HomeMy WebLinkAbout03a Old Town Parking StudyParking Study for
Old Town Tustin in the
pity of Tustin
October, 2007
Prepared for:
City of Tustin
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Prepared by:
1120 West La Veta Avenue, Suite c5C0
Orange, CA 92868
714/573-0317 Phone
7"14/573-G584 Fax
Job No: JA6663
October 18, 2007
Mr. Dana Ogdon,
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Subject: Parking Study for Old Town Tustin in the City of Tustin
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
7652 E. Seventeenth St„ Suite 102
Tustin, CA 92780
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
Katz, Okitsu & Associates is pleased to provide you with the revised final report for the Old
Town Tustin parking shady. The report includes assessment of existing conditions,
alternatives analysis, land use code modifications, parking management strategies, and
recommendations for future needs. The report and appendices also contain a large amount of
supporting data. The attached report presents our 1`mdings and analysis.
It has been a pleasure to provide the study findings to the City of Tustin. Please contact me if
you require any additional information, or if you have any questions about the subject study.
Sincerely,
Rock Miller, P.E.
Principal
J: iCITIF.SITUSTINVAG6G3 TU OLD TOWN P~tRKI.NGIRL'PORTITUOLD TOWN Yr-RIiING STUDY21tL•'V.DOC
LQ5 ,ANGELES ~.~A1<!_,ANa DhJ~AR.lO ORANt;E tvl:~IJ(`J~Y SAID! pIEGO
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I
I. EXISTING LAND USE AND REGULATIONS ..............................................................................................
I. 1 EXISTING LAND L1SE INVENTORY ....................................................................................... ..........................5
1.2 EXISTING CITY PART{ING CODES, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND ENFORCEMENT ........ ..........................9
1.3 EXISTING PARKING REGLiLATIONS .................................................................................... ........................ 1
I.4 EXISTING PARKING ENFORCEMENT .................................................................................... ........................ 13
1.5 EXISTING LICENSES FUR PUBLIC PARKING ......................................................................... ........................ 13
2. PARKING DEMAND AND OCCUPANCY ANALYSIS ............................................................................. I5
2. l PARKING SUPPLY ................................................................................................................ ........................ I5
2.2 PARKING DEMAND ............................................................................................................. ........................ I S
2.3 PARKING DEMAND RATES .................................................................................................. ........................32
2.4 EXISTING PARKING DEMAND BY LAND USE ....................................................................... ........................32
3. PARKING TURNOVER ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... ........................34
3.1 OLD TOWN CORE AREA, WEEKDAY SURVEY ..................................................................... ........................35
3.2 OLD TOWN CORE AREA, WEEKEND SURVEY
..................................................................... ...................... 37
..
3.3 FARMER'S MARKET AP.EA ....................... ............................................... ...............,........ 37
3.4 JAMESTOWN FLEA MARKET AREA ..................................................................................... ........................ 39
3.5 PARKING DURATION/TURNOVER SCIMMARY ...................................................................... ........................41
4. PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................44
4.1 INTRODUCTION ............. .......... , ........................ 44
............................................................... ............................
4.2 KEY ISSUES -PARKING TRENDS, PROBLEMS, AND DEFICIF.NCIES ..............................................................44
4.3 FUTURL^LANDUSEPROIECTIONS ...............................................................................................................51
4~.4 EXPECTCD PARKING DEMAND ....................................................................................................................53
4.5 PARKING NEEDS BY SUBAREA ....................................................................................................................57
5. PARKING ALTERNATIVES AND OPPORTUMTIES ..............................................................................61
S. I MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS ............................................................ ...................... 61
5.2 SHARED PARKING ....................................................................................................................................... 62
5.3 PUBLIC OFF-STREET PARKING LOTS .......................................................................................................... 65
5.4 PARKING CODES !N OTHER CITIES .............................................................................................................. 67
6. PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ................................................................................................ 69
6. I 7'ObIE LIIv1I'['PARKING .................................................................................................................................. 69
6.2 PARKING ENFORCEMENT ................................................. ............... 73
6.3 PERMIT PARK[NG ........................................................................................................................................ 74
6.4 PARKING SIGNAGE .................................................................. ................ 75
6.S CONDITION50FTHECSTREETPARK[NGSTRUCTLIRE ................................................................................ 77
6.6 RECOMMENDED PARKING CODE REQU[REMENT5 ....................................................................................... 78
6.7 IMPACTS OF PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................... 82
6.8 FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC PAR[{fNG ............................................................................ 82
7. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 87
City of Tustin 7
Old Town Tustin Parking Study
FIGURE 1.1 -STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................. ................5
FIGIfRE 1.2 -OLD TOWN SL16.4REA ZONES .................................................................................................... ................7
FIGURE 1.3 -EXISTING PARKING REGIJLATIONS ........................................................................................... .............. 13
P[GURE 2. l -OLD TOWN Tl15TIN PARKING SUPPLY ........................................................................................ .............. 16
FIGURE 2.2 -PEAK PARKING OCCUPANCY, WEEKDAY ................................................................................... .............. f 9
.
FIGURE 2.3 -PEAK PARKING OCCUPANCY, WEEKEND .................................................................................. 2
..............
FIGURE 2.4 -PARKING ALONG EL CAMINO REAL .......................................................................................... .............. 2l
FIGURE 2.5 -PARKING IN THE PROSPECT/3RD ST. LOT .................................................................................... .............. 21
FIGURE 2.6 -WEEKDAY PARKING OCCUPANCY, 9 AM ................................................................................. .............. 23
FIGURE 2.7 -WEEKDAY PARKING OCCUPANCY, I 1 AM ............................................................................... ..............24
FIGURE 2.8 -WEEKDAY PARKING OCCUPANCY, 1 PM .................................................................................. ..............25
FIGURE 2.9 -WEEKDAY PARKING OCCUPANCY, 3 PM .................................................................................. .............. 26
FIGURE 2.10- WEEKDAY PARKING OCCUPANCY, 5 PM ................................................................................ ..............27
FIGURE 2. I 1-WEEKDAY PARKING OCCUPANCY, 7 PM_ ................................................................................. ..............2R
FIGURE 2.12 -WEEKDAY PARKING OCCUPANCY, 9 PM ................................................................................ ..............29
FIGl1RE2.13-WEEICDAYPARKINGOCCUPANCY, 11 PM .............................................................................. ..............3U
FIGURE 2.14 - .IAMESTOWN LOT ..................................................................................................................... .............. 31
FIGURE 2.15 -ASSISTANCE LEAGUE LOT ....................................................................................................... .............. 31
FIGURE 3.1 -PARKING DURATION. OLD TOWN WEEKDAY ............................................................................ ..............36
FIGURE 3.2 -PARKING DURATION, OLD TOWN WEEKEND ............................................................................ .............. 38
FIGURE 3.3 -PARKING DURATION, FARMER'S MARKET ................................................................................ ..............40
FIGURE 3.4 -PARKING DURATION, IAMESTOW N FLEA MARKET ................................................................... ..............43
FIGURE 6.1 -RECOMMENDED PARKING REGULATIONS ................................................................................. .............. 74
FIGURE 6.2 - C STREET PARKING STRUCTURE ............................................................................................... ..............78
TABLE I . I -TOTAL LAND USE BY SUBAREA ...................................................................................... ............................ $
TABLE 1.2 -VACANT LAND LiSE BY SIIBAREA .................................................................................. .............:.............. 8
TABLE 1.3 -EXISTING CITY PARKING CODES, CULTURAL RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT ............. ............................9
TABLE 2.1 - EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY BY SUBAREA ................................................................ .......................... 15
TABLE 2.2- EXIST]NGSHQRT-DURATION PARKING USE BY SUBAREA .............................................. .......................... 22
TABLE 2.3-EXISTING LONG-DURATION PARKING USE BY SUBAREA ................................................ ..........................32
TABLE 2.4 -EXISTING PARKING DT=~IVIAND RATES BY SUBAREA ........................................................ .......................... 33
TAeLr-. 2.5 -EXISTING PARKING DEMAND BY LAND USE ................................................................... .......................... 33
TABLE 3.1 -WEEKDAY PARKING DURATION, OLD TOWN CORE AREA ............................................. .......................... 35
TABLE 3.2- WEE[CEND PARKING DURATION, OLD TOWN CORE AREA ............................................. .......................... 39
TABLE 4, l -OLD TOWN PEAK PARKING DEMAND PROJECTION ........................................................ ..........................54
TABLE 4,2 -NEAR-TERM FUTURE PEAK PARKING DEMAND BY SUBAREA ........................................ .......................... 55
TABLE 4.3 -NEAR-TERM FUTURE PEAK PARKING DEMAND BY LAND USE ...................................... .......................... 55
TABLE 4.4- I O YEAR FORECAST PEAK PARICTNG DEMAND BY SUBAREA .......................................... ..........................56
TABLE 4.5 - 10 YEAR FORECAST PPJtKING DEMAND BY LAND USE .................................................. ..........................56
~~~ '~ ~CIRPOI~ATI4N Ciry n f Tctstil~
P;~ral.~ira~, ,~ ri;~.,irti-e~~~,~, ii Olcl Tov~n TListin Parl<iJag Study
TABLE 4,6 -EXISTING SHORT-DURATION PARKING NEEDS BY SUBAItEA ................................................. ................... J7
TABLE 4.7 -PROJECTED NEAR-TERM SHORT-DURATION PARKING NEEDS BY SUBAREA ........................ ...................53
TABLE 4.8 - l0-YEAR FORECAST SHORT-DURATION PARKWG NEEDS BY SUBAREA ............................... ...................58
TABLE 4.9 -EXISTING LONG-DURATION PARKING NEEDS BY SUBAREA .................................................. ................... 59
TABLE 4, 10 -PROJECTED NEAR-TERM LONG-DURATION PARKING NEEDS BY `~'UBAREA ......................... ................... CO
TABLE 4. I I - 10-YEAR FORECAST LONG-DURATION PARKING NEEDS BY SUBAREA ................................ ...................60
TABLE 5,1 -REPRESENTATIVE WEEKDAY I-IOURLY PARKING ACCUMULATION ....................................... ...................64
TABLE 5.2 -NEAR-TERM PEAK PER10D SHARED PARKING REQUIREMENT .............................................. ...................65
TABLE 5.3 - 10-YEAR FORECAST PEA[C PER10D SHARED PARIQNG REQU[i2EMENT .................................. ...................65
TABLE 5.4 -PARKING RATES IN OTHER CITIES ......................................................................................... ...................67
TABLE 5.5 -PARKING DEMAND RATES FROM OT!-IER PARIQNG S'l CIpiES .................................................. ................... 68
TABLE 6.1 -OLD TOWN ALTERNATIVE PARKING CODES .........................................:................................ ................... $2
TABLE A- I -OLD TOWN TUSTIN EXlSTWG PUBLIC PARKING SUPPLY ..................................................... ................... 94
TABLE A-2 - OLb TOWN TUSTIN EXISTING PRIVATE PARKING SUPPLY .................................................... ...................96
TABLE A-3- OLD TOWN TUSTIN WEEKDAY PARKING DEMAND, PUBLIC LOTS & STREETS ..................... ...................98
TABLE A-4-OLD TOWN TUSTIN WEEKDAY PARKING DEMAND, PRNATE LOTS ...................................... ................. l00
TABLE A-S-OLD TOWN TUSTIN WEEKEND PARKING DEMAND, PUBLIC LOTS c4c STREETS ...................... ................. I U2
TABLE A-6-OLD TOWN TCISTIN WEEKEND PARKING DEMAND, PRIVATE LOTS ...................................... ................. l04
TABLE A-7 EXISTING PARKING DEMAND BY LAND USE ........................................................................... ................. 106
TABLE B-1 EL CAM INO REAL DOCUMENTED LENGTH OF STAY WEEKDAY ............................................. ................. l OS
TABLE B-2 EL CAM WO REAL DOCUMENTED LENGTH OF STAY WEEKEND ............................................. ................. 108
TABLE B-3 C STREET DOCUMENTED LENGTH OF STAY WEEKEND .......................................................... ................. 109
TABLE B-4 2ND' 3~". & MAW STREET DOCUMENTED LENGTH OF STAY WEEICEND ................................... ................. 109
TABLE B-5 FARMER'S MARKET PARKING DOCUMENTED LENGTH OF STAY ............................................ ................. 1 I O
TABLE B-6 JAMESTUWN FLEA MARKET PARKING DOCUMENTED LENGTH OF STAY ............................... ................. I 1 I
..................................
TABLE D-1 LAND U5E INVENTORY BY SUBAREA ................................................... ................. l 17
TABLE D-2 SUMMARY OFL,AND USE BY SUBAREA .................................................................................. ................. 1 19
TABLE D-3 LAND USE VACANCY BY SUBAREA ....................................................................................... ................. l 19
TABLE D-4 PARIQNG RATES FROM OTHER S'tUDIES ................................................................................ ................. 120
TABLE D-5 PARKING RATES FROM OTHER STUDIES ................................................................................. ................. 121
TABLE D-6 - PAR]<ING CODES BY CITY .................................................................................................... ................. 122
Appendix A -Parking Occupancy Counts
Appendix B -Parking Duration/Turnover Data
Appendix C -City Parking Codes and Ordinances
Appendix D -Land Use Data
~'`r Ciry a f Tusrirr
~at~ ts~~- ~Q~ ~1~~~~
~ti,rardu~,~,: ri ri~~,~i,~rF:~~i~, iii Old Town Tustin Parking Study
The City of Tustin has initiated a Parking Study far Old Town Tustin to review parking
conditions and parking codes in the Old Town arc-a. Much of the parking in the Old Town area is
provided by on street parking and within off street parking facilities that are open to the public.
Some of the newer developments provide private off street parking that is sized based upon
contemporary parking requirements.
The Old Town Tustin Parking Study evaluates existing parking conditions in the Old Town area,
including identification and documentation of parking supply, parking demand, parking
utilization, and parking regulations/management practices. The study also identifies strategies
that may better utilize existing or expanded parking facilities, defines appropriate parking usage
codes for new developments in Old Town, and makes recommendations for the most timely and
cost effective parking improvements appropriate for Old Town.
The study found that the existing parking supply is generally adequate and is not heavily utilized
in most study areas. A Eew lots within the study area are used more heavily than other areas;
however, no areas would be defined to have a severe parking shortage today. Overall, the amount
of parking demand is lower than what might be expected Eor a comparable Level of development in
amore suburban configuration or land use style,
The current parking conditions may present opportunities for the City to allow for additional land
uses to locate within the study area and talcs advantage of available surplus existing parking.
Further, parking management practices and provision of additional parking facilities may allow
the City to improve the activity level and vitality of the Old Town district.
Within this report are numerous general and specific findings and recommendations for planning
and management of parking in Old Town Tustin, Some recommendations provide short-term
solutions to current problems identified in this report. Others provide a blueprint for future
prioritization and management. The following is a summary in generalized form of the study
Findings identified in this report.
• Parking demand in Olcl Town Tustin is generally low based upon the amount of parl<v-tg
now utilized in relation to the existing floor area and land use types. A comparable
downtown community could have a much higher parking demand, if activity levels were
higher.
• Parking is generally available and underutilized in most of the study area at most times,
however there are hot spots. lliese are generally within time limit zones in front of
businesses on El Camino Real and Main Street that have limited off street parking.
~, KOA ~~~P~~A~~~~ c~,~ ~~T~,S~I~~
~ ,, ~, ,,~r.~: >~. rr,~ :~r,~ ;-FU ~~_ :1 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Ir~tro~lr.rcrion ~r~td ~:xeu~trve Srra~tr~cr~'y
Shortages occur more frequently during special events such as the Farmers Market and
Jamestown Flea Market.
• There is evidence of violation of time limits and there is mininnaI enforcement in time
Limit zones.
• There is probably not sufficient land to attain general plan goals For Old Town through
use of suburban development types and at-grade off street parking. Also land use trends in
the county are not consistent with this development approach.
• Mixed use developments, higher density developments, and specialty developments will
likely be the rule, not the exception, Ear new development in the Old Town area, especially
if they are consistent with the general plan vision.
The following is a list of general key recommendations made throughout this study. Further
discussion can be found within the report sections.
Land Use/Tustin City Code Modifications
• Continue to encourage mixed-use developments in order to make better use of available
parking far present and future uses.
• Review and revise the Tustin City Code to permit limited restaurant uses within. existing
multi-tenant buildings under special permit without the need for an increase in on-site
parking requirements for such uses. The amendment process might also look at
identifying specific criteria that can assess existing parking opportunities on such sites and.
available parking management strategies.
Modify the Tustin City Code to enact new or relaxed parking requirements for Old Town.
This includes specific rates for certain more common land uses as identified in the report,
allowances for joint and shared parking without the need for special Planning Connmission
or City Council discretionary approvals. The amendment process might also identify
certain minimum criteria which could assist in the staff approval process.
• Review and revise any currently pertr-itted in-lieu fees far parking to reflect the current
costs of acquiring and constricting parking facilities. This may be necessary in both the
Parking Overlay District and Historical Overlay District. The modifications should also
acknowledge that if pay parking is utilized as funding and/or implementation technique,
any recommended in-lieu fee structure should reflect this as an off-set against any
established fee structure.
I~®A CORPI~RAT`IOl''~T Crry of Tustin
('~ r~~: ~. jn.~r~. ,>; ~r~,.~,~~ ~~, ~,i°~~~ 2 Old 1ownTustin Parking Study
Iszr~~o~lrrctrorz ~r~~l E.rec~rti,~e Srrn~7rn~ry
• When commercial and professional properties are developed or converted to permitted
uses, on-site parking requirements may be modified uncler any one or a combination of the
following provisions:
<> Property that lies within a Vehicle Parking Assessment District or Business
Improvement Area should be exempt fxom the on-site parking requirement, subject
to the provisions of the Parking or Improvement District Ordinance. An in-lieu fee
may be required,
o On-site parking requirements may be waived upon presentation to the City of a
long-term Lease, running with and as a condition of the business license, for private
off-site parking accommodations within 300 Feet of the development.
~~ All or a poxtion of the required number of parking spaces may be satisfied by
depositing with the City an amount, to be used for public parking
accommodations within the area, equal to at least the value of 200 square feet of
property within the project area, for each required parking space not otherwise
provided by the project.
Parlcin~ Management Strategies
• In general, employ parking management strategies to bettez• regulate and optimize the use
of public and private parking facilities in Old Town.
• Review and revise, where necessary, time limits for curb-side and public parking in Old
Town to achieve the optimum utilization of parking areas for business and non-residential
uses, with the shortest time limits applied to the most valuable parking areas. Longer time
periods should also be considered in. secondary areas v~~here such restrictions may induce
long-term parlcers to relocate into off-street parking facilities.
• Adjust parking enforcement to achieve compliance with time limits and to insure parking
opportunities for customers.
• Review and develop policies for consideration of limited parking time limit exemption
permits to allow continued use of some on-street parking for long-term use under special
circumstances, provided that the number of permits can be managed with objective
criteria. Consider a charge for such permits as means to control the management,
enforcement, and limit the number of pez-mits issued.
• Working with property owners, advise them to considex time limits in any private off-
street parking facilities only at a point where utilization seems to Ue approaching capacity
~~A Cap ~a~.~~c~r~ ~,, ~ y ~,1 ~,,~ „~
:. r~..ui~t~ ~ ~ ~ .ir,ir..<i~,,, 3 Old Tov~~n Tustin Parking Study
Ir2trncfarctroi~ end E~ectitive Suii~n~l~tr•y
and problems are evident, except for overnight parking restrictions necessaryy For security
and public health and safety considerations.
Public Parking Lists
• Worlc with the Stevens Square Association regarding the use of code enforcement and legal
remedies, as necessary, to improve parking lot surface conditions, security and lighting
within those portions of the C Street Parking Structure available for public parking.
Continue to monitor whether new Old Town public parking directional signage is
effective in directing motorists, particularly to the C Street structure public parking area.
Consider undertaking focused interviews of shoppers to determine whether they know the
location of public parking lots in Old Town. If determined necessary in the future,
consider incremental installation of additional public parking directional signage in Old
Town,
e Evaluate situations where existing public parking lots may have adequate available parking
spaces to provide parking opportunities For non-residential uses proposed in future mixed
use projects in close proxinuty to the lots in order to enhance overall parking supply.
The attachecl report presents our complete findings and analysis for the Old Town Tustin Parking
study. Recommendations made as part of this study are intended to help the City to better
understand parking patterns, management practices, and parking opportunities in Old Town.
These recommendations will help to better Facilitate continued revitalization of the area without
the inhibiting Factors that may stem from suburban parking supply and management practices.
~~ A ~~~PaR~,,r,j~~ Cf1J~ ol`~Tcrs~lrt
~((. LI!,i' : If;1 , `, ,,,,,. ;_,M1I`,t; 4 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
4> 4 Existing Larrcl Use Inventory
Land use in Old Town is primarily composed of commercial uses, described in the City's General
Plan as "Old Town Commercial", This includes retail, professional offices, restaurant,
entertainment, anal service-oriented businesses, Mixecl-use projects are currently being added to
this land use mix, and mare residential uses may be added in the future, Currently about 460,000
square feet of commercial uses exist in Olcl Town. The City estimates the near-term (5 year)
growth potential to be about 90,~OU square feet of ]and uses and "112 dwelling units within Old
Town. The growth potential over the subsequent 5-year time frame is estimated at an additional
48,455 square feet of non-residential land use and an additional 20 dwelling units.
There has been substantial land use growth on the periphery of Olcl Town, particularly in the
retail /commercial centers located immediately to the east near Main Street and Newport Avenue.
Land uses in these areas are shopping center, traditional stand-alone retail, restaurant, commercial,
and office, and recently constructed single-Family homes. The City administrative center is also in
this area, and the City is currently expanding its Facilities for the Tustin Library.
The commercial uses on Old Town's periphery generally share parking with other uses within
their respective shopping centers or developments. This shared use was planned with the
commercial znix and square Footage of each center integral to the number of parking spaces
provided. Many of the commercial businesses in Old Town are however stand-alone in that they
are neither. part of a shopping center or a mixed-use development, although they share parking
with other nearby stand-alone businesses. The traditional parking requirements Eor stand-alone
uses are therefore not well suited to Old Town, as there is substantial opportunity Eor shared use
within this area. Figure 1.'l provides an overview of the parking facilities in the Old Town study
area.
The trend in old town anal downtown land use development is the mixed-use project, combining
residential, office, commercial, retail, and/or restaurant land uses into a single planned project.
The first project of this type to be built in Old Town, Prospect Village, is currently under
construction on the northwest corner of Prospect ~z Main. Old Town's Five-year plan identifies
mixed-use projects like Prospect Village as a major potential growth area. There are several vacant
and underutilized sites in Old Town that may be appxopriate for these and other types of
developments, as listed below.
For the purposes of this study, sub-areas have been established to shady land use and parking
conditions, trends, and needs in Old Town. These sub-areas are shown in Figure 1.2.
~~A. ~~RF~~~~~~~ Ciiy o~Tusfirt
~~,~-,,~~~,.,,:. 4, ;:i.,,.,,„-F,,,~,,,-, 5 O1dTownTustin Parking Study
First St.
m
U
~I
m
~•!
Second St.
Prospect/3rd Lot,
P)
E
L J ~
~ ~ ,,
~~
C Street ~
Structur e o
(Public ~_
Upper E
Level) U
W
Sixth St,
r~
a~
0
.~
m
r,~
w
KO.1'~ ~"~~~PORAT
_ ,.
~~
City of Tustin
Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Lot
W. Main St.
LEGEND
Public Parking Lots
Private Parking Lots
Temporary Parking Lots
Study Boundary
UI
N
Nat to Scale
Figure 1.1
Study Area
First St.
~i
Q'
~ U
N
U ~-
0
ti
Sec4 S .
~~
Third St.
in ~ -f ProspecU3rd Lot
m
ProspecUMain Lot
~.. , ,.
W. Main St.
m
C Street ~
Structure p
(Pu61ic ~
BPPer ~ ~.
Level) U F,
w Qo~`
~~
Sixth St.
,~ ~ .
LEGEND
~ - Subarea Zones
v
~ ~ Public Parking Lots N
.~
c~
U Private Parking Lots
w _
Temporary Parking Lots
Study Boundary Not to Scale
~~~~ ~Q ~~ ~ ,~~~ ~•~~~ )~ City of Tustin Figure 1.2
' Old Town Tustin Parking Study Old Town Subarea Parking Zones
E:xistrrrg Lnrtd Use nr~~l Rcgu(atiores
Table 1.1 documents the existing land use inventory in Old Town by square Eeet, subdivided into
the various subareas. Table '1.2 documents building area vacancy by subarea. Detailed Land use
information by subarea is provided in Appendix D of this report.
Table 1.1 - Total Land Use by Subarea'
Land Use ~ Subarea
1 2 3 4 5 b 7 8 9 Total
Residential 1 1 2 14 3 - - - - 2'1
Service- - 1,109 10,321 14,'174 - - - - 2,554 28,158
Commercial - - 11,500 - 4,268 - - - 18,065 33,833
Retail - 14,753 2,960 11.,393 27,550 26,447 2,958 100,547 3,312 189,920
Restaurant - - 1,344 1,625 10,000 - - - 954 13,923
General Office 30,100 21,107 31,131 '12,183 5,579 19,546 - 12,523 - 132,169
Government Office - - - 7,087 - - - - - 7,087
Medical Office 5,223 3,297 - 2,321 - - - - - 10,841
Recreational/Social - - 6,637 - 1,789 - - - - $,426
Religious - - - - - - 8,893 7,220 - 16,113
Manufacturing - - 3,000 - - - - - - 3,000
Municipal - - - - - - - - - 0
Storage - - - - - - - - - 0
Other - - - 17,185 - - - - - 17,185
i i ,_~-'^_,r_, 35,323 40,266 66,893 65,968 49,186 45,993 17.,551 120,290 24,885 460,655
Note 7: Building area in square feet (except residential units). Saw-ce: CJ~ty of 1 ustln running ueparunent
Table 1.2 -Vacant Land Use by Subarea
1
Land Use Subarea
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total
Residential - - - - - - - - - -
Service- - - - - - - - - - -
Coinrnercial - - 11,500 - - - - - - 11,500
Retai! - - - - - - - - - -
Restaurant - - - - - - - - - -
Office 2,300 5,564 1;650 - 4,268 - - 796 - 14,578
Recreational/Social - - - - - - - - - -
Manufacturing - - - - - - - - - -
Storage - - - - - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL 2,300 5 564 13,150 0 4 268 0 0 796 0 26,075
Note 1: Building area in square tzet Source: City of l ustin and KUA field survey, ivlay t7, av~i
~~L #. `~/~.9~~~.1~! i~A~ l.ll j/ U~ 1 LLJLl f!
\\ ~~ -! I ,~Rt~:~ ~~.. ~-~ ~~...~~,~ , ,..~~ ~~ 8 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Exisrirr,~ Lcrfr~l Use c7red~ Regulatiotzs
~,~ Existing City PaYkiMg Codes, OYditpaMCes, Regr~latio~zs, acid Ln fQYCelr~eMt
A number of parking codes, ordinances and regulations are currently in effect in Old Town Tustin.
The following is a summary of parking codes and ordinances currently in effect in Old Town. The
complete text of these codes and ordinances is provided in Appendix C of this report.
Parking Overlay District
The Cultural Resource Overlay District is generally bounded by First Street on the north (but not
including the parcels fronting on 15C Street), Sixth Street on the south, the SR-55 Freeway on the
west, and Prospect Avenue on the east. The City of Tustin has established parking code
requirements Eor ofE-street parking in the overlay parking district, as shown in Table 1.3,
Table 1.3 -Existing City Parlung Codes, Cultural Resources Overlay District
Land Use Spaces/
Floor Area Loading
S aces Spaces per
Em to ee Spaces per
Seat Spaces per
Room
Retail Stores 1 sp/200 sf 1 sp/10,000 sf - - -
Office Building 1 sp/300 sf - - - -
Wholesale 1 sp/2000 sf' 1 sp/5,000 sf 2 sp/3 emp - -
Industry 1 sp/2000 sf' 1 sp/5,000 sf 2 sp/3 emp - -
Restaurant - - - 1 sp/3 seats -
Public ~issembly - - - 1 sp/3 seats -
Theater - - - 1 sp/3 seats -
Hotel - - - - 1 sp/2 rooms
Hospital 1 sp/1,000 sf - - - -
Note 1: Minimum. 1'arl<ing requirement based on employees it minimum is exceeded.
Note 2: Source City Municipal Code Section X251 Combining Parking District, 9252 Cultural Resource District
The City provides Eor waiver of these parking code requirements under the following guidelines
and criteria, in order to provide for maximum flexibility in design and cevelopment for various lot
sizes:
Front building setbacI<s zr,ay be established at the property line except For corner properties
requiring alive-Foot line of sight clearance.
® Rear yard setbacks shall be established at fifteen (15) feet from the rear property line, or in
the event the development extends to the next intervening stz-eet, the rear setback line
shall be construed as the [rontage on "C" or Prospect Streets,
~~~ ~~~.~~~..~,.r,IO~ Crry of Tr.rsri~s
ri:.~: ,u,~~: ~:. ;,, ,~~,~. ~ F:~~~~,;, 9 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Exlstrrrg L~rrrd Clse anc(Regrrlrrtrnrrs
• As an exception to the general sections of this Chapter and other provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance, when commercial and professional properties are developed or converted to
permitted uses under the provisions of this section, on-site parking requirements may be
modified under any one or a combination of the fallowing provisions:
o Property or properties that lie within a Vehicle Parking Assessment District or
Business Improvement Area shall be exempt from the requirement for on-site
parking accommodations, subject to the provisions of the Parking or Improvement
District Ordinance.
o On-site parking requirements may be waived upon the presentation to the City of
Tustin a long term lease, running with and as a condition of the business license,
for private off-site parking accommodations within 300 feet of the business or
activity to be served.
o All or a portion of required number of parking spaces may be satisfied by
depositing with the City an amount, to be used for public parking
accommodations within the area, equal to at least the value of 200 square feet of
property within the project area, for each required parking space not otherwise
provided.
