Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3823RESOLUTION NO. 3823 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR DESIGN REVIEW 01-036 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A 16,000 SQUARE FOOT ETHAN ALLEN FURNITURE SHOW ROOM AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ao That Design Review 01-036 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and distributed for public review. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration evaluated the implications of the proposed project. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed Final Negative Declaration and determined that, with incorporation of the mitigation measures, the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. II. A Final Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A (attached Negative Declaration), has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The Planning Commission has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration prior to approving Design Review 01-036, and found that it adequately discusses the environmental effects of the proposed project. On the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public hearing process, the Planning Commission finds that there will not be a significant effect as a result of the project. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Games Code. 5 8 () 10 1.3 ]~ '.8 20 "1 22 .~$ ,"4 2~ 2~ 28 Resolution No. 3823 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 11th day of March, 2002. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Chairperson STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3823 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 11th day of March, 2002. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centenntal l~"a).', Tustin, C,4 92780 r714/ 573-3 I00 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: Design Review 01-036 Project Location: 2996 E1 Camino Real, Tustin Project Description: Construction of a 16.000 sqaure foot retail furniture store Project Proponent: The Irvine Company Lead Agency Contact Person: Minoo Ashabi Telephone: 714/573-3126 The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. and on the basis of' that study hereby finds: I---] That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the projcct plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point whcre clearly no significant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice of Negative Declaration and extends for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review period ma)' be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON March 11,2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way. Tustin. (',4 92780 (714) 5-3-3100 INITIAL STUDY Ae BACKGROUND Project Title: i.cad Agency: Ethan Allen Furniture Store City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, Califi>rnia 92780 I.ead Agency Contact Person: Minoo Ashabi Phone: (714) 573-3126 Project [.ocation: 2996 & 3006 I.il Camino Real Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Project Description: Surrounding [..'scs: North: Commercial South: Commercial The Irvine Company Retail Properties 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach. CA 92660 Planned Community Commercial/Business East Tustin Specific Plan -- Planned Community Mixed Usc (PCMU) Development ora 16.000 square lbot furniture store on a vacant parcel within an existing regional retail center East: Commercial West: Commercial Other public agencies whose approval is required: ()range County Fire Authority ()range County I lealth Care Agency South Coast Air Quality .Management District Other [~] (:it3' of Irvine [--I (.:it3' of Santa Ana I~l Orange County liMA B. ENVIRONMENTAl. FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ]'he environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, invoMng at least one impact that is a "Potentially.' Significant Impact" as indicated by thc checklist in Section D below. [~ Aesthetics ~ AgTiculture Resources [-] Air Quality [~ Biological Resources l'~ Cultural Resources [] Geology;Soils [-] Hazards & Hazardous Materials ~'~ Hydrology,'Water Quality [-] Land Use/Planning [~ Mineral Resources I-] Noise 1~1 Population/Housing [--] Public Services 1--} Recreation [-] Transportation.'Traffic I--] Uti lities.'Service Systems ~ Mandatory Findings ol'Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIV'E DECLAILkTION will be prepared. I lh'~d that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on thc environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because thc mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL lMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on thc environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, ifthe effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significamt Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only lhe effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant cftbcls 1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: Minoo Ashabi E r'l'~zabeth A. Bihsack,-~om'munity D~v~lopment Director Title Associate Planner Date 2-20-02 13 2) .3) 4) 5) 6) 8¸) 9) D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Directions :\ brief explanation is required For all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by thc information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced inlbrmation sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g.. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulatix e project level. indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then thc checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potenlially significant, less than sigmificant with mitigation, or less than significant. "l'otentially Si~mificant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If lhcre are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when thc determination is made. and EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: l.ess Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where thc incorporation mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Totcntially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Si~ificant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than signJ ficant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier :\nalyses," may be cross- referenced). Earlier analyses may bc used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (33(D). In this case. a brief discussion should identify thc ibllowing: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. ldentil3' which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately' analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such eftbcts were addressed bf' mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Si~ificant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for thc project. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources tbr potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should. where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or indMduals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 'Fh~s is oniy a suggested lbrm, and lead agencies are free lo use different formats; however, lead agencies normally address the questions from this checklist that arc relevant to a prt!icct's environmental cfl¥cts in whatever tbrmat is selected. The explanation of each issue should idcntit3': a) the significance criteria or threshold, il'any, used to evaluate each question; and. b) the mitigation measure identified, ifany, to reduce the impact to less than significance. EVAIALATION OF ENVIRONMENTAl. IMI'AC'FS I. AESTHETICS-.- Would the project: a) flare a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality' of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in thc area'? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment _Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and flrmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, l./nique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewidc Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resom'ces Agency. to non- agricultural use'? b) Confiict with existing zoning for agricultural usc, or a \Villiamson Act contract'? c) Involve othcr changcs in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural usc? III. AIR QUAI.ITY: Where available, thc significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district ma5' be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conllict with or obstruct ~mplemcntation of the applicable air quali~' plan'? b) \.'iolate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant lbr which the project region is non- anainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)'? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? c) Create ob. jectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially 5(gn(ficant Impact Lexs Than Significant With Muigation h~corporation L¢s.g r]lall Significant Impact ,Vo Impact D IV. BIOI.OGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the prqiect: a) l lave a substantial adverse.efl"ect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on an.~ species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special slatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department offish and Game or I..:.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on an.,,' riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Calilbrnia Department offish and Game or I..;.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federall.,, protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean x?,'ater Act (including, but not limited to. marsh, vernal pool. coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement ofan.x native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native x~ ildlif~ nursery sites? e) Conflict with an.,,' local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? t) Conllict with the provisions ofan adopted I-labimt Conservation Plan..Natural Community Conservation Plan. or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - %'ould the project: a) Cause a substantial ad,~ersc change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b} Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) I)irectly or indirectlx destroy a unique palcomological resource or site or uniqt,e geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of fimnal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) F;xpose people or structures to potential substantial adverse eflbcts, including the risk of loss. injury, or death involxing: Potentially Sign![icant .... Im.l/act Le.~s Than .5'i~zni./ic'anl I~ 'ith lit igation Inc'orporatio.~ Le.v.v TI?on Stgnificont Impact [] [] [] [] [] © [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] __ .¥o. Im.£ac! i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo l.'.arthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by thc State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence ora known fault? Refer to l)Msion of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ix') I.andslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or thc loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-,;ite landslide, lateral spreading. subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil. as detined in Table 18-I-B of thc Uniform Building Code (1994). creating substantial risks to litk2 or property? e) Have soils incapable ofadequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal s)stems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII.IIAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use. or disposal hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably fbreseeable upset and accident conditions invoMng the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located tin a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and. as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or thc environment? e) For a project located ~ithin an airport land use plan or, x~here such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, wot, ld the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip. would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area'? Potentialh' $ignffk'am ...... Irn]~ac't l.e.s'.~ 7han Sigmfican! 11 'ith .~titigaHon ]nc'orfloralton Less Than Stgnificant Impact .. :Vo Im[;act g) Impair implementation ofor physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan'? hi Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss. injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or x~hcre residences arc intermixed with wildlands? VIii. HYDROLOGY AND WATEROUALITY: -x3,'ould the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere st, bstantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquil'br volume or a lowering ofthe local groundwater table level (e.g.. the production rate of pre- existing nearb.~ wells would drop to a level which ~ould not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)'.' c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. including through the alteratkm of the course ora stream or ,'ivcr. in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. including through the aheration oFthe course ora stream or river, or substantialb increase the rate or amount of surface runoffin a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water x,~hich would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or prox. ide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff'.' t) Otherwise substantiall? degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-.x ear flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map'.' h) Place within a I()O-.xear Flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect t]ood lloxxs? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss. injury or death involving tlooding as a result of the failure ora levee or dam'.' j) Inundation by seichc, tsunami, or mudllox~'.' IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: I'otential/v .g'igni/icant hn£oct LeSS Th(JI1 S/~ni. fic'anl Il 'ith .~btigalion Inc'or]~oratton Lc.rs Than Significant Impact Impact. .. a) PhysicaJly divide an established community? ..... ~ ........ ~ .... ~ ~ b) Contlict with any apphcablc land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including. but not limited to thc general plan. spccitic plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect'? c) Conflict with an5' applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAl. RESOURCES- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies'? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporaD' or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working m the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip. would lhe project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? Xl I.POPULATION AND HOUSING -. