Source Visitor Employee Visitor Employee aprfate. Community Shopping Center(<400,000 sq.ft.) 2.9 0.7 3.2 0,8 /ksfl GLA 1 Regional Shopping Center(400,000 to 600,000 sq.ft.) Sliding scale between 400,000 and 600,000 sq.ft, /ksf GLA 1 Super Regional Shopping Center(>600,000 sq,ft.) 32 0.8 3.6 0.9 /ksf GLA I Fine/Casual Dining 15.25 2,75 1Z0 3.0 Jksf GLA 23 Family Restaurant 9.0 1.5 12.75 2.25 /ksf GLA 3 Fast-Food Restaurant 12.75 2.2.5 12.0 2.0 /ksf GLA 2 Nightclub 15,25 1.25 175 1.5 /ksf GLA 3 Active Entertainment Custom to each tenant Cineplex 0.19 0.01 0.26 0.01 /seat 3,2 Performing Arts Thea 03 0.07 0,33 0.07 /seat 2 Arena 0.27 0.03 0.3 003 /seat 3 rk6lg Pro Football Stadium 03 0.01 0.3 0.01 /seat 3 te. Pro Baseball Stadium 0.31 0.01 0.34 0.01 /seat 3 Health Club 6.6 0.4 5.5 0.25 /ksf GFA 3,4 Convention Center 5.5 0.5 5.5 0,5 /ksf GLA 3 ins. Hotel-Business 1.0 0.25 0.9 018 /room 2,3 date. Hotel-leisure 0.9 025 1.0 0.18 /room 2,3 ire provided Restaurant/Lounge 10.0 - 10.0 - /ksf GLA 2,3,5 ms• Conference Center/Banquet(20 to 50 sq.ft./guest room) 30.0 - 30.0 - /ksf GLA 2,3,5 >riate. Convention Space(>50 sq,ft./guest room) 20.0 - 10.0 - /ksf GLA 2 3,5 Residential,Rental 0.15 132 0.15 1,52 /unit 2 Residential,Owned 0.15 1.72 015 1.72 /unit 2 "' Office(<25,000 sq.ft.) 0.3 15 0.03 0.35 /ksf GFA 2 Office(25,000 to 100,000 sq,ft.)Sliding scale between /ksf GFA 2 Ily in cen- 25,000 sq.ft.: 0.3 3.5 0.03 0.35 100,000 sq.ft.: 0.25 315 0.03 0.32 i a= Office(100,000 to 500,000 sq,ft.)Sliding scale between /ksf GFA 2 100,000 sq,ft.: 0.25 335' 0.03 0.32 ,vide vari- 500,000 sq,Ft.: 0.2 2.6 0.02 0.26 Jug ratios Office>500,000 sq.fL 0.2 2.6. 0,02 0.26 /ksf GFA 2 Data Processing Office 0.25 5.75 0.03 0.58 /ksf GFA 2,3 Medical/Dental Office 10 1.5 3.0 1.5 /ksf GFA 43 Bank,Branch with Drive-in 3.0 1.6 10 1.6 /ksf GFA 2 Notes Ratios based on peak parking spaces required with virtually 100%auto use and typical ridesharing for suburban conditions. t/ksf=per thousand sq.ft. r 21.0 spaces reserved for residents'sole use,24 hours a day,remainder shared with visitors and other uses. Sources;. 1,Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers,2nd ed.(Washington,D.C.:ULI-the Urban Land Institute,1999). .0 spaces 2.Parking Generation,3rd ed.(Washington,D.C.:Institute of Transportation Engineers,2004), e parking 3.Data collected by team members. 4.John W.Dorsett,"Parking Requirements for Health Clubs,"The Parking Professional,April 2004. 5.Gerald Salzman,"Hotel Parking:How Much Is Enough?"Urban Land,January 1988. Key Findings 17 II Residential Spaces/unit for owned units,It appears that an adjustment o I One of the most significant development trends at the turn about 80 percent to reflect auto ownership is appropriate fo of the millennium is the development of residential uses in locations that are not downtown but well served by transit „} downtowns and other mixed-use settings. Creating live/ reducing the former to 1.2 and the latter to 1.4.Adjustment , work/play environments is one of the key goals of smart as low as 50 percent appear to be appropriate for urban CBE growth development, as is developing residential units near locations,reducing the ratios to 0.75 spaces/rental unit an( transit, in order to facilitate commuting without generating 0.85 spaces/owned unit. Although not technically mode car trips and vehicles parked at transit