Desigraatinn by the City of Public Parking Areas
Any available and suitable City-owned property within the City, or any portion thereof, may be
designated as a public parking area by the City Council. In determining whether to mal<e such a
designation, the City Council takes into account the existing parking conditions in the area and
the extent of the desire and need of residents and/or commercial proprietors in the area for the
public part<ing area, (.1C9'ur:iciy~al Code Chapter 9, Section 7905 Designatio~z o f Public Parki~zg
Areas)
Any property designated by the City Council as a public parking area will be held open to the
general public solely For the purpose of temporary parking of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, or
other motor-driven forms of transportation The City Council retains the right to concurrently
use the property for whatever additional purposes the City Council or its designee reasonably
determines are necessary or convenient and consistent with such parking use. (Municipal Code
Cltahter y, Section 79~® Use o f Desigtzated Parki:~g Areas). An additional summary of
pertinent provisions of the authorizing orduzance also includes the following:
The City Council may, by resolution, de-designate City-owned property previously designated as
a public parking area pursuant to Section 7905 of the Municipal Code: The de-designation is
dependent on either the subject property being needed Eor a significant public use; the continued
use of the property as a public non-exclusive parking area is inconsistent or incompatible with
I~~A C~I~PC~i~.~.7,I~1~T City o~ Trrstir~
~' ri ~,r~r~~~ri~.; .x, i-ri~..n err ~;ir•:._ 10 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Fxistirrg Lrtrr~' [Ise ~rtc! Regulrtrioru
such other public use; and the loss of the public parking area will not have a significant adverse
impact on parking in the vicinity of the public parking area. (,~Nurric%al Code Claa~ter 9, Sectioar
795 De-Designation o f Public ParkirTg Areas)
Prior to the adoption of a resolution designating or de-designating City-owned property as a public
parking area, the City Council shall hold a public hearing and shall consider comments received
from the public, property owners within Eive hundred (500) feet of the public parking area, and
any other interested persons or property owners, (1Vlurricipal Code Cltal9ter 9, Sectio~r' 7920
1Votice and Hearing Requirements}
The resolution designating a public parking area may provide such special conditions, rules, and
regulations, including without limitation, hours of operation and duration, as the City Council
deems necessary or appropriate in order to assure proper and appropriate use of designated public
parking areas and to prevent interference with the orderly and eEEicient conduct of the City's
business. (1Vlur:icil~al Code Clrag~tea~ 9, Section 7925 Establishment o f Conditions, Rules, and
Regulations)
The City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall erect, place, and maintain appropriate
signs and markings at each designated public parking area giving notice of all special conditions,
rules and regulations applicable thereto, adopted per Section 7925 and imposed under Vehicle
Code Section 21113. (1[~Iunici~al Code Chapter 9, Section 7930 En forcernent o f Regredatioals
ANplicable to the Designated Public Parking Areas)
7.3 Existing Parking Regulations
The following is a summary of parking regulations currently in effect in Old Town Tustin. Figure
1.3 illustrates locations in Old Town where these regulations are in effect.
2-Hour Parking Anytime
This time limit regulation is imposed on the peripheay of Old Town, along First Street between C
Street and Prospect Avenue. This limit does not allow parking for longer than 2 hours at any time
on any clay or night.
2-Hour Parking 9 am - (pin
This time limit regulation is currently imposed along El Camino Real between First Street and
Third Street, along Main Street between C Street and Prospect Avenue, and along C Street. It
provides For longer terz~ parking after hours and overnight in areas so designated.
~~A ~~~~~R~~~®~ City of Tcrsrirr
~.i,i.~..t~r:~; ~, t-r•i~~G~•ii'N~:ir•,c 11 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
First St.
.~
U
m
~km..
4
~~
-'
Second St.
~C~A C~~~t c~cr~ ~
r Q
U
1 ~
M o
F ^I o-
k
LEGEND
.: Unrestricted Parking
2 HR Parking Anytime
2 HR Parking Gam-6pm
2 HR Parking gam-6pm
~• ~ 2 HR Parking Sam-6pm Mon-Fri
~ ^ ~ ~~ ~~ 2 HR Parking Sam-6pm exc
Sat, Sun, and Holidays
~ ~ ~ ~' Sam-noon Thurs Street Sweep
~~~~ No Parking 10pm-yam
~ No Parking Any Time
24 Min Parking
Study Boundary
~/
W. Main St.
Sixtl
~~
of Tustin
Town Tustin Parking Study
Not to Scale i
Figure 1.3
Existing Parking Regulations
Existrrzg Larzr.~ Use rtrzd Re~ulntiorzs
2-Hour Parking 8 am s 6 pm, [~9onday-Friday
Currently this time limit regulation is imposed only on El Camino Real between Third Street and
Main Street, and on the periphery of Old Town, along the west side of C Street between First
Street and Third Street. This designation allows for longer term parking on weekends, evenings,
and overnight.
No Parking 10 pm - 5 am
This time limit regulation prohibiting overnight parking is currently unposed along Sixth Street
between C Street and Newport Avenue.
No Parking Any Tirne
This is the most restrictive parking regulation. Small areas of no parking are located throughout
the district, adjacent to driveways, fire hydrants, short curves, etc. The only long continuous
location in Old Town where this restriction is in effect is along EI Camino Real just north of
Newport Avenue.
4.4 Existing Parking En forceanent
An analysis of parking citations issued in Old Town showed that there were 15 citations issued
within the study area within the past 5 years. This suggests that the existing time limits are
probably enforced only upon specific complaint. This may be due to City policy or to the relative
lack of parking congestion in Old Town.
Of the 15 citations issued, 9 were in violation. of 2-hour limits. All but one of these time lirn.it
violations were issued on Main Street. The remaining 6 citations were issued in areas without
time limit parking restrictions, and five of the six were issued on Prospect Avenue.
The analysis revealed that many more parking citations were issued on Main Street in areas west
of the study area than Eor all of Old Town. This would suggest that there is currently a low
demand For parking enforcement of time limits within Old Town. This is not surprising, since
parking demand surveys indicate that parking is generally available and plentiful within Old
Town. This results in a low demand Eor enforcement of time limit parking. It probably also
results in a significant amount of violation of time limit parking in the areas so designated.
1.~ ~acistitag Licetzses for Public Pat°king
Public Parking in the C Street Structure is currently 1zcensed to a variety of users in the Old Town
area in order to offset their on-s.ite parking requirements. Currently, of the 81 public parking
I~OA CORPURATj(J11~ crty o f Tcrst;,z
,~ ,,ir~~,,,i~:,~ , ~.~.~ .~~.~,. ~;~;..,,; '18 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
\t~r: ~ ~ v r;r~i rri01'IS
spaces in the C Street structure the Redevelopment Agency has issued licenses far 72 spaces. The
current provisions of the ordinance provide For a very low fee structure, ~p36 per month or $432 per
year per space. The agency has generally waived its Eees Eor licensing these spaces, however.
Aclditionally, the City and Redevelopment Agency have entered into a development agreement
with Prospect Village L.P., that precludes the City from removing the designation of public
parking within the Prospect/Main lot ("Waterworks Lot"), and the Prospect/3rd St Iot without
public notice, and also provides that the City will give notice to the developer in the event that
the City needs access to the lot.
Ciry v~Tustrre
~~ ~:,:.~„~. ~ ~ ~.:~~,~, ~,~~ ~,;; 1!4 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
2.1 ~Parl~ing Supply
Katz, Okitsu & Associates conducted an inventory of the available parking spaces at Old Town
Tustin. The inventory of available parking was done on a lot-by-lot and curb-by-curb basis within
the study area. Figure 2.1 shows the parking supply inventory by street and by lot for Old Town
Tustin. Table.2.1 summarizes available parking supply by subarea for public parking lots, private
parking lots, anal street segments in the Oid Town area. A map identifying parking lot and curb
parking locations along with complete paxldng lot inventory and occupancy count data is provided
in Appendix A of this report.
Table 2.1 -Existing Parking Inventory by Subarea
Sub
Area
Description
Curb Parlting
Inventory
Public Parking
Lotlnventory
Private Parking
Lotlnventory Total
Parking
Inventory
1 Northwest Area 33 0 133 166
2 Northeast Area 20 0 123 143
3 Northwest Core 70 0 160 230
4 Northeast Core 98 73 72 243
5 Southwest Core 40 $1 183 304
6 Southeast Core 56 0 162 218
7 East Central Area 16 0 81 97
8 Southwest Area 57 0 522 579
9 Southeast Area 11 0 109 120
Total 401 154 1,545 2, "100
The overall on-site parking supply for Old Town is provided at an overall rate o1: 3.36 stalls per
1,000 square Eeet of floor area (based on the square footages identified in Table 1.1). This is near
to but Lower than the amount of parking traditionally required on private property sites for retail
or office uses in many communities. When public parking and curb parking are taken into
account, the rate goes up to 4.31 stalls per 1,000 square feet of floor area, which is a slightly higher
standard than normally found in many communities.
~(~A ~o~~Ql~~~~~ Ciry o f Tcrstrn.
((~ r,, ,, ,,:,,,~~~.,,:- ,~ Fr~~,_,,,,~~~ , ~.,~.;t;, 15 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
First St.
U
m
~/
N
Not to Scale
LEGEND
~ Number of
Parking Spaces
king Lots
irking Lots
~ Parking Lots
indary
~~-~~ ~-,(.~~~,~~~T,~~~~ City of Tustin Figure 2.1
[ CC' ~ Old Town Tustin Parking Study Old Town Parking Supply
P~rr~~l~zg Der~nnrrd nir~ Occrrj~a~ra~cyAwnl ysis
,2.2 ParkiM~ De~n~`ad
Each public parking lot, private parking lot, and on-street parking area in Old Town was surveyed
on a weekday and on a Saturday to determine the maximum extent of parking demand and
utilization throughout the day. Parking occupancy counts were conducted at two-hour intervals
from 9:00 AM to 11:00 PM For each lot and curb parking area on several days From anuary through
March, 2007. Supplemental parking occupancy counts were conducted on a Wednesday for the
Farmer's Market, and on a Sunday fox the Jamestown Flea Market. The parking occupancy
surveys were used to determine the overall parking occupancy of each public parking lot, private
parking lot, and curb part<ing area in Old Town during the clays of the surveys.
Figure 2.2 indicates the inaximuin weekday parking demand for each public lot, private lot, and
curb parking area. As shown in the Figure, weekday parking is lightly utilized in Old Town, even
during the hours of peak parking demand. Weekday peak parking demand occurs at 1 PM with an
overall occupancy rate of only 42%. Figure 2.3 indicates the maximum weekend parking demand
for each public lot, private lot, and curb parking area. The Weekend parking occupancy rates are
even lower than weekday rates, with weekend average parking occupancy rate of 23%.
Peal< demand appears to be driven by lunchtime patrons. Curb parking occupancy on El Camino
Real between Second and Main, C Street south of Main, anal Third Street between C Street and El
Camino Real is about 90%~ at this time, however for most of the day average parking occupancy is
about 50% - 60% on these streets. Most public parking lots in the study area had occupancy rates
of 10% to 25% during the peak hour. These low rates are likely the result of new construction
that will use available parking in the public lots (for example the Prospect Village project).
Occupancy rates for private lots were more varied, with a weekday average rate of only .33%~
occupancy observed far private parking lots in Old Town
Parking along El Camino Real is on average about 50% occupied between 2n`' and 3`~ Street during
the weekend peak period. Main Street experiences on average 20% parking occupancy, while C
Street south of Main Street is on average 60% occupied, duritzg the peak period. High occupancy
rates on these streets are the exceptions, only occurring during a short lunchtime peak period. In
general OId Town parking is grossly underutilized during the day. Public parking lots in the study
area generally had occupancy rates of 25% or less during the peak hour on Saturday. Most private
lots generally had Lower occupancy rates on the weekend than weekday, although occupancy rates
vary considerably for each lot. Although soiree individual lots were Full, such as the Assistance
League and OId Town Plaza, other lots, particularly those associated with offices, were vezy
lightly utilized on the weel<encl.
Although curb parking occupancy on El Camino Real and nearby streets generally peaks at around
80% - 100% of capacity at "12:0() Noon during the Farmer's Market, other parking Facilities in the
~~~ ~l~K~~~~,~.1~~ Crty of Tcrstrrr
,,, :.,;~,,,i.,,_ ~ gp„,,,p,~ ,:~.,,.,,., 17 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
P~rr,~~irzg Der~~~rrz~l ~trtd Occrry~rrzcy Arzrrlysis
area are very lightly utilized at this time. For example the municipal lot at 3'd/Prospect is only 5`%
occupied. Although curb parking occupancy was at or near "100% during the Jamestown Flea
Market, the public spaces in the nearby C Street parking structure were only about ~0% occupied
at this time, Figure 2.d shows parking occupancy typical of El Camino Real during the Farmer's
Market, while Figure 2.5 shows the relatively low occupancy of the Prospect/3"~ Street lot.
®11 C~11,f~~~a lOl~l CPtyOf .Illstll9
h ~.~~ ~n ~c; ~~ ~, ~,,n,,C, ~:ir;c 1$ Old Town Tustin Parking Study
First St.
cn
U
iA
m
^ ~ ~ °'
Q
j U
N
;_7r i ® d
~:.Wrl.: _ ^ ~ ~ ^
e o S.
~ ^
r
e
^
r
^
LEGEND
0%-60% Occupancy
61 %-70% Occupancy
m ® 71 %-80% Occupancy
e ^ e e 81 %90% Occupancy
^^^1 91 %-100% Occupancy
Study and Subarea Boundaries
Third St.
^
r
r ~~%
r ~ W. Main St.
~~'=~ c
0 ~ .
PARKING LOT LEGEND
_ _,,_.
. ~ 0%-40% Occupancy
41 %-60% Occupancy
m
o 61 %-80% Occupancy N
c
~ ~ ~ 81%100% Occupancy
c~
w
Not to Scale
- , a City of Tustin Figure 2.2
Old Town Tustin Parking Study Weekday Peak Hour Parking Occupancy
First St.
LEGEND
0%-60% Occupancy
in
U
~n
n
I
® ~ ^
®^ ~!
S~econ^d St. ~ ~ ~ I
~'~,
^
^
^
j..;
61 %-70% Occupancy
¢' n~ ~ ~ k° 71 %-80% Occupancy
U
~ ^ ^ ^ ^ 81 %90% Occupancy
0
a ^^^1 91 %-100% Occupancy
~~ 11% ~
Study and Subarea Boundaries
W. Main St.
~/
°~~ ~ ar
w
PARKING LOT LEGEND
® 0%-40% Occupancy
41 %-60% Occupancy
~ 61 %-80% Occupancy
81 %100% Occupancy
N
Not to Scale
~.~~~ ~_~~~~ ~,~~ ~'1rTe~1~T~ City of Tustin Figure 2.3
[~~' f _ ~ ~ _ ''~~-. I'ad-Ccing SESdy Weekend Peak hiour Parking Occupancy
/'~~rl~;alg Derr2and ~rrzcl Occul~c~~uyArrcrlys;s
FIGURE 2.4 - PARf<fNG ALONG EL CAMINO REAL DURfNG FARMER'S MARKET
FIGURE 2.5 -PARKING IN THE PROSPECT/3AU ST. LOT DURWG FARMER'S MARKET
K(7-A CURPORATIC)I'~T c;~y Q>< 1 ~~Sf;,2
r~, r,,~,n~ ~~~, ~; ,~~ ; ~~r.i~_r-un ~~_ 21 Old Town Tustin Parl~ing Study
Parizirrg Derncrrtd clrlcl` Occrrr>crt~cy Atrr7!}psis
Table 2.2 summarizes the existing Old Town peak parking usage and surplus parking available by
subarea for short-duration (less than 4 hours). As shown in the figures and tables, short-duration
parking in Uld Town is significantly underutilized, generally with occupancy rates of about 10`%,
to 35`%, even during the peak times, Some sections of El Camino Real reach 100% occupancy at
this time, however. As shown in Table 2.2, existing short-term parking demand is less than half
of the parking supply, even during the peals hours.
Figures 2.6 - 2.13 show parking occupancy for Old Town parking lots and streets at 2-hour
intervals from 9 AM to 11 PM on a weelcclay, including all public lots, private lots, and curb
parking. As shown in the figures, parking demand is highest along El Camino Real and nearby lots
and streets but only during specific times, Parking demand peaks at 1 PM, as shown in Figure 2.8,
likely due to the lunchtime patrons of restaurants, To summarize, Old Town's parking "hot
spots" or deficiencies are generally along El Camino Real between 2°~ Street and Main Street, along
Main Street between C Street and Prospect Avenue, and along 2"d and 3"' Streets west of El
Camino Real,
Table 2.2- Existing Short-Duration' Parking Use by Subarea
Subarea Total Short-
Duration Parking
Inventory Existing Short-
Duration Peak
Parking Demand Short-Duration
Parking Space
Surplus
1 Northwest Area 33 22 11
2 Northeast Area 20 10 10
3 Northwest Core 70 45 25
4 Northeast Core 98 42 56
5 Southwest Core 40 25 15
6 Southeast Core 56 18 38
7 East Central Area 1b 0 16
$ Southwest Area 57 9 48
9 Southeast Area 11 0 11
Total 40"1 171 230
Noce 9: lime limit parking less than 4 ho~n-s duration
~~ p ~~~P^RA~~~~T C.tly 0~ ~llSClll
~ ~~~::•..,,;= ~, rr,~,.:iriF,,;n,~. ~~I 22 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
LEGEND
First St.
1
u~
in
m U
~^
Second St.
^
^
0
w
^
0
l~ ^
0%-60% Occupancy
61 %-70% Occupancy
71 %-80% Occupancy
^ ^ ^ ® 81 %90% Occupancy
~~et 91 %-100% Occupancy
Study and Subarea Boundaries
Third St.
W. Main St.
N
Not to Scale
Cit of Tustin Figure 2.6
~ 4 fllcV i c ,;, ~ ~ `^ ~ ' <<.~~y t'arking Occupancy 9:00aan
First St.
ml
m
U
^ n
~.I
md°St. ®^
^
~° ~.
a
2 ~ °~a
11%
^ Sixth St.
Third St.
W. Main St.
N
foot 4o Scale
Study and Subarea Boundaries
LEGEND
0%-60% Occupancy
61 %-70% Occupancy
.. ~ ~ 71 %-80% Occupancy
^ ^ ^ ^ 81 %90% Occupancy
^^^~ 91 %-100% Occupancy
City of Tustin Figure 2.7
~~~"~ ~'£~I~.I~t~l~.~a.`T~~~T'!I ,-„ ~ f~.~~~0:.in,~.„ ^.~r~•gi_iia~o~,c`~ 71:~?Fl~rti-~
Old Town Tustin Parking ._•tc.,~c~;~~
First St.
l l I
m ~
Second St.
^
^^
V'
64%
°o' I I
m \
0
~~ ^
U
w
Sixth St.
LEGEND
0%-60% Occupancy
61 %-70% Occupancy
~_ •- •- ~ 7'i %-80% Occupancy
~ ~ ~ ~ 81 %90% Occupancy
^^^~ 91 %-100% Occupancy
Study and Subarea Bouncl~o~it~s
Third St.
W. Main St.
PARKING LOT LEGEND
® 0%-40% Occupancy
41%-60% Occupancy
' ! 61 %-80% Occupancy .
® S1%100% Occupancy
N
Not to Scalo
Cit ofi Tustin Figure 2.8
~` Old Town Tustin Parking Study Pae-king Occupancy 1:OOpm
JU
~n
m
U
l First St.
^ ^ ~.
Second^St. ^ ^ ^
~~r,. 3%
`. ~ ^
y s°i°
LEGEND
0%-60% Occupancy
61 %-70% Occupancy
... ~ 71%-80% Occupancy
^ ^ ^ ^ 81 %90% Occupancy
~~~~ 91 %-100% Occupancy
Study and Subarea Boundaries
Third St.
iii
rr' 6%
^ ~ W. Main St.
o~^
m
m
o:
0
~E
U
w
a~
PARKING LOT LEGEND
0%-40% Occupancy
41 %-60°1o Occupancy
~:, 61 %-80% Occupancy
81 %100% Occupancy
N
Not to Scale
~~~ C~(]I~P~~i,~`T~~~,FN City Qf Tustin Figure 2.9
[ (C• - Old Town Tustin Parking Study Par6cing Occupancy 3:OOprn
First St.
LEGEND
0%-60% Occupancy
61 %-70% Occupancy
.~ .. ~ ~ 71 %-80% Occupancy
^ ^ ^ ^ 81 %90% Occupancy
~~~~ 91 %-100% Occupancy
Study and Subarea Boundaries
m
~I
~ ~ .,, . ~
0
~E
ro
U
W
Third St,
w. Main St.
PARKING LOT LEGEND
® 0%-4~0% Occupancy
41 %-60% Occupancy
61 %-80% Occupancy
81%100% Occupancy
N
Not to Scale
~~~ ~~~~l~ ~ORATI(J~t~i City ofi I ustin Figure 2.10
<' ~~ •~ ~ ~ ~= L~~~ ~~~ ~-~~ Old Town Tustin Parking Study Parking Occ~.ipancy 5:OOpm
LEGEND
First St.
in
m
U
Second St.
® ®~
^~~
31%
^^
m
m
o:
0
c
.~
U
w
0%-60% Occupancy
61 %-70% Occupancy
• • ~ ~~ 71 %-80% Occupancy
^ ^ ^ ,r 81 %90% Occupancy
^~^t 91%-100% Occupancy
Study and Subarea Boundaries
Third St.
W. Main St.
ar
PARKING LOT LEGEND
® 0%-40% Occupancy
41 %-60% Occupancy
61 %-80% Occupancy
81 %100% Occupancy
N
Not fn Sole
City of Tustin Figure 2.11
v _~~to~~ f'arltir~~ Si~ady Parking Occupancy 7;OOpm
- -
- -
First St.
H1
U
0 ^
Second St.
^ ®^
Third St.
W. Main St.
N
Not to Scale
Study and Subarea Boundaries
LEGEND
0%-60% Occupancy
61 °1°-70% Occupancy
. ~ ~ 71 %-80% Occupancy
^ ^ ^ , 81 %90% Occupancy
®~~~ 91 %-100% Occupancy
~~~~ ~~'~~~,~~~~ ~ ~~~~ City of Tustin Figure 2.12
~' ~ Old Town Tustin Parking Study Parking Occupancy 9:OOprrt
LEGEND
First St.
in
b
rn
U
Second 5t.
®~
0%-60% Occupancy
61 %-70% Occupancy
.~ ~ ~ 71 %-80% Occupancy
^ ^ ^ ., 81 °Io90% Occupancy
^^~~ 91%-100% Occupancy
Stud~7 ~SIG~ ~V11~~1-EC--! i~~Ol~hi~i'~:~ ~'=i
Third St,
W. Main St.
PARKING LOT LEGEND
0%-40% Occupancy
41 %-60% Occupancy
_ 61 %-80% Occupancy
N
Not to Scale
~~.~ ~~~~~~~~~~'..~'~~~~ City of Tustin f iguro 2.13
[(C' Old Town Tustin Parking Study Parking Occupancy 11;OOprn
Pnr~ing De`narcd acrd Occcr~~nrrcy ~lcr~rlysrs
Figures 2. ~l4 and 2.15 show weekday parking occupancy in two of the private lots in Old Town,
the Jamestown lot and the Assistance League lot. As shown, these lots are very lightly utilized.
Additional parking demand information is presented in Appendix A of this report,
FIGURE 2,11- JAMES~I'OWN LOT, WEEKDAY 1 P1Vl
KOA CORPO~AT~ON
City of Tccsticr
Old Tawn Tustin Parking Study
FIGURE 2.15 -ASSISTANCE LEAGUE LOT, WEEKDAY ~ PM
1'arleir2g Derrrarrc( rt~rrl Occu~~rtrac ~; Arraly;sis
Table 2.3 shows the existing Old Town peak parking usage and surplus parking available by
subarea for long-duration (more than 4 hours). As shown in the figures and tables, public and
private parking lots in Old Town are significantly underutilized, generally with occupancy rates of
about 50%, even during the peak times. Private parking lots tend to be more heavily utilized than
the public lots, generally with occupancy rates of about 60% to 90% during the peak times, but
much lower in off peak and weekends, especially for offices. As shown in Table 2.3, existing long-
term parking demand is about half of the parking supply, even during the peak hours,
Table 2.3- Existing Long-Duration' Parking Use by Subarea
Subarea Total Long-
Duration Parking
Inventory Existing Long-
Duration Peak
Parking Demand Long-Duration
Parking Space
Surplus
1 Northwest Area 133 71 62
~ Northeast Area 123 59 64
3 Northwest Core 160 115 45
4 Northeast Core 145 59 86
5 Southwest Core 264 37 227
6 Southeast Core 162 $0 82
7 East Central Area 81 '10 71
8 Southwest Area 522 350 172
9 Southeast Area 109 53 56
Total 1,699 834 865
Noce l :Parking with time hm~t of 4 hours ar more, or no time limit
,2.3 Parki~zg Defnaszd Rates
Parking occupancy data was used to derive existing parking demand rates by subarea. These rates
are based on occupied parking spaces per 1,000 square Feet of building area for weekday and
weekend conditions, as shown in Table 2.4 on the following page.
z.4 Exastang Parizing Deincrr~ad by Lard Use
Existing parking demand by land use was determined based on existing land use inventory
provided by the City, vacancy rates established through Field review, and existing peak parking
demand determined by tl~e parking occupancy survey. The existing cleinand for the major land
use categories is presented by subarea in Table 2.5.
City of Tr.rstirr
I~CJA CORPOI~ 1~TI0 ~1
~; ~, ~;,,,;;,,.;. ~, r.; ;,_:;,,,,.~F~;;,,,, 32 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Pn~~~i~~g De~z-~clitr~ ~t»~l Occu~~r~r1cJ~ A~~nl~~sis
Table 2.4 -Existing Parking Demand Rates by Subarea ~ (per 100U Sq. Ft)
Subarea
Description Occupied
Square Feet
(Weekday) Occupied
Square Feet
(Weekend) Total
Square feet
(Weekday) Total
Square Feet
(Wee]<eaxd) Parking
Supply /
Total Sq Ft
1 Northwest Area 2.4 0.5 2.3 0.5 4.1
2 Northeast Area 2.6 1.3 2.2 1.0 4.5
3 Northwest Core 3.2 2.1 2.6 1.6 3.3
4 Northeast Core 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.1 4.3
5 Southwest Core 2.5 3.2 1.4 1.4 4.5
6 Southeast Core 5.5 6.0 3.0 3.3 5.5
7 East Central Area 0.$ 0,6 0.8 0.6 8.2
8 Southwest Area 3.0 2.2 3,0 2.2 5.1
9 Southeast Area 1.8 3.1 2.0 3.0 4.2
~ Weighted Average 2.5 2 2.3 1.8 4.6
Note 7: Spates per thousand square Feet
Table 2.5 -Existing Parking Demand by Land Use
Land Use Subarea -Parking Demand (Spaces)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total
Residential 2 5 13 4 - - - - 24
Mixed Use - - - - - 1 - - - 1
Retirement Home - - - - - - - - - 0
Service- - 2 2 - - - - - 14 18
Commercial - - - - - - - - 4 4
Dance Studio - - 8 - - - - - - 8
Sho in Center - - - 17 8 38 - 342 4 409
Nurser - - - - - 10 - - - '10
Retail - 7 10 - - 11 - - - 28
Restaurant - - - - 24 - - - 31 55
Genera! Office 73 38 91 11 21 38 - 17 - 289
Medical Office 12 4 - - - - - - - 16
Mortuar - - - - - - 10 - - 10
Public Utilit - - - 5 - - - - - 5
Recreational - - 14 - - - - - - 14
Entertainment - - - 14 - - - - - 14
Museum - - - 10 - - - - - 10
Reli ious Center - - - - - - - - - 0
Hotel/Motel - - - - - - - - - 0
Industrial - - 9 - - - - - - 9
Story e - - - - - - - - 0
Otl2er S 16 2 ~l 31 5 - - - - 8'1
TOTA></ ~ ~_~"; r_, i60 i.. ~ I ~;~ 98 10 359 53 1 UU5
I~C~1~ C~RP(lR.l~'~'I(]N Ciry o~ Tusrirs
,~, :. ~.,.,,,.;, :, ~F.,,_,h.,_,;k,~.,,_ 33 Old Town. Tustin ~'arking Study
A license plate survey was conducted to determine length of stay Eor relevant parking lots and
curb parking areas. The areas surveyed are locations that experienced high parking demand and
where time limits may be in place or necessary due to high demand for short-duration (less than 4
hours} parking spaces. The sw-vey was conducted at 1-hour intervals and documented the
duration of stay and space turnover for individual parking lots and on-street parking areas where
demand may show justification for tune-limit parking. Tl~e turnover analysis was conducted for
the Old Town core area along El Camino Real, C Street, 2"`i Street, 3"' Street, and Main Street on a
weekday and a weekend day. It was also conducted for the streets in the vicinity of the Farmer's
Market while the Farmer's Market was open, and in the vicinity of the Jamestown Flea Market
while the Flea Market was underway. Many of these streets have time limits, as indicated below.
The street segments and lots included in the duration of stay/turnover survey are as Follows:
Old Town Core Area:
• El Camino Real between 2nd Street and 6th Street (2 hour parking narth of 6`'' St.)