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant hnj)act Less Than Sign(ftc'ant With Mirigalion [ncorDoration L6,.~.~ Than &gn~ficant lin?act Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant Potentiallt' With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporation Lexs Than Significant .Impact ........... [] [] [] ,Yo ln~act XIII. PI_'BLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause signiticant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for an)' of the public sen'ices: Fire protection'? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities'? XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational lhcilities such that substantial phy'sical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either indMdually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the count3' congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design t~ature le.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)'? Result in inadequate emergency' access'? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.. bus turnouts. bicycle racks)'? XVI. UTILI'FIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - '¢.'ould the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ofthe applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing thcilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental eft%ts? d) Have sufficient ~ater supplies axailable to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed'? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment prox ider which serves or may ser,,e the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? t) Be served by a landfill x~ith sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with tbderal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the qualit5 of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat ora fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce thc number or restrict thc range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the tnajor periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are indMdually limited, but cumulativcb considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that thc incremental effects of a project are considerable when ~ iewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the cflbcts of probable future projects)? c) l)oes the project ha,,e environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potential J)' S'tgni./icant .... h/~u. ct Significant 11 'ith .1 litigcttlo~? Inc'orfJorution I.e.vs Than .\'o lm act [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] EXHIBIT I OF RESOLUTION NO. 3823 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ETHAN AI,i~EN 2996 EL CAMINO REAL BACKGROUND The project site is proposed tbr development of two (2) vacant pads (l.ots 8 and 9) and a portion of the common area (Lot 11) ~'ithin an existing regional retail center known as "The Market Place." The site is bounded bf' thc Interstate-5 Freeway on the west. commercial uses to the east and north, and Jamboree Road to tile south. The entire site was approved for development of 719.244 square feet el' mixed usc (retail. cinemas, and restaurants) of which 14,000 square feet has not been constructed. The proposed project is 16.000 square feet or 2.000 square fcct in excess of the sum of unbuilt entitlements. Tile development will result in development of two vacant pads and elimination of 8,500 square Feet of entitlement for restaurant use located in thc parking area at thc northwest corner of El Camino Real and Jamboree Road within Phase Three. The proposed site is within thc South Village et' The .'¥1arket Place. where several fast food restaurants arc located. There are furniture and retail stores to the west and cast of the proposed development. The proposal is construction ora new furniture store approximately 16,000 square feet in area designed primarily as a showroom. Most shipping will be provided from other Ethan Allen warehouse locations. The proposed building includes a 671 square foot warehouse space. an office area lbr the designers, two offices, restrooms, and a trash enclosure to the north of thc building. ]'he main entrance to thc store is located on the south side and a secondary entrance is located on the north side. Access to the warehouse and trash enclosures is provided from the north side. Trees and landscaping are proposed at the perimeter of thc site. Approval ora Design Review is needed to authorize the building and site design. The entire site for The Market Place prqject was considered and analyzed through a previously certified program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 85-2) prepared for the East 'Fustin Specific Plan. Section 15150 o1' the Caliibrnia Environmental Quality Act guidelines permits an I-;IR or other environmental document to incorporate bv reference all or portions of the EIR containing in/brmation relevant to that document. Theretbre, in referencing EIR 85-2, this tiered initial study hereby incorporates East Tustin Specific Plan EIR 85-2. City of Tustin. December 1985 (State Clearinghouse #85052217). as well as the Technical Appendices, Response to Comments, Supplement (November 15. 1986) and Addenda (May 1989). in conformance x¥ith CEQA. thc purpose of tiered initial study is to identity' and tbcus the environmental analysis for thc project on significant new environmental impacts that were not previously considered in the Program EIR. Eli>, 85-2 identified several impact categories where a Statement et' Overriding Consideration was adopted by the City of Tustin For the entire East Tustin Specific Plan area. For the purpose et' this initial stud,',' checklist, an evaluation has been made to ensure that impacts previously identified have not been intensified. EIR 85-2 also identified several impact categories where impacts could be lessened to a level of insignificance with the imposition of mitigation measures. Each of these impact categories were analyzed to ensure that no new project impacts associated with the project would occur that were not identified and/or mitigated in the Program EIR. Ethan Allen (I)c, sign Rea,Jew 01-036) Initial Study F~vhibit I of Resolution 3823 Page 1 of 8 In addition, impact categories not identitied to have a potential impact in EIR 85-2 have been reviewed and identified in the initial study' check list to ensure that the project would not create an,,' additional significant impacts which were not considered by EIR 85-2 and cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The following mitigation measures are also included as conditions of approval in the recommended resolution of approval. 1. AESTHETICS Items a. b. c. and d -No Impact: The pro. jcct site is not located on a scenic highv~'ay nor does it affect a scenic vista. The proposed project will not substantially damage scenic sources, such as trees and rock outcroppings. There arc no historical buildings or a scenic highway' in proximity of the site. The proposed pro. jcct is located within an existing regional retail center. The proposed site is the last remaining vacant pad on this site. Thc site was previously entitled for restaurant and retail uses. The proposed building incorporates thc existing architectural features and colors of the retail center and would be enhanced ~ith additional landscaping at the perimeter of thc site. Eleven (I 1 ) date palms are existing on the site that arc proposed to be relocated to the south and west side of the building. Six (6) carrot wood trees and Ibur (4) bamboo trees are proposed along the east and north of the site. ]'he area lighting for the site and parking areas is existing. Additional pathway lighting and soffit and building-mounted lighting are proposed that would be contained on the site and will not have any potential impacts to the site or surrounding properties. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code East Tustin Specific Plan 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Items a. b. and c - No Impact: The proposed project will be located on a vacant site within an existing regional retail center. No additional impacts beyond those identified in EIR 85-2, as amended, arc anticipated. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans 'l'ustin General Plan Field Verification 3. AIR QUALITY Items a. b. c. d. and e - No Impact: Potential air quality' impacts associated with the development of East -I'ustin were previously addressed in the certilied EIR 85-2. Thc certified EIR considered the overall pro. ject site with respect to emissions related to land use patterns for the residential and commercial development. The development will not alter air Ethan Allen/Design Review 01-0362 Initial Study I".xhihit I c?fRe.¥olution 3823 Page 2 0/'8 movement, moisture, temperature, or cause any changes in climate, or create objectionable odors. The pro. jcct is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan as required for compliance with the regional air quality standards and thc additional 2000 square feet above previous entitlements is within the threshold limits of Table 6-2 of the California Environmental Quality Act handbook prepared by thc South Coast Air Quality Management District. Short- and long-term emissions associated xx ith grading, and the construction of the proposed building and site amenities are subject to regulation b5 thc South Coast Air Quality Management District and the City of Tustin Grading Manual. which includes requirements l%r dust control. No impacts beyond those identified in the Program E1R arc anticipated. .Mitigation measures were identified in I-'.IR 85-2, which are identified in Exhibit 1. Ylitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional measures required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City (./ode Certified EIR 85-2. as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a. b. c. d. e. and f .- No Impact: The proposed project ,,viii be located on a vacant site within a developed site. No additional impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or habitats, locally designated species or natural communities, or wildlife dispersal or migration corridors beyond those identified EIR 85-2. as amended, are anticipated. Mitigation Mcasures/blonitoring Required: None Required Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2. as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Items a. b. c. and d-No Impact: The subject site is within the East /ustin Specific Plan area and ElR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and thc resultant negative effects to cultural resources. This project is not within an area identified as an archaeological site. No additional impacts would be created beyond those identified in I';IR 85-2. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Field Vcrification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2. as amended East 'l'ustin Specific Plan Ethan .4lien tDesign Review 01-036~ Initial Stud)' Exhibit I of Re.s'olution 3823 Page 3 of 8 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Items a. b. c. d. and c - No hnpact: Thc project will require grading to prepare thc site for construction. A review of the State of' California Seismic H~ard Zone Map indicates that the project site is located in an area of potential liquefhction hazard. With the submittal ora precise grading plan, soils report, and compliance with the City Grading requirements and the L.'nifbrm P, uilding Code as identified as mitigation measures in EIR 85- 2 wNch are identified in Exhibit !, no additional impacts beyond those previously identified in the Program E1R are anticipated. :Mitigation Measures, Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans City of Tustin Grading Manual Certified EIR 85-2, as amended I.iast Tustin Specific Plan 7. I1AZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Items a. b. c. d. c. f. g. and h - No Impact: No significant use of hazardous materials or generation of hazardous waste is anticipated with development of the pro. ject. L)evelopment or use of the proposed furniture store is not anticipated to result in exposure to hazardous substances or interfere with emergency response or evacuation. All grading and construction would be subject to compliance with the all applicable Unilbrm Building and Fire Codes. The pro. ject is not in the vicinity of an airport or airstrip. No additional impacts would be created beyond those identified in EIR 85-2. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Uniform Building and Fire Codes Submitted Plans Certified I!IR 85-2. as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 8. HYI)ROI.OGY AND WATER QUALITY Items a. b. c. d. e. 1: g. h. i. and i - No Impact: The project would not expose people or property to water-related hazards such as flooding, change the course or direction of waters movements, or affect the quality of ground~ater. Mitigation measures were identitied in [:.IR 85-2 regarding impacts to water quality and water percolation (Exhibit I). The project has bcen reviex~ed and will not create additional impacts other than those previously identitied in I!lR 85-2. Mitigation N,"least, res.,Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required. Sources: Field Verilication Submitted Plans Ethan .4lien (Design Ret'ie.' 01-036) Initial Exhibit I ¢?/'Rexolution 3823 l'age 4 q/'8 Tustin City Code Certitied EIR 85-2. as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 9. I.ANI) USE PLANNING Items a. b. and c--No Impact: The subject property' is designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as Planned Community Commercial/Business and zoned by the East Tustin Specific Plan (ESTP) as Planned Community Mixed L'se (PCMI.,:). The proposed use is consistent with the applicable land use and zoning regulations. The project will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified in EIR 85-2. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2. as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 10. MINERAL RESOURCES Items a and b No Impact: The construction and operation of the new furniture store will not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful or inet-l~cient manner. The proposed development will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified in EIR 85-2 on mineral resources with respect to loss ot' available known mineral resources. Mitigation Measures.'Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2. as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 11. NOISE Items a. b. c. d. e. and f - No Impact: The development would result in short-term construction noise impacts, t'lowever, the Tustin City Code requires compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance and construction hours and rnitigation measures identified in EIR 85- 2 are provided in Exhibit 1. 