Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2024-07-10 - Supplementals
N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Spruce & Red Oak Parking Study & Parking Management Plan 03-19-2024 - Copy.docx March 19, 2024 Gerald Hammer Rancho Red Oak, LLC 1111 Bayside Drive, Suite 222 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 (m) 919.293.7042 (e) gerald@westernspire.com LLG Reference: 2.23.4662.1 Subject: Parking Study and Parking Management Plan Spruce & Red Oaks Mixed Use Development Rancho Cucamonga, California Dear Mr. Hammer: As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Parking Study and Parking Management Plan for the Spruce & Red Oaks Mixed Use Development (hereinafter referred to as Project). The Spruce & Red Oaks Mixed Use Development includes the development of a multi-family residential building with 176 apartment units with 9,270 square-feet (SF) of retail/commercial space. The Project site is generally located north of Foothill Boulevard and west of Etiwanda Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. A parking study has been prepared to evaluate Project’s parking demand and adequacy of proposed parking supply for the retail/commercial portion of the proposal as well as the residential component in comparison to the City requirements as outlined in City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code – Chapter 17.64, Parking and Loading Standards, Section 17.64.050, Number of Parking Spaces Required. The result of this study and analysis, in conjunction with prior work experience on similar projects, and our understanding of the City of Rancho Cucamonga parking requirements, has resulted in the preparation of the attached Parking Study and Parking Management Plan (PMP). The PMP is required to ensure more than adequate parking for all Project residents, tenants, employees and guests, and eliminate any parking intrusion on the adjacent properties. This PMP, which was prepared in consideration of the City requirements outlined in City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code – Chapter 17.64, Parking and Loading Standards, Section 17.64.060, Reduction in Parking Requirements, inclusive of Section B(2) – Mixed use parking, is intended to be used to ensure that the Project’s parking supply will be sufficient to accommodate the actual parking demand for both Project’s retail/commercial uses as well as the residential component. Gerald Hammer March 19, 2024 Page 2 N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Spruce & Red Oak Parking Study & Parking Management Plan 03-19-2024 - Copy.docx We appreciate the opportunity to provide this analysis for Rancho Red Oak, LLC. Should you have any questions, please call us at 949.825.6175. Respectively submitted, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Richard E. Barretto, P.E. Principal Attachments cc: Shane Green, P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer Gerald Hammer March 19, 2024 Page 3 N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Spruce & Red Oak Parking Study & Parking Management Plan 03-19-2024 - Copy.docx EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed parking supply for the residential component of Spruce & Red Oaks Mixed Use Development satisfies the City’s code requirement and should be expected to exceed the actual parking needs. The results of the shared parking analysis demonstrate that the retail/commercial and residential guest component would have more than adequate parking and not impact adjacent properties. To maintain the onsite parking supply at all times, it is recommended that the attached Parking Management Plan (PMP) as requested by Rancho Red Oak, LLC, be implemented and enforced, to ensure that accessible and convenient parking is available for all users at all times. In summary, the proposed Project provides more than adequate parking to accommodate the needs of both the commercial users and residential users. The proposed PMP measures would help ensure these adequacies for all. PARKING GOALS 1. Meet or exceed City minimum requirements for total parking spaces. 2. Provide all resident and guest parking spaces onsite. 3. Provide flexible onsite parking opportunities for mixed commercial and resident parking that respect both commercial tenants and guest parking needs. 4. Enact policies that promote parking efficiencies and effective communication between Property Management, commercial tenants and project residents. 