• C Street between 2"~ Street and 6th Street (2 hour parking north of 6`t' St.)
• 2nd Street between C Street and L-1 Camino Real (no time limits)
• 3rd Street between C Street and El Camino Real (no time limits)
• Main Street between C Street and El Camino Real (24 min & 2 hour parking)
Farmer's Market Area:
• El Camino Real (2 hour parking north of Main Street)
• 2"`' Street (no time limits)
• 3"~ Street (no time limits)
• 3`~/Prospect Unpaved Lot (temporary parking during Farmer's Market only)
• 3`~/Prospect Municipal Lot (no time limits)
Jamestown Flea Market Area:
• El Camino Real (no time limits south of 6`" Street)
• C Street (2 hour parking south of Main Street)
• Jamestown Lot (no time limits)
• Armstrong Lot (no time limits)
The following is a discussion of the results of the duration/turnover surveys For each of the four
surveys included in the license plate parking duration/turnover analysis. Complete results of the
duration/tL~rnover analysis for individual parking Iots and street segments are presented in
Appendix I3 of this report.
I~C)~ COI~POIt.PgTION crr~r Q~T~,Sfr,~
~[' ~~~ ~,.~;,~~~..~~ r, Er.~c~r!~ ~ r.;n ~,~, 34 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Par•l.irig Ttrr~~ovei• Analysr,
3.4 old Tovr~rr Core Area, L~eekday Ssrrv~ey
For the purpose of this analysis El Camino Real was divided into 3 segments in the Olcl Town core
area, with the east and west sides of the streets analyzed separately. As shown in Table 3.'l, the
duration of stay was generally about 1'/z hours for all street segments, with a daily turnover of
about 4 vehicles per space.
C Street was divided into 3 segments in the Old Town core area, with the east and west sides of
the streets analyzed separately. The duration of stay was about 2'/a hours Eor all street segments,
with a daily turnover of about 2.7 vehicles per space, although there was greater variation along C
Street compared with El Camino Real. For example, the west side of C Street between 2"~ Street
and 3`d Street had an average length of stay of 3.3 hours, while the west side between 3`d Street
and Main Street had a length of stay of only 1.4 hours.
For the weekday parking duration/turnover survey on 2"`', 3r`', and Main Streets, these streets were
all divided into 2 segments each, with the north and south sides of the streets analyzed separately.
As shown in the table, the duration of stay was generally about 4 '/a hours Eor all segments of 2"`'
Street, about 3 hours for 3`d Street, and about `l'/z hours Eor Maiiz Street.
Table 3.1 -Weekday Parking Duration, Old Tovvn Core Area
Average Average
Farling Area Parking Space Average
Duration
Turnover
Inventory Occupanc
(Hours)
(use per day)
El Camino Real 67 57% 1.6 4.0
C Street 50 40% 2.2 2.7
2"d Street 19 50% 4.2 1.5
3r`' Street 22 50% 3.1 2.2
Main Street 21 40% 1.4 3.2
Farmer's Market
- Street Farliing 90 50% 1.8 2.5
- Unpaved Lot 25 14% 1.1 2.2
- Municipal Lot 26 5% 4.0 0.1
As shown in Table 3.1, average occupancy For most of these street segments was 50% or less the
rnajority of the time, with the exception of E1 Camino Real between Main Street and 2"`~ Street.
Figure 3.1 illustrates the average weekday duration of stay Lor each of the street segments that
were included in the parking lot license plate surveys for the Old Town core area.
li~~ ~~~r ~~,~ A l~ l~V Cli'y 0 f ~CISI/F1
~ ~ ~~~ ~.~-~i~~~r.; k Fa ;,~r•~~c4:ir~~.. 35 O1dTown Tustin Parking Study
First St.
~I
U
LEGEND
1 - 2 Hours
~: : 2-3Hours
rearer~e 3 - 4 Hours
~~~1 4 - 5 Hours
~ 5 + Hours
Study Boundary
m
~~ Third St.
^~
W. Main St.
N
Not to Scale
~ _: ~0~ ~®RP~J1t~1TIC1N City of Tustin Figure 3,1
`~--'' ~ ~ • =~ ~~-~~ ~=~ ~~~~~,~ Old Town Tustin Parking Study Old Town Weekday Length of Stay
Pr~rkrreg Tcirt~aver Arzrilysrs
3.~ ®ld Town Core Area, weekend Survey
For the weekend survey EI Camino Real was divided into 3 segments in the Old Town core area,
with the east and west sides of the streets analyzed separately. As shown uz Table 3.2, the
duration of stay was generally about 13/a hours for all street segments, with a turnover of about 2.5
vehicles per space.
C Street was also divided into 3 segments in the Old Town core area, with the east and west sides
of the streets again analyzed separately. As shown in the table, the duration of stay was generally
about 2 1/3 hours For all street segments, with a turnover of about 2.3 vehicles per space, although
there was greater variation than with El Camino Real, The east side of C Street between 2°~
Street anc[ 3"' Street had an average length of stay of 4 hours, while the west side between 3"'
Street and Main Street had a length of stay of only 1.2 hours. As shown in the table, the duration
of stay for 2"d, 3"', and Main Streets was generally about 1 1/3 hours, 2s/a hours, and 4 hours,
respectively, but with wide variation depending on side of street, As shown in Table 3.2, most of
these street segments were lightly occupied on the weekend.
Figure 3.2 illustrates the average weekend duration of stay for each of the street segments that
were included in the parking lot license plate surveys for the Old Town core area.
3.3 Farmer's lf~arket Area
The par]<ing duration/turnover survey for the Farmer's Market was conducted on a Wednesday
morning and afternoon to include all parking activity attributable to the Farmer's Market. Off-
Street parking for the Farmer's market is available adjacent to the market site. For the purpose of
the study the Farmer's market study area was analyzed separately for the two lots closest to the
market. (the unpaved lot on the northwest corner of Prospect & 3"~, and the Municipal lot on the
southeast corner of Prospect & 3rd), as well as for several streets in the immediate vicinity of the
Farmer's Market. As with the Old Town core area survey, each street segment is analyzed
separately Eor each side of the street.
The duration of stay was generally about 1 hour for the unpaved lot, and about 4 hours For the
Municipal lot. Street segments generally had a duration of stay of about 1.1 hours per space for EI
Camino Real and about 2.6 hours for 2"d Street. There was greater variation on 3" ~ Street, from 1.3
hours east of El Camino Real to over 3 hours west of El Camino Real. This may be due to the
commercial businesses located west of El Camino Real and the vacant land east of El Camino Real.
~~1`1 ~OR~~~.A~'~~N C'iry of Tcrstfrt
Fi,~~-~;~,~„~.c. ~ tr.;~,:~r~,~rr,~~,c: 37 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
JU
First St.
ai
d
U
N
a
0
LEGEND
U
m
l Second StJ ~ ~
~.
a
pi ~
I
~/
N
Not to Scale
1 - 2 Hours
~, ~ :: ~ 2 - 3 Hours
~~a~.m~ 3 - 4 Hours
^^^~ 4 - 5 Hours
~ 5 + Hours
Study Boundary
City of Tustin Figure 3.2
~~~,~ C'D~P'(3~ ~~ SON Old Town Weekend Len th ofi Sta
~~~ ~~~~ ~~ :~~. ~~ i~~~irir_~r.i,..i~. Old Town Tustin Parking Study 9 Y
Par~~i~~~g Tatrrrvr~er A~~talysis
The high occupancy rate on some street segments surrounding the Farmer's Market, together
with a duration approaching 2 hours indicates that a shorter time limit may be appropriate here
while the Market is open. A time limit of 90 minutes is recommended to increase the availability
of these spaces to short-term users.
Table ;.2 -Weekend Parking Duration, 01d Town Core Area
Average Avea•age
Parking Area Parking Space Average
Duration
Turnover
Inventory Occupancy
(hours)
(use per day)
El Camino Real 67 48% 1.7 2.5
C Street 50 28% 2.3 22
2°`' Street 19 'l5% '1.3 3.9
3`d Street 22 15% 2.7 0.6
Main Street 21 31 % 4.0 0.7
Jamestown Flea Market
- Street Parking 65 44% 1.8 5.2
-- C Street Structure 81 z Z7%~ 2.2 2.7
- Jamestown Lot' "109 N/A ` 1.3 3.0
- Armstrong Lot 41 23% 1.4 1.1
Note 1: Lot occupied by vendors; Nate 2; Pudic spaces.
Figure 3.3 illustrates the average duration of stay Eor each of the street segments and lots that
were included in the parking lot license plate surveys for the Farmer's Market.
3.4 Jai~test~uv~.8 Flea Market Area
The parking duration/turnover survey for the Jamestown Flea Market was conducted on a Sunday
morning and afternoon to include all parking activity attributable to the Jamestown Flea Market.
Off-Street parking for the Jamestown Flea tnarlcet is available adjacent to the market site, however
its effect on on-street parking is significant, as previously shown in Table 3.2, For the purpose of
the study the Jamestown Flea market study area was analyzed separately for the three lots closest
to the market (the Jamestown lot, the Armstrong lot across the street, and the C Street lot), as
well as for several streets in the immediate vicinity of the Jamestown Flea Market. As with the
Old Town core area survey, each street segment is analyzed separately for each side of the street.
As shown in Table 3.2, the duration of stay was generally about 1.3 hours for the Jamestown lot,
about 1.4 hours for the Armstrong lot-+, and about 2.2 hours Eor the C Street structure. It should be
~~~ ~®11~~11~.~! ~Ql~l C11y fJj~Tl157111
~C' ~-i~r~~~~.i! .; :. ;:~~~-~~~r~=gin:.: 39 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
First St.
U
m
Second St.
1.04
Third St.
~ s
NA
W, Main St.
N
Not to Scale
Figure 3.3
~gth of Stay
~~~ ~~~~aR A~'l~~ City of Tusfiin
~~" ~ ~ ~ ~~< ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~:._~ ~~~~ Old Town Tustin Parking Study Farmers Market
Parhireg Tiirnat~er /-lr~nli~sis
noted that the parking turnover./duration survey was only done for spaces in the C Street
structure that are available for public use. Street segments generally had a turnover of about 5
vehicles per space and a duration of stay of about "1.8 hours, although there is significant variation
between El Camino Real and C Street.
The curb parking along El Camino Real and C Street is highly desirable For flea market patrons,
resulting in high parking occupancy levels on these streets during the Elea market.
There are currently no parking time limit restrictions in this area. This curb area was included in
the duration/turnover survey clue to the possibility of imposing time restrictions in the future.
T he average duration of stay For this area was 1.8 hours, indicating that a 2-hour limit would have
no effect on restraining parking conditions.
The nearly 2-hour duration on El Camino Real along with the high occupancy rate during the flea
market indicates that a shorter time limit may be appropriate while the flea market is underway.
A time limit of 90 minutes on this segment of El Camino Real is therefore recommended for
Sunday between 9 AM and 8 PM. This should also improve utilization of the nearby C Street
parking structure at this time.
Figure 3.4 illustrates the average duration of stay in each of the lots and street segments that were
included in the parking lot license plate surveys for the Jamestown Flea Market.
3.5 Parking Duration/Ticrr:over Sum~r~c~ry
The average weekday duration of stay for Old Town curb parking~varies from about "1'/a hours on
El Camino Real and Main Street up to 41/a hours on 2"d Street. Weekend length of stay has about
the same variation, from 1'/z hours on El Camino Real and 2r"~ Street to 4 hours on Main Street.
Tl-zis applies during the 9AM to 11PM survey period.
Parking duration is generally shorter in the immediate vicinity of the Farmer's Market. Average
length of stay is only about 1 hour on El Camino Real and in the 3`~/Prospect unpaved lot.
Duration was longer on 2"`' and 3`~ Streets, at about 2'/z hours each however. Jamestown Flea
Market parking duration was somewhat longer than for the Farmer's Market. Curb parking
duration was about 1'/z hours to 21/z hours, depending on location, while available parking in the
Jamestown lot and in the Armstrong lot across the street averaged about 1.3 hours each in length
of stay.
~,, ~~~ ~ORPI~RA~C'Id,]~N ~ Crry o fT~is~i~~
C' ~~~ ~,,~.,,,,~., ,~. r~r~~_,ir.i~ r~:n•~c~ 41 01d Town Tustin Parking Study
First St.
U
m
Third St.
W. Main St.
N
Not to Scale
I~.(~A. CCaRPOIi A.7~~+~~1 City of Tustin Figure 3.4
^~ ° ~ ~ ~~~~~.~ :, e~ ~c:, ,r.v, . Old Town Tustin Parking Study Jamestown Flea Market Length of Stay
P~rr~ircg Tur~raaver Arr~tllisls
The occupancy and turnover surveys determined that there is generally surficient available
parking in Old Town to satisfy the existing demand during times of normal demand (a typical
weekday or weekend day). The existing parking lots open to the general public are generally
lightly used during most business hours. Curb parking demand during some regularly scheduled
special event times, such as the Farmer's Market and Jamestown Flea Market is at or near capacity
for short periods of time in the immediate vicinity of those events, however, The
duration/turnover survey determined that shorter time limits may be required in some areas,
particularly along El Camino Real.
Weekday parking demand is higher than weekend. Parking demand is relatively light on most
streets in OId Town, except for short periods of time during special events. Parking demand for
spaces near some of the existing restaurants and retail establishments is higher than in other areas
of Old Town. Specifically, on-street parking demand along El Camino Real, C Street, and 3`~
Street is more than 80% of capacity during the peak lunchtime hour on weekdays, This may
generate limited concerns for additional parking in localized areas during the peak demand periods,
however even on those streets in the Old Town area parking demand is relatively light at most
tunes, generally about 25% to 50% of capacity depending on location.
~~~ R~QR~O~RATIOI~T Ciry pl-Tarstir~
~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ii,~; y~ rr:.- rir~r,~r•,~~ 43 Old Town. Tustin Parking Study
4.4 Introduction
The evaluation of existing parking conditions Eor Old Town Tustin showed that there is normally
sufficient available parking in Old 1 own to satisfy existing demand on a typical weekday or
weekend day. The existing parking lots open to the general public are generally not heavily used
during most business hours. Out of 154 public off-street parking spaces, typically only about 18%
are occupied (1.26 are available for additional use). Demand Eor on-street parking is at or near
capacity during some special event times, such as the Farmer's Market and Jamestown Flea
Market on streets near these event areas, but overall demand for on-street parking is generally
much lower, averaging about 32% occupancy on weekdays and 23% on weekends. Average
parking demand in private lots in Old Town is about 33% of available supply on weekdays and
24% on weekends.
Based upon a current assessment of parking conditions, two key findings are apparent:
• There is currently a surplus of parking supply in the Old Town Area that is not being
effectively utilized. It may be possible for the City to taIce advantage of the general
parking surplus by allowing additional uses into the area without praviding additional
parking at the rates generally applied to individual uses outside of the Old Town Area.
• Parking in most desirable time-limit areas is becoming a "hot-spot" problem. The City
may have ~ to reevaluate parking management strategies in these areas to maintain an
attractive overall parking supply. This may include imposing additional time limits,
establishing shorter time limits, and more regular enforcement of time limits.
4.2 Key Issues -Parking Treads, Problems, and De~'iciencies
This section documents some current trends in land use and parking in Tustin and in similar or
comparable areas of Orange County.
Land. Use Trends
There is a trend in central and north Orange County toward mixed-use projects that can
maximize utilization of scarce available land while providing affordable residential units and/or
commercial suites and maximizing parking utilization, These units are generally provided with a
carefully designed and managed parking supply that takes advantage of existing parking surpluses,
while mal<ing sure that additional parking is provided to meet the special needs of the
development.
~~1~ (.~~PQ~141~'~Q~ City n f l c~srirl
~: ,~, L,, ,,,.i~, ~, ~-, ;,;;,,,~F,;,,,~, 44 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Par~~ijtg Needs ~lrr~rlysrs
Prospect Village, a recently approved project currently under construction on the northwest
corner of Prospect & Main, is an example of this trend. This project combines retail, professional
office, and live-work residential units in a 40,200 square-foot development. A shared joint use
parking analysis was conducted in review of the parking demands for the commercial retail,
restaurant and office portions of the project. This analysis defined the actual parking needs for
these uses in the project. The parking fox some of these uses will be provided adjacent to ehe site
in off-street public parking lots. An innovative parking agreement has been arranged between the
City and the builder to allow for non-exclusive use of up to 59 public parking spaces for this
project. within the Main Street Waterworks Lot and ; `d/Prospect public parking lot. !his
agreement provides far designated non-exclusive use of public parking spaces for the commercial
and office components of the mixed-use project.
The Prospect Village project has been the only recent mixed-use project to be proposed, approved,
and constructed in the area, however. While the Prospect Village project was successfully steered
through the process, many developers could be discouraged by the City's standard parking
requirements, the relatively high cost of off-site parking spaces, and other requirements. There is
also a limited (finite) supply of sharable public parking spaces available for Future projects of this
type
Future Mixed Use Projects
A shared joint use parking approach similar to what was considered in the Prospect Village project
can be considered for additional mixed use projects in Old Town, as is currently authorized by the
City's parking requirements. Resident parking should be fully accommodated and exclusively for
the use of residents in any mixed use projects that include residential uses.
The Tustin General Plan calls Eor the integration of residential uses into the land-use mix in Old
Town to provide market support for retail and commercial uses while improving the vitality of
the district. An increased. residential component, perhaps in mixed-use projects sixxiilar to Prospect
Village, can also provide for more affordable housing and maximize use of available parking.
The General Plan also calls for shared parking among the various land uses in Old Town. For
shared parking to be successful there must be a mix of several land use types with compatible
parking demands within close proximity to a common parking area. The parking Facilities to be
shared should be within a reasonable walking distance of each land use. Generally 300 Eeet is
considered the maximum desired distance to walk to/from a retail or commercial business to
parking for that business. Planning for shared parking should therefore assume the parking supply
within about 300 Eeet of the packing generator. This can mean either a public lot or structure
within one block of the generator, Iightiy-used curb parking areas, or a mixed-use development
with integrated parkking or shared use with a nearby lot or structure.
City of Tr,rsrirz
K~A ~aRPU~tATiON 45 OId Town Tustin Parking Study
Pa r!` i rt~2~ NL'C!CI S !-} l1ll ~y515
Parking opportunities for mixed-use projects to share public parking may exist in the upper Level
of the C street parking structure. The C Street structure is ideally suited Eor shared-use
arrangements with either mixed-use or stand-alone developments. The parking occupancy survey
revealed significant capacity at this facility to accommodate parking demand from new
developments,
The structure's use and application to meet parking demands for development in Old Town is
currently limited by the City's practice of licensing parking stalls to specific users on a 1:1 basis.
81 stalls are currently licensed and not technically available, although they are not heavily used.
Even given the existence of Agency off-site licenses for the 81 public parking spaces in the C Street
Structure, there may be Future parking opportunities for shared parking to accommodate the
parking demand from new private developments that might occur within the immediate vicinity
of this parking structure given the significant capacity at this facility that is being unused.
However, it needs to be recognized that since this structure was privately constructed and is
technically owned by the Steven's Square Association, no alteration of the structure can occur
without approval of the Association. In addition, structural issues that occurred during early use
of the structure which forced retrofit of the structure may limit the ability of the structure to be
significantly altered to add floors or additional spaces,
Even though the structure is nearing its licensed stall capacity, assignlxlent has been based on one
space assigned to one business. Shared parking concepts can be applied to public parking
garage/lots to allow multiple required parking spaces to be assigned to the same public space.
Under the terms of a development agreement with the Prospect Village project, there are also
constraints on the City's ability to construct additional parking on the public lots at
Main/Prospect and 3`d/Prospect without complying with the provisions of the Parking
Designation Ordinance and also provisions of the Development Agreement without a long time
frame.
The parking occupancy survey and land use data provided by the City determined that For each
additional parking spaces added approximately 1,000 square feet of new mixed use development
could be allowed. This would apply in areas with high levels of existing parking demand, such as
El Camino Real and Main Street. Other areas could utilize existing curb spaces for new
development.
1 he City of Fullerton is currently processing, developing, or experiencing a number of mixed-use
developments in its downtown. Overall parking demand is generally higher there than in Tustin
Old Town at this time. Private projects are now building multi-story parking structures in areas
I~OA CORPCI~ZATI~11i City o/~Tustir~
,,,r.,~.,,.n~ac~ ;~ ~r:.:~n•i~t=aii-,~:; 4h Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Pnrkirz~; Needs Ar~crlvsis
forrzrerly used as City-owned public parking lots. The parking supply in the new structures are
being designed to preserve the quantity of today's public parking opportunities (normally on the
ground floor), while providing additional private parking needed to serve the increment of growth
on upper levels of the parking structures. The potential for shared parking is being used to
optinaize the size of the parking structures. The net effect is that public parking opportunities are
being preserved or enhanced, and private developments are providing less parking than might be
necessary under non-shared arrangements.
Restaurant Parking Considerations
The special nature of restaurant parking requires further discussion. Restaurants generally have
much heavier parking demands than office or other retail land uses. Their demand rate is typically
10 stalls per 1000 square feet, 2.5 times higher than the comparable rate for oEEices or retail shops.
However, restaurant parking occurs during three divergent peak periods when most dining occurs.
Parking demand for restaurants during non-dining hours is generally comparable to or less than
other commercial uses. In a mixed-use environment, it is thus normal to consider how the
demand for restaurants and food service uses are met.
Breakfast uses (including coffee bars and donut/pastry shops) experience peak demands prior to 8
am, when demand for other retail services is low. Many trips are very short duration, suggesting
consideration. of very short time limits of appropriate supply. Most customers cannot be expected
to walls very far if they have no other destination in the area, however some customers may walls
to the site if they are employees of nearby uses.
Lunch uses experience peals demands between noon and 1 PM, when demands for other
commercial uses are also high, however Lunch uses often cater directly to nearby businesses and
can experience a high volume of walls-in trips. Also, the peals demand during lunch hours is
generally lower than during dinner hours for many types of restaurants, because most customers
are on time limits and cannot wait long for service. The net parking demand increase for lunch
uses can often be comparable to other commercial uses.
Dinner uses (including high quality and fast turnover restaurants) experience high parking
demands at dinnertime. However, many other businesses are closed when dinner demands peak
(including most offices and some retail uses). When strategically located within areas with a
supply of pooled or shared public parking, restaurant demands can often be met without great
problem because many other uses are closed. Valet parking also provides opportunities for
restaurants to take advantage of more remote parking, by providing extremely convenient parking
for patrons while using more remote parking areas,
City of Tcrstirz
~fi.(~A CORPUR~TT~1~
,,~ ~,~.,,.,,i,,~. ,~, ri.,,,,r,,_~~,r.,ti: 47 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Restaurants can thus be taken into account with less consideration for their own peak parking
demands in areas where their parking can be shared with other uses. Breakfast and dinner traffic
can take advantage of parking when other uses are closed, while lunch traffic is lower than dinner
traffic at some locations and can take advantage of walk-in traffic From other uses in the area.
Preference should therefore be given to restaurant projects within 300 feet of complementary
shared uses, particularly offices and service/commercial uses. 1,000 square Feet of restaurant
spaces can be considered for every 10 available parking spaces within 300 Eeet.
Future Gro~tla Areas
The traditional parking requirements for stand-alone uses are not well suited to Old Town, as
there is substantial opportunity For shared use within this area. It is appropriate therefore to look
at new trends in land use and parking that are more applicable to Old Town, as discu* sed below.
Established old town and downtown areas of various cities in Southern California are beginning to
experience substantial growth in mixed-use developments and in upscale retail shops, restaurants,
and cafes. There is also a trend toward both condominium/townhouse projects and upscale
apartments in older downtown areas. New mixed-use projects have been completed, approved, or
are under construction in Tustin, Anaheim, Brea, Fullerton, Santa Ana, Orange, Pasadena, and
other cities in Southern California, Brea's Birch Street Promenade and South Brea Lofts include
Iive-work lofts as well as upscale shops and restaurants. Anaheim's A-Town and Stadium Lofts,
Santa Ana's Santiago Lofts, Fullerton's Soco Wall, Orange's Depot Walk, and Tustin's Prospect
Village have been recently completed or are under construction. Fullerton has built several mixed-
use projects near its downtown area which have utilized innovation shared parking arrangements
with available public parking nearby.
The trend in many older downtown areas in Southern California is toward mixed-use projects,
particularly those with a residential use on the upper level(s) and retail, restaurant, office, and/or
commercial uses on the lower levels. Mixed-use projects such as these should have a infix of uses
that take maximum advantage of shared use parking potential, such as residential on the 3"~ level,
office on the 2nd level, and restaurant or other commercial/retail uses on the 1" level. Creative use
of parking code requirements, regulations, management practices, and incentives are needed to
maximize utilization of parking for these mixed-use projects.
These new codes and practices can also apply to stand-alone projects that are within a reasonable
walking distances of other projects that they can share parking with. This has generally been
established as about a 300-foot walking distance or 5-minute walk, generally witlain the same
block or with no more than a single crossing of a 2-lane -street. Parking sub-areas have been
established for Old Town following these guidelines, where new uses can share parking even if
they are not within the. same development.
KO-A CoI;PC]~A.Ti+C~N ~`t'' °f~' ``st"'
~: ;,, ,:;,..,,,,,- F; ;:,,,,,„-,Y~~;,, ~,-; 48 OId Town Tustin Parking Study
PrU'I? I rt s_
There are several locations in Olcl Town that are well suited for new developments that are
keeping in character with Old Town and with the trends in land use development in established
downtown areas. The vacant lots near El Camino Real at 2°`~ Street and near El Camino Real at 3`~
Street are well-suited for the same type of development as Prospect Village. Mixed-use projects at
these locations can provide for residential parking on-site, while parking demand Ear office, retail,
restaurant, and/or commercial components can be provided by a mixture of curb parking and by
the municipal lot at Prospect & 3`d Street.
It is preferred that future mixed use developments conduct a comprehensive parlci~g supply anti
demand analysis For each development component. This analysis should include:
• An assessment of the net parking demand increases associated with the mixed uses;
• A determination of where and how the demand will be met;
• Provision of additional publicly available off-site parking where capacity exists in such
lots, or other off-site private lots, or exclusive parking to meet the increased demand
through new or existing facilities;
• Consideration of parking management strategies and practices needed to obtain
compliance with the intended parking plan.
It is the City's policy that resident parking in new mixed-use developments will be accommodated
through provision of additional on-site parking spaces within the development. Most of these
spaces are required to be committed to exclusive use by residents. Guest spaces are also required
to be accommodated and are not considered to be available for commercial uses, while parking
demand for office, retail, restaurant and or other commercial retail uses can be evaluated and
accommodated by available curb parking or by on-site or off-site public or private lots where
parking capacity exists.
New employee parking can be accommodated via new or existing parking areas that are
appropriate for long-term parking. Generally, this means a parking lot or structure within about
30U feet of the business. Employee parking does not need to Ue provided on site, but it should be
l?rovided within a reasonable walking distance (3Q0 feet). Public parking that is not appropriate
For employee or long-term use should be restricted via time limits or other measures to iisure that
employee parking occurs in its intended location. Permit parking may be required in nearby
residential areas such as C Street.
Retail customer parking can be met by a combination of on-site, nearby on-street, or remote. off
street parking, as appropriate for the specific commercial uses, with consideration far the walking
distances required, generally suggested to be within 300 feet of the business.
~~A ~~.R~'~~~~1®~ City o f Tcisri~~
,.,,;, ,; ,,, ,,, ~. ,-,,~,,,..,~r,ii,,~ 49 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
PGrrkirrg Needs Arrrrlysis
Restaurant parking demand must be analyzed carefully to determine how it can be met.
BreakFast parking can often be met in nearby short term parking areas, if there is no demand Eor
other uses at this time. Dinner parking can often be met through a combination of evening use of
daytime-restricted time limit zones and areas appropriate for employee parking. Lunch parking
has a new parking demand that may not be much higher than other commercial uses, if origins of
walk-in traffic are nearby,
Many communities routinely allow Eor a shared parking analysis to Fine tune the parking
requirements for mixed use developments. Normally a Focused study is required that includes all
of the elements recommended above. For most communities, the modified parking requirements
are specifically approved through a use permit. A few communities will allow for a reduction For
shared parking or mixed use without a special planning action (for example, the City of San Diego
and the County of San Bernardino). Tustin may wish to continue to review and approve shared
parking analyses for mixed use projects similar to mixed use standards established for
Neighborhood D of the Tustin Legacy project, ox it may consider modifying its code to allow for
adjustments to parking in the Old Town area based upon administrative action, requiring only an
approved parking analysis for justification.
Permitting of New Uses for Existing Developments
It has been noted that existing parking demands are generally well below parking capacity in
many areas of Old Town. There are existing areas where new retail, office, or restaurant uses can
potentially be established within existing building shells. These uses must now comply with
restaurant parking demands which potentially render the proposals uneconomical.
In view of the time-sensitive nature of restaurant parking, the noontime parking demand is
probably the most critical to overall parking supply in Old Town. Restaurant parking at noon is
typically about 5 stalls per 1000 sf for customers and 1-Z stalls per 1000 sf for employees. The
customer demand is not substantially greater than the demand of any traditional retail or office
tenant (4 stalls per "1000 sf and less if walk-in traffic is heavy). If employees are induced to park in
appropriate long term parking areas, the demand for customer parking is similar to the demand for
most other commercial uses. If parking is provided for the site at close to 4 stalls per 1000 and
there is appropriate on street parl<ing, the overall increase in demand for valuable parking may be
very law.
It would be thus feasible to allow for an increase in demand for some of the surplus parking spaces
by allowing more parking intensive uses within existing building areas or within future inulti-
tenant developments as long as the overall parking supply is adequate and properly managed.
