The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.3 Att 2 Results of Parking Study i t P € G VisionThat MovesYnur Community �.r______ ...__----_._...�__._____�_____ _.___. ._.._.�_. .� ..a..��_�_�..__.m.._____m_.� ____� ___._�_..__ Transportauon �— .. .___,_ �_..__,�__.._.____._._.�.� �..__ __.__._._.__.____. �______._�______._ M_..e_.__ ___,._.____�_______ Consultants ; July 16, 2015 ' Ms. Heide Chapman � ; Forward Planning Director � ; Trumark Homes LLC i 4185 Blackhawk Plaza Circle � Suite 200 i Danville, CA 94506 I � � Re: Results of Parking Study for Regional Street Housing in Dublin � � Dear Ms. Chapman � TJKM Transportation Consultants has conducted a parking study for the proposed 60-unit a residential development to be located on the east side of Regional Street north of Dublin ; Boulevard in the City of Dublin. This development will be located immediately north of the � existing Popeye's Restaurant. Each of the 60 dwelling units has a two-car garage; in addition 36 � guest parking stalls are proposed, resulting in a total parking supply of I 56 stalls. The Dublin Off- '' Street Parking and Loading Regulations section of the Municipal code requires two parking stalls � per unit and one guest stall per unit for a total of I 80 stalls. Trumark's proposal is 2.6 total stalls � per unit, compared to the City requirement of 3.0 stalls per unit. The Trumark supply is 87 percent of the City requirement. � � National Guest Parking Experience TJKM reviewed the industry-standard parking publication � Shored 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 i residences typically generate parking demand at the rate of 0.15 vehicles per dwelling unit (DU). Plcasanton � Given the project proposal for 60 residential condominiums, a peak onsite parking demand of nine 4305 Hacienda Drive ! guest vehicles would therefore be expected (=60 * 0.I 5). This industry-estimated demand is well s��te sso Pleasanton,CA below the one guest space per dwelling required by City code. The Trumark proposal is four 94588-2798 � times this requirement, or 0.60 stalls per DU. 925.463.0611 � 925.463.3690 fax � Fresno � Dublin Rationale for I.0 Guest Parking Stalls When east Dublin residential development 516 W.Shaw Avenue � began to occur, parking problems were observed in some of the condominium and townhouse s��ce zoo � develo ments that a eared to be caused b a si nificant undersu I of arkin In realit two Fresno,CA I P PP Y S PP Y P S• Y� 93 704-25 1 5 ` factors caused many residents to not park in their own reserved parking spaces: 559.325.7530 559.221.4940 fax ? Sacramenco � � Some of the developments were equipped with tandem parking stalls (front to back rather 980 Ninih$treet ! than side-by-side parking); many residents were unwilling to subject themselves to the bother 16�Floor ; of shiftin cars when the car intended to be used next was blocked b a second car in the sa�rame��o,en � g Y 95814-2736 ; same garage. So, residents parked the second car on the street and used the extra garage 916.449.9095 ; space for storage. Dublin's Municipal Code now bans the use of tandem stalls in these cases. sT"t'R°$a ' . The design of many of the housing units placed the garage in the rear of the unit (accessible by 1400 N.Dutton Avenue s��te zi ; a court or alley) while the front door faced the street or, if not actually facing the street, was a sa��RoSa,ca very short walk to on-street parking. With street parking stalls as, or more, convenient than 95401-4643 i �o�s�ssaoo � their own garage parking stalls, many residents use their second garage parking stalls for 707.575.5888fax storage. Again, residents park on the street even though garage space is available. This is tjkm@yl<m.com j . www.tjkin.cont � ATTACHMENT 2 � fVts. Neide +aha{�rnon TJKM � fuiy !b, 20(S Transportacion Po�e 2 Consulcar7tsL��_n..��_.._________._.�� ...._._�.__..�._____.___.________He_��_.,___ _.e__�______....._� �___�._.�.._ �__.. attributed to convenience and the fact that it is generally felt to be safe to park a personal _�......�_�_.__.__�- . Dublin. � vehicle on the street m ; 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. TrumarNc Proposal Has No Convenient On-street 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 Trumark proposal, which can be characterized as having a general absence of"extra" parking spaces at a typical unit's front door or even on the street-facing garages, where no on-street parking is available. With no on-street parking available and no nearby guest stalls, it is TJKM's opinion that Trumark residents will make more effort to park in their garage instead of having to , walk to use the guest parking stalls. We believe this fact alone is a major justification for reduced � parking stalls. Trumark Proposal Well-Above Recommended Parking Standards TJKM considered the parking supply rates of the proposed project in light of parking industry rates established through multiple e�mpirical studies of similar sites. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) reference Shared Parking � recomme:nds that ownership residential units should have a minimum parking supply rate of 1.85 � spaces pe:r unit, including one space per unit dedicated to residents, 0.I 5 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 parking supply allocations � dedicatecl to residents and their guests, but rather provides a composite rate. In the ITE reference, I the 85th percentile observed composite rate was I.52 spaces per unit (meaning 85 percent of observed parking supply values for all sites were at or below I.52), while the maximum observed parking supply was I.96 spaces per unit. By contrast, the proposed project is providing onsite � parking at a minimum composite rate of 2.60 spaces per unit (two per resident and 0.60 per � guest), which exceeds both the ULI and ITE industry observed rates. � � � Trumark Proposes Walkable Community The residents of the proposed development will � have many walkable urban amenities including nearby shopping, dining and employment ' opportunities. They will have a I 3 minute walk to the BART station and a three minute walk to � the Wheels "Rapid" line, providing services all day every I 5 minutes. It is likely that this facility will have at le:ast a modest decrease in auto ownership compared with the more suburban settings in most of[�ublin. Conclus�ion It is TJKM's opinion that the rationale for requiring three stalls per residential � dwelling unit does not apply at this Trumark development. The true demand for guest parking is � much lovver than one stall; the third "guest" parking stall is actually for people who choose to not � use their garage. The proposed layout, unlike some of the east Dublin residential complexes with � problematic parking, does not incentivize residents to not use their garages in favor of convenient on-streer_ parking. In fact, it is quite to the contrary. The proximity of BART and Wheels and nearby walkable amenities could result in somewhat lower auto ownership at this complex. TJKM also feels, a strong HOA requirement for residents to observe parking rules should also be instituted. TJKM is of the opinion that the 2.60 stalls per unit proposed can easily satisfy the parking clemand, when considering and applying the factors described in this letter. � � 11�ls. f-#eidc �hr�j�rr�art ��M i j�,jy rb, zors Trans�aortation � Poge 3 Cansulcants ;�.�.m.__�._�_�__. k _v�.___ _..�� _�___.�__�a_.�_ �.��.�._ . _....��_.�_ �_.��___��_�.________a_a ! Thank you for the opportunity to provide this evaluation of project residential guest parking. ` Please do not hesitate to contact me with your questions or comments at (925) 264-5006. ! � � Very truly yours, ( i € �; �. � � � G � �---� � Chris D. Kinzel, P.E. � i Vice President � i j Attachment: Site Plan i i � i` I E € � I( { � 3 l , � 3 i k E I { t k I � ! i i Ik ! � � � i{ k { ( � ! i