5. Enact policies of enforcement that are sufficiently flexible to meet current and changing parking demands. Gerald Hammer March 19, 2024 Page 4 N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Spruce & Red Oak Parking Study & Parking Management Plan 03-19-2024 - Copy.docx PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND MULTIMODAL SETTING The Spruce & Red Oaks Mixed Use Development is a proposed mixed-use residential apartment project to be located north of Red Oaks Street and west of Spruce Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. The subject property is a square- shaped vacant parcel of land that is approximately 79,482 square-feet (SF) or 1.8± acres. Figure 1 is a Vicinity Map that illustrates the general location of the Project and surrounding street system. Figure 2 is an existing aerial photograph of the Project site. According to the Project Site Plan, prepared by AO, the proposed Project includes the development of a seven-story building totaling 428,678 square-feet of gross building area (SF of GBA) consisting of 261,612 SF of floor area for up to 176 apartment units, “wrapped” around a seven-level parking structure with a total 167,066 SF parking. The Project’s unit mix will consist of 30 studio units, 87 one-bedroom units, of which two (2) units are one-bedroom Live/Work units, and 59 two-bedroom units, with 9,270 square-feet (SF) of retail/commercial space consisting of 5,910 SF of ground floor retail space, 1,400 SF of Live/Work retail/commercial space on Level 2, and 1,960 SF of ground floor co-work/commercial space. On-site facilities/amenities for residents of the Project, includes leasing office, lobby/mailroom, flex area, courtyard, a paseo, dog wash, and a roof top fitness center, lounge, and pool area. The Project is proposing to provide 339 spaces within the Project’s seven-level parking structure. Of the proposed 339 spaces, up to 288 spaces are identified for resident parking, while the remaining 51 spaces, at a minimum, are proposed to be allocated for resident guest and retail/commercial parking needs. In addition, a total of 19 bicycle spaces will also be provided. The 288-parking space supply for the residential component translates to a parking ratio of 1.64 spaces per unit (288 spaces ÷ 176 units = 1.64 space/unit) . Table 1, attached to this letter, provides a summary of the Project development, inclusive of the Project’s proposed parking supply based on information provided by AO. Figure 3 presents the proposed site plan, prepared by AO, dated March 2024. Project’s Pedestrian Connections Pedestrian circulation would be provided via existing public sidewalks along Spruce Avenue and Red Oaks Street which will connect to the project site. The project will maintain the existing sidewalk along the project frontage, and if necessary, repair or reconstruct sidewalks as required by City. The existing sidewalk system within the project vicinity provides direct connectivity to the existing retail/commercial development located within the immediate area. Gerald Hammer March 19, 2024 Page 5 N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Spruce & Red Oak Parking Study & Parking Management Plan 03-19-2024 - Copy.docx Project’s Proximity to Public Transit Public transit bus service is provided in the Project area by Omnitrans, a public transportation agency in San Bernardino County. Figure 4 presents the OmniTrans transit system map. Review of Figure 4 indicates that two (2) bus routes operate within the vicinity of the Project site: Omnitrans Route 66 (Fontana to Montclair): Route 66 is a local bus route serving the Cities of Montclair, Claremont, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, and Fontana. The major route of travel for this route is Foothill Boulevard. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on the northeast and southwest corners of Spruce Avenue at Foothill Boulevard. Route 66 operates on approximate 20-minute headways during peak hours and approximate 30-minute headways during off- peak hours during weekdays. During weekends Route 66 operates on approximate 30-minute headways on Saturdays and approximate 50-minute headways on Sundays. Omnitrans Route 85 (Chino to Rancho Cucamonga): Route 85 is a local bus route serving the Cities of Chino, Montclair, Claremont, Upland, and Rancho Cucamonga. The major routes of travel for this route include Central Avenue, Monte Vista Avenue, Arrow Route, and Milliken Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops on the northeast and southeast corners of Red Oak Street at Aspen Avenue. Route 85 operates on approximate 60-minute headways during weekdays and weekends. Figure 5 identifies the locations of the existing bus stops in proximity to the Project site. Project’s Proximity to Bicycle Facilities The City of Rancho Cucamonga promotes bicycling as a means of mobility and a way in which to improve the quality of life within its community. The Bikeway Master Plan recognizes the needs of bicycle users and aims to create a complete and safe bicycle network throughout the City. Figure 6 presents City of Rancho Cucamonga Bicycle Facilities. Review of Figure 6 indicates that within the vicinity of the proposed Project, Class II bike lanes exist along all nearby major roadways including Foothill Boulevard, Milliken Avenue, Haven Avenue, and Arrow Route. Gerald Hammer March 19, 2024 Page 6 N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Spruce & Red Oak Parking Study & Parking Management Plan 03-19-2024 - Copy.docx PARKING REQUIREMENTS Parking Requirements per City Code Requirements To determine the number of parking spaces required to support the proposed Project, the parking demand was first calculated using parking code requirements per the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code – Chapter 17.64, Parking and Loading Standards, Section 17.64.050, Number of Parking Spaces Required. The following