1.ong-term impacts were originally considered as part of the certified EIR 85-2. The project will not create long-term impacts beyond those previously identified in the Program FIR. Mitigation Measures..'Monitoring Required: No additional measures required. Ethan Allen (Design Review 01-036) Initial Stud)' Erhibit I of Resolution 3823 Page 5 of 8 Sources: Tustin City (;ode Certified EIR 85-2. as amended 12. POPULATION and HOUSING Items a. b. and c- No Impact: As a commercial development, the proposed project will not induce population gro,,vth or displace existing housing. No impacts beyond those previously identified in Ell{. 85-2 are anticipated. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring I{.equired: None l{.cquired Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2. as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 13. PUBLIC SERVICES Item a - No Impact: The project will not create the need for additional public services. Potential impacts to public services were originally considered as pan of EIR 85-2, and applicable mitigation measures arc identified in l.;xhibit I. The project will not create additional impacts to public services other than those previously identified in the Program EIR. Mitigation Measures.'Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required Sources: Tustin Police I)epartmcnt Tustin Parks and Recreation l)epartment Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2. as amended East '[ustin Specific Plan 14. RECREATION Items a and b - No Impact: As a commercial development, thc project will not impact existing recreational facilities, increase thc use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, or other recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required ~ources: Submitted Plans Certified Eli{. 85-2. as amended East '['ustin Specific Plan 15. TRANSPORTATIONfI'RAFFIC Items b. c. d. c. and f- No Impact: Potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with the dex'elopment of F. ast Tustin. including the existing regional retail center, were previously addressed in EIR 85-2. as amended. The entire site was subsequently approved for Ethan Allen ([)c's~gn Review 01-036) Initial Studs' F~rhibit I of Resolution 3823 Page 6 of 8 development of 719.244 square 1bet of mixed use (retail. cinemas, and restaurants) ot'which 14,000 square feet was not constructed. The proposed pro. jcct is 16.000 square feet or 2,000 square feet in excess of the areas not constructed. Thc development will result in development of two vacant pads and elimination of 8,500 square feet of entitlement for restaurant usc at the northwest corner of Iii Camino Real and Jamboree Road within Phase Three of The Market Place. Thc surrounding roads have been designed to accommodate Thc Market Place built out traffic demands, and thc pro. jeer results in reduced entitlements tbr higher traffic generating uses. Therefore. the proposed project would not have a substantial impact upon the level of service of the existing transportation system. Based on the parking criteria of the East 'l'ustin Specific Plan, a total of thirty-two (32) parking spaces at a rate of one parking space per 500 square feet of gross l]oor area would be available for the proposed pm. ject in the center. 1 Iota'ever, thc proposed site is located in the South Village and adjacent to Phase One. While sufficient parking is provided as required by' the East Tustin Specific Plan, a parking demand analy'sis was prepared for the entire site containing the proposed furniture store (Attachment A) to evaluate the parking distribution in Phase One and South Village. The distribution is as ~'bllows: Phase ()nc -"I:o~'l Square Foota,2e l'arki[~ .R~qu. ?ed Parking-P.-r?i-d-e-d-.. 390.070 1.561 ' 1.827 L.}gt,!h.?'illa~e :Total [ South of El Camino Real 27.868 375 I 266 j 417.938 i '- 1.936 2.093 : The parking study concluded that the parking supply', as distributed, would be sufficient to meet the project parking demand during all hours of the da,,'. The peak parking demand for the project was noted during December and thc lowest count was in February. During a Saturday of the peak month. 78.5 percent of thc parking supply' south of El Camino Real was utilized. Item a - Less Than Sit, nificant with Mitieation: The proposed building would be a freestanding structure with driveways on the north, cast. and south sides and parking to the west. The main entrance to the building is: located on thc south side, and a secondary entrance for patrons is on the north side. Thc employee entrance and access fbr deliveries and trash is k)cated to thc west. Although truck deliveries to this site are limited since thc building is mainly a showroom with a small warehouse, trucks stopping to make deliveries could create traffic conflicts or obstruct access to parking spaces along the west sides. To avoid circulation conflicts, a mitigation measure is proposed to limit deliveries to non-peak hours of the center. Based on the study, peak periods are weekdays from I 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. and Saturdays Ii'om 12:00 noon to 6 p.m. Mitigation .Measures.'Monitoring Required: The proposed furniture store shall operate mainly as a show room with limited warehouse area. Truck deliveries to the site shall be limited to non-peak hours of the retail center. No deliveries shall be scheduled for weekdays from 12:00 noon to 3:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m. Ethan Allen (Design Review 01-036) Initial Stud)' £x'hibit I qf Re.s'olulion 3823 Page ~ ~ 8 Sourc(2s: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2. as amended F. ast Tustin Specific Plan 16. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a. b. c. d. e. £ and g-No Impact: The project will connect into existing utilities; no substantial alterations are needed. The prqject ~ ill not create additional impacts beyond those identified in EIR 85-2. Sources: Field Vcritication Submitted Plans Certilied EIR 85-2. as amended East Tustin Specitic Plan Orange County Sanitation District Mitigation Measures.,Monitoring Required: None Required 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a. b. and c-No Impact: Thc project will not cause negative impacts to wildlife habitat, nor limit the achievement of any long-term environmental goals, nor have impacts which arc potentially and indMdually limited but are cumulatively considerable and could potentially have an indirect adverse impact on human beings. This project contributes incrementally to the cumulative impacts addressed by l~rograrn EIR 85-2. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2. as amended East Tustin Specific Plan S:'.Cdd MlNOO,Initial Study't(than :\lien-Analysis.doc Ethan .411eh (Design Review 01-036) Initial b2rhibit I of Resolution 3823 Page 8 qf8 EXHIBIT 1 RELATED MITIGATION MEASURES IMPOSED BY EIR 85-2 Air Quality 3.11.3 1. Construction activity dust generation shall be reduced through regular watering as required by thc SCAQMD Rule 403. Geoiolo,,' and Soils 3.2.3 The mitigation measures fbr geologic and soils impacts are principally standardized engineering recommendations and will encompass thc tbllowing: Removal o1' culluvium, alluvium, topsoil, landslide debris, and artiticial fill to suitable foundation earth materials will be required prior to placement of fill-in areas where these deposits occur. Specific grading recommendations for removal depths will be determined as part of detailed geotechnical studies. Detailed geotechnical and soils engineering reports and plans will be prepared subsequent to development of preliminnry design layouts and final grading plans. This report will provide further, more detailed measures fbr treatment of excavation (ripping) difficulties. surficial material removals, cut and till slopes, expansive soils, lhults, and liquefaction hazards (influencing the design of roadway stream crossings). 3. All structures will be designed in accordance with seismic design provisions ol' the Uniform Building Codes to promote safety in the event of an earthquake. Erosion potential can be reduced by' utilizing rapid developing planting techniques (e.g.. hydroseeding), replacement with cohesive soils not subject to erosion, and construction of terrace drain systems. Hvdrolog)' and Water Quality D .D .D Erosion control measures will be developed and incorporated into final grading plans for the project to minimize potential increases in erosion and sediment transport during the short-term construction phases. Such measures could include the timely seeding of graded slopes, scheduling major grading phases during the non-rainy season, and the use of temporary control measures, e.g., perimeter sandbagging. Said construction erosion and sediment control plans lbr minimizing construction erosion will be submitted to the City of Tustin tbr review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. Development of appropriate pollution control plans (e.g., a street sweeping program. periodic storm drain system cleaning, and developing landscape plans which control thc Exhibit 1 Mitigation Measures EIR 85-2 Page 2 usc of fertilizer and pesticides) will be considered as means ot' reducing long-term water quality impacts. Long-term erosion and sediment control within proposed development areas will be provided with the installation of downdrains, terrace drains and brow ditches as necessary, and the continued maintenance of slope vegetation. 3.13.6 1. Landscape with Iow water-consuming plants wherever feasible. tisc mulch extensively, where feasible, in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied to topsoil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the amount of water which will reach the planl roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency. Noise 3.12 All construction operations, including engine warm-up and deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall take place only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.. Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. unless otherwise determined bv the Building Official. Public Sero'ices 3.1.3.1 The project sponsor shall work closely x~ith the police department to ensure that adequate security precautions are implemented in the project. The provisions of adequate security precautions include construction phases of the project. Such security could include construction tknces and private security patrol. Police services to the development will be enhanced through the provisions ol-' adequate street lighting, clearly rnarked street names and building numbers, and security. 3.13.2 The project applicant shall work closely with the Orange Count.',' Fire Authority to ensure that adequate fire safety precautions arc implemented in thc project. Specific fire protection needs will be evaluated and provided at the subdMsion level of project processing. S: ,Cdd.MINOO [*~IR 85-3 .\lM-l:than Allen.doc Exhibit 2 Resolution 3823 Parking Demand Analysis THE MARKET PLACE, PHASE I Tustin, California SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS ADDITION OF ETHAN ALLEN STORE TO SOUTH VILLAGE October 10, 2001 Revised February 11, 2002 Prepared for IRVINE RETAIL PROPERTIES Prepared by KAKU ASSOCIATES, INC. 1453 Third Street, Suite 400 Santa Monica, California 90401 (310) 458-9916 Ref: 1034 TABLE OF CONTENTS II. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 Proposal ............................................................................................................ I Parking Analysis ............................................................................................................ 6 Zoning Code ...................................................................................................... 6 Shared Parking .................................................................................................. 6 Shared Parking Parameters .............................................................................. 9 Project Shared Parking Demand ....................................................................... 12 Parking Demand Distribution ......................................................................................... 34 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 40 Appendix A: Appendix B: Shared Parking Parking Occupancy Count Results LIST OF FIGURES NO. lA lB 2 3 4 Project Site Plan ............................................................................................................ 2 Site Location ................................................................................................................ 3 Existing Parking Demand- September Saturday ......................................................... 37 Existing Parking Demand - December Saturday .......................................................... 38 Proposed Project Parking Demand - December Saturday ........................................... 39 LIST OF TABLES NO, 1 2 3 4 4a 5 5a 6 7 8 9 10 11 Land Use Summary ....................................................................................................... 5 Zoning Code Parking Calculation .................................................................................. 7 Peak Parking Demand vs. Supply ................................................................................. 13 Existing Land Uses - South of El Camino Real ............................................................ 16 Existing Land Uses - South of El Camino Real- Peak Month ..................................... 18 Existing Land Uses - South Village ............................................................................... 20 Existing Land Uses - South Village - Peak Month ...................................................... 22 Entitled Land Uses - South of El Camino Real ............................................................. 25 Entitled Land Uses - South Village ............................................................................... 27 Proposed Land Uses - South of El Camino Real .......................................................... 29 Proposed Land Uses - South Village ............................................................................ 31 Distribution of Parking Demand ..................................................................................... 35 Redistribution of Parking Demand to Reflect 90% Occupancy ..................................... 