This means that there should be some nearby parking available to meet increased customer txaffic,
and employees should be discouraged from using the nearby parking through time limits. It is
I~OA GoRPaR~.'~'~~N clay ~f ~l~rrs~rrx
F•i,.; ~~ nrir.: t:: r~ ~c=n;=!:~~r~c:. 50 Old Town 1 usiin Parking Study
Pczr(eirtg Neec7<s A~~nlysis
probable that 15-25% of existing multi-tenant building area could be permitted for Food service
uses without creating a severe overall parking shortage in the vicinity. It may be necessazy,
however, to implement parking restrictions to reduce impacts of diversion of parking into
residential neighborhoods.
4.3 Fa{tune La~zd Use Projectio~ls
The City's General Plan build-out would permit up to 1,255,000 square feet of "Old Town
Commercial" land use within the 72-acre study area boundaries. This includes retail, professional
offices, restaurant, entertainment, and service-oriented businesses. High-density residential as
well as mixed-use projects may be included in this total. The City Planning Division and
Redevelopment Agency anticipates considerably less development than this within the next ten
years, however, and has provided near-term (1 - 5 years) and mid-term (5 -10 years) future land
use projections for the Old Town area based upon current development activity and interest .
Expected Near Term -New Developments
The City's current Eive-year implementation plan for the Old Town area focuses on econozxzic
development, community facilities, and public infrastructure improvement. Economic
development programs to provide assistance to development projects in Old Town include:
• Property Owner Assistance Program
• Owner Assistance /Commercial Rehabilitation Program
• Business Assistance and Outreach Program
Specific near-term projects which provide additional parking capacity or demand in the Old Town
area are identified in the five-year plan and include the following:
• Prospect Village - A mixed-use development providing 27 parking spaces on-site
primarily for the residential component and approved to use 59 stalls within the
nearby city lots Eor off-site commercial parking.
• Tustin Librazy -Expansion & renovation. Includes 152 new parking spaces. These
spaces are outside the study area but are mentioned because they are public spaces
adjacent to Old Town and could be available for shared use.
Other near-term planned projects for the Old Town infrastructure include:
• 5teven's Square Parking Structure -provision of additional parking access.
East Alley Project - streetscape and pedestrian improvements.
• Prospect Avenue Enhancement Project -roadway & pedestrian improvements.
h+DA CQR~Q~.AT~fJN City of Tr.rsti~t
;,~ ,_„~.~~,.~,_ ~~, ,:, ~,;,r.,:.-~ r;,;,u~_; 51 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Parl;lr2g Ncretls ~rt<<I~~sis
In addition, there are several sub- areas in Old Town that have development potential in the near
term (1 to 5 years). Its shown in Table 4.1 and vaunt and development sites in sub-areas 3,4,5
and 6 may result in development of up to 90,900ft of non-residential uses and up to '112 dwelling
units (with application of any density bonuses on incentives under the Tustin City Code).
Table 4.1 Near Term Land Use Growth Projection By Sub Area
0-5 year Build- Out Net New Residential Possible DU's Net New Commercial/SF
Sub-Area 3 30 42,500
Sub-Area 4 39 17,500
Sub-Area 5 0 20,900
Sub-Area 6 43 10, 000
Subtotal 112 DU 90,900 l
Table 4.2 10-year Land Use Growth Projection By Sub Area
5-1U year Build-Out Net New Residential Possible DU's Net New Commercial/SF
Sub-Area 2 0 4,250
Sub-Area 5 20 44,205
Subtotal 20 DU 48,455
Grand Total 132 DU 139,355
Expected Mid-Term -Future Development
Within the 5-10 year time frame it is estimated that approximately 48,455 square feet of non-
residential development will occur in Old Town as shown in Table 4.2, in addition to the 90,900
square feet of non-residential development occurring in years '1 to 5. Mid-term development (5 to
10 years) will likely focus on areas with development potential, such as vacant or underutilized
sites such as the Prescott site. These underutilized properties with potential opportunity for
increased intensity of use in the inid-term (5 to 10 year) time frame are shown by sub area in
Table 4.2.
The City expects that these potential mid-term projects (5 to 10 years) will account for
approximately 48,455 square feet of additional commercial space and approximately 20 additional
dwelling units in Old Town.
I~OA CaRPO~~1.TIC~1~1 c;ty ~~~Trrsr~fr
~,~ ~~ i;~ii„ y ,. ,.,,,>ir~a=rr>.~r•u- 52 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Par~(~itzg Ne~r~s ~rtal~~sis
4.4 Exy~ected Pat'~iing Deanand
Expected parking demand is based on the baseline existing parking demand with expected parking
demand from new developments, utilizing expected parking demand rates which assume greater
intensity of land use and parking demand than at present.
Future Parking Demand
There are several ways to forecast future parking demand Eor the Old Town area. One method is
to base future parking demand upon an observed existing parking demand rate (per square foot of
building area) and Future land use as described above. The City's estimate of near-term (1 to 5
years) and mid-term (5 to 10 years) development projects is used as a guide for future land use and
expected parking demand. Although the City's General Plan build- out would permit up to
1,255,000 square feet of "Old Town Commercial" land use within the study area, only a portion of
this is likely to be developed in tlae near-term (1 to 5 years) and mid-term (5 to 10 year) periods.
The currezlt average weekday paz-king demand rate is 2.3 spaces/1,000 square feet based upon total
building square footage. However the rate varies considerably by subarea, as previously listed in
Section 2, Table 2.4. To be conservative, the average parking demand rate for the Old Town core
area (2.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet) was increased to 3.0 spaces per "1,000 sf for planning
purposes to allow Eor the assumption of more intense use of parking and building area in the
Future. This rate was applied to both existing land use and land use growth.
It is estimated that the potential increase in non-residential building square Footage is 90,900
square feet in 5 years and an additional 48,455 square feet in 10 years r. Using the parking demand
rate of 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet, and this near-term growth potential for vacant and
underutilized properties, this translates into a potential increase in commercial parking demand of
approximately 301 parking spaces in 5 years (273 commercial spaces plus 28 visitor spaces), and an
additional 150 parking spaces in 10 years (145 commercial spaces plus 5 visitor spaces}.
There is also an increase of 505 parking spaces needed to serve existing land uses based upon the
future rate assumed. This is due to an assumed increase in general business activity in Old Town
as new projects are built, resulting in more intense use of existing properties and associated
parking facilities. The current peak parking demand is 1,005 spaces on a weekday. The estimate
of total future peak parking demand is therefore 1,811 spaces in 5 years (1,00,5 spaces + 301 spaces
+ 505 spaces), and 1,961 spaces in 10 years (1,005 spaces + 451 spaces + 505 spaces). Again, these
numbers do not include any new residential parking anti residential guest parking that would be
required for new residential projects that would need to be accoznmodated on-site.
~~~ ~~~~~~~,~,~~~ Cit}~ v f l~trstin
r~~ nr~~~~~~r~-• ~, r~~~c;ii,~=;-~ ~~~.o„ 53 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Pnr•kir~g Needs Aacrlysis
Table 4~.3 summarizes the overall expected parking demand increase in Old Tovvn within the 1-5
year and 5-10 year time frames, including expected increases Eor existing uses due to increased
business activity, and required parking spaces for new developments.
Currently there are about 2,'l0U parking spaces in Old Town. There are therefore sufficient
available non-residential parking spaces to support the near-term ('1 - 5 year) and mid-term (5 - 10
year) non-residential growth projections if all stalls are suitable and available For use. However, if
Old Town land use achieves the build- out projection in the General Plan (1,255,000 square feet),
it is likely that a substantial portion of the new parking for the build-out scenario will be required
in structures or less land consuming configurations. Also innovative shared-use parking
arrangements will likely be helpful in reducing the required number of new parking spaces
required by approximately 10%, as described in the following section on parking demand.
Table 4.4 summarizes the projected 5-year parking demand by subarea based on existing land use
patterns, the projected growth in building square footage and the recommended parking demand
rate. Table 4.5 summarizes the projected 5-year parking demand by land use Eor each subarea.
Note 1: Land Use projections provided by the City of Tustin Planning Department.
Table 4.3 - 41d Town Peak Parking Demand Projections
Projected
Existing Pealc Existing Use
Parking New Use
Parking
Projected Projected
Parking Demand
Growth Projection Parking Parking Demand Demand Parking Surplus
Supply' Demand'
Increase
Increase Demand Shortfall '
( )
Near-Term (1-5 Yr) 2,103 1,005 505 301 1,811 292
Mid-Term (5-10 Yr) 2,103 1,005 505 451 1,961 142
Nate 1: Includes both publrc and pnvate par~un,g suppcy~aecnana
~~~ ~~R~~~.~T,I0~1 Ciry of Tcrstift
~~~,.,~,,,,,~.:> r~:~_-~,~~~~~=r~~~~~,~,. 54 O1dTownTustinParki.ngStudy
P~r~rng Needs Ariiclys;s
Table 4.4 -Near-Term Future Pealc Parking Demand by Subarea '
ubarea
Description Projected
Near-Term
Parking
Su 1 Existing Peal<
Parking
Demand Existing Use
Parking
Demand
Increase New Use
Parking
Demand
Increase Projected
Near-Term
Parking
Demand Projected
Parking Demand
Surplus
Shortfall
1 Northwest Area 166 93 47 18 '158 8
2 Northeast Area 143 69 35 30 134 9
3 Northwest Core 230 160 80 0 240 (10)
4 Northeast Core 246 101 51 93 245 1
5 Southwest Core 304 62 31 '1'1"1 204 100
6 Southeast Core 218 98 49 49 196 22
7 East Central Area 97 10 5 0 15 82
S Southwest Area 579 359 180 0 539 40
9 Southeast Area '12U 53 27 0 80 40
Total 2,103 1,005 505 301 1,811 292
Nate ] : ] - 5 year projection; NUie G: vrow~n esunld~es vy JUUd1Cd Ud~CU Lu1 ~~~L~~~„~,<<~~. r.~.=..~~ ~y •---- ---_~ ... _ _...___.
Plaruling Department and a Eield survey qE vacant parcels conducted on May 15, 2007.
Table 4.5 -Near-Term Future Peak Parking Demand by Land Use '
Land Use Subarea
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total
Residential 2 3 11 25 6 19 0 0 0 66
Commercial/Retail 23 38 73 180 12 120 0 513 33 992
Restaurant 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 4~7 82 ~
Office 121 67 136 17 32 57 U 26 0 456
Other 12 26 20 23 119 0 15 0 0 215
TOTAL 158 134 240 245 204 196 15 539 80 1,81
Note 1: 1 - ~ year pro~ect~on; IVOre G: ~,rowu~ carunares ~~y suuaied udscu uii uiL~>.,i,aiw« ~„~.,,...,,. ~y •••- ----i ---
Planning Department and a field survey of vacant parcels conducted on May 1.5, 200%.
Table 4.6 suinnzarizes the projected 10-year parking demand by subarea. Table 4.7 summarizes
the projected future parking demand by Land use.
KC]~A COR.PUR1~T~iON c,;ry~,l~~srP,z
<' r~~ -~, ~~~~r,~; ~, +~;~a~rF=F~>i~•,~.:; 55 Old loran Tustin Parking Study
Pnrf2ir~g Needs r~,~t,:rl~ ~:-i
Table 4.6 - 10 Year Forecast Peak Parlung Demand by Subarea'
ubarea
escription Projected
Mid-Term
Parking
Supply
Existing Peak
Parking
Demand Existing Use
Parking
Demand
Increase New Use
Parking
Demand
Increase Projected
10-Year
Parking
Demand Projected
Parking Demand
Surplus
(Shortfall)
1 Northwest Area "166 93 47 18 158 8
2 Northeast Area 143 69 35 30 134 9
3 Northwest Core 230 160 8U 0 240 (10)
4 Northeast Core 246 10"1 51 94 246 0
5 Southwest Core 304 62 31 209 302 "~
6 Southeast Core 218 98 49 70 217 1 _ ~~I
7 East Central Area 97 10 5 0 15 82 I,'
8 Southwest Area 579 359 180 30 569 10 ~
9 Southeast Area 120 53 27 0 80 40
Total 2,103 1,005 505 451 1,961 142
Note 1: 10-year projection; Note ~: ~rowtn estnnates ny subarea oasea on mronnai,Un ~.JIVVlUCU Vy l1lG L.~~y Vl ~ ua~+=,
Planning Department and a field survey of vacant parcels conducted on May 15, 2007.
Table 4.7 - 10 Year Forecast Parking Demand by Land Use '
Land Use Subarea
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total
Residential 2 3 11 27 10 19 0 0 0 72
Commercial/Retail 23 38 73 180 105 141 0 539 33 1,132
Restaurant 0 0 0 U 36 0 U 0 47 83
Office 121 67 136 17 32 57 0 30 0 460
Other 12 26 20 22 119 0 15 0 0 214
TOTAL 158 134 240 246 302 217 15 569 80 1,961
Note 1: 1 - 10-year projection; Note Z: l,rowth estimates by subarea oasea on inrormauon prov,ucu uy ~„c ~,,~y ~,
Tustin Planning Department and a Field survey oEvacant parcels conducted on May 15, 2007,
I~+~A CoRPORA-`T'IO1~ - crFy U1 ~lt$Fli2
~~. ,,,,.,,~.,~~,~~, x ~~~~~;,~,,~~=,~~~,~;: 56 01dTownTustinlarking5tudy
P~trkiF~g Neen's Ar~crlysis
~.~ .I~arl~g~Tg 1Veeds by 5'ubarea
Existing Short-Duration Parking Needs by Subarea
Table 4.8 summarizes the existing short-duration peak parking demand by subarea. For the
purpose of this report short-duration is defined as less than 4 hours. As shown, there is currently a
surplus of short-duration parking spaces in all zones.
Table 4.8 -Existing Short-Duration Parking Needs by Subarea
Subarea Total Short-
Duration Parking
Invento Existing Short-
Duration Peak
Parkin Demand ' Short-Duration
Parking Space
Sur lus
1 Northwest Area 33 22 11
2 Northeast Area 20 10 10
3 Northwest Core 70 45 25
4 Northeast Core 98 42 56
5 Southwest Core 40 25 15
6 Southeast Core 56 18 38
7 East Central Area 16 0 16
8 Southwest Area 57 9 48
9 Southeast Area 11 0 11
Total 401 171 230
Note l :Parking demand counts in par!<ing areas posted as 4-hour parking or less
Projected Short-Duration Parking Needs by Subarea
Table 49 summarizes the projected near-term short-duration (less than 4 hours) parking demand
by subarea. Table 4.10 summarizes the projected 10-year forecast short-duration parking demand
6y subarea. The base scenarios depicted in Tables 4.9 and 4.'10 show expected near-term parking
demand according to the ratio of 50% growth in short-term demand for existing uses, and 25% of
new-use parking demand as short-term. As shown, there is a projected surplus of short-duration
parking spaces in both the near-term and mid-term, although some zones are showing modest
shortages. These shortages are caused by expected growth in curb parking demand and other
short-term demand due to expected new retail, restaurant, commercial, and mixed-use projects
within individual zones of the study area.
1~~~ ~ORPQRA'T'i~DN city o f Tcrstitr
i,~,,,,,;~~.,~ ~ ~;;,1,__~~.,F~F,,,,,;_: 57 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Pnrkrrtt~ 1Vc~~ , '~;;,~
Table 4.9 -Projected Near-Term' Short-Duration Parking Needs by Subarea
Subarea Projected Slaort Duration
Parking Inventory a Projected Short Duration
Parlcing Demand Short Duration Parlcing
Space Surplus (Shortfall)
1 Northwest Area 33 38 (5)
Z Northeast Area 20 23 (3)
3 Northwest Core 70 68 2
4~ Northeast Core 101 87 14
5 Southwest Core 40 66 (26)
6 Southeast Core 56 39 17
7 East Central Area '16 0 16
$ Southwest Area 57 14 43
9 Southeast Area 1'1 0 11
Total 404 335 69
I~iote 1: ~-Year; Note 2: Parking demand counts + p~annea growth In par«ing areas postea as ~,-Hour ~ai~cu~g w ~t~~
Existing Long-Duration Parking Needs by Subarea
Table 4.11 summarizes the existing long-duration (4 + hours) peak parking derxxand by subarea.
Long-duration parking spaces can also be generally defined as non-time limit spaces, typically u1
oE~-street lots and structures. As shown, there is currently a surplus of long-duration parking
spaces in all zones.
Table 4.10 - 10-Year Forecast Short-Duration Parking Needs by Subarea'
Subarea Projected Short Duration
Parlcing Inventory a Projected Short Duration
Parlcing Demand Short Duration Parking
Space Surplus (Shortfall)
1 Northwest 33 38 5)
2 Northeast 20 23 (3)
3 Northwest 70 68 2 l
4 Northeast 101 87 14 _
5
Southwest
40
91 _
(51)
6 Southeast 56 45 11
7 East Central 16 0 16 ~i
8 Southwest 57 22 35
9 Southeast 11 0 11
Total 404 374 30
Note 1; l0-Year; Noce Z: 1'arlang demand counts + ~1ari11~C1 gr"DWill Ill ~?al'Krri~T d1"ea5 ~JOSC(:U a5'+-~tuut fJdllllll~ ~i ica.
KO~ CORPORATIOI~fi c;ty o f Tl15t11'Y
. „„ ,.,..,,, ;,, ,~, ~,.;;_;;,,_rF;,,,~,_. 58 Old l own Tustin Parking Study
P~rk;r~g .Nc~e~;~ Artctl1'5;5
Table 4.11 -Existing Long-Duration Parking Needs by Subarea
Subarea Total Long-
Duration Parking
Inventory ' Existing Long-
Duration Parking
Demand Long-Duration
Parlung Space
Surplus
1 Northwest Area 133 71 b2
2 Northeast Area 123 59 d4
3 Northwest Core 160 115 45
4 Northeast Core '145 59 8b
5 Southwest Core 264 37 227
6 Southeast Core 162 80 82
7 East Central Arrea 81 10 71
S Southwest Area 522 350 172
9 Southeast Area 109 53 56
Total 1,699 834 865
Note 1: Parking demand counts in parking areas not posted with time restrictions
Projected Long-Duration Parking Needs by Subarea
1 able 4.12 summarizes the projected near-term long-curation part<ing demand by subarea. The
base scenario depicted in Table 4.12 depicts expected parking demand according to the ratio of
50`% growth in long-term demand for existing uses and the assumption of 75% of new-use growth
as long-term. As shown, there is a projected surplus of long-duration parking spaces overall, but
shortages in some zones, particularly zones 3 and 4 in the commercial core. The indicated
shortages show the number of parking spaces that will be required if land use .is built out in the
near term (1 - 5 years) according to City planning estimates,
Table 4.13 summarizes the 10-year forecast long-duration parking demand by subarea. As shown,
there is a projected surplus of long-duration parking spaces overall, but shortages in some zones,
including zones 3, 4, 6, and 8. The indicated shortages show the number of parking spaces that
will be required iE land use is built out over the next 10 years according to City planning estimates.
Some of this demand can be met through shared-use parking arrangements as discussed in the
following section.
~C)~ CORF(~R~TION c;fly o>rT~~s~;~~
r, ,~.~,~,;~,~ ~~_: . ~~ i~~~~=tar=r:eiric- 59 OId Town Tustin Parking Study
Pnrkii~g !Needs ~lraalysis
Table 4.12 -Projected Near-Term Long-Duration Parking Needs by Subarea'
Subarea Projected Long-
Duration Parking
Inventory 2 Projected Lang-
Duration Parking
Demand Long-Duration
Parking Space
Surplus/Shortfall
1 Northwest Area 133 121 12
2 Northeast Area 123 112 11
3 Northwest Core 160 173 (13)
4 Northeast Core 145 160 (15)
5 Southwest Core 264 '140 '124
6 Southeast Core 162 157 5
7 East Central Area 81 15 66
8 Southwest Area 522 525 (3)
9 Southeast Area 109 SO 29
Total 1,699 1,480 219
(Note 1: 5-Year; Note 2: Parking demancl counts + planned growth ~n par~ang areas not postea wun tn-ne resuie.uuiis
Table 4.13 - 10-Year Forecast Long-Duration Parlcing Needs by Subarea
Subarea Projected Long-
Duration Parking
Inventory Projected Long-
Duration Parking
Demand Long-Duration
Parl<ing Space
Surplus/Shortfall
1 Nortl~west Area 133 121 12
2 Northeast Area 123 112 11
3 Northwest Core 160 173 (13)
4 Northeast Core 145 160 (15)
5 Southwest Core 264 214 50
6 Southeast Core 162 173 (11)
7 East Central Area 81 15 66
8 Southwest Area 522 548 (26}
9 Southeast Area 109 80 29
Total 1,699 1,593 106
hTnte 1; 10-Year; Mote 2: Parking, demand counts + planned growth in parking areas not postea witn time restricnons
City of TcrsPin
~~~ ~.~~~~R1al~'Yp~ 6U Old Town Tustin Parlciazg Study
`_ 1'i '.11P1III.l ,. `Il:~~il~.l(FC'.It,l(.,
507 1Vlixed-Use Developttretrts
Mixed-Use Developments
Mixed-use and live-work developments in Old Town may include such combinations of land uses
as artist studios, professional offices, cafes, retail businesses, and others, Some of these may be
live-work loft apartment developments which have become increasingly popular in old town and
downtown areas. Others may be a combination of retail and commercial space on the ground
floor and office space above, as is planned with the Prospect Village project at Prospect & Main.
Patrons of any live-work loft community businesses will also require ofF-site parking. Most of
these businesses are expected to generate relatively low parking demand by customers (for
example, artist/photography studios axe only expected to generate about 1 visitor trip per hour).
It is therefore estimated that any potential on-site businesses would generate a parking demand of
approximately 1 stall. The expected average duration of stay is 1 hour each, based on available
data for similar projects. A limited amount of curb parking adjacent to the development will be
typically be available for this purpose. The parking demand that can be expected from mixed-use
developments is discussed in the Following section on shared use and in Section 5.6 of this report.
Mixed-use developments should consider shared-use opportunities in~estimating parking demand.
Some land use types, such as upscale restaurants/nightclubs are ideally suited to share parking
with office space. Residential uses on upper floors are also good matches with retail and
restaurant uses on the ground floor. The number of parking spaces required for these
developments can be estimated based on the square footage of each land use included in the
project. From a parking demand perspective an ideal match of land uses can be made which
minimizes the parking demand for the project as a whole. For Old Town, the ideal match
typically would include higher levels of residential use since parking demand for residential uses is
lower than for other uses. The shared use study discussed below suggests that this ideal share of
mixed-use projects devoted to residential use is about 35% to 40°/r, of the development square
footage. Commercial and retail uses would occupy 20"/° to 30%, restaurant 10% to 15`%, and office
space the remainder. This data is derived from the existing parking demand rates For OId Town
determined in this study along with other mixed-use studies and ULI shared use rates. Other
ratios of land use result in somewhat Less efficient use of~ available parking spaces, generating a
parking demand based on square footage of each portion of the development, and a shared use
ratio, as described in the following section on shared use.
KfJA ~~R~'URATIC]N city ~~-TG~S~~,f
,;.. r- ~ i;~i„~'. r ,:~,~., ~,~-; r,;~c 61 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Pnr!`ftag ~llterr~atives nr~trl Ol~~~artrrtrities
Parking demand associated with these projects can be expected to be spread out relatively evenly
throughout the day, rather than being concentrated as they are for individual land uses,
5.z Sl~aretl Parking
In Old Town there are many existing land uses with different parking requirements by time of
day and by day of the week. There may also be new projects proposed with multiple land uses on
the same site, or proposed projects near existing land uses where shared parl<ing may be a practical
option. In these cases the net parking requirement fox the site for each hour of the day should be
calculated by utilizing the code requirement for each component use and adjusting the result
based upon the proportion of peak parking activity occurring per hour, This approach for
analyzing parking demand is known as shared parking.
A shared parking analysis can be used to determine net parking demand during various hours of
the day in which parking demand for a certain land use is high while another land use parking
demand is low. This type o[ analysis shows that a fixed amount of parking spaces may be shared
by more than one land use during different tunes of the day.
The current residential uses (single-family residential) in the Old Town area are not close enough
or appropriate Eor shared parking with retail, restaurant, office, ar other uses in the area. Also, the
existing residential uses already utilize their respective on-site parking spaces (i.e. driveways and
garages). However, any new multi-family residential (apartment) projects,
condominium/townhouse projects, or live-work loft projects may be able to share parking with
other uses in the same project or with nearby land uses. Parking demand for these residential uses
normally decreases during the day w11en most people are not at home. Parking accumulation falls
to near 60% of peak demand from 11 am to 2 pm. This is also the time period when other uses,
such as retail, art studio, professional office, and. cafe restaurants experience their peak demand.
Shared parking is therefore ideal For amixed-use development during the mid-day peak period..
The Old Town parking survey indicates that although resident demand Eor curbside spaces is light
during the mid-day peak, resident demand for curbside spaces in the early evening hours is 1-a.eavy.
This is also likely to be the case with any apartment or condominium development, or with a
mixed-use project that includes a residential component. This is due to resident and visitor
demand Eor "convenient" curbside spaces, when designated off-street spaces are provided. In these
cases there is no conflict if the shared use has little or no evening parking demand, such as a
professional office, art studio, or boutique shop. 1-lowever, if the shared use with residential is
restaurant or general retail the demand for available curbside parking spaces can exceed the supply
in the evening hours. For this reason, conditional use permits should be required for any
restaurant to be opened in the same development with residential use, or adjacent to residential
~~!"1 ~(~~PQR.!'"t.l ~Ql~l Clf}l Uf 1lr5lirr
~,~,,~ ~,~~„. ~, ~,,.:,~:~.,-.~,..,;. h2 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Pat~f2ir~rg Alterracttives and Oyl~ortttttiries
use, to ensure that acJequate measures are taken to direct patrons to available parking, or to
determine that sufficient parking already exists near the project.
Residents of developments with shared parking can help to alleviate any curbside parking
shortages by parking their vehicles in their assigned private spaces during the early evening hours,
If a resident's vehicle is parked in a curbside space intended Eor general use, while his/her assigned
space is empty, demand for general parking will increase, and more parking may be required in the
general use area. Time limits for curbside parking which apply during the evening hours can help
to encourage residents to use assigned private spaces at this time.
Shnt~eef Par,~ittg, published by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), reports on hourly parking
accuzxzulation by percentage of peak hour parking demand. The Sh~reel Pa~•~ing handbook includes
restaurant, retail, residential, and office uses that generally apply to Old Town. Other uses which
may be specific to Old Town can generally be grouped into one of these categories based either on
known hours of operation or on observation or curb parking demand adjacent to the specific land
use. For exarriple, a boutique shop with posted hours of 9 AM to 6 PM would experience peak
clemand somewhat similar to office, although it would likely have a pronounced peak during the
lunch hour.
Any cafe-style restaurants proposed for Old Town would experience their peak demand during the
lunch period from local residents, nearby employers, and patrons of other nearby businesses.
Curbside parking demand by residents of any nearby apartments, condominium, or mixed-use
developments would be low at this time. It should be noted, however, that if the cafe remained
open in the evening hours that there could be a conflict with residential parking demand, and
other arrangements such as off-site parking would need to be made.
Table 5.1 shows the percentage accumulation for curbside and off-site parking demand of each
general type of land use component likely to be proposed for OId Town (residential,
retail/commercial, restaurant, and office). These parking demand accumulation rates are used for
the shared parking tables in this section. As shown in Table 5.1, demand peaks at 10:00 PM to
6:00 AM Eor residential uses, at 1:00 PM Eor retail/commercial uses, at 7:00 PM for restaurant uses,
and from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM for office uses such general office, medical office, and government
office.
T he peak parking clemand rate for each use applies to the hour when parking accumulation for
that use is at 100%. Parking at other times is less for that use. Because the four major land use
categories have parking demand peal<s that occur at different tunes, it is possible for these uses to
share parking supply that is less than the sum of the individual parking code requirements.
~1~1`~ l.~~P'(]RAT~~~ City o f Tctstfrt
~[ ~~, .,~ ,~~~,. ~:. ~:c,~r.~r.~F~na~~, 63 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
P~tr~~iftg Alrert~atives crtad Ui~~~orturtities
Tables 5.2 and 5.3 summarizes the shared parking peak period demand forecast for the Old Town
study area assuming the near-term 5-year and mid-term 10-year Forecast of Old Town commercial
land uses, respectively. As shown in tables 5.2 and 5.3, the shared parking scenarios result in a
parking demand approximately 5% less than the stand-alone requirement. This suggests that
intensive use of shared parking may reduce parking requirements by about 5% generally.
As shown in tables 5.2 and 5.3, certain land uses have different peak hour demands and on a site-
by-site development basis, joint and shared parking analysis can be conducted and utilized to
produce a more efficient parking plan for any development project in the downtown area.
Table 5.1 -Representative 11Veekday Hourly Parking Accumulation
Hour of Day
Residential'
Commercial' Restaurant
Customer Restaurant
Employee
Office3
6:00 am 100% "1% 0% 0%~ 3%
7:00 am 90% 5% 0`/° 20%, 30%>
8:00 am 80% 15% 0% 50% 75%
9:00 am 80% 35% 0% 75% 95%
10:00 am 70% 65% 15% 90%7 100%~
11:00 atn 70% 85%, 40% 90% 100%
12:00 noon 65% 95%~ 75% 90% 90%
1:00 pm 70% 100%, 75% 90%~ 90%
2:00 pm 70% 95% 65% 90% 100%,
3:00 pm 70% 90% 40% 75% 100%
4:00 pm 75% 90% 50% 75% 90%
5:00 pm 85% 95% 75% 10U% 50%
6:00 pm 90% 95% 95% 100% 25%
7:00 pm 97% 95% 100% 100% 10%
8:00 pm 98% $0% 100% 100% 7%
9:00 pm 99% 50% 1.00% 100% 3%
10:00 pm 100% 3U% 95% 100% 1%
11:00 pm 1U0% 10% 75% 85% O%
17':d~b~ [@/~i~r9~bz ittt 100% o°i° zs% 35°i° o%
Note 1: Includes Single-Family Residence, Condominium/Townhouse, Apartments
Mote 2: Includes Retail, Service Commercial, Commercial.