parking ratios were used to determine the required parking: Studio Multi-Family Units = 1.3 parking spaces per unit One-Bedroom Multi-Family Units = 1.50 parking spaces per unit. Two-Bedroom Multi-Family Units = 2.00 parking spaces per unit. Guest Spaces = 1.00 parking space per 5 units (> 50 units). Retail Stores = 4.00 parking spaces per 1,000 SF. Table 2 presents the code parking requirement for the Project. Review of the upper half of Table 2 identifies that the Project’s residential component would require 288 spaces. With a proposed parking supply of up to 288 parking spaces, the Project is projected to have a balanced condition (See Row C) and satisfies the City’s parking requirements. Review of Row D shows that this equates to a composite parking ratio of 1.64 for the residential component. Review of the lower half of Table 2 identifies that the Project’s retail/commercial component and resident guest requirement would have a combined parking requirement of 72 spaces. With a proposed parking “shared” supply of 51 spaces, the Project is projected to have a theoretical deficiency of 21 spaces when compared to City code requirements. However, recognizing that the retail/commercial, inclusive of that associated with the two (2) Live/Work units, and residential guest component of the Project are expected to share spaces and would have peaks that occur at different times of the day a shared parking assessment has been considered. The shared parking approach would be a part of the Project’s PMP to ensure adequate parking is maintained for all users of the Project, consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code – Chapter 17.64, Parking and Loading Standards, Section 17.64.060, Reduction in Parking Requirements. Shared Parking Analysis To validate the adequacy of the proposed retail/commercial parking supply in combination with the residential guest component a shared parking analysis has been prepared based on the utilization profile of each included land use component. The Gerald Hammer March 19, 2024 Page 7 N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Spruce & Red Oak Parking Study & Parking Management Plan 03-19-2024 - Copy.docx following section calculates the parking requirements for Project based on the shared parking methodology outlined in Urban Land Institute’s (ULI’s) Shared Parking 3rd Edition publication. The specific tenancy mix of the Project provides an opportunity to share parking spaces based on the utilization profile of each included land use component. The parking ratios identified above have been used directly for incorporation into a shared parking analysis consistent with the methodology outlined in the ULI Shared Parking, 3rd Edition publication. Based on the results of this shared parking assessment, the adequacy of the Project’s retail/commercial and resident guest parking supply of 51 spaces can be determined. Key inputs in the shared parking analysis for each land use include: Peak parking demand by land use for visitors and employees. Adjustments for alternative modes of transportation, if applicable. Adjustment for internal capture (captive versus non-captive parking demand), if applicable. Hourly variations of parking demand. Weekday versus weekend adjustment factors Monthly adjustment factors to account for variations of parking demand over the year. Applicable parking ratios per Chapter 17.64, Parking and Loading Standards, Section 17.64.050, Number of Parking Spaces Required in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code For this analysis, a conservative 10% parking adjustment to account for (1) “walk- in/internal capture” trips attributable to synergy between uses within the Project and adjacent commercial uses, and (2) alternative modes of travel (i.e. carpool, vanpool, transit, bicycle, pedestrian) were utilized to provide a conservative parking demand forecast for the proposed Project retail space, whereas a conservative 15% adjustment was applied to the Project’s commercial/co-work space to account for potential resident use of the co-work space. These adjustments are representative of the interaction between the Project’ retail/commercial co-work space and the residential component and as well as the existing uses in the vicinity of the Project site. In addition, to provide a conservative analysis and provide flexibility of potential uses for the 1,400 SF of retail/commercial space associated with the two (2) Live/Work units, it has been assumed that this space would be occupied by retail uses that would operate seven days a week, unlike office/commercial uses that are typically closed on weekends. Gerald Hammer March 19, 2024 Page 8 N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Spruce & Red Oak Parking Study & Parking Management Plan 03-19-2024 - Copy.docx Tables 3 and 4 present the overall weekday and weekend parking demand profiles for the retail/commercial and residential guest components of the Project based on the shared parking methodology. Columns (1) through (5) of these tables present the parking accumulation characteristics and parking demand of the proposed retail/commercial uses and the resident guest parking needs for the hours