36 I. INTRODUCTION Irvine Retail Properties proposes to add an Ethan Allen furniture store to the South Village portion of The Market Place. The City of Tustin has reviewed the initial application and has determined that the new store would not cause a traffic impact and therefore no traffic analysis would be needed. The City did, however, request that a shared parking analysis of both the South Village and the total Market Place development south of El Camino Real be conducted. Kaku Associates prepared a Shared Parking Report in June 2000. Upon review of that study, the City requested that the parking occupancy data be updated with new counts and the Shared Parking Model be recalibrated to reflect 2001 conditions. This report presents the results of that recalibration. The Market Place is a mixed-use retail development located at the intersection of Jamboree and El Camino Real in the City of Tustin. The focus of this parking analysis is The Market Place, Phase I, which is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. The study site is bounded by El Camino Real on the north, Jamboree Road on the east, Interstate 5 on the south and Myford on the west. PROPOSAL The proposed change to the land use on site involves the construction of a new 16,000 square foot Ethan Allen furniture store. The store would be constructed on two existing vacant pads in the South Village. The primary customer access to the store will be on the south side of the building. Figure lA shows an overall site plan of The Market Place and designates the planning areas of the center. Figure lB shows the location of the proposed new store in the South Village area of the center. The addition of the furniture store would mean that the developer would give up the entitled land uses originally planned for the two pads. One pad was to contain a 2,500 square foot financial institution and the other would support a 3,000 square foot fast food .,-~ .,. ........ · ....... ~ ~ , ~ ~.~,~,,,,.,,~,.,~ ~....uu..~....,, ~ ~ al,.l.,~,d ~ ~,. ~,.,,,,- .............. [ : I © .J 3 restaurant. These 5,500 square feet of development would not take place if the furniture store is approved and constructed. The parking lot in the South Village would be slightly modified to accommodate the furniture store. The reconfiguration would increase the South Village parking supply from 253 spaces to 266 spaces. Table 1 summarizes the land uses on site. The first column indicates that approximately 412,400 square feet exist south of El Camino Real today. Of this total, 22,368 square feet are within the South Village. The central column shows the same square footages if the two entitled pads in South Village were to be developed. The final column shows the land uses totals that would result from the proposed project. Similar information is shown for the area of The Market Place located north of El Camino Real (North Village and Phase Two) although no physical changes to the northern portion of the center are proposed as part of this project. The project would involve the elimination of entitlement for 8,500 sf of restaurant space and the conversion of 4,550 sf of North Village retail to restaurant. As can be seen, the overall entitled space north of El Camino Real would reduce from 315,306 sf to the existing 306,806 sf. 5 ,,.,o §=g o E ~o 0 Lbl 0 ._- r, -- LI.I I!. PARKING ANALYSIS ZONING CODE Table 2 shows that the City of Tustin Zoning Code requirements for retail, cinema, restaurant and furniture store space in The Market Place. The portion of the study area outside of South Village is known as Phase One since it was the first portion of the Market Place developed. This area is required to provide 1,561 spaces according to Code. The South Village requires another 365 spaces (with the proposed project) for a total requirement of 1,926 spaces. Table 2 shows that the study area would meet the Zoning Code requirement on an overall basis (1.926 required vs. 2,093 provided). However, the South Village would be 99 spaces short of meeting Code after the completion of the proposed project. SHARED PARKING Shared parking recognizes that parking spaces can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. The shared parking phenomenon has long been observed in central business districts (CBD), suburban community districts, and other areas where land uses are combined. Shared parking is really the result of two conditions: Variations of the peak accumulation of parked vehicles occur because of time differences in the activity patterns of adjacent or nearby land uses (by hour, by day, and by season). For example, a parking facility can be used by' office employees during the day and serve patrons of an adjacent cinema at night. 6 TABLE 2 THE MARKET PI;ACE -- ZONING CODE PARKING CALCULATION Parking Analysis December 1,2001 PHASE ONE Square Parking Parking Square Parldng Parking Footage Ratio Required Footage Ratio Required Ikea 141,314 1/250 565.26 141,314 1/250 565.26 Toys 'R Us 47,298 1/250 189.19 47,298 1/250 189.19 Krauses 15,832 1/250 63.33 15.832 1/250 63.33 Home Dspot 96,715 1/250 386.86 96,715 1/250 386,86 Home Depot Garden Center 6,875 1/250 27.50 6,875 1/250 27.50 In-Line Retail 82,036 1/250 328.14 82.036 I 1/250 328.14 Sub-Total 390,070 I 1,561 390,070 I 1,561 Front Parking Provided 1,650 1,650 Rear Parking Provided 177 177 Total Parking Provided 1,827 1,827 SOUTH VILLAGE Square Parking Parking Square Pa,'fdng Parking Footage Rat;o Required Footage Ratio Required Carl's Jr. 3,489 1/100 34.89 3,489 1/100 34,89 ........ _2.':1 patio seats 1/3 7.00 21 pa. ti_o seats= 1/3 7.00 El Polio Loco 2,80~ 1/100 28.03 2.803 1/100 28.03 -15 patio seats 1/3 -5.00~ 15 p_afl_o_seats 1/3 5.00 Taco Ball 2,643 1/100 26.43 2,643 1/100 26.43 In-N-Out Burger 3,148 1/100 31.48 3,_1_4.8 1/100 31.48 ..... 18 patio seats 1/3 6.00 18 patio seats 1/5 6.00 BLack Angus 10,285 1/75 158.00 10,285 1/75 158.00 dance floor 1/7 36.00 dance f, oor 1/7 36.00 Ethan Allen 16.000 1/500 32.00 Unbuilt Entitlement- F. Food 3,000 1/100 30.00 Unbuilt Entitlement- Financial 2,500 -- -~/200 12.50 - Sub-Total 27,868 I 375 38,368 365 Total Parking Provided 278 266 TOTAL SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL Square Parking Parking Square Parking I Paddng Foctage Rsquired Provided Footage RequiredI Provided 417,938 1,936 2,105 428,438 1,926 I 2,093 TOTALS I PHASE TWO Square Parking Parking Square Parking ~ Parking Footage Ra~o Required Footage Ratio Reouired Kids 'R Us 22,230 1/222 100.14 22,230 1/222 100.14 T.J. Maxx 25,800 1/222 116.22 25,800 1/222 116.22 Old Navy 19,126 1/222 86.15 19,126 1/222 I 86.15 Ross 25,000 1/222 112.61 25,000 1/2~2 I 112.61 Miller's Outpost ...... 10,652 1/222 47.98 10,652_. 1/222 47.98 Chick's 49,619 1/222 223.51 49,619 1/222 223.51 The Good Guys ..... 27,186 1/222 122.46 27,186 1/222 122.46 In-Line Retail 36,779 1/222 165.67 36,779 1/222 I 165.67 Sub-Total 216,392 975 216,392I 975 Front Parking Provided 1,193 1,193 Rear Parking Provided 150 150 Total Parking Provided 1,343 1,343 NORTH VILLAGE Square Parking Parkir~g Square Parking Parking Footage Ratio Required Footage Ratio Required Retail 30,792 1/222 138.70 26.842 11222 120.91 Sapofi 3,071 1,'75 40.95 3,071 1/75 40.95 Red Robin 6,476 1/75 86.35 6,476 1/75 86.35 39 patio seats 1/3 13.00 39 patio seats 1/3 13.00 E~dwards Cinema (~.,420 seats) 29,515 113 ..... ;473.33 29,515 1/3 473.33 Tower Records 10,010 1/222 45.09 10,010 1/222 45.09 Book Star 6,050 1/222 47.52 6,050 1/222 27.25 California Pizza Kitchen 4,500 1/75 60.00 4.500 1/75 60.00 New Restaurant 8,500 1/75 113.30! 3,950 1/75 52.60 Sub-Total 98,914 1,0t8 90,414 919 Total Parking Provided 698 698 TOTAL NORTH OF EL CAMINO REAL Sauars Pa, king. Parking Square Parking Parking Footage Rec~uired Provided Footage Required Prov~deq TOTALS 315,306 1,993 2,041 306,806 1,894 2,041 Existing Project Existing Project plus CPK & Ethan Allen Square Parking Parking Square Parking Parking Footage Reouirad ~rovided Footage Reouired Provided Phase One 390,070 1.561 1,827 390,070 1,561 1,827 South Village 27,868 375 278 38,368 365 266 Phase Two 216.392 975 1,343 216,392 975 1,343 North Viliage 93,914 1,018 I 698 90,41,~ 919 698 TOTAL PROJECT 733,244 3,929 ! 4,146 735,244 I 3,820 I 4,134 I There are clearly relationships among land use activities that result in people being attracted to two or more land uses on a single automobile trip to a given area or mixed-use development. Appendix A presents a detailed discussion of the shared parking phenomenon and a description of a national study conducted by Badon-Aschman Associates, Inc. for the Urban Land Institute (ULI). Data on the hourly and seasonal fluctuation of parking demand by land use and data on peak parking demand ratios are presented and discussed. SHARED PARKING PARAMETERS In order to evaluate the number of spaces needed under shared parking conditions, a number of characteristics regarding a padicular deveiopment must be known. The most important of these characteristics are the mix of land uses within the project and the size of each individual land use. Other parking-related factors must be estimated in order to determine peak parking demand by hour. This discussion explains the assumptions used in the The Market Place analysis and describes the background documentation used for each of these factors. Parkinq Ratio Figure 1 of Appendix A shows the peak parking demand ratios found during the ULI shared parking study. These figures represent national averages for individual land uses. Dudng the course of the last ten years, Barton-Aschman Associates, Kaku Associates and other consulting firms have conducted numerous studies in California in order to adjust the national parking demand factors to represent California conditions. While most parking ratios were found to closely parallel national ratios, California conditions suggest that adjustments to the national averages should be made to large retail centers, restaurants within shopping centers, large multi-screen cinema developments, residential developments and hotel parking supplies. Parking occupancy counts at The Market Place were conducted during the Christmas holiday periods in the mid-1990's and again in October 1997. These counts were used to calibrate the ULI Shared Parking model so that it reflected project conditions. A new set of occupancy counts were conducted on Saturday September 22, 2001 and Tuesday October 2, 2001. Per the City instructions, these counts were conducted every one-half hour throughout the busiest hours of the day. The weekday counts were conducted from 1pm until 6pm while the Saturday counts were conducted from 10am until 6pm. These hours represent the busiest hours of the day and therefore the peak parking accumulation at the center would be recorded. In addition the 2001 occupancy counts were conducted on a row-by-row basis so that the occupancy patterns could be summarized on an area basis within the shopping center. The detailed results of the parking occupancy counts are presented in Appendix B of this report. A detailed comparison of the counts done in 1997 to the 2001 counts showed that the 1997 counts showed a higher weekday demand pattern while the more recent counts suggested increased activity levels on a Saturday. In order to be conservative, the Shared Parking Model was calibrated to reflect Saturday 2001 conditions, but the weekday 1997 assumptions and parking patterns were retained. Thus the parking occupancy levels summarized in this report represent the highest of the parking occupancy patterns recorded at the center (i.e., October 1997 weekday and September 2001 Saturday). The following peak parking ratios were found for The Market Place: Land Use Fast Food Retail Restaurant Weekday Ratio 11.14 sp/1,000 sf 3.0 sp/1,000 sf 19.5 sp/1,000 sf Weekend Ratio 11.14 sp/1,000 sf 4.25sp/1,000 sf 19.5 sp/1,000 sf 10 The above rates were used in this analysis. Mode Split One factor that affects the overall parking demand at a particular development is the number of visitors and employees that arrive by automobile. In the case of The Market Place analysis, it was assumed that 100% of the employees and visitors to the site would arrive at the center by automobile. Auto Occupancy The Market Place Shared Parking Analysis used the national averages for auto occupancy for all land uses. No changes were made to the ULI average rates. Captive Market Figure 4 of Appendix A suggests that CBD mixed-use projects have an average of 61 percent of their patrons/visitors captured within the site itself. Because of the limited nature of the mix of uses in this development, a less aggressive set of internal capture rates was used. It was assumed that 15 percent of the retail patrons and 10 percent of the people visiting the fast food restaurants within the project would be patrons of other land uses within The Market Place. Seasonal Variations The shared parking analysis summarized in this report was based on peak month of the year. December peak conditions represent the busiest month of the year for this development. 11 Weekday vs. Weekend Each shared parking analysis measured the parking demand on a weekday as well as on a Saturday. The primary variation on weekday vs. weekend parking demand occurs because of the higher retail activity on weekends. PROJECT SHARED PARKING DEMAND Table 3 presents a summary of the shared parking analysis results for the portion of the center south of El Camino Real. No changes to the parking patterns north of El Camino Real are expected as a result of the proposed project. Three sets of calculations were performed - one representing the existing conditions, one assuming buildout of the entitled space and the third to measure the parking demand of the proposed project. Separate calculations were performed for the entire area south of El Camino Real as well as for the South Village by itself. Model Calibration The methodology involved in predicting the future parking demand patterns at the center began with a comparison of the actual field counts to the parking occupancy levels predicted by the Shared Parking model. If the results varied, the assumptions in the model were adjusted so that the model results more closely reflected the actual parking counts. This is the model calibration step of the process. In this case, the hared Parking model used was already calibrated in 1997 to reflect conditions at The Market Place and therefore only minor adjustments to the hourly parking patterns were necessary to recalibrate it to 2001 conditions. Once the model was recalibrated to reflect actual field conditions, the model was used to predict peak conditions (December peak shopping conditions in this case). The final step in the process involved changing the land use assumptions in the model to reflect the 12 future land uses under the proposed project conditions. This process allows the future parking projections to be based on the actual parking accumulation and the actual houdy parking patterns at The Market Place. The numbers in the table below compare the recalibrated model results to the actual parking accumulation counts. Time of Day Weekday Results Recalibrated Saturday Results Recalibrated 1997 Count Model Prediction 2001 Count 10-1 lam NC 613 533 11am-12n NC 772 856 12n-1 pm 724 872 1,048 1-2pm 701 927 1,098 2-3pm 637 895 1,226 3-4pm 570 880 1,211 4-5pm 534 783 1,145 5-6pm 481 739 1.022 6-7pm 588 778 865 Model Prediction 528 846 1,042 1,104 1,220 1,204 1 136 1,025 863 NC = not counted The weekday counts in October 1997 and in October 2001 were conducted from 1pm until 6pm. The City requested that the counts be conducted on a weekday beginning at 10am so that any peak due to lunch activity in the South Village could be observed. New counts were conducted on Tuesday February 5, 2002 and the results are shown in the Appendix. The February weekday count showed that the peak parking demand south of El Camino Real occurs from 1-2pm as suggested by the Shared Parking model. The February 2002 count also showed that for most hours of the day, the October 1997 count still exceeds current demand and therefore should be used to calibrate the model. As can be seen, the model continues to overestimate the parking demand for weekday conditions by about 250 vehicles per hour when compared to either the 1997 or the 2002 occupancy counts. 