Note 3: lruludes General Office, Medical Ofl•ice, Government. OFEice
~oA COR.PO~.ATION
+ PI:aI~Ji;ll'di'-. k; FP~!(.'•II`d`F'Nllli;y ~4
City of Ttrsrit~
Old Town .C UStL1 Parking Study
P~rrl~ittg AJter,zntives arz~f O~J~o,•tr.rreities
']Cable 5.2 - ~1ear-Terrr- Pealc Period Shared Parlcia~g Requirement
Land Use Subarea
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total
Residential 1 2 8 18 4 13 0 0 0 46
Commercial/Retail 35 64~ 93 203 131 120 15 513 33 1,207
Restaurant 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 32 57
Office 109 60 122 15 29 51 0 23 0 409
TOTAL 145 126 223 236 189 184 15 536 65 1,719
Total w/o Shared Use 158 134 240 245 204 196 15 539 80 1,811
Note 1: 1 - 5 year Projection
Table 5.3 - 10-Year Forecast Peak Period' Shared Parking Requirement
Land Use Subarea
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total
Residential 1 2 8 19 7 13 0 0 0 50
Commercial/Retail 35 64 93 202 224 141 15 539 33 1,346
Restaurant 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 36 64
Office 109 60 122 15 29 51 0 27 0 413
TOTAL 145 126 223 236 288 205 15 566 69 1,873
Total w/o Shared Use 158 134 240 246 302 217 15 569 8U 1,961
Note 1: 1 - 10-year Projection
5.3 Public Off-Street Pc~rki~ag Lots
Increased reliance upon public ofF-street parking lots may be an appropriate long-term and
continuing strategy Ear Old Town. There are limited off street parking opportunities at this time,
including Main/Prospect, Prospect/3"~, and C Street, and their utilization is not currently high due
to inconvenient location and lack of excessive demand for more convenient parking Facilities.
I~OA ~C)RI~~RA.Ti®N city of T„sti,z
~,~.A.;,,,,~r.,,, .~ k....;irar-~~c:iiac. 65 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
P~trieir~q Alrernnrives a-zd O~~yorrcrrziries
Old Town business areas that have shown the greatest vitality in Southern California have
generally seen a significant supply of off-street parking provided in municipal parking lots. In
many cases, a large proportion of the parking is in structures.
Old 1 own Orange is perhaps the most successful nearby Old Town that has provided parking
primarily in public and private surface facilities. There are large municipal lots within all four
quadrants of the Orange Circle and more facilities within nearby blocks. Also, the dominant
antiques emphasis of the area probably results in a parking demand that is lower than for many
other commercial activities. Other Orange County cities with old downtowns that rely upon
surface public parl<ing include Yorba Linda, and San Clemente.
Many successful old-town downtowns in Orange County have moved to parking structures to
provide for adequate parking for downtown. These include Santa Ana, Fullerton, and Huntington
Eeach. Two of the most successful old town downtowns in Southern California, Santa Monica
and Pasadena, have also used this strategy to provide adequate parking for the downtown areas.
In both of these cities, the downtowns function very similar to suburban regional shopping malls,
with national franchise stores, numerous restaurants, theaters, extensive employment,
recreational and cultural opportunities.
Remote/off-site parking is particularly appropriate For special events. Special Events in the Old
Town area that can affect parking demand include the Tustin Street Fair and Chili Cook-Off, the
Concert in the Park, the Tiller Days Parade, and the 4`~' of July holiday, and others. These special
events can have a major impact on parking, and the need Eor "overflow" or "event" parking is great
during these events. There are about 10 -12 days a year when holidays, special events, and other
special days can generate unusually high parking demand. This demand is currently met by the
surface lots at Main and Prospect, 3t~ and Prospect, and the C Street Structure, in addition to curb
parking. Off-site parking for these events or other uses should be within 300 feet of the
destination, without crossing any major (41ane) street.
A disproportionate amount of tl•~e parking demand for many existing uses is being met by a
limited supply of on-street parking, Due to a fixed and limited amount of curb space, it is not
possible to provide a substantial supply of parking need using on-street parking. Typically, on
street parallel parking can rarely be provided at a rate more than 1. stall per 1000 square feet.
Where diagonal parking is provided and building depths are shallow, a rate approaching 2 stalls per
1000 sf is possible. If long-term parking is fully eliminated, this on-street supply can barely meet
the customer requirements of businesses that can live off of the lightest of customer traffic. One
alternative would be for the City to seek opportunities on an individual project-by-project basis
where it may be possible to develop some public parking spaces privately for public use.
~QA ~UR.P(J~~7~'I~l_\1 Ciry v f Tarsrfrz
C' F, ar,.,n ~~ ~: i;i,~:..~r.ir: rc~r,c; 6d Old Town Tustin Parking Study
1'~~Y~~itrg AlterF2tztives ~~i~ Opyort~ii7rtfes
5>4 Par~Zi:ag Codes in other Cities
Research to determine the accepted range of parking codes for land uses similar to the "Old Town
Commercial" types described in the City General Plan was conducted and is presented in this
section. The range of codes shown in Table 5.4 below is a summary of information gathered From
other cities in Orange County and elsewhere in Southern California. As shown in Table 5,4 tl7e
median residential rate is 2 spaces Eor 2-bedroom residential, for restaurant it is 10 spaces/1,000
square feet, for retail 4 spaces/1,000 square feet, and for office 4 spaces/1,000 square feet. Please
see Appendix D Eor land use rates by city.
Table 5.4 -Parking Rates in Other Cities
Land Use Low Rate Median Rate High Rate Tustin Rate
Townhorne/Condo, 2 BR 1 Space 2 Spaces 2.25 Spaces 2 Spaces
Apartment, 2 BR '1 Space 2 Spaces 2.25 Spaces 2 Spaces `
Banks, Financial Institutions 3/1000 sf 5/1000 sf 5.5/1000 sf 4/1000 sf
Service/Commercial 4/1000 sf 4/"1000 sf 4/'1000 sf 4/1000 sf
Nursery/Home Improwernent 1/1000 sf 411000 sf 5.5/1000 sf 5/1000 sf'-
Nightclub/Bar 10/1000 sf 29/1000 sf 1/28 sf 1 Sp/3 Seats
Restaurant 10/1000 sE '10/1000 sE 15/1000 sE 1.3/1000 sf
Retail, Neighborhood Shop Ctr 3.5/1000 sf 4/1000 sf 5,5/'1000 sf 4/1000 sf
Retail Stores 3/1000 sf 4/1000 sf 5.5/1000 sf 5/1000 sf
Office, General 3/1000 sf 4/1000 sf 4/1000 sf 4/1000 sf
Office, Medical 3/1000 sf 5/1000 sf 6/1000 sf 6/1000 sE
Office, Professional 3/1000 sf 4/"1000 sf 4/1000 sE 4/1000 sf
Note '1: Plus one guest spacz tar every 4 units; IVOte 6: Keta~l Jalzs area; ivote ,~: Jtorage area
Generally parking studies conducted Eor similar land uses have shown actual demand for these
uses to be somewhat lower than the code-required rate, as shown in Table 5.5. Table 5.5 lists
actual parking demand rates for land uses similar to the Old Town Commercial uses. Additional
rates from other studies are provided in Appendix 1? of this report.
~~~ ~~~~OR.~T~~~ City of 1 crstire
~,~ ~.i~;~,~,,~~.. ~ ,>,~,~-,r.~=r-r~r~.ic: 67 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Pttrklrzg Alterrzntives ~rrxcl Opyortcrraities
Table 5.5 -Parking Demand Rates from Other Parking Studies
Land Use Rate Parking Ratio
Weekday Weekend
Apartment.2 Median Rate' 1.00 vehicles/unit 1.02 vehicles/unit
Condominium2 Median Rate'' 1.46 vehicles/unit -
Mixed Use' Median Rates 1.40 spaces/ICSF 1.07 spaces/ICSF
Day Care Center z Median Rates 3.`ld vehicles/ICSF -
Museum z Median Rates 0.71 vehicles/KSF 2.1 vehicles/ICSF
Nursing Horne z Median Rates 0.39 vehicles/bed 0.25 vehicles/bed
Animal Hospital/Veterinary Clinic a Median Rates "1.60 vehicles/KSF -
General Office a Median Rates 2.40 vehicles/KSF -
Medical-Dental Office z Median Rates 3.53 vehicles/ICSF -
Building Materials and Lumber Store a Median Rates 1,10 vehicles/ICSF -
Hardware/Paint Store a Median Rates 1,90 vehicles/ICSF 2.87 vehicles/ICSF
Shopping Center z Median Rates 2.65 vehicles/KSF 2.97 vehicles/ICSF
Apparel Store a Median Rates 1.13 vehicles/KSF 2.13 vehicles/ICSF
Pharmacy/Drugstore w/a drive-thru2 Median Rates '1.83 vehicles/ICSF -
Furnittire Store z Median Rates 1.53 vehicles/ICSF 1.43 vehicles/ICSF
Video Rental Store z Median Rates 2.41 vehicles/ICSF 3.04 vehicles/ICSF
Wall< In Banlc ~ Median Rates 2.30 vehicles/ICSF -
Quality Restaurant2 Median Rates 15.4 vehicles/KSF 17,2 vehicles/ICSF
Restaurant Median Rates 5.3 spaces/ICSF 5.8 spaces/ICSF
Dry Cleaners Median Rates 1.40 vehicles/KSF -
Note '1: Corrimercial/Office Mixed Use
Nnte 2: From ITL Parking Generation 3'~ edition
Note 3: The average parking demand rate compiled from other parking studies
~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ City of Tustrtt
~_i;,r•~rvn~i~., ~~ rr.~.:~rn.rF•i~a;-. 68 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Parking management strategies are techniques and programs that maximize the benefit and utility
of parking areas. These strategies determine the best and highest use of each parking area or sub
area and manage the space in a manner that is optimal.
In order to take advantage of parlcing opportunities, it will be necessary to address hot spot
parking deficiencies which have been identified and discussed in Section ~ of this report. A
parking shortage in only a Few key areas can create an image that there are overall parking
deficiencies; however these can often be prevented by insuring that the hot spots are properly
managed and used in the most appropriate manner.
6.1 Time Limit Parking
Time limit parking is traditionally the most valuable tool in insuring proper distribution of
parking. Areas such as El Camino Real and Main Street that are needed for customers and short-
term turnover are identified and posted properly. The intent is to make sure that the most
desirable parking spaces are readily available to as many potential users as possible. A parlcing
stall with atwo-hour time limit can be used by at least Eour customers within an eight-hour time
period. However, if the same time limit stall is occupied by a single vehicle all day in violation of
its time limit, the vehicle is likely not a customer, and parlcing For at least four potential customers
has been denied.
The proper overall strategy is thus to alternate areas that are most appropriate for longer duration
parking such as the C Street Structure, post and enforce appropriate time limits and to direct long-
term parlcing to municipal and private Lots, and administer or enforce time limit restrictions in
more desirable customer areas in a manner that discourages their use For long term parlcing. Areas
more desirable for long-term (employee) parking are generally in peripheral parking areas,
especially where their underutilization has been documented.
Parking use has been optimized when overall utilization of all areas are generally in balance.
Customers can generally find parlcing that is sufficiently convenient to not discourage the trip,
while long term parkers are able to find long term parlcing that is within reasonable walking
distance, generally about 300 feet, while providing adequate security Eor the parked vehicle and
the walking trip,
In some cases, optimization of parking may require microscopic application of parlcing regulations.
For example, a few stalls on each desirable block may be established as loading zones, valet zones,
very short-term parking stalls (6-12 minutes), or other specialized uses, provided there is a
K®A CQRPC)R.t~TION cry ~; r~~s~t~
~(~• ~~,,.i i,.~~i~~c ~; rr~~,~rar r.-Fi~r.,~ 69 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Parking 1YI~rr~ngeirretrt Strategies
reasonable demand for this type of parl<ing. It is not appropriate to designate stalls for parking in
a manner such that there is no demand for the time limit or usage identified.
When parking problems are only observed in short term parking areas and in hot spots, the
problem can often be solved by measures that encourage some of the parking to relocate to longer
term parking areas, in order to achieve better utilization balance. Measures to achieve this
include time limits, pay parking, and permit parking.
When parking use has been optimized and parking shortages are found in both short term and
long term areas, expansion of parking supply is the next logical consideration. Expansion of
supply can mean building structures on lots, or creative solutions such as restricting side streets to
one-way and installing angled parking
In Old Town, implementation and/or enforcement of time limits can be an important
management tool to apply to the most desirable parking spaces in order to assure that spaces most
suitable for short-term use, primarily curb spaces in front of retail and commercial businesses, -are
available Eor that use, Long-term parking should be directed to lots and structures intended for
that purpose, such as the C Street Structure. Also, time Iamits on curb parking in residential areas
encourage residents to park in their awn designated spaces. The intention of parking time limits
in Old Town would be to maximize the availability of these spaces to customers, visitors, and
short-term resident parking. A parking space occupied by an employee or long-term user could
limit use of the stall to only one vehicle per day, A stall restricted to a reasonable time limit can be
used. over and over again by new customers, visitors,and residents as the day progresses.
The Old Town parking survey indicated that a parking shortage of cuxb spaces exists near the
Farmer's Market and Jamestown Flea Market on days when those events occur, The survey also
indicated that the average duration of stay within on-street parking stalls Eor both of those events
is about 1s/a hours within the existing two-hour zones. Time limits of 90 minutes for curb parking
would likely reduce curb parking demand to allow parking for other uses, while increasing
utilization of nearby parking lots and structures at these times. Any time limits imposed would
perhaps need to be implemented in conjunction with an enhanced guide sign program designed to
direct long-term users to available parking in the nearby parking structure and lots.
Time limits may also be appropriate Eor curb parking when there is a mix of land use types such as
residential and retail/restaurant, particularly For any mixed-use developments with residential and
retail/restaurant components that have night-time operating hours. The residential component of
these developments will have on-site parking for residents, and a reasonable time limit Eor curb
parking will encourage residents to use their assigned ofE-street spaces. This may also apply to
KOA CaR,Pa1~ATIaN City nil crstir~
r~l.e„.air~ic ,~ ,~r.~~~ri, ei;i,•a~; 70 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Par~(~~rrzo II/i~i~inge~~~~enr Sti•rrtegres
spaces in municipal lots where demand Eor short-term spaces is high, as may be the case when the
Prospect Village. project is completed.
A 2-hour time limit Eor street parking and municipal lots in the evening is the minimum time limit
that should be considered Eor general application in Old Town. Any shorter limit would generally
be too short for dining, particularly in the evening, but small poz-tions of desirable blocks can have
a limited number of stalls designated for shorter time zones such as 12-minutes, loading, or valet
stands, A 3-hour limit may be more appropriate for blocks with restaurants, cafes, nightclubs and
bars. This would apply to existing uses as well as near any street cafes that may be established in
mixed-use developments in Old Town. A 3-hour limit would still be short enough to discourage
residents from using curb parking at these times. Restaurant owners and merchants generally
consider 3-hour evening parking time limits to be a minimum for customex parking. This time
period allows visitors to patronize studios, shops and dine without being affected by the tune
limit.
No hourly tune limits are needed Eor the public and commercial parking lots in Old Town at this
time, sucl-z as the municipal lots at Prospect & 3"' Street and Prospect & Main Street, or the
parking structure off of C Street. The parking survey indicated that there is currently an adequate
supply of available parking in these lots at all times. Long-term and all-day parking without any
time restrictions can therefore be concentrated. in the parking structure and lots. This condition
may change with the completion of new mixed-use developments that share parking in existing
lots, however, such as Prospect Village. A signage program as described in Section 6.4 can direct
long-term users to available parking in these lots.
In areas of mixed residential, retail, and restaurant use, a 3-hour time limit is proposed to be in
effect Erom 5 PM to 1U PM. Although restaurant/cafe seating could continue after 1U pm,
particularly for nightclubs or bars, there is no need to continue the limit after this time, as there
can be expected to be a balance between arriving and departing traffic after 6 PM. Also, residential
demand should already have been diverted to on-site parking spaces by 10 PM. It is
recommended, however, that overnight parking be prohibited in public lots and on street. A
prohibition of parking between 2AM and 6AM is recommended. Figure 6.1 presents
recommended parking regulations.
In conclusion, the need Eor time limits Eor limited areas and Eor different days in Old Town is
suggested by the parking survey. Experience has shown that shorter limits (2 to 3 hours) are more
appropriate for side-street curb parking near restaurants, studios, shops, and professional offices,
and therefore are generally the recommended limits for commercial streets in Old Town.. Shorter
limits such as 90 minutes to 2 hours may be needed in areas with the greatest parking cleficiencies,
including near the Farmer's Market and Jamestown Swap Meet.
I~OA CORFO~.ATi0I~1 City v~-Ttrstii~
~,i i.,,,z11,i,.; v, F~,.,,,.;ii,,~c.ri~ii i,_; 71 Old Town Tustin P arking Study
LEGEND
First St.
ml
U
m
t
m
U
N
a
0
l Second St.)~ ~~ ~
o °"
o
o a
o ~. ~
0
c W n~
o uu
0
0
0000 000
o t
0
o p
0 0 ~
0 o r
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
Unrestricted Parking
0 0 0 0 90 Min Prk Wed 10am-2pm
2HR M-F Sam-6pm
2 HR Parking Anytime
• d ~ 2HR Parking Gam-6pm
2 HR Parking gam-6pm
2HR Parking Sam-5pm
3 HR 5pm-10pmMon-Fri
^ss.e 2HR Parking Sam-5pm exc
Sat, Sun, and Holidays
• ~ ~ ~ 8am-noon Thurs Street Sweep
^^~~ No Parking 10pm-yam
~ No Parking Any Time
® Residential Permit Parking Area
24 Min Parking
-~--~~~~~ Study boundary
N
Not to Scale
~~~ ~~~F,~~~,-~.~~-~~ City of Tustin Figure 6.1
OBd Town Tustin Parking Study Recommended Parking Regedations
Par~~irzg 11~7nrrcz~era~erzt Srrr~tegies
A greater need far time limits is likely to arise with the completion of new mixed-use projects,
however. Implementation of time limits may push par!<ing demand into surrounding residential
neighborhoods unless appropriate restrictions are in place.
6..Z Parkirrg En foPCesne~at
Time limit parking strategies do not work in areas of high parking demand unless there is parking
enforcement to insure that the time limits are honored and respected. Enforcement of time limits
can be found through evidence of overtime parking and through absence of parking citativns. It
was noted within the existing conditions analysis that there is some evidence of overtime parking
in some of the time limit areas.
An analysis of parking and vehicle code citations issued in Old Town showed that there were only
15 citations issued within the study area within the past 5 years. This may be due to City policy
or to the relative lack of parking congestion in Old Town. Of the 15 citations issued, 9 were in
violation of the 2-hour limit in effect in many curb parking areas. All but one of these were issued
on Main Street. The remaining 6 were issued in areas without parking restrictions (all but one of
these were vehicle code violations issued on Prospect).
It is fairly common to see minimal enforcement of time limit parking in areas where there is not a
strong demand Eor time limit parking. When business is weak, there is fear that frequent parking
citations will deter further business. Complaints for enforcement are thus infrequent, and long
term parking in desirable areas goes unregulated,
The minimal approach to parking enforcement is consistent with the current level of business;
however it is highly unlikely that the area's activity level, development goals, and vitalization can
continue under existing enforcement policies. It is not necessary to begin aggressive enforcement
today, however programs to reduce the amount of violation, increase the overall level of
enforcement, and to better administer regulations in the most popular parking areas will likely
accur.
Enforcement of time limit parking can be eithex by marking vehicle tires or through the use of
conventional parking meters or centrally located pay-and-display parking permit vending
machines. Marking of vehicles requires tv~o visits by a parking enforcement officer, often
discouraging enforcement. Parking meters or hourly permits would only require one visit by an
enforcement officer, though it has been shown that vehicles will avoid parking in metered areas in
order to avoid payment. lE time limits were imposed on streets surrounding mixed-use
developments it would Iik<ely also be necessary to impose limits an nearby streets within a block of
the development, to prevent "spillover" parking to these areas.
KfJL~ CORPOR~.TI(aN City oj~Trrslira
Ni ,.i ,,,,~racs r Fi•,i,_-1r~~i ~ ti~r,~r; 73 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Par~i~J~ ll/lnr7agerrrent Srr~zegies
In smaller cities, parking enforcement is often done by uniformed police officers, but can be
achieved by parking enforcement officers to administer and enforce parlcing regulations. This
results in more consistent enforcement and often can allow for better understanding of unique
situations.
G.3 Peraaait PaYkit-g
Permit parking includes any parking program in which vehicles with special permits are subject to
different parlcing regulations than vehicles without permits. A wide variety of permit programs
have been established in downtown areas and in other areas. In most cases permit programs are
established to better allocate existing parlcing by issuing permits to either the most appropriate
users, or by rationing permits to distribute parlcing demands in a managed approach.
6.3.1 Resident Permit parlcing
Resident permit parking programs are most frequently implemented in areas where parking
demand is high and residents may have difficulty Finding parking places. This znay include
residential areas near parks, the beach, commercial and retail businesses, and schools. In Old
Town neighborhoods adjacent to retail and commercial businesses parlcing permit programs that
Favor residents could restrict on street parking to "Residents" and "Visitors". For example, the
residents in the aFfected neighborhood would receive a residential permit parking sticker to affix to
their vehicle(s), renewable on an annual basis. In addition to the residential parking sticker, a
number of visitor passes would be available for residents to give to visitors (this includes workers),
The permit program would be complimented by signage that defines the "Residential Parlciz~g
Zone". Residential permit parlcing zones may apply either to existing residential areas such as on.
Prospect Avenue and C Street, or to new residential or mixed-use developments. Pez-mits in
existing neighborhoods znay become necessary iE new commercial developments in Old Town
substantially increase parking demand. This may apply particularly to C Street between Main
and 6`" Street, as it is adjacent to areas of potential development.
A permit parking zone would require residents who wish to park on their street to obtain parking
permits From the City. These are normally permanently affixed to the rear bumper of the vehicle.
Permits are not needed if residents do not park on the street, however most residents will likely
choose to obtain permits, Additional temporary permits may be obtained and displayed on
vehicles parked by resident guests. These are normally paper permits; however some zones use
plastic hangtag permits that are displayed below the rear view mirror.
6.3.2 Commercial 'l'ime Limit Exemption permit parlcing
Time limit exemption permits are also Frequently found in old town or downtown areas. These
may be an effective tool in Old Town to achieve a shift from on street parlcing to off street
~QA ~~~• OR.A.rf'i~1~1 L11}/ U~ J LLJLI Ll
' Fi ~~ao.~ii ~,: ;~ ,.r;;._;irai,[Kir,i;; 7~ Old 1 own Tustin Parking Study
P~rrkitlg IVIGttaGrgerMetzt Strategies
parking. Permits can be sold to persons who desire to be exempt from tune limit parking
regulations. 1~he permits can be valid in specific zones or time limit areas, or they can be valid
within all time limits. A potential program approach could be to offer for sale an appropriate
number of permits to business owners, to allow for some use of time limit parking for long term
use at this time, until the demand for on street parking increases with the vitality of the area. As
parking demands rise, especially in prime parking areas, permits are redesignated to be valid in
fringe areas, such as side streets or small time limit parking lots. The number of permits used
under this type of approach is carefully managed (through quotas, cost, or both), so that vehicles
with permits do not represent a significant share of parked vehicles in areas where parking
demands are becoming significant.
6.3.3 Operation of Permit Parking Systems
Establishment and maintenance of a permit parking zone has associated costs. The affected
street must be posted with the applicable parlGng regulation, permits must be obtained, and a
system to distribute permits to residents must be developed. This is normally done by mail upon
establishment of the zone, but ongoing permit requests are often handled by public counter
inquiries. A cost of approximately $"10 per permit has been imposed in some permit parking
districts, however many cities have been unwilling to charge For residential parking permits under
new programs with conditions similar to the existing situation. Permit casts are typically much
higher in areas where parking is in short supply.
Once a permit. parking zone is set up, it will not require major effort to maintain the zone.
However occasionally additional permits will be requested.. Also residents may forget to display
permits and unintentionally get parking tickets if enforcement is heavy. Eventually permits tend
to get into the hands of unintended persons, and it is sometimes necessary to void all permits and
issue a new style of permit. In some cases, the permits are initially issued with an expiration date,
so that the number of permits is generally held constant.
6.4 Parking Signage
The parking occupancy survey determined. that several of the off-street parking lots in Old Town
as well as the C Street parking structure are underutilized during most days and times,
particularly during special event times such as the Farmer's Market and Jamestown Flea Market.
The City has recently posted a set of trailblazer signs on principal arterials, important roadways
that approach the downtown area, and on downtown streets. The signs are distinctive and may
assist motorists in remembering Old Town and helping them to find it. However these signs are
also being used to direct motorists to off street parking facilities. It is recommended that the
trailblazer signs' effectiveness in assisting motorists to locate parking Facilities should monitored.
KQ1~ ~OR.POI~ATIClI~1 cite of Taistit~
F'i ~r.r~u~t:_a ~ r-r.r.~r~~=r.~~.u.,f, 75 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Prrrkrag /V1als~gell~el'r,l Stl•ntegies
Motorists in downtown areas are generally conditioned to look for standard public parking signs.
These signs are distinguished by the green border, reflective white background, prominent and
bold letter "P", and large readable arrow pointing toward public parking facilities. It may be
appropriate to post these signs in addition to the trail blazer signs, especially at locations withuz
Old Town where the signs are clearly pointing toward parking facilities. Improved signage along
streets with. existing or proposed time limits would improve utilization of 'the off-street lots and
the C Street structure, reducing demand for limited street parking.
Improved signage i recommended to direct Farmer's Market patrons to the Prospect/Third Street
municipal parking lot. This lot is very lightly used at most times, particularly when the Farmer's
Market is open. Improved signage to the Prospect/3"' Street lot can help balance parking supply
and demand during the Farmer's Market. The City should continue to monitor whether the newly
installed directional signs to the C Street Structure are assisting motorists in locating this facility.
Some focus surveying of shoppers may also assist in determining their future effectiveness. One
additional opportunity to encourage use of the public lots would be to eliminate the temporaryy
parking on the Farmers Market site and direct all shoppers to the public lots. signage and the
adjacency of the Prospect/3"' Street site and Main/Prospect site to the temporary Farmer's Market
event between El Camino Real and Prospect Street make it a resource that shoppers to the
Farmer's Market should be aware of. While each of these lots has prominent public signage, in
any renewal of the Farmer's Market, the property owner of the site and the Farmer's Market
operation should be required to post on-site signage directing shoppers to park in the public lot.
The parking occupancy survey also revealed that the C Street structure is very lightly used while
the Jamestown flea Market is in progress. Typically about 50 - 60 public spaces are available in the
structure at this time. lmproved signage directing flea market patrons to the structure along with
time limits on segments of El Camino Real, C Street, Main Street, and 6`h Street during the flea
market can help balance parking supply and demand in this area on Sundays.
Curb parking spaces on streets surrounding mixed-use projects such as Prospect Village should
have maximum time limits of 2 - 3 hours, which would be designated by signage. Parking meters
or central pay machines could be installed on streets near mixed-use projects iF time limits are not
effective in reducing curb parking demand. Metered parking would only be in effect during the
times of peak demand, or variable time limits could be used (2 - 3 hours for peak periods, 4 hours
for off-peak). signage directing patrons and employees to the parking structure and off-street lots
should be installed curbside near any proposed mixed-use project. This would reduce the problem
of business employees parku--g in curbside spaces intended for slaort-term resident, visitor, and
customer parking.
~~~ ~~~~^~~~~^~ Cli~l Uf 115111'1
,:, ,a,;.;.,,,.,:,; ~:. ~.r~~.~r~:: ~;n(~rJ: (~ 76 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Parizing 11/Itrttizgetrteat St~•~rte~~ies
Once policy decisions about any time restrictions on use of the public parking [ot at
Main/Prospect and at 3"'/Prospect have been determined by the City, it would be recommended
that additional signage at the entrance and within the lots be installed with information regarding
any restrictions adopted by the City and pursuant to the public parking lot designation ordinance
(Ordinance 123).
Standard Public Parking facility signs could be prominently displayed at the Prospect/3`d Street
and Prospect/Main Street lots, and at the entrance to the parking structure, designating these
Facilities for. visitors, employees, and other long-term users. The signs should be installed at the
entrance or in advance of the parking structures, and lot. Fixed-location Changeable Message
Signs (CMS) could be installed at the entrance or in advance of the parlci.ng structure and/or lot
during special events. The CMS's would provide Facility parking occupancy information to
motorists, and would suggest an alternative Facility in the event the desired facility is full.