of 6:00 AM to midnight. Columns (6) through (7) presents the expected joint-use parking demand for the Project on an hourly basis and further presents the hourly parking surplus/deficiency for the proposed Project compared to the retail/commercial shared parking supply of 51 spaces. Both tables highlight the forecast peak parking demand for the retail/commercial center component of the Project during the morning peak hour (shown in ), afternoon peak period (shown in ) and evening peak hour (shown in ). Based on our experience, the shared parking approach summarized in Tables 3 and 4 are believed to be conservative and the most appropriate in evaluating the parking supply- demand relationships for Project. The results in these tables are the focus of this parking investigation and recommendations. Shared Parking Results Review of Tables 3 and 4 indicates that the future full occupancy weekday peak retail/commercial and residential guest parking demands will occur at 7:00 PM with peak demands of 48 spaces, with morning and mid-day peak demands totaling 25 spaces and 32 spaces at 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM, respectively. Based on the proposed retail/commercial and residential guest parking supply of 51 spaces, the peak demand hours on a weekday will result in a surplus of 3 spaces. On a weekend the peak parking demand will occur at 7:00 PM as well with a peak demand of 48 spaces also resulting in a surplus of 3 spaces. It is noted that the weekend morning and mid-day peak demands total 25 spaces and 32 spaces and occur at 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM, respectively. Appendix A contains the detailed weekday and weekend shared parking worksheets. Figures 7 and 8 graphically illustrate the weekday and weekend hourly parking demand forecast for the shared parking component, respectively. Each of the anticipated land use component/tenant mix and its corresponding hourly Shared Parking demand for various mixes of uses, which were presented in Tables 3 and 4, are depicted in these two figures relative to a proposed parking supply of 51 spaces. A review of these figures indicates that the Project’s parking supply for the retail/commercial and resident guest of 51 spaces will adequately accommodate the weekday and weekend hourly shared parking demand. Further yet, any parking demand associated with prospective resident tenants can be accommodated within the Project’s proposed parking supply. Gerald Hammer March 19, 2024 Page 9 N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Spruce & Red Oak Parking Study & Parking Management Plan 03-19-2024 - Copy.docx Residential Parking Ratio Comparison Although the combination of City code and shared parking results in a balanced condition for the proposed mix of uses additional surplus are anticipated. The actual residential parking requirements are expected to be somewhat less than the provided ratio of 1.64 as noted in Row D of Table 2. LLG’s previous field studies of actual parking demand at existing sites similar to the Project, in addition to parking demand/empirical ratio compilations from other sources shows multifamily parking ratios below the City code requirement. Table 5 presents a comparison of site development and parking ratios from various sources. The upper portion of Table 5 presents twelve (12) comparable sites in Fullerton, Orange, Santa Ana, Irvine, Costa Mesa, Monrovia, Laguna Niguel, and Pasadena. Additional details for the comparable sites are also provided inclusive of the location, development summary, parking facility type, parking supply, and presence of ground floor retail. Review of the rightmost column of Table 5 presents the tenant and guest peak parking ratio (spaces per DU) for each of the twelve comparable sites. This array of peak parking rates yields an average ratio of 1.35 spaces per unit, an 85th percentile ratio of 1.48 spaces per unit, and a 95th percentile ratio of 1.61 spaces per unit. Given the above, LLG concludes that the parking ratios derived from the twelve comparable sites are accurate representations for the unique parking characteristics of the proposed Project that are not reflected in the City Code ratio. Parking Generation (5th Edition) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and Shared Parking published by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), as well as other reference materials for the cities of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County, provide peak parking ratios for apartment complexes, as summarized in the lower portion of Table 5. These parking ratios range from 1.21 spaces per unit (average ratio per ITE) to 1.66 spaces per unit (field studies in Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga). Project Residential Parking Supply versus Demand The bottom portion of Table 5 estimates the project’s parking needs based on the application of the average, 85th percentile, and 95th percentile parking rates from comparable sites. For the 176 units as now proposed, it is estimated that the average demand would be 238 spaces, the 85th percentile demand would be 260 spaces, and the 95th percentile demand would be 283 spaces. Comparing