14 However, the most important parking occupancy measure is the Saturday demand pattern since the parking peaks at The Market Place occur on a Saturday. Saturday parking demand is higher than weekday demand across all hours of the day and therefore the Saturday model calibration will control the determination of the adequacy of the parking supply. The table above shows that the recalibrated model accurately predicts the parking occupancy pattem on a Saturday. Parkin.q Occupancy Results Tables 4 and 5 present the results for the existing condition September 2001 counts. These results are based on the actual parking occupancy counts as presented in 15 TABLE 4 EXISTING LAND USES - SOUTH OF EL CAMINO RF_.AL SHARED PARKING ESTIMATION-INPUT ASSUMPTIONS PROJECT #: PROJECT : 1055.04 TUSTIN MKT PL EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH OF ECR Month: SEP LAND USES SIZES WKRATIO SAT RATIO %AUTO PERS/AUTO % CAPTIVE MONTH ADJMT Saturday REST-FF 12.083 RETAIL 390.07 RESTAURANT 10.285 CINEMA 0 NCBD-RESlD. 0 CBD-RESID. 0 HOTEL-ROOM 0 HOTEL-REST. 0 HOTEL-CONF. 0 HOTEL-CONV. 0 11.14 11.14 100% 2.00 10% 3.00 4.25 100% 1.80 15% 19.50 19.50 100% 2.00 0% 0.25 0.30 100% 2.00 10% 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.25 1.25 80% 1.40 N/A 10.00 10.00 100% 2.00 0% 0.50 0.50 100% 2.00 0% 30.00 30.00 100% 2.00 0% 0.90 0.75 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.80 1.00 0.70 0.90 0.75 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.80 !.00 0.70 16 TABLE 4 (contd) PARKING ACCUMULATION SUMMARY PROJECT #: 1055 PROJECT : TUSTIN MK'I' PL EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH OF ECR WEEKDAY SEPTEMBER Non Hotel CBD CBD TIME RestFF Retail Rest. Cinema Res Res Room Rest Conf. Cony. Totals 6 a.m. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 a.m. 15 60 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 8 a.m. 46 134 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 9 a.m. 68 313 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 398 10 a.m. 73 507 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 613 11 a.m. 73 649 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 772 12 noon 65 724 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 872 1 p.m. 65 746 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 927 2 p.m. 71 724 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 895 3 p.m. 71 709 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 880 4 p.m. 51 649 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 783 5 p.m. 34 589 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 739 6 p.m. 17 612 149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 778 7 p.m. 5 664 166 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 835 8 p.m. 5 649 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 820 9 p.m. 2 455 1,36 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 623 10 p.m. 2 239 149 0 0 0 C 0 0 C 390 11 p.m. 0 97' 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 213 12 mid. 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 SATURDAY Calibration (Saturday only) Non Hotel CBD CBD TIME RestFF Retail Rest. Cinema Res Res Room Rest Conf. Conv. Totals 6a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 7 a.m. 15 53 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 8 a.m. 44 106 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 9 a.m. 58 317 lb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 385 10 a.m. 29 456 ~3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 528 11 a.m. 64 740 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 846 12 noon 73 878 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1042 1 p.m. 73 931 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1104 2 p.m. 55 1057 108 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 1220 3 p.m. 64 1057 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1204 4 p.m. 56 1005 75 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 1136 5 p.m. 2~ 899 10~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~025 6 p.m. 15 740 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 863 7 p.m. 15 634 166 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 815 8 p.m. !5 582 166 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 763 9 p.m. 15 423 166 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 604 10 p.m. ~1 423 158 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 592 11 p.m. 11 106 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 258 12 mid. 7 0 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 17 TABLE 4A EXISTING LAND USES -- SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL - PEAK MONTH SHARED PARKING ESTIMATION-INPUT ASSUMPTIONS PROJECT #: PROJECT: 1055.04 TUSTIN MKT PL EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH OF ECR Month: DEC LAND USES SIZES WK RATIO SAT RATIO REST-FF 12.083 11.14 11.14 RETAIL 390.07 3.00 4.25 RESTAURANT 10.285 19.50 19.50 CINEMA 0 0.25 0.30 NOBD-RESlD. 0 1.00 1.00 CBD-RESI D. 0 1.00 1.00 HOTEL-ROOM 0 1.25 1.25 HOTEL-REST. 0 10.00 10.00 HOTEL-CONF. 0 0.50 0.50 HOTEL-CONV. 0 30.00 30.00 %AUTO PERS/AUTO % CAPTIVE 100% 2.00 10% 100% 1.80 15% 100% 2.00 0% 100% 2.00 10% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 80% 1.40 N/A 100% 2.00 0% 100% 2.00 0% 100% 2.OO O% MONTH ADJMT Saturday 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90 O.9O 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.o0 O.85 0.65 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.20 6.20 18 TABLE 4a (contd) PARKING ACCUMULATION SUMMARY PROJECT #: 1055 PROJECT: TUSTIN MKT PL EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH OF ECR WEEKDAY DECEMBER Non Hotel CBD CBD TIME RestFF Retail Rest. Cinema Res Res Room Rest Conf. Cony. Totals 6 a.m. 7 a.m, 8 a.m, 9 a.m. 10 a.m. 11 a.m. 12 noon 1 ).m. 2 ~.m. 3 ~.m. 4 3.m. 5 ~.m. 6 ~.m. 7 3.m. 8 ~.m. 9 ,.m. 10 ~.m. 11 ).m. 12 mid. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 15 80 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 46 179 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 234 68 418 19 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 505 73 676 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 786 73 865 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 994 65 965 93 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 1123 65 995 131 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 1191 71 965 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1148 71 945 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1128 51 865 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1009 34 786 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 951 17 816 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1001 5 885 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1077 5 865 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1057 2 607 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 796 2 318 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 488 0 129 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 260 0 0 93 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 93 SATURDAY Non Hotel CBD CBD TIME Rest FF Retail Rest. Cinema Res Res Room Rest Conf. Conv. Totals 6 a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 a.m. 15 70 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 8 a.m. 44 141 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 9 a.m. 58 423 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 492 10 a.m. 29 6~9 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 693 11 a.m. 64 987 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1098 12 noon 73 1170 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1346 I p.m. 73 1241 1;2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1426 2 p.m. 55 1410 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 O !586 3 p.m. 64 1410 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1557 4 p.m. 56 1339 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1479 5 D.m. 26 1198 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1336 6 p.m. 15 957 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1123 7 p.m. !5 846 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1048 8 p.m. !5 775 187 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 977 9 =.m. 15 564 1 B7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 766 10 p.m. 11 564 177 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 752 11 p.m. 11 141 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 311 12 mid. 7 0 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138 19 TABLE 5 EXISTING LAND USES -- SOUTH VILLAGE SHARED PARKING ESTIMATION-INPUT ASSUMPTIONS PROJECT #: PROJECT: 1055.04 TUSTIN MKT PL EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH VILLAGE Month: SEP LAND USES SIZES WK RATIO SAT RATIO %AUTO PERS/AUTO % CAPTIVE MONTH ADJMT Saturoay REST-FF 12.083 11.14 R ETAI L 3.00 RESTAURANT 10.285 19.50 CINEMA 0 0.25 NCBD-RESID. 0 1.00 CBD-RESID. 0 1.00 HOTEL-ROOM 0 1.25 HOTEL-REST. 0 10.00 HOTEL-CONF. 0 0.50 HOTEL-CONV. 0 30.00 11.14 100% 2.00 10% 0.90 0.90 4.25 100% 1.80 15% 0.75 0.75 19.50 100% 2.00 0% 0.80 0.80 0.30 100% 2.00 10% 0.90 0.90 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 1.25 80% 1.40 N/A 0.95 0.90 10.00 100% 2.00 0% 0.80 0.80 0.50 100% 2.00 0% 1.00 : .0C 30.00 100% 2.00 0% 0.70 0.70 20 TABLE 5 (contd) PARKING ACCUMULATION SUMMARY PROJECT #: 1055 PROJECT ; TUSTIN MKI' PL EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH VILLAGE WEEKDAY DECEMBER Non Hotel CBD CBD TIME RestFF Retail Rest. Cinema Res Res Room Rest Conf. Cony. Totals 6 a.m. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 a.m. 15 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 8 a.m. 46 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 9 a.m. 68 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 10 a.m. 73 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 11 a.m. 73 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 12 noon 65 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 I p.m. 65 0 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 181 2 p.m. 71 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 171 3 p.m, 71 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 171 4 p.m. 5'. 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 5 p.m. 34 0 116 0 0 0 {} 0 0 0 150 6 p.m. 17 0 149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 166 7 p.m. 5 0 166 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 171 8 p.m. 5 0 166 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 171 9 p.m. 2 0 166 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 168 10 p.m. 2 0 149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 ~I p.m. 0 0 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 ~ 2 mid. 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 SATURDAY Calibration (Saturday only) Non Hotel CBD CBD TIME Rest FF Retail Rest. Cinema Res Res Room Rest Conf. Cony. Totals 6 a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 a,m. 15 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 8 a.m. 44 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 9 a.m. 58 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 10 a.m. 29 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 11 a.m. 64 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 12 noon 73 0, 9~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 1 p.m. 73 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 173 2 p.m. 55 0 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 3 p.m. 64 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147 4 p.m. 5~ 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 5 p.m. 26 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 6 13.m. ~5 0 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~23 7 p.m. !5 0 1-3-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 181 8 p.m.. 15 0 165 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 181 c~ p.m. 15 0 166 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 181 10 p.m. 11 0 158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 11 p.m. 11 3 141 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 !52 12 m~d. 7 0 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 21 TABLE 5A EXISTING LAND USES -- SOUTH VILLAGE - PEAK MONTH SHARED PARKING ESTIMATION-INPUT ASSUMPTIONS PROJECT #: PROJECT: 1055.04 TUSTIN MKT PL EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH VILLAGE Month DEC LAND USES SIZES WK RATIO SAT RATIO %AUTO PERS/AUTO % CAPTIVE MONTH ADJMT Saturday R EST-FF 12.083 RETAIL 0 RESTAURANT 10.285 CINEMA 0 NCBD-RESlD. 0 CBD-RESID. 0 HOTEL-ROOM HOTEL-REST. 0 HOTEL-CONF. 0 HOTEL-CONV. 0 11.14 11.14 100% 2.00 10% 3.00 4.25 100% 1.80 15% 19.50 19.50 100% 2.00 0% 0.25 0.30 100% 2.00 10% 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.25 1.25 80% 1.40 N/A 10.00 10.00 100% 2.00 0% 0.50 0.50 100% 2.00 0% 30.00 30.00 100% 2.00 0% 0.90 1.00 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.80 1.00 0.20 0.90 1.00 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.80 1.00 O.20 22 TABLE 5A (contd) PARKING ACCUMULATION SUMMARY PROJECT #: 1055 PROJECT: TUSTIN MKT PL EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH VILLAGE WEEKDAY Non CBD CBD TIME RestFF Retail Rest. Cinema Res Res DECEMBER Hotel Room Rest Conf. Conv. Totals 6 a.m. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 a.m. 15 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 19 8 a.m. 46 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 9 a.m. 68 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 87 10 a.m. 73 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 11 a,m. 73 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 12 noon 65 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 1 p.m. 65 0 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196 2 p.m. 71 0 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 183 3 p.rn. 71 0 112 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 183 4 p.m. 51 0 93 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 144 5 p,m. 34 0 ;31 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 165 6 p.m. 17 0 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185 7 p.m. 5 C 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 192 8 p.m, 5 0 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 9 p.m. 2 0 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189 10 p.m. 2 0 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 11 p.m. 0 0 131 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 12 mid. 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 SATURDAY Calibration (Saturday only) Non Hotel CBD CBD TIME Rest FF Retail Rest. Cinema Res Res Room Rest Conf. Cony. Totals 6 a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 a.m. 15 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 8 a.m. 44 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 9 a.m. 58 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 10 a.m. 29 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 11 a.m. 64 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 ~.2 noon 73 0 103 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 176 I p.m. 73 0 1~2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185 2 p.m. 55 0 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 176 3 p.m. 64 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 4 p.m. 56 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 5 p.m. 26 0 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138 6 p.m. 15 O 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 136 7 p.m.. 15 0 187 0 0 0 (~ 0 0 0 202 8 p.m. 15 0 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 202 9 p.m. 15 C' 187 0 C O 0 0 0 0 202 10 p.m. 11 0 177 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 11 p.m. 11 (; ',59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 12 mid. 7 0 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138 23 Appendix B, but the actual numbers in Tables 4 and 5 are calculated by applying the recalibrated Shared Parking model. Tables. 4A and 5A adjust these parking analyses to reflect Peak Month (i.e. December) activity levels under the existing on-site land uses. To calculate these parking predictions, the recallbrated model is used with all but one of the same assumptions used to predict the parking patterns shown in Tables 4 and 5. The changed assumption was the month of the calculation. Tables 4A and 5A predict the amount of parkin, g that would occur in the peak shopping month (December) under the existing land use conditions at the center. Tables 6-9 present the summary details of the shared parking for each of the "Entitled Land Use" and "Proposed Project" land use scenarios tested. In each of these cases, the recalibrated model was used to predict future December peak parking conditions. Overall Site Peak Parkinq Demand As shown in Table 3, the total site South of El Camino Real would generate peak parking demands of 1,586, 1,609 and 1,644 spaces for existing, entitled and proposed project conditions on a December Saturday, respectively. In each of these cases, the peak parking demand occurs during the mid-afternoon time period of a weekend day. Table 3 also compares the peak parking demand to the existing or proposed parking supply. Typically, visitor-based projects such as retail centers use a target occupancy of 85-90% to define the "effective" capacity of a parking supply. If a visitor lot exceeds 85- 90% occupancy, visitors tend to become discouraged searching for the last available spaces. Normally, the 85% target level is used for average or Design Day conditions while the 90% occupancy level is considered an appropriate target for Peak Day conditions. In this report, the parking occupancy levels are projected for December Saturday conditions - among the busiest days of the year, clearly representative of Peak Day conditions. The parking supply for the overall land uses (all land uses south of El Camino Real) provides sufficient spaces to meet both the 85% and 90% target occupancy levels at all times. Parking occupancy in the busiest month of the year would peak at 78.5% for the 24 TABLE 6 ENTITLED LAND USES - SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL SHARED PARKING ESTIMATION-INPUT ASSUMPTIONS PROJECT #: PROJECT: 1055.04 TUSTIN MKT PL ENTITLED LAND USES SOUTH OF ECR Month: DEC LAND USES SIZES VVK RATIO SAT RATIO %AUTO PERS/AUTO % CAPTIVE MONTH ADJMT Saturday REST-FF 15.083 RETAIL 386.631 RESTAURANT 10.285 CINEMA 0 NCBD-RESID. 0 CBD-RESID. 0 HOTEL-ROOM 0 HOTEL-REST. 0 HOTEL-CONF. 0 HOTELoCONV. 0 11.14 11.14 100% 2.00 10% 0.90 0.90 3.00 4.00 100% 1.80 15% 1.00 1.00 19.50 19.50 100% 2.00 0% 0.90 0.90 0.25 0.30 100% 2.00 10% 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.O0 1.00 1.25 1.25 80% 1.40 N/A 0.85 0.65 10.00 10.00 100% 2.00 0% 0.80 0.80 0.50 0.50 100% 2.00 0% 1.00 1.00 30.00 30.00 100% 2.00 0% 0.20 0.20 25 TABLE 6 (contd) PARKING ACCUMULATION SUMMARY PROJECT #: 1055 PROJECT: TUSTIN MKT PL - ENTITLED LAND USES - SOUTH OF ECR WEEKDAY DECEMBER Non Hotel CBD CBD TIME RestFF Retail Rest. Cinema Res Res Room Rest Conf. Cony. Totals 6a.m. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 a.m. 18 80 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 8 a.m. 57 180 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 246 9 a.m. 84 420 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 523 10 a.m. 91 681 37 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 809 11 a.m. 91 871 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1018 12 noon 82 971 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1146 1 p.m. 82 1001 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1214 2 p.m. 88 971 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1171 3 p.m. 88 951 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1151 4 p.m. 64 871 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1028 5 p.m. 43 791 131 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 955 6 p.m. 21 821 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1010 7 p.m. 6 891 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1084 8 p.m. 6 871 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,64 9 p.m. 3 611 157 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 801 10 p.m. 3 320 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 491 11 p.m. 0 130 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 261 12 mid. 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 ~t~TURDAY Non Ho~.el CBD CBD TiME Rest FF Retail Rest. C!,'3ema Res Res Room Rest Conf. Cony. Totals 6 a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 a.m. 18 71 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 8 a.m. 54 142 6 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 202 9 a.m. 73 426 !I 0 O 0 0 3 0 0 5~.0 10 a.m. 36 653 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 704 11 a.m. 80 993 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1120 12 noon 91 1178 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1372 1 p.m. 91 1249 !12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1452 2 p.m. 69 14!9 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1609 3 p.m. 80 1419 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1592 4 p.m. 70 1348 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1502 5 p.m. 33 1206 112 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 1351 6 p.m. 18 993 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1132 7 p.m. 18 851 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1056 8 p.m. 18 780 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 985 9 p.m. 18 568 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 773 10 ~.m. 14 568 177 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 759 11 p.m. 14 142 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 315 12 mid. 9 0 ~,31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 2_6 TABLE 7 -'NTITLED LAND USES -- SOUTH VILLAGE SHARED PARKING ESTIMATION-INPUT ASSUMPTIONS PROJECT #: PROJECT: 1055.04 TUSTIN MKT PL ENTITLED LAND USES - SOUTH VILAGE Month: DEC LAND USES SIZES VVK RATIO SAT RATIO %AUTO PERS/AUTO % CAPTIVE MONTH ADJMT Saturday REST-FF 15.083 R E TAI L 2.5 RESTAURANT 10.285 CINEMA 0 NCBD-RESID. 0 CBD-RESlD. 0 HOTEL-ROOM 0 HOTEL-REST. 0 HOTEL-CONF. 0 HOTEL-CONV. 0 11.14 11.14 100% 2.00 10% 0.90 0.90 3.00 4.00 100% 1.80 15% 1.00 1.00 19.50 19.50 100% 2.00 0% 0.90 0.90 0.25 0.30 100% 2.00 10% 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.25 80% 1.40 N/A 0.85 0.65 10.00 10.00 100% 2.00 0% 0.80 0.80 0.50 0.50 100% 2.00 0% 1.00 1.00 30.00 30.00 100% 2.00 0% 0.20 0.20 27 TABLE 7 (contd) PARKING ACCUMULATION SUMMARY PROJECT #: 1055 PROJECT : TUSTIN MKT PL ENTITLED LAND USES -- SOUTH V1LAGE WEEKDAY DECEMBER TIME Rest FF Retail Rest. Non CBD CBD Cinema Res Res Hotel Room Rest Conf. Cony. Totals 6 a.m. 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 a.m. 18 1 4 0 0 0 8 a.m. 57 1 9 0 0 0 9 a.m. 84 3 19 0 0 0 10 a.m. 91 4 37 0 0 0 11 a.m. 91 6 56 0 0 0 12 noon 82 6 93 0 0 0 1 p.m. 82 6 131 0 0 0 2 p.m. 98 6 112 0 0 0 3 p.m. 84 {~ 112 0 0 C 4 p.m. 70 6 93 0 0 5 p.m, 43 5 131 0 0 0 6 p.m. 21 5 168 0 0 0 7 p.m. 6 6 187 0 0 0 8 p.m. 6 $ ~,57 0 0 9 p.m. 3 4 187 0 0 0 10 p.m. 3 2 ~S8 0 0 0 11 p.m. 0 1 131 0 0 0 12 mid. C 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 106 0 0 0 O 132 0 0 0 0 153 0 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 0 219 0 0 0 C 206 0 0 0 0 202 0 0 0 0 159 0 0 0 0 179 O 0 0 0 194 0 0 0 0 199 0 O 0 0 lg9 0 0 0 0 194 0 0 0 0 173 0 C 0 0 132 0 0 0 0 93 SATURDAY TIME Rest FF Retail Rest. Cinema Calibration ~Saturday only) Non Hotel CBD CBD Res Res Room Rest Conf. Conv. Totals 6 a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 7 a.m. 18 0 4 0 0 8 a.m,. 54 1 6 0 0 9 a.m,. 73 3 11 0 0 10 a.m. 73 4 15 0 C 11 a.m. 91 6 19 0 0 12 noon 91 7 56 0 0 1 p.m. 73 8 84 0 0 2 p.m. 54 9 84 0 0 3 p.m. 36 9 84 0 0 4 p.m. 36 8 84 0 0 5 p.m. 18 6 112 0 0 6 p.m. 18 6 168 0 0 7 o.m. 18 5 1B7 0 0 8 p.m. 18 5 187 0 3 9 p.m. 0 3 1B7 0 O '~0 p.m. 0 3 177 0 0 11 p.m. 0 1 159 0 0 12 mid. 0 0 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 ~c2 0 0 0 0 0 115 0 0 0 0 0 154 0 0 0 0 0 165 0 0 0 0 0 147 0 0 0 0 0 ~29 0 0 C 0 0 128 0 0 C 0 0 136 0 0 0 0 0 192 0 0 0 0 0 210 0 0 0 0 0 210 0 0 0 0 0 !90 0 0 0 0 0 180 0 0 0 0 0 160 0 0 0 0 0 131 28 TABLE 8 PROPOSED LAND USES - SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL SHARED PARKING ESTIMATION-INPUT ASSUMPTIONS PROJECT #: 1055.04 PROJECT : TUSTIN MKT PL PROPOSED CONDITIONS SOUTH OF EC Month: DEC LAND USES SIZES WK RATIO SAT RATIO %AUTO PERS/AUTO % CAPTIVE MONTH ADJMT Saturday REST-FF 12.083 t1.14 11.14 100% 2.00 10% 0.90 0.90 RETAIL 402.131 3.00 4.00 100% 1.80 15% 1.00 1.00 RESTAURANT 10.285 19.50 19.50 100% 2.00 0% 0.90 0.90 CINEMA 0 0.25 0.30 100% 2.00 10% 0.90 0.90 NCBD-RESID. 0 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 CBD-RESID. 0 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 HOTEL-ROOM 0 1.25 1.25 80% 1.40 N/A 0.85 0.65 HOTEL-REST. 0 10.00 10.00 100% 2.00 0% 0.80 0.80 HOTEL-CONF. 0 0.50 0.50 100% 2.00 0% 1.00 1.00 HOTEL-CONV. 0 30.00 30.00 100% 2.00 0% 0.20 0.20 29 TABLE 8 (contd) PARKING ACCUMULATION SUMMARY PROJECT #: 1055 PROJECT TUSTIN MK'I- PL PROPOSED CONDITIONS SOUTH OF ECR WEEKDAY DECEMBER TIME 6 a.m. 7 a.m. 8 a.m. 9 a.m. 10 a.m. 11 a.m. 12 noon 1 3.m. 2 ~.m. 3 3.m. 4 ~.m. 5 ~.m. 7 ~.m. 8 ~.m. 9 >.m. 10 ~.m. 11 ).m. 12 mid. Non Hotel CBD CBD RestFF Retail Rest. Cinema Res Res Room Rest Conf. Conv. Totals 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 15 82 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 46 185 9 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 240 68 431 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 518 73 697 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 807 73 892 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1021 65 995 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1153 65 1025 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1221 71 995 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1178 68 974 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1154 56 892 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1041 34 810 131 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 975 17 841 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1026 5 913 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1105 5 892 187 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 1084 2 626 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 815 2 328 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 498 9 133 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 264 0 0 93 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 SATURDAY TIME Rest FF Retal: Rest. Cinema Calibration (Saturday only) Non Hotel CBD CBD Res Res Room Rest Conf. Cony. Totals 6 a.m. 0 0 7 a.m. 15 68 8 a.m. 44 137 g a.m. 58 410 10 a.m. 58 616 11 a.m. 73 1026 12 noon 73 1163 1 o.m. 58 1300 2 p.m. 44 1368 3 p.m. 29 1368 4 D.m. 29 1231 5 p.m. 15 1026 6 p.m. 15 889 7 p.m. 15 821 8 p.m. 15 752 9 p.m. 0 547 10 p.m. 0 547 11 o.m. 0 137 '12 mid. 0 0 0 0 4 0 6 0 11 O !5 0 19 0 56 0 84 0 84 O 84 0 84 0 112 0 168 0 187 0 187 0 187 0 177 0 159 0 131 0 0 87 187 479 689 1118 1292 1442 1496 1481 1344 1 !53 1072 1023 95z 734 724 296 131 30 TABLE 9 -~ROPOSED LAND USES - SOUTH VILLAGE SHARED PARKING ESTIMATION-INPUT ASSUMPTIONS PROJECT #: 1055.04 PROJECT: TUSTIN MKT PL PROPOSED CONDITIONS SOUTH VILAG Month: DEC LAND USES SIZES WK RATIO SAT RATIO %AUTO PERS/AUTO % CAPTIVE MONTH ADJMT Saturday REST-FF 12.083 11.14 11.14 100% 2,00 10% 0.90 0.90 RETAIL 18 3.00 4.00 100% 1.80 15% 1,O0 1.00 RESTAURANT 10.285 19.50 19.50 100% 2.00 0% 0.90 0.90 CINEMA 0 0.25 0.30 100% 2.00 10% 0.90 0.90 NCBD-RESID. 0 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 CBD-RESID. 