(.5 Conditions o f the C Stt~eet Parking Strttctnre
The C Street parking structure is not heavily used at this time, except during the lunchtime peak
hour. Old Town Trailblazer signs indicate that the top floor of the structure is a public parking
area, however surveys indicated that the parking area is lightly used, even when curb parking is
relatively foil. Better signage may be needed, as the structure is difficult to find, particularly for
visitors unfamiliar to the area. The general appearance of the upper level of the structure is not
conducive to public use, and the area does. not appear to be well maintained. Striping of parking
stalls is fading. The paving on the public level of the structure needs to be rehabilitated, wheel
stops are in poor condition. signage needs to have a public appearance that is characteristic of
public parking lots. The area does not have satisfactory night lighting, and new lighting needs to
be installed to improve the appearance of the Facility and the perception of safety and security for
its users. Although these 31 spaces are for public use, the maintenance obligation is required to be
conducted by the Stevens Square Association and no alternation of the structure can occur
without permission of the Association. The City should pursue active code enforcement and
litigation, if necessary, to Force maintenance of these facilities by the Association. This structure,
and alI public parking areas should be well designed and maintained for attractive and secure
parking, clay and night. Improvements to the C Street structure should improve utilization
significantly, lessening demand for nearby curb parking. The Thircl Street and tlae Waterworks
parking lots are good examples of properly designed and maintained public parlcuZg facilities:
Figure 6.2 shows the upper level of the C Street parking structure.
~~r~ ~UF~PUR.ATI~I01 Gity ol`Tustit~
~~, i,,,~i ~t; ,„ Fi~~;cir~r-; rr u.. 77 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
F'~trking ll~lt~rs~tgeratertt Srr~iie~ies
FIGURE 6.2 - C STREET PARKING STRI)CTIIRE
6.6 Recornrnended ,Parking Code Requirements
Recommended base rate parlcing codes for. Old Town have been developed based on research into
parlcing codes commonly in use in other cities in Orange County as well as other cities in
Southern California with similar old town or downtown environments. Actual parlcing demand
rates for land uses similar to the Old Town Commercial uses have also been considered in
establishing the recommended rates Eor Old Town. In addition, the shared use analysis has
provided a basis for adjusting the City's existing codes both for stand-alone projects and for
individual uses in mixed-use projects. These revised codes are described below for the .major land
use categories.
6.6.1 Retail
The City's existing Overlay District parking codes specify 1 parlcing space for every 200 square Eeet
of retail floor space, plus 1 loading space per 10,000 square feet of retail Eloor space. It is proposed
that for the Old Town Parking District the City revise this requirement to 1 space per 250 square
feet of Eloor space (4 per 1,000}, without the loading space requirement. This is in line with the
parking requirements of other cities in Orange County that have similar urban environznerzts,
such as Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, and Orange. The shared use study
also showed that the City can relax this requirement by 10% (1 space/275 square Eeet) for retail
K(~1~-. CORPaRaTICJN Ciry of T~~srrtl
Nl-•,:r,,~r,r; ~, z~r.,,_ ir,~=r~;~r,,~_- 78 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Parl~ittg JVIcrnageirzet~t Strategies
uses within mixed-use projects and still have an adequate number of spaces to satisfy parking
demand froze the retail project at all tunes.
6.6.2 Restaurant
The existing parking code specifies spaces per seat for restaurants (1 space/3 seats). It is proposed
that for the Old Town Parking District the City revise this requirement to 1 space per 100 square
Feet of floor space ("10 per 1,000). This is in line with the parking requirements of other cities in
Orange County that have similar old town or urban environments, such as Fullerton, Orange,
Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, and Laguna Beach. Pasadena also has the 10 space/1,000 square-foot
requirement. The 1 space/100 square-foot rate is also in line with other studies of parking demand
for restaurants. This proposed base rate can be relaxed by 10%7 (1 space/110 square feet, or 1U per
'1,100) for restaurant uses within mixed-use projects and still have an adequate number of spaces
to satisfy parking demand from the restaurant at all times.
6.6.3 Office
The City's existing parking code specifies "1 pail<ing space per 250 square feet for general office
space. This is in Line with the code requirements of most other cities in Orange County that have
similar urban or downtown environments. Some cities such as Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, and
Pasadena have lower requirements however (3 spaces per 1,000 square feet). Some studies have
shown a demand rate even lower, 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. It is therefore proposed that for
the OId Town Parking District the City revise its parking requirement Eor office space to 3 spaces
per 1,000 square feet of floor space. This proposed base rate can be relaxed by 10% (2.7
spaces/'1,000 square feet) for office uses within mixed-use projects and still have an adequate
number of spaces to satisfy office parking demand at all tizxzes.
Surveys of medical offices have consistently shown that medical oEEices experience parking
demands higher than other offices. The parking requirement for a medical office building should
continue to be higher than Eor a general office building. A value of 5 stalls per 1000 sF is suggested
for proposed new medical office buildings. Medical uses can be allowed within existing office
buildings on a limited basis. Walk-in clinics, dentists, optometrists, and other medical specialties
often desire to locate within general office environments. An individual medical office suite can
increase the parking demand by 1-2 stalls; however this amount is normally negligible when
located within non-medical uses. A limitation of no more that 20%~ of a multiuse building for
medical uses is normally satisfactory.
Banks have historically had a higher parking rate than other uses. A few strong national banks
(such as Banl< of America) experience parking demands that are higher than other office or
commercial uses, but these banks normally will employ their own parking standards when
I~C)A CORP(~I~.AT~ON c;ty ~~ Ttr~t~,~
ri n.r~•*~n~fr- .~ rr~a~_:~r.~FCr::rr~i: 79 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
r[!f~'IfJ,~ 11i~i11Pi7a['P7~e11P .'`~ll'rlli~'~ie':>
locating new branches. Most local banks, savings & loan, and financial institutions can fit withuz
traditional office parking requirements. Special parking rates are not recommended.
6.6.4 Residential
The City's existing parking codes specify 1 parking space per bedroom For 1 and 2 bedroom
apartments and condominiums, plus visitor spaces. This is in line with many other cities in
Orange County. Parking studies have shown actual demand requirements are not closely related
to the number of bedrooms and are more closely related to the type or emphasis of development.
The parking demand For many 1-bedroom units is closer to two-stalls per unit.
It is proposed that For the Old Town Parking District the City establish a parking requirement of 2
stalls per each 1 or 2-bedroom unit For apartments and condominiums, where one or more stalls
per unit are to be designated or restricted For use by specific units.
Normally a guest parking requirement of 0.25 stalls per unit would be suggested in excess of the
amounts above within a traditional suburban apartment or condominium environment.
However, it is strongly suggested that parking planning for Old Town integrate guest parking at
night within nearby shared parking facilities.
Research has shown that the requirement for visitor spaces in residential projects occurs primarily
at night. If there is a commercial or office component of the project the residential component
can share visitor spaces with the office or commercial component of the project.
Shared use can also apply to residential projects sharing visitor spaces with nearby office or
commercial projects or existing uses. The shared use study also showed that the City can relax its
code ret{uirement by 10% for residential uses within mixed-use projects and still have an adequate
number of spaces to satisfy parking demand from the residential project at all times. This
reduction is roughly equivalent to the number of visitor spaces that would be provided. It should
be noted however that this is purely modeling data that is not supported by actual parking uses
and number of cars that the City sees generated in its multi-family residential projects.
6.6.5 Live-Work Residential
Live/worlc units allow for the operation of small incubator businesses within residential land uses.
These units are normally operated by owner/proprietors and often do not have Employees,
However some of theses businesses utilize employees and they Frequently experience deliveries,
visitors, and other activities that can increase residential parking.
It is recommended that for the Old Town Parking District the City require the same residential
parking requirement for live-work developments, with no requirement for visitor or employee
BOA ~ORPUI~~TION c"y°f~"S~"'
~ ~~~.~~~=~~~n,~ f: ~.~.~,_ ir,il rf:~r.i~, 80 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Pctr~il2g~ITiInnngerrre~7t Strategies
spaces if the live/work use is integrated into amixed-use development that includes office and/or
commercial components. Any visitor parking requirement can be satisfied by sharing visitor
spaces with the office or commercial component of the project.
Where live-work is integrated into a Fully residential project, it is suggested that a parking
requirement of 0.5 stalls be added to the residential parking requirement to allow for employee
parlcing within the site.
6.6.6 Mixed Use (Residential/Retail/Restaurant/Office)
In addition to the shared parking analysis approach previously discussed in this report, the City
may wish to modify its Municipal Code to provide for alternative parking codes Eor Old Town
stand along vs. mixed use projects.
Table 6.1 summarizes these alternative parlcing codes for Old Town for stand alone projects and
projects within mixed-use developments, including the proposed mixed-use parlcing reductions by
land use For Olcl Town:
6.7 Impacts o f ParizBng 1[~Ianagetnent Plan
An effective parking management plan 'can probably allow Eor a significant amount of
revitalization of the Old Town area. There are underutilized off street parlcing facilities and there
are many measures that can be taken to more carefully regulate on street parlcing activity in
desirable areas. Through careful management, the overall activity level can probably rise to
comfortably fill the parking opportunities that currently exist.
Without parking management, the parking demand For on-street parking adjacent to retail
businesses will largely determine their vitality and strength. This is largely the status quo. There
is currently some on street parlcing available to meet the needs of newly introduced uses; however
the on street parlcing will likely fill up very quickly, especially if high pail<ing demand uses such as
restaurants are approved without implementation of management tools.
6.S PYnancing and Irny~lementation o f Public Pc~rl~iazg
While consideration of construction of additional public parlcing facilities is n.ot being
recommended at this time, general information regarding financing and implementation of public
parking Facilities is provided For information and as a future resource to the City in the event such
a future need arises.
~, K~'~ CQRPO~t~TICJN city o f Tc~srii7
~,i,,~,:,:~,~~.,~:, ~: ~r~4,iNr.F~,i~.,,:,~ 8'1 Old Town T ustin larking Study
P~trl~iarg Ifilcta~ngnaaaent Strrraegies
Table b.1 -Old Town Alternati~re Parking Codes
d Use
L Stand Alone Mixed Use.
an Principal
Use Spaces Visitor
Spaces Principal
Use Spaces Visitor
Spaces
Residential, 2 Bedroom 2 0.25 2 U
Retail Store 1/250 sf N/A 1/275 sF N/A
Restaurant/Cafe 10/1000 sf N/A 9/1000 sf N/A
Restaurant, Sit-Down 10/1000 sE N/A 9/1000 sF N/A
Nightclub/Bar 10/1000 sf N/A 9/1000 sf N/A
Commercial 1/250 sf N/A 1/300 sf N/A
Service/Commercial 1/250 sf N/A 1/275 sE N/A
Office, General 3/1000 sf N/A 2.75/1000 N/A
Office, Medical 1/250 sf N/A 1/275 sf N/A
®~~-~~~, , ~~-~; ~~~~:,f;~:~~al 1/250 sf N/A 1/275 sF N/A
6.8.1 In-Lieu Fees
In lieu fees can be collected by a municipality or a Parking District in lieu of providing privately
constructed Facilities in conjunction with development projects. Provisions of Tustin City Code
Section 9252 2. (d} (3) c. already permits a deposit of such fees. However, the current in-lieu
contributions permitted through this section of the Tustin City Code are not adequate to reflect
the actual costs of any future land acquisition or construction of parking facilities. Depending on
whether a future parking Facility will be structured parking or at-grade, the costs per stall to be
paid to the City or a Parking District in-lieu of provision of parking Facilities on-site should be in
the range of $3,000 - $20,000 For the construction costs plus any cost of land (with the actual per
square Foot land cost to be determined based on the size of a standard parking space with all
required access and turn around/back-up driveway aisles). The Fee amount needs to be adequate
to fund the land and construction of,a parking stall and Flexibility enough to be adjusted as needed
so shat costs can escalate, as necessary, to reflect changing construction data, real estate values in
the market place and other adjustments related to inflation. Fees can also be adjusted where it is
normal to claarge For parking anal recapture of construction costs through parking charges and user
fees.
In lieu fees perhaps work best when applied to basic retail and office uses that have normal
parking requirements, such as 1 stall per 250 square feet of development. The approach can allow
~,, K(~~. CUR~fJR~Ti~JI~ city o f rcastiaa
f~i ~i,~~,,~r«::;< ~:~~.;~.:.i~,~r~~r~:ir,~:, 82 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
P~u•Gir,~ Nlattrtgerrzetrr Strarenres
For a more compact land use pattern by reducing the amount of lanci per parcel that is dedicated to
parking, while locating larger, multi-purpose parking facilities in the periphezy.
Some examples of in-lieu fee programs include the City of Pasadena, which currently assesses
$"146.53 per space per year as a "parlcing credit" for developers, to satisfy their off-street parking
requirements. Newport Beach assesses 96150 per year in a similar program. Some other cities have
fixed fees, such. as 963,500 in Seal Beach, while other programs calculate the fee based on project
square feet. Developers pay the fee when parlcing is not practical an-site. The money from the Eee
is deposited into a Fund used to develop or acquire off-site parlcing. Development parking is then
located in a municipal lot or other off-site location near the project. 300 feet is th.e recommended
minimum distance for off-site parking. Additional information on other cities fee programs is
provided in Appendix C of this report.
In lieu Eees may not work well when applied to conditional uses within existing or nevv facilities,
especially restaurants and other uses that require very high parking requirements, Atypical
restaurant parlcing requirement is 2.5 times the parking requirement for office or retail uses.
Application of the full in lieu fee to this type of use will generally not be frequent. A small 3000
square foot proposed restaurant would require 30 stalls or in lieu fee of 91:90,000 at the low rate or
96600,000 at the high range. This fee would likely be economically not viable at either level.
6.8.2 Bonds
Bonds are frequently used For financing and construction of off street parking facilities, where it is
advantageous to construct the facility but full funding is not available froze existing sources.
Bonds are especially appropriate if a revenue stream can be directly connected to the Facility. They
can be assured as a general obligation of the community, but more frequently the bonds ate
guaranteed by revenue from special tax districts, parlcing user/meter fees and fines, in lieu fees,
and other funds that can be assured through the provision of parking built by the bonds. The
stronger and more reliable the revenue source, the better the bond. rating.
Bonds are thus an appropriate source for planning of construction revenue, if a parking program is
built around generating revenue to pay the bonds.
6.5.3 Impact Fees
Impact fees have traditionally been used over the past 20 years to provide for mitigation measures
for impacts identified through the CEQA process. Aside From the CECZA OrIgII1S, they are
relatively similar to in lieu fees in terms of fee amount and duty transferred to the parking
authority.
I~.~A ~O~,PO~RTI(~N ctry o f Ttrsrz,~
4,~,t~,. ad,, i~; ~. ~=r~c:~r~~=r<<~~.~~: °3 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Pnrkirzg lVlnrtngerrrerrr 5trntegies
Impact fees could be established for an area through the use of a Master Environmental
Assessment (MEA), in which uses could pay the fees rather than provide parking facilities. In this
manner, uses would pay impact fees in lieu of providing parking in order to be approved antler the
master assessment. However uses that did not apply for development approvals under the MEA
would potentially be exempt from generating impact fees. This means that for parking, impact
fees are probably not a reliable Funding source.
Specific land uses within Tustin Old Town will not likely result in specific environmental actions.
There would be few opportunities to assess impact fees systematically, without a master area-
wide assessment. Also the program provided under the MEA would likely have to be attractive
enough to generate strong participation.
6.8.4 Joint Development Projects
Joint Development projects include a wide variety of public/private partnerships used to develop
parking Facilities. Applications can include:
• Private construction of parking facilities, Followed by dedication of facilities to the
authority for operation and maintenance as a multi use Facility;
• Co-financing of parking structures to provide more parking than required for the
private development through supplemental public financing. Much of the parking for
the Los Angeles County Light Rail systems has been constructed through joint
development. The County paid private developments proposed near the rail lines to
build more parking in their Facilities, and allow users to use these parking stalls,
This approach is normally done on a case-by-case basis through negotiation between the private
development and the community. However the community normally has designated a parking
plan and goals that indicate when and how this approach should be applied. It is quite
appropriate in redevelopment zones, where the coininunity is already a partner and is able to
guide the rate of development through its own plans.
6.$.5 Use of Tax Increment and Sales Tax Increment
Where specific redevelopment tax increment revenues can be identified and which would be
directly correlated to a particular development project within a redevelopment project area, a
community may designate any incremental increases in tax increment to financially assist a
development project including in the costs associated with provision of private and public parking
facilities.
Increases in the proportion of sales tax collections have also been used by some communities far
funding of parki;~g fa~:ilities. if a downtotivn generally ptovicles 1fl%~ of a coix~mt[nities sales taxes
~Q~. ~C~RPOI3..P~TI®N city ~~~ Tusrhz
,;, .,, ,,,,;.,,; ,, ,_,,, .,,.,,~; ,;,; ~, 84 Old Town 1 ustin Parking Study
P~rr~ing Nlrtnage~ttettt Strntegies
pre-plan, and the tax collections arise to 15% through revitalization, the 5% increment can be
informally or formally pledged to parking or other downtown needs.
This form of revenue may be unstable when based upon sales tax increments, especially since the
authority may not be legally obliged to continue the commitment, especially in difficult financial
times. We are not aware of many communities u7 California that have used this Funding approach
with sales tax, however many communities have used tax increment from redevelopment districts
to partially or wholly Fund or finance parking facilities.
6.8.6 User Fees
User fees are fees paid by individuals who park and pay for the use of the parking space. These
include on-street meter charges and hourly or daily charges paid for off street public parking
facilities. In some communities, fines for meter violations are included in this funding source,
This form of financing is very common in strong and vital parking districts where the imposition
of a parking charge is not deemed to be a threat to the vitality of the district, but where par]<ing is
clearly identified as a vital need for the district. Communities that do not currently have paid
parking are often nervous about introducing it, Many communities elu~ainated pay parking in the
1950s and 1960's in their "dying" downtown areas, due to competition from shopping centers that
offered free off street parking. Others simply view parking charges as a new tax to be viewed with
skepticism or resentment.
As the role of downtown has evolved compared to the suburban shopping center, many
communities have found that paid parking can be reintroduced with many benefits, Ingenious
and complex programs can be developed to price parking according to its desirability and best use,
and offer discounts to discretionary users through parking validations, limited periods for free
parking, and other approaches.
Pasadena recently reintroduced pay parking in the Oid Pasadena district at on-street sites. The
revenue received Erom the meters was partially pledged for designation by the merchant's
association. It was used for upgrading of street furniture, decorative tree lighting, and other
purposes to improve the ambiance of the district. An inventory of other cities throughout the
state with strong and vital downtown areas will reveal that paid parking generally comes hand in
hand with vitality.
A surprising amount of revenue can be generateci from systematic assessment of fees to parking in
areas that are now free. A 9~1 per hour charge can potentially result in revenues of y~'1 million per
year For a downtown not much larger than Tustin Old Town. A recent study by KOA for the
City of South Pasadena determined that this level of charge for its small downtown area and its
~~~ ~~~~V~1.~i TQlr City 0f TlfSt111
,:,pp.,'r~R!t:- _~ f.D•1i~ihaE'Falv,,"J. 1~1 s~ Old Town Tustin larking Study
Pnt•~'ii~g !l'Int~irlgc~n7e~~~t ~~'rrr~F~~,~ies
off street parking facilities would generate much more than $'1 million per year. One merchant in
South Pasadena had advocated the study based upon his observations of the Pasadena pz-ograzm
above, however the program was not adopted by the City due to wider merchant concerns over
loss of sales from paz-king cl-zarges.
6.8.7 Other Instruments
A significant number of parking facilities have been provided or improved through the use of
Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. This funding source has clearly
been found to be an attractive source of "outside" Funding. Its appropriateness for usage depends
upon the ability to attract Funds, competing uses, and the need to Follow Federal rules for usage,
including environmental procedures that apply to clearing of land, etc.
A Eew communities have established Vehicle Parking Districts as separate taxing entities to fund
parking improvements, They are somewhat similar to other special taxing districts, such as
.assessment districts, The District is legally Formed by mostly-willing participants who pledge an
annual tax increment to the district. The increment is used to fund and construct parking
facilities. The districts often have interesting boundaries, drawn to include as many supporting
participants as possible. Costa Mesa has several small parking districts behind older buildings in
its downtown area that were formed in the 1950s. The Districts finances were formally absorbed
into the City's General fund when the bonds were paid off, 20 years after formation. !'u~
alternative would be to tempoz-arily waive parking requirements completely.
I~(~A CO~FZP~JI~A'~'I~N cry ~ f 1 ~,st;~~
~,~ ,,,.,.,,,, ;, :. hr ~~,,~~;~,,.,,~~.,.;,,~.~, 86 Old Town Tustin Parku--g Study
During the course of the analysis, this report has made numerous general and specific suggestions
Eor planning and management of parking in Old Town Tustin. In this section, a summary of
recommendations is provided Eor review and consideration by the City.
7. ~ ~usrlmary o f Recotnu~eridataons
Prior to listing all general study recommendations, the following key findings are noted:
• Activity levels in OId Tustin are generally low based upon the amount of parking now
utilized in relation to the existing floor area and land use types. A comparable
downtown community could have a higher parking demand, if activity levels were
higher,
• Parking is generally available and underutilized in most of the study area at most
times, however there are hot spots, These are generally within time limit zones in
hont of businesses that have limited off street parking, and they occur more Frequently
during special events such as Farmers Market and Jamestown Flea Market.
• Parking enforcement in time limit zones should be increased, as there is evidence of
violation of time limits in parking hot spot areas.
• Given trends in development of older downtown areas, the City should expect that
mixed-use and higher-density developments will likely be the preferred approach taken
by developers on their development projects in these areas in the Future.
• Options exist to either modify standard parking requirements or implement innovative
parking solutions to create an attractive area For businesses to locate.
Following is a list of key recommendations that respond to issues and topics discussed in previous
sections of this report. Further discussion can be found in previous report sections. The
recommendations are summarized here for prioritization and action plan development.
Land Use/Tustin City Code Modifications
• Continue to encourage mixed-use developments in order to make better use of available
parking for present and future uses.
• Review and revise the Tustin City Code to permit Limited restaurant uses within existing
multi-tenant buildings under special permit without the need for an increase in on-site
parking requirements for such uses. The amendment process might also look at
identifying specific criteria that can assess existing parking opportunities on such sites and
available parking management strategies.
C'iry o f Tarstltr
~,,. I~O~ Cor~~o~~.TIQh1
E: ,.; ;,, i_;;,,,i_,;~r .~, r,.,~i„, r~,N~. 87 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
fZecorrrrr~err~frrtrnrrs
• Modify the Tustin City Code to enact new or relaxed parking requirements far Old Town.
This includes specific rates for certain more common land uses as iclentifiecl in the report,
allowances for joint and shared parking without the need for special Planning Commission
or City Council discretionary approvals. The amendment process might also identify
certain minimum criteria which could assist in the staff approval process.
• Review and revise any currently permitted in-lieu Fees for parking to reflect the current
costs of acquiring and constructing parking facilities. This may be necessary in both the
Parking Overlay District and Historical Overlay District. The modifications should also
acknowledge that iE pay parking is utilized as Funding and/or implementation technique,
any recommended in-lieu fee structure should reflect this as an off-set against any
established fee structure.
• When commercial and professional properties are developed or converted to permitted
uses, on-site parking requirements may be modified under any one or a combination of the
following provisions:
o Property that lies within a Vehicle Parking Assessment District or Business
Improvement Area should be exempt from the on-site parking requirement, subject
to the provisions of the Parking or Improvement District Ordinance. An in-lieu Fee
may be required.
~~ On-site parking requirements may be waived upon presentation to the City of a
long-term lease, running with and as a condition of the business license, for private
off-site parking accommodations within 300 feet of the development.
o All or a portion of the required number of parking spaces may be satisfied by
depositing with the City an amount, to be used Eor public parking
accommodations within the area, equal to at least the value of 200 square feet of
property within the project area, for each required parking space not otherwise
provided by the project.
Public Parking Lots
• Work with the Stevens Square Association including the use of code enforcement and legal
remedies, as necessary, to improve parking lot surface conditions, security and lighting
within those portions of the C Street Parking Structure available for public parking.
• Continue to monitor whether new Old Town public parking directional signage is
effective in directing motorists particularly to the C Street structure public parking area.
Consider undertaking focused interviews of shoppers to determine whether they 1<naw the
~, I~C~-11 ~~RPUI~.A.7-'IiJN City of~Tcrst(rr
~' ~~ ~,,;,_.,i~ ~;, >x f~~~:~:-~~~eFkiF~.i,, 88 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Recorrrrr~erzdnrlorzs
location of public parking lots in Old Town. If determined necessary in the future,
consider incremental installation of additional public parking directional signage.
• Evaluate situations where existing public parking lots may have adequate available parking
slaaces to provide parking opportunities for non-residential uses proposed in future mixed
use projects in close proximity to the lots in order to enhance overall parking supply,
• Evaluate on aproject-by-project basis, and in conjunction with Future development
activity in the Olcl Town area, the need far additional future parl<ing facilities based on
parking demand including evaluation and selection of appropriate private or public
funding mechanisms.
• No additional public parking lots or structures are required in the "1 to 10 year time frame,
based on currenC development projections.
Parlcin~ Management Strategies
• In general, employ parking management strategies to better regulate and optimize the use
of public and private parking facilities in Old Town.
• Review and revise, where necessary, time limits for curb-sicfe and public parking in OId
Town to achieve the optimum utilization of parking areas for business and non-residential
users, with the shortest time limits applied. to the most valuable parking areas. Longer
time periods should also be considered in secondary areas where such restrictions may
induce long-term parl<ers to relocate into off-street parking facilities. Recommended time
limits are shown in Figure 6.1.
• Adjust parking enforcement to achieve compliance with time limits and to insure parking
opportunities for customers.
• Review and develop policies For consideration of limited parking permits to allow
continued use of some on-street parking for long-term use under special circumstances,
provided that the number of permits can be managed with. objective criteria. Consider a
charge far such permits as means to control the management, enforcement and also to
limit the number of permits issued.
• Working with property owners, advise them to consider time limits in any private off-
street parking facilities only at a point where utilization seems to be approaching capacity
and problems are evident, except of overnight parking restrictions necessary for security
and public health and safety considerations.
BOA C~RPORATiOli1 City of Tirstrrz
~,I .a r~~,,u,c; Y t;;t;;Ih~EE.kll4(.; 09 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Recoty~r~~errrlnrio~zs
7„2 Action Plan
The Following action plan for parking improvements is recommended For Old Town. Priority "1
lists improvements or action items that are recommended for the short term (within the next
year). Priority 2 lists improvements or action items that are recommended for the medium term
(1 to 5 years). Priority 3 lists improvements or action items that are recommended for the Iong
term (5+ years). The priority ranking of parking recommendations considers that certain
recotnmenclations can be implemented in the near term at relatively low cost. For example, new
guide signing to direct motorists to available off-street parking. Other solutions such as improving
the C Street structure are more costly but still timely. And changing the municipal code to
encourage shared parking solutions is a relatively low cost solution to improve parking utilization
in the long term.
Priority 1 °
• Allow Limited Restaurant Uses Within Existing Multi-Tenant Buildings. It is
recommended that restaurant size be limited to 25% of the total block face frontage
due to the reliance on curb parking within 300 Feet of the business locations.
• Encourage Mixed Use Developments
• Review And Revise Time Limits (see Figure 6.1 for recommended limits)
• Introduce Conventional Parking Guide Signing
• Modify Municipal Code To Enact Or Relax 1 arking Reduirements
Priority 2
Employ Parking Management (Time Limits, Permits, Pay Parl<ing)
• Adjust Enforcement
• Limited Time Limit Exemption Permits
• Long Term Parking In OFE Street Parking Facilities
s Improve C Street Parking Structure
Priority 3:
Review And Revise In-Lieu Fees
• Integrate Public Parking Facilities Into Future Mixed Use Developments
• Consider Pay Parking In The Future
A variety of solutions is therefore available to address the parking needs of Old Town. Short-term
solutions such as improved signage, time restrictions, permit parking, and improving the C Street
structure can address the current imbalance of short-duration and long-duration parking supply
~. ~-~~. Co~pa~ATic~~ city ~~~G,S~tr~
t'' ~~~~i:au~C=~~:r~~-;>~rarr~;~~.~,_, 90 Old Town TustinParlungStudy
Reconar~aeiad~ttioyas
and demand. Long-term solutions such as innovative mixed-use and shared parking arrangements
can help the City meet its long-term goals for Old Town.
Although not anticipated to be needed in the near or mid-term, the city should also consicier
evaluating any appropriate funding mechanisms Ear public parking if and when needed in the
future.
/~^ A ~T Ciry of Tustin
~d~ <rLJ~.~Q~t"l~~~~1~
i~~ ~,.r.,~~ii,.: ,; ,,~i~~;:~r~F[un•~<s 91 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
APPENDICES
KO-A. COR.FOI~.~Tiahi Ciry ~{t~~rs~i,~~
t.,,ard,.,iPl(-- a cr.,~~,ir~G:~,.ir.,~, 92 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
APPEI®TDIX A
Parking I..ot Inventory and Occupancy Counts
KOA CORPORATIOI®1 C.1f)lOf Tf15f111
;~,,,~.;.si,,,,; t~ ~,,,,ir~c- ~airi~.,: 93 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
First St.
P2
m
PARKING LOT KEY
P11 Dentist
P12 Offices
P13 Optometry
P'14 Offices 195 C#33
P15 Offices 175 C#32
P21 Webb
ineer
P22 En
g
P23 Offices
P24 Construction
m P25 Chiropractor
Q P26 Riteway
~ P27 EI Paseo Plaza
~ P28 Acorn Naturals
o P31 Offices 250 EI Camino
~ P32 Antiques I Collectables
P33 Hobbyshop
P34 Mrs. B's
P35 Tustin Hardware
P36 145 W Main
P37 I-lair Design
P41 CPA
P42 Bigler
P43 Swinging Door
P44 Flying Geese
P45 Black Sheep
3 ~-., Third St.