the 95 th percentile demand of 283 spaces against the proposed supply of 288 spaces yields a surplus of 5 spaces. Given these results, we conclude that the proposed residential parking supply of 288 spaces is more than adequate and will satisfy the Project’s residential parking Gerald Hammer March 19, 2024 Page 10 N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Spruce & Red Oak Parking Study & Parking Management Plan 03-19-2024 - Copy.docx demands, and further would likely result greater surpluses as the parking ratios developed in Table 5 are inclusive of resident guest parking requirements, whereas the composite parking ratio of 1.64 for the Project’s residential component does not (288 spaces ÷ 176 units = 1.64 space/unit) . PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) The Parking Management Plan should incorporate the applicable requirements published in Section B(2) – Mixed use parking of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code – Chapter 17.64, Parking and Loading Standards, Section 17.64.060, Reduction in Parking Requirements. PMP Measures To ensure adequate and convenient parking is provided for both tenants, employees and guests of the Project, as well as future tenants and to eliminate any and all parking intrusion on the adjacent properties, the following Parking Management Plan has been developed by LLG at the request of the Property Owner and will be implemented by the Project. Figure 9 and Figure 10 present the recommended parking allocation based on the strategies summarized below. The PMP should identify where the retail/commercial employees park within the site. The PMP should identify the location of short-term parking spaces, if any, for retail/retail service uses. The PMP should restrict residents to park in their designated garage spaces and provide parking to accommodate resident guest parking needs. The PMP should restrict vehicles from exceeding the time restriction on the short- term parking and/or on-street parking spaces. The PMP should provide rules of conduct for tenants and guest to abide by. Strict enforcement shall be adhered to. Retail/Commercial Component 1. The Property Owner/Property Management Company will implement a reciprocal parking program to ensure the pool of parking for the commercial component and guest of the residential component is available to be “shared”. The pool of parking spaces to be allocated for resident guest and retail/commercial use is proposed to be provided on Level 1 (45 spaces) and a portion of Level 2 (6 spaces) of the apartment parking structure, as illustrated on Figure 9 and Figure 10. Gerald Hammer March 19, 2024 Page 11 N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Spruce & Red Oak Parking Study & Parking Management Plan 03-19-2024 - Copy.docx 2. The Property Owner/Property Management Company will work with tenants of retail/commercial component to implement an employee parking program, with the goal of providing a convenient and accessible shopping experience for customers and to leave the most desirable parking spaces close to the entrances. The number and location of designated employee parking spaces will be developed in collaboration with the retail tenants. The employee parking spaces will be identified with a white or yellow circle, and/or signage. It is noted that these spaces will be open for customer use. Figure 10 illustrates a preliminary location of potential employee parking spaces. 3. The Property Owner/Property Management Company will work with retail tenants to identify the need for “short term/time restricted spaces” on an as need basis, dependent on the needs of the proposed retail / retail service use. These short-term spaces will most likely be designated in Level 1 of apartment parking structure. The short-term spaces may be used for service retail-type users as well as prospective resident tenants. The number and location of spaces will be determined by Property Owner/Property Management Company and the potential tenants. Figure 9 illustrates a preliminary location of potential short-term parking spaces. Residential Component 4. The Property Owner/Property Management Company shall assign one (1) parking space to every unit. Additional spaces may be assigned to any unit that requests additional assigned spaces dependent on the number of bedrooms provided within said unit. Resident may not park more than two (2) vehicles in the complex. The Property Owner/Property Management Company shall determine the allocation of parking spaces for resident tenants and location of guest parking spaces, inclusive of spaces designated and signed for prospective resident tenants. 5. Residents will be provided a transponder or similar device (fob or key card, etc.) for remote access to the gated residential parking area within the Project’s apartment parking structure. As shown in Figure 10, Level 2 of the parking structure identifies the location of the residential gate that would allow residents with access the upper levels of the garage. 