0 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 HOTEL-ROOM 0 1.25 1.25 80% 1.40 N/A 0.85 0.65 HOTEL-REST. 0 10.00 10.00 100% 2.00 0% 0.80 0.80 HOTEL-CONF. 0 0.50 0.50 100% 2.00 0% 1.00 1.00 HOTEL-CONV. 0 30.00 30.00 100% 2.00 0% 0.20 0.20 31 TABLE 9 (contd) PARKING ACCUMULATION SUMiVtARY PROJECT #: 1055 'PROJECT : TUSTIN MKT PL - PROPOSED LAND USES - SOUTH VILLAGE WEEKDAY DECEMBER Non Hotel CBD CBD TIME RestFF Retail Rest. Cinema Res Res Room Rest Conf. Cony. Totals 6a.m. 2 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 a.m. 15 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 8 a.m. 46 7 9 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 62 9 a.m. 68 17 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 10 a.m. 73 28 37 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 138 11 a.m. 73 35 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 12 noon 65 40 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 198 1 p.m. 65 41 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 237 2 p.m. 71 40 ~2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 223 3 p.m. 71 39 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 4 p.m. 51 35 93 0 O G 0 0 0 0 179 5 p.m. 34 32 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 197 6 p.m. 17 33 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 218 7 p.m. 5 36 187 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 228 8 p.m. 5 35 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 227 9 p.m. 2 25 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 21~ 10 p.m. 2 13 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 183 11 p.m. O 5 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 136 12 mid. 0 0 93 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 93 SATURDAY TIME 6 a.m. 7 a.m. 8 a.m. 9 a.m. 10 a.m. 11 a.m. 12 noon 1 p.m. 2 p.m. 3 D.m. 4 ~.rn. 5 ~.m. 6 ~.m. 7 ~.m. 8 ~.m. 9 ~.m. 10 3.m. 11 3.m. 12 m~:l. Non Hotel CBD CBD Rest FF Retail Rest. Cinema Res Res Room Rest Conf. Conv. Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 15 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 44 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 56 58 17 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 29 27 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 54 40 47 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 151 73 48 103 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 224 73 51 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 236 55 58 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 234 64 58 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 215 56 55 84 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 195 26 49 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 ]5 40 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 176 15 35 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 237 15 32 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 234 ~5 23 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225 11 23 177 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 11 6 ~59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 176 7 0 131 0 O 0 0 0 C 0 ~38 32 combined land uses south of El Camino Real under the conditions with the Proposed Project. South Villa.qe Parkin,q Demand The peak parking in the South Village would result in an occupancy rate of 89.1% at the peak hour of a December Saturday. This falls barely within the 90% target level for fully utilized visitor parking. The 266-space parking supply for South Village could accommodate 226 spaces and still be within the 85% target or 239 spaces and within the 90% target level for Peak Days. 33 III. PARKING DEMAND DISTRIBUTION The City asked that the parking occupancy data be collected in such a way that the data could be summarized on an area basis. Tables 10 and 11 show the distribution of parking demand on an area basis within the portion of The Market Place south of El Camino Real. Table 10 summarizes the distribution of the parking demand measured on Saturday September 22, 2001. All parking areas are within the 90% target occupancy level and thus we would not expect any parking shifting to take place due to overcrowded areas within the center. Figure 2 illustrates the parking distribution measured during the peak hour (2:30 pm) of the Saturday count. When the September conditions are projected forward to represent December conditions, the second column of Table 10 shows that some areas of the parking lot would exceed 90% occupancy levels. In fact, the parking lot in front of the Ikea store is expected to exceed its capacity. Clearly, some shifting of parking would take place during the December Saturday conditions, at least during the mid-afternoon peak hours. Table 11 and Figure 3 show the redistribution of parking that would occur if each lot was limited to a 90% peak occupancy. Parkers form the Ikea lot would shift to the Krause's lot filling the south portion to 90% and then utilizing the nodh portion of the Krause's lot until it reaches the 62% level. Under "Proposed Project" conditions, the same Ikea shift would take place on Peak Saturdays, but as shown in Table 11 and Figure 4, no other shifts would be necessary within the center. The Proposed Project parking demand could be accommodated within the western portion of the South Village - filling the lot to 87% of its capacity on a Peak Saturday. During this peak hour, there would also be 77 empty spaces on the north section of the Toys R Us lot - immediately in front of the door to the Ethan Allen store. 34 TABLE 10 DISTRIBUTION OF PARKING DEMAND PARKING AREA CAPACITY EXISTING SEPT EXISTING DEC PROPOSED DEC SPACES PERCENT SPACES PERCENT SPACES PERCENT IKEA 607 508 84% 667 110% 667 110% TOYS R US NORTH 200 15 8% 20 10% 123 62% TOYS R US SOUTH 210 131 62% 172 82% 172 82% 'KRAUSES 232 103 44% 135 58% 135 58% HOME DEPOT 391 267 68% 351 90% 351 90% BEHIND STORES 187 49 26% 64 34% 64 34% TOTAL PHASE 1 1,827 1,073 59% 1,410 77% 1,410 77% SO VILLAGE NORTH 105 51 49% 59 56% Proposed Supply 118 103 87% ~SO VILLAGE SOUTH 148 102 69% 117 79% 134 91% TOTAL SO VILLAGE 253 153 60% 176 70% Proposed Supply 266 237 89% TOTAL SO OF EL CAMINO 2,080 1,226 59% 1,586 76% Proposed Supply 2,093 1,647 79% 35 TABLE 11 REDISTRIBUTION OF PARKING DEMAND TO REFLECT 90% OCCUPANCY PARKING AREA CAPACITY EXISTING SEPT EXISTING DEC PROPOSED DEC SPACES PERCENT SISACES PERCENT SPACES PERCENT IKEA 607 508 84% 547 90% 547 90°~0 TOYS R US NORTH 200 15 8% 123 62% 123 62% 'TOYS R US SOUTH 210' 131 62% 189 90% 189 90%' 'KRAUSES 232 103 44% 135 58% 135 58% HOME DEPOT 391 267 68% 351 90% 351 90% BEHIND STORES 187 49 26% 64 34% 64 34% TOTAL PHASE 1 1,827 1,073 59% 1,410 77% 1,410 77% SO VILLAGE NORTH 105 51 49% 59 56% Proposed Supply 118' 103 87% SO VILLAGE SOUTH 148 102 69% 117 79% 134 91% TOTAL SO VILLAGE 253 153 60% 176 70% Proposed Supply 266 237 89% TOTAL SO OF EL CAMINO 2,080 1,226 59% 1,586 76% Proposed Supply 2,093 1,647 79% 36 37 ] TI .... 'i Oll[i![;,Ti[T[]liiii~ IIiiTl!TilT,[l~l& ~ ~ H 11, II .~' [ I illl II IJ', [III !q [ , I_I_1 38 Fl I.1:1! I! ~.. ~ 39 IV. CONCLUSION The proposed parking supply of 2,093 spaces would be sufficient to meet the project parking demands during all hours of the day. 'Each month of the year was checked to determine the peak season. The peak parking demand for the project will occur during December when the retail uses peak. Even during a Saturday of the peak month of the year, the peak hour parking demand utilizes only 78.5% of the proposed parking supply south of El Camino Real. The South Village will experience very high demands during the peak hours of the year. Dudng these hours, approximately 77 empty parking spaces would exist in the northern portion of the Toys R Us lot located immediately adjacent to the Ethan Allen store front door. Even considering the potential of Ikea parking demand to "overflow" its parking lot during peak Saturdays, the overall parking supply will still be adequate to meet the projected peak demand and the "excess" spaces in the center would be located in exactly the right location to help serve the Ethan Allen parking demand. 4O SHARED PARKING DEMAND FOR SELECTED LAND USES mmmmmmm mmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm! Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. source~, engaged Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. to un- dertake a stud)' of the shared parkin'g phenomenon. Thi~ ar- ticle summarizes the objectives, findings, and recommenda- tiona of the s~udy. A published report and a computer pro- gram will be available later this fall. Richard J. Hocking, vice president, Nell S. Kenig, vice president, and John R. YVroble, associate, were project coordinators for Barton- Aschman, which is headquartered in Evanston, Illinois. --Editor Shared parking is defined as parking space that can be used to serv6 two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. The shared parking phenomenon has long been ob- served in central business districts, suburban com- munities, and other areas where land uses are combined. It is the result of two conditions: · Variations in the peak accumulation of parked ve- hicles due to time differences in the activity pat- terns of adjacent or nearby land uses (by hour, by da)', by seaion). For example, a parking facility can · be used by office employees'during the day and serve patrons of an adjacent theater at night. · .Relationships among land use activities that result ~n people being attracted to two or more land uses 'on a single auto trip to a given area or develop- ment. While the existence of shared parking is recog- nized by developers and public officials, typical zon- ing codes do not explicitly provide for it. Instead, most zoning codes are expressed in terms of peak parking indices or ratios for major types of individu- al land uses. While the peak ratios reflect the differ- ences in parking demand generated by separate land uses and under certain conditions, the)' do not re- flect the fact that total or combined peak parking de- mand can be significantly less than the st,m of the individual peak demand values. Mixed-use developments, such as Water Tower Place in Chicago, highlight the need to plan for shared parking. Study Objective Even though the shared parking phenomenon commonly occurs in a number of specific cases, little literature is available that formally documents the circumstances of shared parking or provides guide- lines for quantifying the extent of shared parking. There is no accepted method for predicting and quantifying shared parking opportunities under a , wide range of possible conditions. Thus, research ob- jectives were to: · identify the primary independent variables affect- ing parking dernand in shared parking situations (i.e., tbr developments involving two or more land uses); · identify the relative effects anti universality of those variables; and · develop a standard method~logy for analyzing shared parking. 12 September 83/~1q~ Procedure Parking demand can be observed at existing mixed-use developments. If such pm. jects have their own parking facilities, it is possible to count the ac-. cumulation of parked vehicles and determine the peak parking demahd. The latter would represent an aggregate value for all of the land uses in the de- velopment. The i§sue for research, however, was how this aggregate value compared to the sum of the peak parking demand for the individual land uses. That is, in order to study shared parking, it was nec- essary to study, independently, the parking space de- mand characteristics of each component of a mixed- use development and to estimate the effects on de- mand due to the combination of these uses. Thus, the first step was to study the parking space demand generated by significant individual land uses in situations where unit peak parking demand would be at maximum levels. Typical freestanding subur- ban land uses produce rn'aximum unit parking de- mand primarily because sufficient parking space is available and transit use is insignificant. By first identifying parking demand at such "unconstrained" freestanding single !and uses, other effects such as transit use and captive market rela:ionships could be isolated. Analysis The results of the first step of the arialysis estab- lished parking space demand characteris[ics at six single land uses, defined in terrns of peak unit de- mand, hourly accumulation, and seasonal variation. Peak unit demands (see Figure I) were developed the basis of occupied land use units and negligible Figure 1 Representative Peak Parking Demand Factors Land Use Unit Weekday Saturday Office Retail (~ 400,000 sq.ft.) Retail () 600,000 sq.ft.) Rt~tiltlral~t Cinema Residemiai Hotel Guest Room Restau~nffLounge Conference Rooms Parking spaces per 1.000 .~t.I'L (;I.A 3.nn 0.50 Parking spaces per l.()()f) sq.ft. C;I.A 3.81) 4.00 Parking spaces per 1.00(~ sq.lL (;I.A 3.80 5.00 Parking spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. (;I.A 20.00 20.00 Parking spaces per seat 0.25 0.30 Parking sp:.'es per dwelling unit~ I.Og l.O0 Conventi.n Area Parking sp,wcs per 1.000 sq.ft. (;I.A'; one ;tutu mvn~l per ¢h, clli:~g unit .4L:sed by nongues~5: the given rat:'~:. IhUS. are :tppt.r bullnds :l;,tl ;ire x'erx rm'tqv Parking spa(es per room 1.25'-' 1.25'~ Parking spaces per l.I)O0 sq.fi. GLA I0 )0 10.00 Parking Sl)aces per sem:~ 0.50 0.50 3(?.1}1~ 30.0(~ ,5 n,Ti ..IJlV~Wj...~.~ ~ .'.%epten~ber 83 ] 3 :.Figure 2 Shared parking may occur in subhrba- developments if walking distances are not far and ]~nd uses are functionally related. transit use, thus representing the maximum parking accumulation occurring on a given day. Hourly ac- cumulation curves (developed from hburly counts at freestanding developments) for each individual land use (see Figure 2) indicate the variation in parking accumulation throughout a given day. Seasonal vari- ation in parking demand at each land use (see Figure 3) was developed from management data supplied by developers and in-house historical data. The peak parking demands calculated from th~ parking de- mand factors in Figure 1 correspond to 100 percent of peak parking accumulation for each land use indi- cated on the houri)' curves in Figure 2 and the monthly data in Figure 3. By combining the results for single land uses wk survey data.for mixed-use developments, it was pos- sible to document the effects of shared parking, on total parking space requirements. This wai shown in terms of the reduced number of parking spaces needed to serve peak activity periods. · The survey data also disclbsed the potential for multiple "levels of reduction" in parking space based on the different impacts of time and inter-land use Rooms Month Of-rice Retail Restaurant Cinema Regidential Weekday Saturday Conference Convention' Representative Monthly Variations as Percent' 6£ Peak Month.'- · ')i}.!7' .... la " ' :.i'. " ". ' ,;i:~::.'..,.:.:. · ~ '. Hotel __otel .... ~...:. . '.'~:~:'. ?,:;....:: :.'::;. '. ':. '. :...- Rooms · ' ~: Hotel, .'v. -'%it6t'el ".. Janu.ary Febr~a~' March April May June July August Scptemher October November December · ... 