W. Main St.
~ 66 6:
C61
64 62
m
m
iY
0
c
.~
w
U
W
V/
P51 Rutabegorz
P52 Case Hare Hall
P53 Homefront Mortgage
P54 Jamestown Lot
P55 C Stree! Parking Structure
P61 Low Carb Restaurant
P62 Granite & Tile
P63 The Atrium
P64 Armstrong Garden Center
P65 Assistance League
P66 Old Town Grill
P71 Saddleback Chapel
P81 Pet Grooming
P82 Large Commercial Lot
P83 Small Commercial Lot
P84 EI Camino Plaza
P91 Flowers
P92 Glass
P93 Pizza
P94 Auto Repair
P95 Tutor Whiz
P96 Motel
M1 Prospect/3rd Lot
M2 Prospect/Main Lol
M3 C Street Structure
~/
LEGEND
O Parking Lot Number
XX Curb Parking Number
Public Parking Lots
Y~i... N
4'.~ Private Parking Lots
Temporary Parking Lots
Study Boundary
Not to Scale
Tustin Figure A-1
tty o
~~~ ~~?~ ~~~~ ~~rTX~~
~'.~ ~ ' ~~.. ~ ~ ~- ;;,ih~ s~~rE;ir7ci Siueiy Old Town Parking Lot Names
Table A-1 -Old Town Tustin Existing Public Parking Supply
Parking Space
Inventory
Munici ail-Parkin Lots
M1 Prospect/~I-hird Street Municipal Lot 26
M2 Prospect/Main Street Lot 47
M3 C Street Parking Structure Upper Level 81
Dotal 5 paces, Public Lots (not i.ncludin-~ ttni~nrar lots} 1~4
Street Paritin
C11 C St./ 1" - 2"" 12
C12 Second St./ C St. - El Camino Real (N) 9
C13 El Camino Real/ First -Second (W) 12
SUBTOTAL 33
C21 El Camino Real/ First -Second (E) 5
C22 Second St./ El Camino Real -Prospect (N) 7
C23 Prospect/ First -Second 8
SUBTOTAL 20
C32 hird St./ C St. - El Camino Real (N) 9
C33 El Camino Real/ Second -Third (W) 13
C34 Second St./ C St. - EI Camino Real (S) 7
C35 C St./ 3"' -Main 8
C36 Main St./ C St. - El Camino Real (N) 8
C37 El Camino Real/ Third -Main (W) 5
C38 hird St./ C St. - El Camino Real (S) 11
SUBTOTAL 7U
C41 El Camino Real/ Second -Third (E) 4
C42 hird St./ El Camino Real -Prospect (N) 9
C43 Prospect/ Second -Third 1U
C44 Second St./ El Camino Real -Prospect (S) 11
C45 El Camino Real/ Third -Main (E) 9
C4h Main St./ El Camino Real -Prospect (N) 10
C46 Main St./ Prospect - Preble (N) 12
C47 Prospect/ Third -Main (W) 13
C48 hird St./ El Camino Real -Prospect (S) "16
C49 Prospect/ Third -Main (E) 4
SUBTOTAL 98
KOA CORPORATION `""y `~' ' """`
PLANNING & ENGINEERING 94 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
- -::~:. -
Street Parkin (cant).
.. _ . _.,
C51 C St./ South of Main
C52 C St./North of Sixth 10
C53 Sixth St./ C St. - EI Camino Real S
C54 El Camino Real/ Main -Sixth (W) 10
C55 Main St./ C St. - EI Camino Real (S) 10
SUBTOTAL 40
C61 El Camino Real/ Main -Sixth (E) '19
C62 Sixth B/ El Camino to Newport 30
C63 Main 5t./ El Camino Real -Prospect (S} 7
SUBTOTAL 56
C71 Main St./ El Camino Real -Newport (S) 16
SUBTOTAL 16
C82 B St./ South of Sixth 17
C83 El Camino Real/ (W) El Camino Real (S) Sixth (W) 24
C84 Sixth 5t B/ B St - El Camino Real (S) 16
SUBTOTAL 57
C92 E] Camino Real/ (E) El Camino Real (S) Sixth (E) 11
SUBTOTAL 11
otal Street Parking Spaces 401
I~Tote 7: Does not include residential spaces
KOA CORPORATION
f PLANNING & ENGINEERING a'S
C.lty Uf TGlStli4
OId Town Tustin 1'arlcing Study
Table A-2 - O)<d Town Tustin Existing Private Parking Supply
Parking Area Parking Space
Inventory
-Prv~-te :Parkux Lots
.-- _ ,
P1'1 B.G. Byrcl; DDS (Dentist) 10
P12 Office 150 El Camino Real 71
P13 William B. Stanford, OD (Optometry) 6
P14 Office 195 C St 31
P15 Office 175 C St 15
SUBTOTAL 133
P21 Webb #67 9
P22 Douglas E. Moran, Inc 12
P23 Prospect Plaza Offices. 40
P24 Sinno Construction 3
P25 Acucare Holistic Health Center 2
P26 Riteway 7
P27 El Paseo Plaza 15
P28 Acorn Naturals 35
SUBTOTAL 123
P31 Offices 250 El Camino onl "92
P32 (Vacant Commercial) Antiques/Collectibles 26
P33 Kelly's Hobby shop 7
P34 Mrs. B's #38 5
P35 (Vacant Commercial) ~
P36 Offices 145 W. Main 17
P37 Kelly's Hair Design 4
SUBTOTAL 160
P41 CPA (s aces were located in 2°`'/El Camino Real un aved lot) 20
P42 Bigler 17
P43 Swinging Door (behind building) 11
P44 Flying Geese (parking in Old Town Plaza) 14
P45 Black Sheep (parking in Old Town Plaza) 10
SUBTOTAL 72
P51 Rutabe orz 7
P52 Cass Hare I-Iall 18
P53 Homefront Mortgage 13
P54 Jamestown Lot 109
P55 Steven's Sq./C St. Parking Structure/Private 36
SUBTOTAL 183
K[)A CORPORATION city ofT~,st~~~
PLANNING & ENCbINEERING 96 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Private Parkin Lots carat.
P61 Low Carb Restaurant 7
P62 Old. Town Flooring 6
P63 The Atrium 63
P64 Armstrong Garden Center 41
P65 Assistance League 14
P66 Old Town. Grill 32
SUBTOTAL 162
P71 Saddleback Cha el 81
SUBTOTAL 81
P81 Pet Grooznin 30
P82 Large Commercial Lot 157
P83 Small Commercial Lot 3
P84 El Camino Plaza ~ 332
SUBTOTAL 522
P91 Saddleback Flower Sho ~ 2
P92 Tustin Glass and Mirror 2
P93 Roma D Italia (Pizza) ?9
P94 Galaxy Automotive (Auto Repair) 13
P95 Tutor Whiz ~
P96 Motel Tustin Motor Lodge & Suite 44
SUBTOTAL 109
Tc~t~al Sr~ace:~, Pxavate Lots' 1,545
Note 1: Does not include residential spaces
KOA CORPORATION City o f Taistrrt
PLANNING & ENGINEERINri 97 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Table A-3- Old Town Tustin Weekday Parking Demand, Public Lots & Streets
Parking Lot Parking Demand '~z
P1~G.
SUP 9
AM 11
AM 1
PM 3
PM 5
PM 7
PM 9
PM 1 '1
I'M PEA}<
OCCIJP. AVC.
"/,
Publiic. 1<'arki~ng Tots -~ '
M1 Prospect/:3"' St. Lot 26 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 15% 5%,
M2 Prospect/Main St. Lot 47 4 5 4 3 4 1 1 0 1'1% 6%~
M3 C St. 1?arl<ing Structure (2"d level) 81 5 17 52 24 20 25 12 0 64% 24%~
3`d/Prospect l.)npaved Lot 0 1 2 3 3 8 5 3 3 27% 14%
2"`'/L-CR Unpaved Lot 0 0 2 3 3 2 0 0 0 5% 2%
Total, Public Parking 154 14 28 64 34 34 31 16 3 42% 18%
Percent Occupied, Public Lots 9%~ 18%, 42`%, 22`%, 22%, 20"rte 10`% 4`~„
SYreet.Parking
C11 C St.i 1" _ ~„~ (li) 12 4 8 ? ;; 2 0 0 O ~7`%, ?'~</,
'' C12 2nd St./C St.-EI Camino (N) 9 4 $ 4 4 3 0 0 U 89% 32%,
C'13 El Camino/ '1st - 2°`' (W) 12 I 3 3 6 3 1 1 0 50% 19%
C21 Ll Camino/ 1st - 2"`' (E) 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 40% 5%
C22 2nd St./El Camino- Prospect (N) 7 3 3 1 3 1 2 2 0 43% 27%,
C23 Prospect/ ls` - 2nd (W) 8 4 4 5 5 3 1 3 3 63`% 44`/,
C31 C St./ 2"~ - 3`~ (E) 9 8 9 8 9 1 4 3 0 100% 58%
i C32 3rd St./C St.-El Camino (N) 9 8 8 7 5 4 2 3 2 89% 54%
' C33 EI Camino/ 2nd - 3`~ (W) 13 1 12 13 13 1.2 9 2 0 100% 60%
C34 2nd St./C St.-EI Camino (S) 7 2 5 3 6 4 7 0 0 100% 48%
i C35 C St./ 3"' -Main (E) 8 2 3 5 Z 1 1 0 0 63% 22%
C36 Main St./C St.-El Camino (N) 8 0 4 4 2 4 4 0 0 50% 28%,
C.37 EI Camino/ 3rd -Main (W) 5 2 2 4 5 5 3 1 4 100% 65%~
C38 3rd St./C 5t.-El Camino (S) 11 6 10 7 8 5 4 3 U 91% 49%
C41 Ll Camino/ 2nd - 3`d (E) 4 0 4 4 4 4 2 0 0 100`% 56"/~
C42 3rd St./El Camino- Prospect (N) 9 4 7 7 8 8 4 2 2 89% 58%
C43 Prospect/ 2nd - 3`~ (VV) 10 5 4 5 4 5 6 7 7 70% 54%
C44 2nd St./El Camino- Prospect (S) 11 2 4 4 5 5 2 2 0 45% 27%
C45 L-I Camino/ 3rd -Main (E) 9 3 6 9 $ 9 9 8 6 100% 81°!°
C46 Main St./ El Camino- Prospect (N) 10 6 7 S 4 1 5 2 1 70% 99%
C46 Main St./ Prospect- Treble (N) 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%~ 0%
C47 Prospect/ 3`d -Main (W) 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
' C48 3rd St./El Camino- Prospect (S) 16 3 4 4 3 2 3 2 2 25% 18%
C49 Prospect/ 3`d -Main (E) 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
C51 C St./ South of Main (E) 2 0 0 2 '1 2 2 1 0 100% 50`%
C52 C St./ North of fi`'' (W) 10 2 4 3 0 2 3 1 2 40 21%
C53 6th St./ C St.- El Camino $ 2 2 2 3 2 2 0 0 38`% 20%
C54 El Camino/ Main - 6``' (W) 10 1 5 7 3 3 8 4 4 80'%, 44%
C.5.5 Main St./C St.-El Camino (S) 1.0 2 6 8 6 8 7 2 0 80`% 49%,
`~ KOA CORPORATION 98
~':.1\' PLANNING & ENGINEERING
City o f Tustin
Old Town Tustin Par]<ing Stucly
C61 El Camino/ Main - 6`'' (E-') 19 1 5 13 0 5 11 13 5 68%~ 35%
C62 6th B/ El Camino to Newport 30 10 10 13 '1'1 13 '19 14 9 63% 41%
C63 Main St./ El Camino- Newport (S) 7 2 2 5 1 5 5 1 0 71 % 38%~
C71 Main St./ El Camino- Newport (S) 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0`% 0%>
C82 B St./ South of 6`'' E) 17 6 9 9 8 4 3 2 Z 53`% 32%
C83 EI Camino/ (W) El Camino (S) 6th 24 5 7 8 7 7 12 6 3 50`% 29%
C84 Sixth St/ B St-El Camino (S) 16 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 6% 2%
C92 El Camino/ (E)1;.1 Camino (S) 6th 11 1 3 2 2 2 5 1 0 45`% 18%
Percent Occupied, Street
Parking
- ~~ ;~~„
~ ,;,;,
_~ <4`~;',
_', ~ ~;,
' ~4"~.
37%
21`%
13%
44%
32%
i
KC)A CO1tP~RATION Crty c~ f Tustin
~ PIANNII'JG & ENGINEERING 99 Old Town Tustin Parl~ing Study
Table A-4- Old Town Tustin Weekday Parking Demand, Private lots
1
Parking Lot
Parking Demand ''Z
Pkg.
Sup.
9 11M 11
nM
1 PM
3 PM
5 PM
7 P-M
9 PM 11
1'M Peak
Occu. Avg.
%~
Private Paskitxg.Lofis .
P11 B.G. Byrd, DDS (Dentist) 10 2 1 4 4 1 0 U 0 40% 15%
P12 Offices 150 Ll Camino Real 71 23 39 36 40 27 2 2 Z 56%~ 30`-%
P13 William B. Stanford, OD 6 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 33% 10%>
P14 Offices 195 C 31 12 18 15 18 16 1 2 1 58% 33%
P15 Offices 175 C 15 1 7 .5 3 2 0 0 0 47"/0 15%
SUBTOTAL 133 38 67 60 66 48 3 4 3 50% 27%
P21
Webb
9
7
4
3
5
4
1
0
0 ~,
78 /o ., ~,
03 /,
P22 Douglas L. Moran, inc 12 2 3 5 6 2 0 0 0 50% 19%
P23 Prospect Plaza Offices 40 28 32 24 28 19 5 4 4 80% 45%,
' P24 Sinno Construction 3 0 1 0 0 0 (1 0 0 33% 4%
P25 Acucare Holistic Health Center 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 100% 19`%
P26 IZiteway 7 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 1 29`% 14%
P27 EI 1'aseo Plaza 15 0 1 4 2 3 0 1 1 27% 10%~
P28 Acorn l~laturals 35 5 5 6 7 2 0 0 0 20`% 9%
SUBTOTAL 123 44 48 44 50 33 9 5 6 41% 24%
P31 OFEices 250 El Camino 92 36 80 75 68 67 1.7 6 6 87% 48%
~ P32 Vacant/Collectibles 26 2 6 3 8 10 7 6 1 38% 21%,
P33 Hobby shop 7 2 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 43% 30%
1 P34 Mrs. B's 5 0 3 2 3 3 0 0 U 60`% 28%
P35 Vacant Commercial 9 6 0 U 1 0 0 0 0 67% 10%~
P36 Offices 17 6 11 9 11 9 0 0 0 65% 34`%,
P37 LCelly's Hair Design 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 50% 44%
I SUBTOTAL 160 54 105 92 95 93 27 16 11 66% 89%,
P41 CPA (2"d/El Cam. Real Lot) 20 2 5 5 4 6 2 0 0 30% 15%
P42 Bigler 17 3 4 6 3 3 1 1 1 35% 16°/°
P43 Swinging Door {behind bldg) 11 5 6 9 9 $ 8 6 10 91% 69%>
P44 Plying Geese (Old Town Plaza) 14 6 14 14 14 "11 8 13 11 100%~ 81%
P45 Black Sheep (Old Town Plaza) 10 1 3 6 5 0 5 7 2 70% 36%
SUBTOTAL 72 17 32 40 35 28 24 27 24 56°!° 39"/°
KOA CORPORATION city °f7-`rs"F'
~ PLANNING & ENGINEERING 100 OId Town Tustin Parking Study
1'53 Homefront Mortgage 13 13 13 13 12 11 0 0 0 100% 60`%
P54 Jamestown Lot 109 18 39 51 46 42 68 59 42 62% 42%>
P55 Steven's Scl./C St. Parking 127 20 22 26 31 25 6 0 0 33% 13%
P56 Rutabegor, 7 3 4 5 4 5 2 2 0 71% 45%
~ P57 Cass Hare Hall 19 10 8 10 12 9 19 10 3 100% 53%
SUBTOTAL 275 64 86 105 105 92 95 71 45 38% 30%
P61 Low Carb Restaurant 7 1 4 2 1 1 5 1 2. 71% 30%
P62 Old Town Flooring 7 5 5 6 3 5 3 2 2 86% 55%
P63 The Atrium 63 32 38 36 32 30 15 5 4 60% 38%
P64 Armstrong Garden Center 41 5 S 10 6 4 0 0 0 24`% 9%
P65 Assistance League 14 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 7% 2%~
P66 Old Town Grill 32 5 10 22 7 4 20 22 7 69% 38`%
SUBTOTAL 164 48 62 76 50 45 43 30 15 46% 2$%~
P71 Saddleback Chapel 81 9 10 8 8 2 1 2 2 12% 6%
P81 Pet Grooming 30 8 6 5 5 1 1 1 1 27`% 12%
P82 Large Commercial Lot, Rear 157 9 23 27 27 38 63 30 24 40% 19%
P83 Sma11 Commercial Lot - E] 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 100`% 50%
P84 El Camino Plaza 332 127 134 185 135 206 301 158 52 91%~ 49%
SUBTOTAL 522 146 16.5 219 170 247 366 189 77 70% ~ 8`%
P91 Saddleback Flower Shap 2 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 100% 38~/°
~I P92 Tustin Glass and Mirror 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 0 100% 75%
P93 Roma D Italia (Pizza) 39 3 5 25 15 15 31 24 4 79%~ 39%
'~ P94 Galaxy Automotive 14 13 14 14 14 14 11 14 14 100% 96r/°
P95 Tutor Whiz 9 0 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 44% 10%
P96 Motel Tustin Motor Lodge 44 24 18 18 13 18 23 23 29 66% 47`%
SUBTOTAL 110 42 38 61. 47 52 70 64 47 64% 48"/°
Total Spaces, Private 1545 462 613 705 626 b40 638 408 230 43%~ 33`%
~ Percent Occupied, Private 28% 37`% 43`% 38% 39`% 39% 25%~ 14% 33°~,
~,, KOA CORPORATION 101
~ ('CANNING 8 ENGINEERING
City o f Tl.rsrir~
Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Table A-S- Old Town Tustin Weekend Parking Demand, Public Lots & Streets
Parking Lot Parking Demand '~2
Pkg.
Supp. 9
AM 11
AM 1
PM 3
PM 5
PM 7
PM 9
PM I1
PM Peak
Occu. Avg.
%,
Pcsblic I'arkisag sots
M1 Prospect/~r~l tit.. Lt~t 26 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 (') 4`%. 5`%
M2 Prospect/Main St. l.ot 47 1 2 3 5 5 5 5 1 11% 7%
M3 C St. Parking Structure (2"`' level) 81 2 3 27 6 2 8 2 0 33% g%,
3`d/Prospect Unpaved I,ot 0 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 10% 10%
2"J/ECR Unpaved Lot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U%, Oq~,
Total, Public Parking Lots 154 5 $ 31 13 10 16 10 4 2Q% god,
Pea•cent Occu pied Pteblic Parkin
6 g .~"/° 5%~ 2C7%, 8%, h%. 10`1!_, 6%, ?'%~
~3`%,
Street Parking
Gl. C St. B/ 1st to 2°~ (F) 12 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 35%, 4°„
C1 2nd B/ C St. to El Camino (N) 9 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 d 22% 5%,
C1 El Camino B/ 1st to 2"d (W) 12 0 1 7, 1 0 0 0 0 17% 4%
C2 El Camino B/ 1st to 2°d (E) 5 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0% 0%
C2 2nd B/ El Camino to Prospect (N) 7 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 57% 46%
C2 Prospect B/ 1st to 2°d (W) 8 2 2 5 4 4 4 3 4 63% 44%
C3 C St. B/ 2nd to 3`~ (E) 9 Z 2 3 2 5 0 0 0 56% 19%
C3 3rd B/ C St. to EI Camino (N) 9 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 33% 1 g%
C3 El Camino B/ 2nd to 3"' (W) 13 13 13 13 10 0 0 1 2 100% 50%
C3 2nd B/ C St. to EI Camino (S) 7 1 5 3 4 1 0 0 0 71% 25%
C3 C St. B/ 3rd to Main St. (E) 8 1 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 25%, 13%
C3 Main St. B/ C St. to El Camino (N) 8 0 2 4 2 1 3 0 0 50% 19%
C3 L-1 Camino B/ 3rd to Main St. (W) 5 0 2 5 5 2 2 4 4 100% 60%,
C3 3rd B/ C 5t, to EI Camino (S) 11 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 2 36% 18U
C4 El Camino B/ 2nd to 3`d (E) 4 3 3 4 4 4 0 0 0 100% 56%
C4 3rd B/ EI Camino to Prospect (N) 9 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 44% 25%
C4 Prospect B/ 2nd to 3`~ (W) lU 6 5 6 4 6 6 8 9 90% 63%
C4 2nd B/ L-1 Camino to Prospect (S) 11 2 2 1 1 1 4 2 1 36% 16%
C4 El Camino B/ 3rd to Main St. (L-) 9 0 1 3 8 0 9 7 8 100% 50`/°
C4 Main St. B/El Camino to Prospect 10 2 4 3 4 3 1 U 0 40%~ 21%
C4 Main St. B/ Prospect to Preble (N) '12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% U%
KOA C~RPURATION
~ NLANNING & ENGINEERING 102
Clty 0~ TL(S't111
Old Town Tustin Parking Study
C4 Prospect B/ 3rd to Main St. (W) 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0°/C, 0%,
C4 3rd B/ EI Camino to Prospect (N) 16 1 1 2 2 3 4 3 2 25°/t, 14%
C4 Prospect B/ 3rd to Main St. (E) 4 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0U
CS C St. South of Main St. (E) 2 O 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 10U% 63%
C5 C St. N/ 6th St. (E) 10 3 3 3 4 6 4 4 4 60%, 3J%
C5 6th St. B/ C St. to EI Camino 8 0 0 0 1 1 4 4 2 50% 19%,
C5 Ll Camino B/ Main to 6`I' (W) 10 1 1 7 5 2 8 6 3 80% 41%
CS Main St. B/ C St. to El Camino 10 2 5 10 7 6 4 0 0 100%~ 43%
C6 El Camino B/ Main to 6`'' {E) 19 0 6 10 4 2 14 10 3 74% 32%
C6 6th B/ EI Camino to Newport North 30 12 13 12 12 16 24 16 13 80% 49%
C6 Main St. 8/EI Camino-Nwpt (S) 7 0 4 1 0 3 1 1 1 57% 20%
C7 Main St. B/El Camino-Nwpt (S) 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
C8 B St. S/ 6`'' 17 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 18% 13%
C8 LI Camino/ (W) El Camino S/ 6`'' 24 1 2 5 6 3 2 3 1 2S% 12%
C8 Sixth St B/ B St - El Camino (S) 16 0 0 p p 0 I 0 0 7% -8%
C9 EI Camino /(E) El Camino S/ 6`h 11 0 U 0 0 2 0 0 0 18% 2%>
Percent Occupied, Street Parking 17% 23`% 30`% 27% 23% 28%, 22%, 17% 30% 23%
l
KOA CORPORATION ~;ry °f r~.~s""
~ PLANNING & ENGINEERING 903 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Table A-6- OId Town Tustin Weekend Parking Demand, Private Lots
Parking Lot Parking Demand'~Z
Pkg.
Supp. 9 AM 11
AM 1 PM 3 PM 5 PM 7 PM 9 pM 11
PM Pealc
Occu. Avg.
%
._ Private Parking Lats
-
_.
P11 B.G. Byrd, DDS (Dentist) 10 U 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10°1° 1°<~
P12 Offices '150 El Camino Real 71 2 3 5 6 2 1 1 1 8% 4%
' P13 William B. Stanford, OD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
P14 Offices 195 C 31 3 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 16% 4%
P15 Offices 175 C 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
SUBTOTAL 133 5 8 6 6 2 2 1 1 5% 3`/°
P21 Webb 9 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 33% 14%
P22 Douglas E. Moran, Inc 12 "1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8`% 8%
P23 Prospect Plaza Office 40 9 11 9 8 7 4 0 0 28`% 15%
P24 Sinno Construction 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 33% 13`%
P25 Acucare 1-Iolistic Health 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0~%
P26 Riteway 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 29% 4%
' 1'27 El Paseo Plaza 15 0 0 1 1 1 1 U 0 7% 3%
P28 Acorn Naturals 35 2 3 2 5 2 0 0 0 "14% 5%
SUBTOTAL 123 15 "18 16 18 12 8 1 1 15% 9%
I P31 Offices 2.50 El Camino only 92 32 ,56 43 37 15 6 5 5 61% 27%
P32 Vacant Commercial 26 2 3 3 2 4 2 2 1 15% 9'/°
I P33 Hobby shop 7 3 3 2 4 2 1 1 1 57% 30%
P34 Mrs. B's 5 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 60% 15%
P3,5 Vacant Commercial 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0`%~
P36 Offices 145 W Main 17 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 12% 2'%
P37 Kelly's Hair Design 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 50% 50%
SUBTOTAL 160 39 67 52 46 25 11 11 9 42% 20%
P41 CPA 20 3 4 7 5 5 1 2 2 35`% 13%
P42 Bigler 17 4 4 1 2 0 0 4 0 24% 11%
P43 Swinging Door (behind bldg) 11 0 4 4 3 7 5 0 0 64% 26%
P44 Flying Geese(Old Town 14 14 12 14 12 3 7 6 1 100 62%
P45 Black Sheep (Old Town 10 8 6 6 6 1 3 2 1 8U% 41%
SUBTOTAL 72 29 30 32 28 16 16 14 4 44% 29%
I
f
KOA CORPORATION c``y °t T"s"'~
~ PLANNING S ENGINEERING 104 OId Town Tustin Parking Study
P51 Rutabegorz 7 3 4 ~ 6 3 2 3 1 0 86`% 39%,
P52 Cass Hare Hall 19 5 5 6 5 2 0 1 1 6%, 16%~
P53 Homefront Mortgage 13 3 5 8 3 1 0 0 0 42% 19%
P54 Jamestown 109 38 47 51 47 64 55 54 12 59`% 42%,
P55 Steven's Sq./C St. Parking "127 7 7 6 2 0 0 0 0 54% 2%
SUBTOTAL 275 56 68 77 60 69 58 56 13 28% 21°~>
P61 Low Caro Restaurant 7 2 1 2 1 3 2 3 0 43% 25%
P62 Old Town Flooring 7 1 7 6 4 3 5 3 0 100 52%
P63 The Atrium 63 5 11 14 7 9 3 1 1 22% 10%
P64 Armstrong Garden Center 41 11 22 l5 13 13 0 0 0 49% 23%
P65 Assistance League 14 2 11 11 7 9 3 1 1 79% 40%
P66 Old Town Grill 32 2 7 14 12 15 30 23 5 94%, 42%
~ SUBTOTAL 164 23 59 62 44 52 43 31 7 38% 24%
71 Saddleback Chapel 81 6 7 6 4 4 3 1 1 9% 5`%
P81 Pet Grooming 30 5 5 4 2 1 1 1 1 17% 8`%
P82 Large Commercial Lot 157 26 30 24 19 40 50 8 32% 18%
P83 Small Commercial Lot 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 0 0 100 54%
P84 El Camino Plaza 332 173 199 196 175 145 115 149 41 60% 45`%
SUBTOTAL 522 206 236 227 198 188 168 158 42 45°1° 34%
P91 Saddleback Flower Shop 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 100 50`/°
P92 Tustin Glass and Mirror 2 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 0 100 56%
P93 Rama D Italia (Pizza) 39 5 8 19 12 16 34 21 1 87% 37%
P94 Galaxy Automotive 14 13 14 8 12 11 12 11 9 100 80%
P9.5 Tutor ~1Vhiz 9 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 33% 7%,
P96 Matel Tustin Motor Lodge 44 24 19 19 17 22 19 25 27 61% 49`/°
SUBTOTAL 110 44 44 49 45 53 67 61 37 61`% 4,5`%
Total, Private Parking Lots 1545 423 537 527 449 421 376 334 115 33% 24%
I
~ PE.JCe,~I- ~7ce~;.[~~ieC P,-ivate
. -- - 26% 33%> 32% 27% 26%, 23% 20% 7% 24%
KO.A CORPORATION C,ry o f Tc~snn
~ PLANNING & ENGINECRING 105 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Table A-7
Existing Parking Demand by Land Use
Land Use Subarea -Parking Demand (Spaces)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total
Residential - 2 5 13 4 - - - - 24
Mixed iJse - - - - - 1 - - - 1
Retirement Home - - - - - - - - - -
Service-Commercial - 2 2 - - - - - 14 1$
Commercial - - - - - - - - 4 4
Dance Studio - - 8 - - - - - - 8
Shopping Center - - - 17 8 3$ - 342 4 409
Nursery - - - - - 10 - - - 10
Retail - 7 10 - - 11 - - - 28
Restaurant - - - - 24 - - - 31 55
GeneralOEfice 73 38 91 11 21 38 - 17 - 289
MedicalOEEice 12 4 - - - - - - - 16
Mortuary - - - - - - 10 - - 10
Public [.ltility - - - 5 - - - - - 5
Recreational - - 14 - - - - - - 14
Entertainment - - - 14 - - - - - 14
Museum - - - 10 - - - - - 10
Religious Center - - - - - - - - - -
Hotel/Motel - - - - - - - - - -
Industrial - - 9 - - - - - - 9
Storage - - - - - - - - - -
Other 8 16 21 31 5 - - - - 81
TOTAL 93 fig 160 101 62 98 10 359 53 1,005
~,~, I~CIA CORPORATION
~ PLANNING & ENGINEERING l~6
City o f Tustr~
Old Town Tustin Parking Study
APPENDIX S
Parking Duration/Turnover Data
~ I~~A CORPGIRATI~N Ciry ~~ Tusr~n
PLANNING & ENGINEERING 1~7 OId Town Tustin Parl<ir~g Study
Table B-1
EI Camino Real
Documented Length of Stay
Weekday
El Camino Real
Street Segment Parking
Space
Inventory
Average
Occupancy Average
Duration
(hours) Average
Turnover
(use per day)
Between 2"d & 3`d St., West Side 13 6p% 1.6 5.0
Between 2"d & 3"I St., East Side $ 56% 1.5 4.0
Between 3`d & Main St., West Side 5 65% 1.4 4.6
Between 3`d & Main St., East Side 10 81% 1.6 4.8
Between Main St. & 6``' St., West Side 12 44% 1.7 2.2
Between Main St. & 6`'' St., East Side 19 35% 1.3 1.7
Total g7 57% 1.6 4.0
Table B-2
El Camino Real
Documented Length of Stay
Weekend
EI Camino Real
Street Segment Parking
Space
Inventory
Average
Occupancy Average
Duration
(hours) Average
Turnover
(use per day)
Between 2"`' & 3`d St., West Side 13 50% 1.9 3.5
Between 2"`' & 3"' St., East Side 8 56% 1.9 1.9
Between 3"' & Main St., West Side 5 60`% 2.1 2.6
Between 3"' & Main St., East Side 10 50`% 1.6 1.7
Between Main St. & 6``' St., West Side 1.2 41`% 1.6 2.4
Between Main St. & 6`~ St., East Side 19 32`% 1.3 1..5
Total 67 48% 1.? 2.5
K~~ CORPORATION Ciry o f Ttrsrira
~ PLANNING 8 ENGINEERING 108 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Table B-3
C Street
Documented Length of Stay
Weekend
C Street
Street Segment Parking
Space
Inventory
Avera e
g
Occupancy Average
Duration
(hours) Average
Turnover
(use per day)
Between 2"`' & 3`d St., West Side 14 19% 4.0 0.4
Between 2°~ & 3`d St., East Side 12 19% 3.9 0.7
I
Between 3`d & Main St., West Side 9 13% 1.2 0.7
Between 3`d & Main St., East Side 8 13% 2.1 0.9
Between Main St. & 6`" St., West Side 4 63% 2.0 4.7
Between Main St. & 6`" St., East Side 3 39% 1.3 3.U
Total 50 28% 2.3 2.2 I
Table B-4
2"`'' 3`d, & Main Street
Documented Length o£ Stay
Weekend
Parking Average Average
2nd Street
Space Avera e
g
Duration
Turnover
Street Segnr>tent
Inventory Occupancy
(hours)
(use per day)
Between C & El Camino Real, North Side 11 5% 1.4 2.4
Between C 3z El Camino Real, South Side 8 25% 1.3 4.6
oral 19 15% 1.3 3.9
3`d Street
Street Segnnent
etweez~ C & El Camino Real, North Side 10 19% 4.3 0.4
Between C & El Camino Real, South Side 12 18% 1.9 0.7
otal 22 18% 2.7 0.6
Main Street
Street Segment
Between C & El Camino Real, North Side 10 19% 1.7 0.3
Between C & El Camino Real, South Side 11 43% 5.0 U.8
otal 21 31% 4.0 UJ
KOA CORPORATION cry o~ T"St"'
PLAI~NING & ENGINEL-RING 109 OId Town. Tustin Parking Study
Table B~5
Farmer's Market Parking
Documented Length of Stay
i
Parking Average Average
El Camino Real
Space Average
Duratio
Turnover
Street Segment
Inventory Occupant
(hours)
(use per day)
Between 2n`' & 3"' St., West Side 13 60% 1.2 4.0
Between 2°d & 3"' St., East Side 9 .5b% 1.0 3.6
Between 3`d & MairfSt., West Side 5 65`% 1.3 2.4
Between 3`d & Main St., East Side 10 81`% 1.1 2.9
Total 37 65% 1.1 3.5
2nd Street
Street Segment
Between C & El Camino Real, South Side 8 4$% 1.9 2.0
Between El Camino Real & Prospect, S. Side 8 27% 3.7 1.3
Total 16 38% 2.6 1.7
3"' Street
Street Segment
Between C & EI Camino Real, North Side 10 54% 1.8 1.3
etween C & EI Camino Real, South Side 10 49% 4.3 LO
Between El Camino Real & Prospect, N. Side 9 58% 3.3 1.4
Between EI Camino Real & Prospect, S. Side 8 18% 1.3 2.0
Total 37 45% 2.5 1.5
3"' Street/Prospect
25
14%
1
1
2.2
Unpaved Lot .