stations. adjustments, these values may be input into the mode Auto ownership per household increased over the period adjustment cells in the Shared Parking model. from 1960 to 2000 to an average of 1.75 vehicle per house- It should be recognized in shared parking analysis that al 1 hold. Some evidence indicates that the point of saturation least some of the residential demand will likely be for may be near,since today there are more vehicles registered reserved parking,with all time-of-day and seasonal factors al in the United States than there are licensed drivers.As dis- 100 percent.For default purposes,it is recommended that a1 cussed in Parking Generation,2000 census data for Portland, least the first parked vehicle per unit be allocated as reserved Oregon, were evaluated by DKS Associates to determine The remaining peak-hour values would be considered as res- patterns in the ratios of vehicles per household by location, ident parking that can be shared with other uses. For visitor as shown in Table 4-18. parking,0.15 spaces per unit have been added to each ratio. Recognizing this trend, ITE's Parking Generation has sepa- The time-of-day factors are based on the factors found in rated residential uses into a number of different categories. the ITE database for low-rise apartments. Although some An unfortunate side effect of the stratification is that the seasonality of residential parking needs is likely,no published number of data points in any one category is relatively small, source of data is available.Therefore,no adjustments for sea- as illustrated in Table 4-19. sonality are recommended. This book's recommended parking ratios for residents in suburban locations are 1.5 spaces/unit for rental units and 1.7 MC7,WXHI Vehicles per Household, Portland, Oregon Location Owner-Occupied Rental Suburban 2 1.4 Central City,Not Downtown 1.8 1.2 CBD 1.6 OJ 'Near Light-Rail Stations — — More Than Ten Miles from CBD 1.9-2.0 1.0-1.3 r Less Than Ten Miles from CBD 1.6 l.$ 0.81.2 �r Source:DKS Associates,Portland,Oregon. I 88 Shared Parking ......... b. gill ;i N. v Y g — d g g o 0 0 °-ow o e � m° ,o � ° a o ° rn .°•, ° � ° ° � � o �& o � o; o g ae a° o I I U — ° ,o L C�(J O O de eE o e e o w O 0 ogoaE ° ° O — — T -- <� O N 6 72 c � R m y a� �Sj 22 =�..'pppp-O tit � m� IN81d at C Y eR se a a- o 0 o a o e e E o 0 0 o o N o N o o as aE P P- to w 1 aE 1 It 1 I E o _ � o ae o ae g aE or or or o e OO i .- i � � O 0 iE 9 e LL dF Y�EE.. E E a rg o E E O pp F = a ' W 3 G i Land Use: 230 Residential Condominium/Townhouse f s Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs. Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Location: Suburban ti � ."T . Peak Period 11:00 .m.-6:00 a.m. Number of Stud Sites 12 Avera a Size of Stud Sites 151 dwelling units Avera a Peak Period Parkin Demand 1.38 vehicles per dwelling unit Standard Deviation 17% Coefficient of Variation 17% 1.04-1.96 vehicles per dwelling unit Range 85th Percentile 1.52 vehicles per dwelling unit 33rd Percentile 1.28 vehicles per dwelling unit f Weekday Suburban Peak Period Parking Demand 600 t 500 P 2_26x + 9 --- R 0.95 400 w 300 200 C1, is 100 a 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 x = Dwelling Units • Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ----Average Rate r, �I' Institufa of**snspa!r ftn Engtneers parking motion,4th E don f611 ,,,