100% 65% 80% 90% 100% 90% 65% 100% 20.,% 100 65 75 70 100 90 70 }00 40 I00 70 90 50 100 95 80 100 80 100 70 90 70 100 95 85 100 80 100 70 95 70 100 95 85 I00 100 100 75 100 100' 100 100 90 100 100 100 75 100 100 100 109 100 100 50 100 75 85 70 .100 100 100 100 ''50 100 75 80 80 100 95 90 100 70. 100 75 80 70 100 95 90 100 70 100 80 80 50 100 85 80 100 · 40 100 100 90 50 100 85 65 100 - 20.. 14 September 83/~ffi~ ~ffllq'j23 relationships. Depending on the particular land uses involved and other site-specific characteristics, park- ing space reductions resulted from one or more of the effects of (1) hourly, daily, and seasonal offsets in parking accumulation patterns of individual land uses and (2) relationships among land use activities that resulted in people using more than one l::ind use on a single auto trip, i.e., captive market effects. The captive market effect on parking demand at a partic- ular mixed-use development was dependent upon specific market conditions. The range of possible market conditions was reflected in the data obtained from survey questionnaires. Aggregate results of em- ployee surveys indicated that the percentage of all employees who were also patrons at a particular de- velopment ranged from 0 to 85 percent. However, on the average, there was a significant increase in employee patrons in central business district (CBD) developments relative to non-CBD developments and in combined-use developments relative to single- use developments. These results are summarized in Figure 4. Using the single-use analysis results, Figure 5, for example, illustrates the impact of time offsets in parking demand when 400,000 square feet (GLA oc- cupied) of office space and 1.2 million square feet (GLA occupied) of retail space are combined. On weekdays, retail parking demand is lower than Satur- day, but competes with office parking demand. The opportunity for shared parking results from having to provide the peak weekend retail parking demand for the development as a whole and when the office parking demand is at its lowest. In order to demonsu-ate the potential magnitude of shared parking effects, the parking demand find- ings for individual land uses were used to estimate demand for mixed-use developments. These results were compared to the actual peak parking accumula- tion counts to identify the difference. This test in- volved three steps as follows: * Compute gross peak parking demand. · Compute shared parking demand. · Compare results to actual phrking demand. /September 83 15 Figure 6 summarizes the results of the test. An im- portant qualification to the results is that the ob- served parking count (Column 4) does not necess,?, rily represent a "design value" for the devel- opment. It is not known if each project was operat- ing at maximum levels of trip generation or if business volumes were significantly lower for the project due to the slow economy or other factors. Specifically, it is known that those projects exhibiting an unusually low actual acci~mulation were being af- fected by site factors. Projects 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17 were experiencing lower occupancy at hotel compo- nents. This is significant since the values in Column 3 were computed assuming 100 percent occupancy. Further, some projects were surveyed assuming that all parking demand was being served by on-site facil- ities. Projects 13 and 15, however, may reflect a dif- ferent situation, since there is a substantial amount of "other" parking space available. For Project 13, it is known that such pa?king is used significantly by employees. Findings With the above qualifications in mind, Figure 6 in- dicates: The parking demand estimated by adding the indi- vidual peaks produced results that were-consis- tently high. Estimating shared parking demand using time dif- ferentials will, if properly constructed, be more re- liable than estimating gross parking demand. Figure 6 Results of Test Cases When conservative values are used for peak park- ing and hourly factors, estimated shared parking demand will be higher than actual parking ac- cumulation. In addition, there often times are .other relationships, such as captive market effects, which lower aggregate parking demand. Mixed-Use. Project Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 Percent of Percent Estimated Estimated. Overestimation ~wlngs Single-Use Typical Shared Observed Shared~ Gross Gross Zoning Parking Actual Gross P~rking Peak Peak Code~ Peak Pe~k Peak -Peak. to Accumulation Requirement AccumuLation Accumulation to to 'Shared (spaces) (spaces) (spaces) (spaces) Actual Actual Peak 1. Office/Retail 5,749 5.858 5.229 5,570 3% -6% 2. Office/Retail 2,936 3,744 2,788 2.352 25 19 6 3. OfficefRetail 772 900 617 633 22 - 3 25 4. Office/Retail 2,814 3,048 2,291 2,592 9 .-- 12 21 5. Office~.. etail 162 196 154 154 5 0 . 5 6. Office/Entertainment 1,458 1~879 1,326 t,163 25 14 · 11 7. Office/Entertainment 812 1,016 714 464 '75 54 21 8. OfficefEntertainment 1,724 2,112 1,501 614 181 .~144 ..' 37 9. Office/Hotel 1,145 1,399 1,006 882 30 :. 14 . .' 16 10. OfficefHotel/ Emertainment 1,627 1,933 1,323 725 124. 82 42 1 !. OfficefHotel/ Entertainment 1.236 1,452 990 52h 135 89 46 12. Office/Hotel/ Entertainment 784 862 (559 809 - 3 - 19 13. Office/Retail/Hotel/ Entertainment 8,316 9,61 fl 4.242 2,287 264 85 ! 7 14. Office~rRetail/ Entertainment 869 1,094 754 600 45 26 19 15. Office/Retail/ Entertainment 5,099 5,157 3,755 2,869 78 31 47 16. Office/Hotel/ Entertainment 2,588 3.188 2.183 1,498 73 46 27 17. Office/Hotel 1,125 1.346 743 594 89 25 ('~ OSFor this calculation, fl~e following code standards were used: Office = 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GLA; retail = 4.0 or 5.0 spaces per 1,000 feet of Gt.A (function of size); restaurant = 20.0 spaces per 1.000 square feet of GL.A: residential = 1.0 spaces pc:' dwelling unit; hotel = 1.0 spaces per room, with conference rooms at 0.5 spaces per seat. ~)Using results from Column 3. 16 September 83/~[~d.-~~ Recommended Shared Parking Method Based upon survey lh'~dings, a methochflogy was developed to determine parking demand under. mixed-use development conditions. This methodof ogy is universal in its application and flexible enough to incorporate a~justment factors as necessary u~ sui~ specifi~ policies, programs, and market conditions. It involves four basic steps that may be applied, with appropriate backgroun~ inlbrmation, to an existing or proposed project. Figure 7 illustrates the m'gani- zation and flow of work. The fi)ur basic steps are: Step 1: Initial Prq~ect R~fiew~inxqfives the sizing and functional relationship of prqiect land uses based upon market research, site constraints, etc. Step 2: Peak Parking b)tctor A~ju.~tmrnl, v~i]~vulves the selection of appropriate peak parking accumulation factors ti)r each land use, and fl~e a4justment of each factor to retlect site-specific Iht:tots such as ~ransit use and captive markets. Step 3: l bmr(~, Accumulation Annlv.~is~involves ~he hourly, daily, and seasonal estim'ation of parking ac- cumulation for each com])onenl land use. Step 4: Shared Pm'kin.ff Estimatiu,~in~olves houri),, daily, and seasonal es~imalion cumulation t~r the entire prqjt'tt. The method can use factors and relatinnshil)s de- veloped by this research or input from other anal? ses. 'l'he latter could im:ludc data ~o m~tlifv unit parking thctors t)r other characteristics and market :maNses. 'l'i~e method is designc~l but i't can 1~ used in an i~erati~c l'ashiol~ t~ ~cst the impacl ~)t' alternalive development. tions, or policies. al Figure 7 Shared Parking Method Implementing Shared Parking A nm~ber of factors must be considered in order to insure efficient design, operation, and manage- ment of shared parking facilities. 'I'h~ r~s~arch also examined these factors in de~ail and identified guidelines t3r implementing shared parking as · Each parking space should be usable by all parkers, i.e., no restrictions. · 'I'h~ fadlity will have significant inbound and out- bound traffic flow at one or more periods of the day. Therei~>re, the design of the access and culation system must accommodate bi-directional movement withou~ significam conflict. Also, th~ circulation concept should be easy to use and un- derstand in order to minimize confusion and inef- ficient driving maneuvers. · The facility would tend to operate 24 hnu~, seven days per week. Thus, saf~ day and night operation would be a significant characteristic. · Because of the multiple land uses that would be served, involving a variety of types of parkers business, daily versus infrequent, shoppers, visi- tors, recreational, etc.), the facility will be more sensitive to effective signing, markings, and other communication systems. · Thought needs to be give~ to enforcement of parking for on-site visits, since the f~cility will be more sensitive to encroachment (i.e.. less typically vacant space). A strategy fin' the use of the f~c'ilitv needs to be de- veloped in order to guide parkers to the most timum space. The strategy would consider: a. Achieving maximum separation of those parkers who tend to compete for space, i.e., ~ing present at the same time (e.g.. shoppers and cinema patrons attending matinees). b. Achieving minimum walking distance to those land uses having captive market relationships. c. Achieving minimum separation of those parkers not competing for space. The data collected in the survey was stffficienth: consistent to indicate that a quantit:~tive basis for estimating shared parking demand al,es exist. Sinc'c ~hc sh;u'c~l parking mclht)dology estimates i~)tenti:fl parking requirements for speciiic mixed- use or multiuse devchq~ments, il c:a~l I)c used as evidence tbr a zoning procedure and as a develop- mcnt design ~ool. Usc in ztming pr~wc(hu'es is sig- USed in III()S[ IIFJ);lll ;II'~;IS. 111 111;1117 C;Ig~S, IbC shm'cd parkinff analysi~ will iudic:dc lower /September 83 17 APPENDIX B PARKING OCCUPANCY COUNT RESULTS APPENDIX TABLE lA 'TIN MARKET PLACE - PARKING UTILIZAT' IiVEDNESDA Y, OCTOBER 8, 1997 INVENTORY 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM i 4:00 pM 5:~0 PM 6:00 PM ' MAP FIELD OCC. 1¥oOCC OCC. %OCC OCC. %oOCC' OCC. 1%0OCCI OCC. %OCC OCC:i%OCC OCC. I%OCC ' 31 33 171 52% 16 48% 17 52% 201 61% 20 610/o 16J 48% 20! 61% ~ 42 42 19 45% 16 38% 22 52% 18 43% 18 43% 15 3655 15136% C 83 83 34 41% 30' 36% 33 40% 22 27% 23 ~8% 20 24% 26 31% D 80 80 29 36%: 35 44% 20 25% 25 31% 24 30% 25 31%32 40% E 72 72 31 43% 30 42% 26[ 36% 21 29% 19 26% ~! 26% 27J 38% IF 72 721 19 26% 21 290/0 201 280/0 17 24% 19 2655· , 15°/o 171 24=/o IG 74 741 16 24% 18 24°/, 191 26°,/0 12 16% 17l 23% 11 15%, 12! ~6°,~ iH 81 811 15 19% 18 22% 13! 16%: 8 10% 41 5% 7 9% 6! 7% 83! 19 23% 16 19°,/o 18% 17 20% 15 18% 10 12% 13i 16% 32 N 811 811 15 '19% 22 27% 18 22% 13 16% 15 19% 13 16% 151 !9% O 711 711 13 18% 12 17% 14 20% 15 21% 13 18% 13 18% 14! 20% P 501 50J 7 14"/o 11 22% 5 10% 5 10% 7 14% 5 10% 41 8% Q I 301 30 3 10% 4 13%I 9 30% 7 23% 8 27% 321 7% 275 23% R 53l 53 33I 62% 37 70% 35 66% 38 72% 37 70% 58% 47% iS 541 54 24 44% 24 44% 27 5055 24 44% 23 43%I 221 41% 171 31% I iX I 791 82~=. 48% 39 48% 32 39% 31 38%. 24l 29% 21 26%1 26~ 32%1 j_Y i 30 30 271 90% 16 53% 9 30% 6 20%! 9 30% 5 17% 51 17% ' 30. 30 20 167% 9 30% ' 5, 17°/0 5117% 413%o 517% 8127% -A. 23 23 15 65%1 17 74% 12; 52% 11 48%J 13 57°/. 9 39% 13l 57% .B 22 22 1916 86% 22 100% 12, 55%: 8 36% 4 1855 4 18% 12 55% CC 20. 20 80% 10 50% 5J 25%1 3 15% 4 20% 2 10% 4 20% DD ! 16J 16 11J 69% 6 38°/5 3 19% 1 6"/0 41 25°/0 2 13% 6 38% EE ! 16J 16 16 100%' 8 5055 7 44% 4! 25%J 4 25%' 4 25°/5 15 94% FF ~ 8J 8J8 100% 7 8855 2. 25% O! 0% l J 1355 0 0°/5 21 25% GG I 131 13l 8 62% 8; 6255 5" 38% 51 38% 6 46% 6 46% 91 69% HH 56 54l 36 67% 37 69% 35'. 65% 211 39% 21 3955 21 39% 36! 67% II 92 911 24 26% 25 27%1 27' 30%j 19 21% 21 23%; 18 20%~ 27{ 30%; JJ 10 101 I 10% 80% 0 0%' 2 20% 2 20% 2 20% 5! 505; KK 60 491 12 24% 16% 13 27% 12 24% 81 16%t 5 10% 11 2% NN 25 25 5 20% 3 12%31 12% 2 8% 3! 12% 3 12% 21 I TotalI 2,048,2,0371 724] 36% 701I 340/01 637 31% 570 28% 534126% 481J 24%1 5861 29% APPENDIX TABLE lB TIN MARKET PLACE - PARKING UTILIZA'f SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1997 MAP IFIELD OtC. %OCC OCC. '%OCCI OCC. %OCC OCC. %OCCI OCC. %OCC OCt. I%OCC OCC. I~,'' !A i 3:1i 33 21 64% 23 70%1 31 94% 33 100% 30 91% 25 76% 23i B j 42t 42 10 24% 16 38% 23 55% 24 57% 25 60% 21 50% 19j 45~,.~'.. lC 83 83 23 28% 39 47% 54 65% 58 70% 39 47% 40 48% 35 42% D 80 80 40 50% 49 61% 59 74% 66 83% 51 64% 50 63% 49 61% E 72 72 41 57% 54 75%, 59 82% 60 83% 56 78% 50 69% 46 64% F ~ 7~J 72 47 65% 56, 78%J 56 78% 66 92% 60 83%, 56 78% 46j 64~ G~ 74~ 74 37 50% 54, 73% ~, 51 69% 56 76% 56 76% 45 61% 421 57%i H I 81[ 81 36 44% 35 43%~ 49 60% 57 70% 6~ 75% 43 53% 35[ 47% 88~831 27I 33% 32 39% 32 39% 40 48% 38 46% 30 36% 22~ 27% IJ . 82 14 17% 13 16% 16 20% 23] 28% 23 28% 18 22% 17j 21% K 80~ 80 17 21% 22 28% 14 18% 26~ 33% 18 23% 15 19% 9j 11% IL 831 83, 29 35% 29 35% 27 33% 34 41% 25 30% 32 39% 29J 35% M ~ 83 82 35 43% 39 48% 35 ' 43% 40' 49% 33 40% 36 44% 28~ 34 'N ~ 81i 81 26 32% 39 48% 27 33% 31 38% 36 44% 23 28% 15J 19%. O J 71 71 23 32% 24 34%~ 25 35% 29 41% 32~ 45% 24~ 34% 161 23% P ~ 50 50 14 28% 15 30%~ ~5J 30%l "17 34% 22~ 44% 11 22% 8~ ~6%~ Q -i 30 30 12 40% 8 27%I 101 33%I 7 23% 111 37% 5 17% 2 R 53 53 46 87% 52 98% 521 98%I 50 94%~ 41, 77% 33 62% 331 62% S 54J 54 41 76% 46~ 85% 46 85% ~ 36 67%J 41 76% 33, 61% 27i 50% T 52 52 39 75% 45 87% 411 79%~ 43~ 83% 44 85% 23 44% 2~ 50% U 55 55 50 91% 53 96% 55 100%~ 49 89% 50 91% 35 65% 31[ 56% V ~ 55 55 43 78% 54 98% 52 95%~ 46 84% 44 80% 35 64% 36 65%; W 40 40 33 83% 37 93%1 35 88% 38 95% 36 90% 28 70% 28 70% X 79~ 82 56 68% 67J 82% 56 68% 63 77% 65 79% 51= 62%' 47~ 575~ aY i 30~ 30 17 57% ~7 57% 15 50% 5 17% 6 20% 9 30% 8t ..... · ~Z 30 30 14 47% 11 37% 11 37% 7 23% 8 27% 10 33% 12; 23 23 ~2 fi2% ~2 52%~ ~ ~ 48 ~o ~2 52% 8 35% ~0 43% ~; ' 22 22 ~ 8~% 20 ~% ~5~ ~8 82% ~3 fi~% ~ 4~% 7~ ~2% CC 20 20 14 70% 17 85% 12J 60% 10 50% 9 45% 5 25% 51 25% DD lei 16 14 88% 151 94% 14 88% 141 88% 6 38% 4 25% 4~ 25% EE ] 161 16 14 88% 14~ 88%~ 131 81% 14~ 88% 8 50% 7 44% 8[ 50% IFF I 81 8 6 75% 7[ 88%1 6 75% 7 88% 2i 25% 3 38% 4i 50% HH ~ 56i ~ 39 72% 65%~ 35 65% 33 61%' 26 48% 38 70% 43~ 80% ~10 22 34~ 37%, 42 37 II ~ 92 24% 30~ 33% 46% 39 43%1 41% 361 40% JJ 10 6 60% 7 7O% 69 60%1 9 9O% 9 9O% 8 8O% 9~ 90% KK 60 49~ 25 51% 13 27%l 1 39% 2 4% 0 0% 0 0% Oi 0% 9i 9] 6i 67% 51 56%' 9 100%8[ 89% 8 89% 7 78% 4~ 44% OO 23 23~ 0 0% 0% 0~ 0% 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0{ 0% PP i 12 12, 325% 3[ 25% 3~ 25% 3[ 25%[ 433% 3 25%l 2' 17% Total 2.048 2.037~ 987i. 48% 1,122 55%! 1.'139 56%~ 1.188 58%! 1,095 54% 923 45%~ 835i I6 -I III! ;I I I [