3`d Street/Prospect
40
5%~
4.0
0.1
Municipal Lot
KOA CORPORATION 110
~ ~'LANNING & ENGINEERING
clfy O f TLISf 111
Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Table B-6
Jamestown Flea Market Parking
Documented Length of Stay
Parking
Space
Inventory
Average
Occupancy Average
Duration
{hours) Average
Turnover
(use per day)
C Street Structure 81 27`/° 1.3 2.7
amestown Lot ' 113 N/A' 1.3 3.0
rmstrong Lot 54 23% 1.4 1.1
El Camino Real Between 6`'' & Main, W. Side 13 41% 1.5 5.8
El Camino Real Between C`h & Main, E. Side 19 32% "1.4 6.2
C Street between 6``' & Main, West Side 16 63% 2.3 3.8
C Street between 6`'' & Main, East Side 17 39% 2.6 3.8
otal, Street Segments 65 44% 1.8 5.2
Note 1: Jamestown lot occupied by vendors
I~OA CORPORATION cry d~T~~sttrr
~ PLANNING $ ENGIF~IEEFING 111 Old Town Tustin Parl<in~ Study
APPENDIX C
City Parking Codes and Ordinances
~OA CORPORAT'IOly Ciry of Tcrstiri
PLANNING & ENGINEERING 112 Old Town Tustin Parkzng Study
CHAPTER 9 DESIGNATED PUBLIC PARKING AREAS
7900 PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose of this Chapter is to provide a mechanism by which the City Council may designate
available City-owned property as public parking areas in order to increase the availability of
parking in certain areas of the City.
(Ord. No. 1323, Sec. 1, 1-15-07)
7905 DESIGNATION OF PUBLIC PARKING AREAS
Upon making each of the following findings, the City Council may, by resolution,
designate any available and suitable City-owned property within the City, or any portion
thereof, as a public parking area:
1. That the designation of the subject property as a public parking area will n.ot be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of residents
or businesses in tl~e area of the designation; and
2. That such designation will not interfere with the public safety or access to the subject
property, or with preexisting traffic patterns, as applicable.
In determining whether to make such a designation, the City Council shall take into
account the existing parking conditions in the area and the extent of the desire and need of
residents anal/or commercial proprietors in the area for the public parking area.
(Ord. No. 1323, Sec. 1, 1-15-07)
7910 USE OF DESIGNATED PUBLIC PARKING AREAS
Any property designated as a public parking area pursuant to this Chapter shall be held
open to the general public solely for the puz`pose of temporary parking of automobiles,
trucks, motorcycles, or other motor-driven forms of transportation not in excess of six
thousand (6,000) pounds gross weight, subject to those conditions, rules, and regulations
established by the City Council. Use of designated public parking areas for public parking
shall be non-exclusive, and the City Council shall retain the right to concurrently use the
property for whatever additional purposes the City Council or its designee reasonably
determines are necessary or convenient and consistent with such parking use.
(Ord. No. 1323, Sec. 1, 1-15-07)
7915 DE-DESIGNATION OF PUBLIC PARKING AREAS
Upon making each of the following findings, the City Council may, by resolution, de-designate
City-owned property previously designated as a public parking area pursuant to Section 7905:
1. That the subject property is needed For a significant public use;
2. That the continued use of the property as a public non-exclusive parking area is inconsistent or
incompatible with such other public use; and
KOA CORPORATION cr~v ~, fT~~,,,~~
~" ; P~aNr~ir~o ~ rNOiNEFRiNC 113 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
3. That the loss of the public parking area will not have a significant adverse impact on parking
in the vicinity of the public parking area.
(Ord. No. 1325, Sec_ 1, 1-15-07)
7920 NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS
A. Public Hearing. Prior to the adoption of a resolution designating or de-designating
City-owned property as a public parking area, the City Council shall hold a public hearing
and shall consider comments received Erom the public, property owners within five
hundred (500) feet of the public parking area, and any other interested persons or property
owners.
B. Notice of Hearing.
1. Publication and Mailing of Notice. The City Clerk shall prepare a notice of the public
hearing and shall publish the notice at least once in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City of Tustin, no less than ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Notice of
the hearing shall also be mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to all
owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within five
hundred (500) feet of the exterior boundary of the real property constituting the proposed
or aEEected public parking area.
2. Failure to Post Notices. Failure to mail or publish notices as specified in subsection "B.1"
hereof shall not invalidate any proceedings.
3. Filing of Affidavit. Upon completion of the publication and mailing of the notices
provided Eor in subsection "B.1" hereof, the City Clerk shall cause an affidavit of such.
mailing or publication to be filed in the permanent records of the particular proceedings to
which such notices pertain.
(Ord. No. 1323, Sec. 1, 1-15-07)
7925 ESTABLISHMENT OF CONDITIONS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS
The resolution designating a public parking area may provide such special conditions,
rules, and regulations, including without limitation, hours of operation and duration, as
the City Council deems necessary or appropriate in order to assure proper and appropriate
use of designated public parking areas and to prevent interference with the orderly and
efficient conduct of the City's business. A written statement or other graphic depiction of
such special conditions, rules, and regulations shall, upon adoption by the City Council, be
filed in the office of the City Clerk.
(Ord. No. 1323, Sec. 1, 1-15-07)
7930 ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE DESIGNATED PUBLIC
PARKING AREAS
~OA CORPORATION C,7ry of 1 i~srin
pI,gNNING 8 ENGINEERING 114 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
A. Pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 21113, a written statement or other graphic depiction of all
special conditions, rules, and regulations adopted per Section 7925 shall, at all times while the
same remain effective, be kept on Eile and available at the office of the City Clerk, for examination
by all interested persons.
B. The City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall erect, place, and maintain appropriate
signs and markings at each designated public parking area giving notice of all special conditions,
rules and regulations applicable thereto, adopted per Section 7925 and imposed under Vehicle
Code Section 21113.
C, Any vehicle operation, parking, stopping, or left standing, and not complying with said special
conditions, rules, and regulations, will constitute a violation of Vehicle Code Section 21113,
except that subsection (a) of Vehicle Code Section 22507.8 shall apply with respect to
unauthorized parking in stalls or spaces designated for physically handicapped persons.
(Ord. No. 1323, Sec. 1, "1-15-07)
KOA CORPORATION city of ~+.~sr~~t
PLANNING & ENGINEFRIhlG 115 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
APPENDIX D
Land Use Data
~„ KOA C~RP()RATIUN
PLANNING ~ L-NGINEERING 11E)
Ctry of 1 c~strtr
Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Table D-1 Land Use Inventory by Subarea '
Land Use Subarea
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total
Detached S.FR 1 1 2 2 3 - - - - 9
ownhome/Condo, l BR - - - - - - - - - -
ownhome/Condo, 2 BR - - - - - - - - - -
ownhome/Condo, 3 BR - - - - - - - - - -
Apartment, Studio - - - - - - - - - -
Apartment, 1 BR - - - - - - - - - "
apartment, 2 BR - - - - - - - - - -
Apartment, 3 BR - - - - - - - - - -
Apartment, Loft - - - - - - - - - -
Patio Home - - - - - - - - - -
Mixecl Use (Res/Comm) - - - 24393 - - - - - 24393
uto Repair - - - - - - - - - -
uto Sales - - - - - - - - - -
uto Service Station - - - - - - - - 2554 2554
uto Car Wash - - - - - - - - - -
Banks, Financial Institutions - - - - - - - - - -
Barbershop, Beauty Salon - - 6721 - - - - - - 6721
Bowling Alley, Billiard Hall - - - - - - - - - -
Commercial - - 11500 - 4268 - - - 1744 17512
Contractors Storage Yard - - - - - - - - - -
Dance Hall - - - - - - - - - -
Health Club - - 3600 - - - - - - 3600
Hotel/Motel - - - - - - - - 16321 16321
Laundry - 1109 - - - - - - - 1109
Lodges - - - - 1789 - - - - 1789
Manufacturing - - 3000 - - - - - - 3000
Mortuary - - - - - - 8893 - - 8893
Museum - - - 7087 - - - - - 7087
Nursery/Home - - - - - 6400 - - - 6400
Nursing Home - - - 17185 - - - - - '17185
Nightclub/Bar - - - 1625 - - - - - 1625
Office, General/Professional 39096 25857 31131 7250 5579 19546 - 17963 - "146422
Office, Government - - - 7087 - - - - - 7087
OFEice, Medical 5223 3297 - 2321 - - - - - 10841
Parl< - - 15000 - - - - - - 15000
Religious Center - - - - - - - 7220 - 7220
Restaurant, Sit-Down - - - - - - - - - -
Restaurant, Fast-rood - - - - - - - - - -
I~OA CORPORATION ~"`fy of T"st'j2
pLANNiNG & ENGINEERING 117 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Restaurant - - 1.344 - 10000 - - - 952 12296
Retail, Neighbonc~:l Shpg Ctr - - - 7055 23943 17124 2958 1.00,547 - 61134
Retail, Public Market - - - - - - - - - -
Retail Stores - 10694 5460 - 3607 2923 - - - 22684
ennis & Racquetball Clubs - - - - - - - - - -
heater - - - - - - - - - -
VacantLot 7000 - - 51625 7500 21807 - - - 87932
Warehouse -Self Storage - - - - - - - - - -
holesale - - - - - - - - - -
51,319 40,957 77,756 125,628 56,686 67,800 11,851 125,730 21,571 579,298
Note 1: Includes vacant land
KOA CORPORATION Ciry v f Tcrsu'r~
~ PLF`NNR~G & ENGINEERING 118 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
y~
Table D-2 Summary of Land Use' by Subarea
Land Use Subarea
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total
Residential 1 1 2 2 3 - - - - 8
Mixed Use - - - 24 393 - -- - - - 24 393
Service-Commercial - 1 109 6 721 17 185 - - 8 893 - 2 554 36 462
Commercial - - 11 500 - 4 268 - - - 18 06 33 833
Retail - 10 694 5 6O 7 055 27 550 26 447 2 958 100 542 - 180,716
Restaurant - - 1 344 1 625 10 000 - - - 952 13 921
General Office 39 096 25 857 31 131 7 250 5 579 19 546 - 17 968 - 146 427
Government Office - - - 7 087 - - - - - 7 087
Medical Office 5,223 3 297 - 2 321 - - - - - 10 841
Vacant Lot 7 000 - - 51 625 7 500 21 807 - - - 87,932
Recreational - - 18 600 7 087 1 789 - - - - 27 476
Religious - - - - - - - 7 220 - 7 220
Manufacturing - - 3 000 - - - - - - 3 ODU
Municipal - - - - - - - - - -
Storage - - - - - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - - - - -
OTAL 51,319 40,957 77,756 125,628 56,686 67,800 11,851 125,730 21,571 579,298
Note 1: Square Feet (except residential in units). Includes vacant land
Table D-3 Land Use Vacancy' by Subarea
Land Use Subarea
1 2 3 ~4 5 6 7 8 9 Total
Residential - - - - - - - - - -
Mixed Use - - - - - - - - - -
Service-Commercial - - - - - - - - - -
Commercial - - 11500 - - - - - - 11500
Retail - - - - - - - - - -
Restaurant - - - - - - - - - -
DEfice 2 300 5 564 1 650 - 4 268 - - 796 - 14 578
Vacant Lot 7 000 - - 44 250 7 50U 21 807 - - - 80 557
Parking - - 3 600 - 2 500 - - - - 6 '100
Recreational - - - - - - - - - -
ManuEacturing - - - - - - - - - -
Storage - - - - - - - - -- -
Other - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL 9 300 5 564 19 550 44 250 14 268 21 807 0 796 0 112 735
Note ] :Square Feet
K4A Co~ORATION Crry v~Tusrizz
~ PL~;N[JING & ENGItJEERING 119 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Table D-4 Parking Rates from Other Studies
i
Land Use Study Parking Ratio
Weekday Weekend
Apt/condo Santa Ana Fairway Villas 0.96 space/SF 0.91 space/SF
Restaurant Anaheim Denny's #1 4,20 spaces/SF 7,40 spaces/SF
Restaurant Anaheim Denny's #2 6.17 spaces/SF 5.83 spaces/SF
Restaurant Anaheim Denny's #3 5.50 spaces/SF 6.17 spaces/SF
Restaurant Anaheim Denny's #4 4.91 spaces/SF 5.27 spaces/SF
Restaurant Anaheim Denny's #5 4.75 spaces/SF 4.50 spaces/SF
Restaurant Anaheim Denny's #6 6.10 spaces/SF 5.59 spaces/SF
Restaurant Lal<e Forest Sizzler 5.38 spaces/SF - .
Restaurant Average Rate 5.3 spaces/SF 5.8 spaces/SF
Playground Aliso Viejo Scooter's Jungle 2.84 spaces/SF 4.40 spaces/SF
Playground Placentia Scooter's Jungle 3.02 spaces/SF 1.70 spaces/SF
Playground Corona Artic Fun Zone 3.94 spaces/SF 3.08 spaces/SF
Playground Average Rate 3.3 spaces/SF 3.1 spaces/SF
Mixed Use ~ La Habra Art Studio 1.40 spaces/SF 1.07 spaces/SF
Church Brookhurst Church 2.51 spaces/ICSF 4.16 spaces/ICSF
Church La Habra Calvary Chapel 5.26 spaces/ICSF 5.26 spaces/ICSF
Church ~ Average Rate 3.8 spaces/KSF 4.7 Spaces/KSF
Government Center Westminster Civic Center 15.77 space/ICSF -
Note 1: Commercial/OEFice Mixetl use
I~.OA CORPORATION 1zo
~ PLANNIhJG S ENGINEERING
C1ty 0 f 7'llStlii
Olcl Town Tustin Parking Study
Table D-5
Parking Rates from Other Studies
Land Use Study Parking Ratio
Weekday Weekend
Apt/condo Average Rate 0.96 space/ICSF 0.91 space/ICSF
Low/Mid-Rise Apt.' Average Rate 1.U0 vehicles/unit 1.U2 vehicles/unit
Condo Average Rate 1.46 vehicles/unit -
Mixed Use' Average Rate 1.40 spaces/ICSF 1.07 spaces/ICSF
Motel2 Average Rate 0.90 vehicleslroom -
Billiard Hall a Average Rate 2.9 vehicles/table -
Movie Theater w/ matinee z Average Rate 0.26 vehicles/seat 0.19 vehicles/seat
Playground Average Rate 3.3 spaces/ICSF 3.1 spaces/ICSF
Church Average Rate 3.8 spaces/ICSF 4.7 Spaces/ICSF
Day Care Center z Average Rate 3.16 vehicles/ICSF -
Museum z Average Rate 0.71 vehicles/ICSF 2.1 vehicles/ICSF
Nursing Home' Average Rate 0.39 vehicles/bed 0.25 vehicles/bed
Animal Hospital/Veterinary Clinic z Average Rate 1.60 vehicles/ICSF -
OEEice Building a Average Rate 2.40 vehicles/ICSF -
Medical-Dental z Average Rate 3.53 vehicles/ICSF -
Building Materials anal Lumber Store' Average Rate 1.10 vehicles/ICSF -
Hardware/Paint Store a Average Rate 1.90 vehicles/KSF 2.87 vehicles/KSF
Shopping Center z Average Rate 2.65 vehicles/ICSF 2.97 vehicles/ICSF
Apparel Store' Average Rate 1.13 vehicles/ICSF 2.13 vehicles/ICSF
Pharmacy/Drugstore w/o drive-thru window' Average Rate 1.83 vehicles/KSF -
Furniture Store z Average Rate 1.53 vehicles/KSF 1.43 vehicles/1CSF
Video Rental Store' Average Rate 2.41 vehicles/KSF 3.04 vehicles/KSF
Walk In Bank' Average Rate 2.30 vehicles/KSF -
Quality Restaurantz Average Rate 15.4 vehicles/ICSF 17.2 vehicles/ICSF
Fast-Food Restaurant w/o drive-thru windowz Average Rate 8.20 vehicles/ICSF -
Restaurant Average Rate 5.3 spaces/ICSF 5.8 spaces/ICSF
Dry Cleaners Average Rate 1.40 vehicles/ICSF -
Government Center Average Rate 15.77 space/ICSF -
Note 1: Commercial/Office Mixed Use
Note 2: From I1 L Parking Generation 3rd edition
KOA CORPORATION 121
~ PLANNING & ENGINEERING
City a f Trrstirl
Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Table D-6 -Parking Codes by City
J
i
i
Tustin
Irvine Newport Laguna Costa Santa
Orange
Anaheim
Fullerton
Brea
Pasadena
Beach Beach Mesa Ana
Detached SFR 2 garage 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2
Townhome/Condo, 1 BR 1 carport 1 - 1.5 1 1 1.7 2 1.5 1.75 1/650 SF
Townhome/Condo, 2 BR 2 carports 1.5 2 2 1 1 2 2.25 1.75 2 1/b50 SF
ownhome/Condo, 3 BR 2 carports 2 - 2 7 1 2.2 3 2 2.S 1/4,50 SF
partment, Studio 1 carporC I - 1.5 1 1 1.2 1-25 1.25 1.5 1/650 SF
partment, 1 BR 1 carport 1 4 - 2 1 1 1.7 2 1.5 1.75 1/450 SF
partment, 2 BR 2 carports 1.6 2 2 1 1 2 2.25 1.75 2 1/650 SF
partmene, 3 BR 2 carports 2 - 2 1 1 2.2 3 2 2.5 1/450 SF
partment, Loft (Res/Com) - - - - - - - - - - -
L'atio Home 2 garage 2 - 2 - - 1/3 '/~ trailers 1/5 trailers
uta Repair - - - - - - - - - - -
Auto Sales - - - - - - - - - - -
uto Service Station - - - ~ - ~ - - - - -
Auto Car Wash - - - - - - - - - -
arks, Financial Lnstitutions
'1/250 5F
1/250 SF
1/250 SF
1/250 SF
5/"1000 SF
4/1000 SF
5/1000 5F
5.5/1000 SP
- 1/200
SF
3/10(.)0 SF
Barbershop, Beauty Salon 2/chair; 2/chair;
1/250 SP 1/1.5 chairs
-
5.5/1000 SF
- 1%)50
Sf•
3/station 3/statio^ or 1/250 SF
3/alley + 4/a Ile
y
owling Alley, Billiard Hall 5/alley; .5/alley; 1/250 SF 5/alley; 3/alley 3/alley; 3/alley 3/alley - + 4/alley
2/tahle 2/table other use 1/150 SF 2/table 2/table
Contractors Storage Yard - - - - - - - - - - -
1/75 sf 1/3 seats or 1/3 seats or 1/3 seats 1/7SF or 1/i3 seats 1/7SF or
Dance Hall +'1/35sf 1/200 SF 1/35 SF 1/35 SF or 1/35 SF 1/28 SF 1/95 SF or 1/35 5F 1/35 SF
Health Club 1/150 5F 1/150 5F Use permit 1/l0U SF 1U/1000 SP 1/28 SF 5.5/ 1000 5.5/1000 SF - 1 SF 0 ..5/1000 SF
SF
Hotel:l/2 1/roam;
Hotel/Motel 7S/unit + 2 Approval room. Motel 1/room 1/unit 1/room U.8/ room 0.8/ room 1/room 1/room l0/10(]0 SP
For mgr, needed 1/room (banquet)
1/3 1/machines 1/3 1/200
Laundry
rnachines - 1/250 SF
or 1/250 SF - 6/1000 SF
machines - -
5F -
ManuFacturiug - - - - - - - - -
Mixed Use Com/Retail/Res - - - - Use permit - - - - - -
Mort LL3fy - - - - - - - - - -
1/250 SF-+- 1/250 SF for 1/250 SF + 4/1000 2/1000 1/1000 5F 5/1000+
5
Nursery/Home - 1/'.1000 SF 1~` 1000 SF 1/1000 SF 5F+2/100 display+ + 1/1000 . 2.5/1000 SF
Improvement outdoor 1/50(10 SF. outdoor display 4/1000 SF outdoor 0.4/1000
Nightclub/Bar - - Use permit 1/100 SF 1%28 5F - 17/ lODO SF 10/1000 SF See rest 28/1000 SF;
ar:1U 1000
~KOA CORPORATION ~ zz
City o f Tustin
Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Tustin
Irvine Newport Laguna Costa Santa
Orange
Anaheim
ullerto
Brea
Pasadena
Beach Beach Mesa Ana
Restaurant, Sit-Down - 1/7.5 5P Use permit 1/100 SF - - 10/1000SF 16/1(100 SP 10/ 1000 SF 1/75 SF -
Restaurant, Fast-Food
1/100 SF
1/100 SF 1/50 Sf
+1/employee
1/100 SF
-
- 10/1000
SI
16/1000 SF
6/1000 SF
-
4/1000 SF
Restaurant 1/75 SF 1/75 SF Use permit 1/100 SF ]0/10(.)0 SF 1O/1000 SF 000
10 S1 16/1000 SF 10/1000 SP 1/75 SF 10/1000 SF
f
Total of 5.5/1000 -.5/100
Retail, Neighborhd Shpg Ctr 1/250 SF 1/250 SF 1/200 5F 1/275 SF - - ind retail SF SF
Retail, Public Market - 1/7.50 5F 1/250 SF 1/250 SF - - - 5.5/1000 SF - - 4/ 1000 SF
Retail Stores 1/200 SF 1/250 SP 1/250 SF 1/250 SP 5/1000 SP 5/1000 SF 5/1000 SF 5.5/1000 SF - 1/200 3/1000 SP
Tennis &. Racquetball Clubs 3/court 3/court 4/court 3/court 3/court 2.5/court 3/court 5/court - 3/court 4/court
1/3 seats + 1/3 seats or 1/3 seats or 1/5 seats 0.4/seat+ 1/3 seats 1/3
Theater 1/3 seats 1/5 Use permit 1/35 SF 5/1000 SF 1/28 SF or 1/35 8 emplyee or 1/35 SF seats or -
employee SF+ l/35 SF
arehouse -Self Storage - - - - - - - - -
Wholesale - - - - - - - -
OFFice, General
1/250 5F
1/250 SF
1/250 SF
1./250 SP
3/1000 SP
3/1000 SF
4/1000 SF
4/1000 SF
4/]000 SF 1/250
51
3/1000 SF
Office, Government - 1/200 SF 1/300 SF 1./300 SF 3/1000 SP - - 411000 SF 3/1000 SF
Office, Medical
h/1000 SF
1/180 SF
1/250 SF
1/250 SF
6/1000 SF
6/1000 SF
5/1000 SF
- 5.5/1000
SF 3/1000
5F 4/100(ISF
Office, Professional
1/250 SF
1/250 5P
1/250 SF
1/250 SF
3/1000 SL•
3/1000 SF
4/1000 SF
-
4/1000 SF 1/250
SI'
3/100[) SF
Office, School District - - - - ~ - - - -
1/3 1/8 fixed
Churches, Temples,
1/3 seats
1/3 seats 1/3 seats or 1/3 seats or 1/3 seats 1/3 seats nr '1/4 seats 29/1000 SF 1/3 seats seats or seats or
Mosques 1/35 SF 1/35 SF or 1/35 SF 1/35 SF or 1/35 5P or 1/35 SF
1/3.5 5F
14/1000 SF
Clinic
b/1000 SP Approval 1/250 SF + 1/150 SF - b/1000 5F 3/bed - 1/bed 5.55 0U 1/5 beds
needed 1/staff
Community/Senior Center _ 1/3 seats or
1/35 SF 1/3 seats
or 1/35 SF _ 29/1000 SF - - -
1/class+l/ 1.5/
L•fementary School
-
2/classroom
Use permit 2/ teach
t
ti
- 1.5/class+
1/333 SF
1.8/class
students+
-
-
classroom
s
a
on 1/1000 SF +1/2 stafF
Req. Prkng 1/300
Library 1/300 SF 1/300 SF 1/300 SP 1/300 SP - 1/500 SF 4/1000 5F study SF
odges, Clubs, Meeting
1/7
5 SF
- 1/3 seats or 1/3 seats or 1/3 seats
1/28 SF
1/30 SP 1/3 seats 1/75 SF 10/1000 SF
Halls . 1/35 SF 1/35 SF or 1/35 SF or 1/35 SF
Nursing Home '/~ beds '/~ beds 1/3 beds 1/3 beds - 1/8R' '1~ beds 0.8/bed _ .5/100
SF no less than
50
1.5/2SR ,
2.5/
at-l¢ _ - Use permit - - - - - - - 1000 SF
t 1/employee 1/employee
1/child 1/staff+
- 1/8
2/staff 1/staff
- 1/200 2/1000 SF
Pre-S<:hoo + 1/5 + 1/5 1/5cialdn chld+lstaF +1/10chld SF
KfJA CORP~RATIfJN
~ PLANNING, 8 ENGINEERING
Ciry of Ttrsrin
123 Old Town Tustin Parking Study
Tustin
Irvine Newport Laguna Costa Santa
Orange
Anaheim
Fullerto
Brea
Pasadena
Beach Beach Mesa Ana
1/3
1/3 seats or 1/3 seats ar 1 per 300 sq 1/3 seats or 1/3 seats 1/7
8 SF 'l9/1000 - - seats of
Public Assembly 1/35 SF 1/35 51= Ft 1./35 5F or 1/35 SF . SF
1 35 5 F
Public Utility w/o Offices ~~~ emplyee Approval Use permit 1/emplyee 1 4/1000 SF - - 1/500 SF
+1 needed ±3
Trade School, Business - - - - - - -
KOA CORPORATION
~ PLANNING & ENGINEERING 12~
City 0f TLf5t111
Old Town Tustin Parking Study