6. Every resident will be required to register their vehicle. The registered owner must be a lease holding resident. No permits will be issued to non-lease holders, or vehicles not registered to a lease holder. This registration will be updated annually at the time of recertification. Gerald Hammer March 19, 2024 Page 12 N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Spruce & Red Oak Parking Study & Parking Management Plan 03-19-2024 - Copy.docx 7. Vehicles lacking current registration will not be issued a permit. Vehicles that have lapsed registration will be towed by the Property Owner/Property Management Company. The storage of inoperable or unregistered vehicles is prohibited. 8. Vehicles may not occupy unassigned spaces for more than twenty-four (24) hours, without contacting the leasing office in advance. Violators are subject to towing at the vehicle owner’s expense. 9. If you obtain a new vehicle, you must provide new registration, and will be given a new permit (transferring permits is not permissible). 10. Violation of the PMP strategies contained herein may result in the towing of the vehicle at the vehicle owner’s expense. 11. The enforcement of resident and resident guest parking on-site parking requirements summarized herein will be handled by the Property Owner/Property Management Company to ensure compliance. Retail/Commercial & Residential Component 12. The parking conditions for the Project will be reviewed/monitored on an annual basis by the Property Owner/Property Management Company and appropriate actions detailed above will be taken to ensure that the necessary PMP measures are being implemented and enforced. Through this monitoring and cooperation with the residents and tenants as a result of the annual review/monitoring, a partnership will be formed to ensure that residential tenants and retail employees and Management Company personnel on the property work together to ensure adequate parking is available. * * * * * * * * * * * We appreciate the opportunity to provide this analysis for Rancho Red Oaks, LLC and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Should you have any questions, please call us at 949.825.6175. N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Spruce & Red Oak Parking Study & Parking Management Plan 03-19-2024 - Copy.docx TABLE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY1 SPRUCE & RED OAK MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA Land Use / Project Description Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Roof Total Project Development Residential Component o Studio 2 units 4 units 5 units 5 units 5 units 5 units 4 units -- 30 units o 1 Bedroom 6 units 10 units 15 units 17 units 18 units 12 units 7 units -- 85 units o Live/Work – 1 Bedroom -- 2 units -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 units o 2 Bedrooms 3 units 7 units 12 units 12 units 11 units 9 units 5 units -- 59 units Total Residential Units: 11 units 23 units 32 units 34 units 34 units 26 units 16 units -- 176 units Retail/Commercial Component o Retail Shops/ Commercial 5,910 SF 1,400 SF -- -- -- -- -- -- 7,310 SF o Commercial/Co- Work Office 1,960 SF -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,960 SF Total Retail/Commercial Space: 7,870 SF 1,400 SF -- -- -- -- -- -- 9,270 SF Parking Structure Supply Residential Parking - Garage -- 41 spaces 50 spaces 50 spaces 50 spaces 50 spaces 35 spaces 12 spaces 288 spaces Retail/Commercial & Resident Guest 45 spaces 6 spaces -- -- -- -- -- -- 51 spaces Total Parking Supply 45 spaces 47 spaces 50 spaces 50 spaces 50 spaces 50 spaces 50 spaces 12 spaces 339 spaces 1 Source: Architects Orange, Site Plan dated March 2024 N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Spruce & Red Oak Parking Study & Parking Management Plan 03-19-2024 - Copy.docx TABLE 2 CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT AND COMPOSITE PARKING SUPPLY RATIOS2 SPRUCE & RED OAK MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA Land Use / Project Description Size City of Eastvale Code Parking Requirement Spaces Required Residential Component o Studio Units 30 units 1.30 space per unit 39 o 1 Bedroom Units 85 units 1.50 space per unit 128 o Live/Work (1 Bedroom) Units 2 units 1.50 space per unit 3 o 2 Bedroom Units 59 units 2.00 space per unit 118 Subtotal 176 units Subtotal 288 A. Total Residential Parking Code Requirement: 288 B. Proposed Residential Parking Supply: 288 C. Residential Parking Surplus/Deficiency (+/-) [Row B – Row A]: +0 D. Residential Use Code Composite Parking Demand Ratio (sp/du) [Row A ÷ total DU] 1.64 Retail/Commercial & Resident Guest Parking Component o Guest Parking 176 units 0.20 space per unit 35 o Retail-Live/Work Commercial 7,310 SF 4 spaces per 1,000 SF 29 o Commercial/Co-Work 1,960 SF 4 space per 1,000 SF 8 E. Total Retail / Guest Parking Code Requirement: 72 F. Proposed Commercial Parking Supply: 51 G. Commercial Parking Surplus/Deficiency (+/-) [Row F – Row E]: -21 2 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code – Chapter 17.64, Parking and Loading Standards, Section 17.64.050, Number of Parking Spaces Required. N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Spruce & Red Oak Parking Study & Parking Management Plan 03-19-2024 - Copy.docx TABLE 3 WEEKDAY COMMERCIAL SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY [1] SPRUCE & RED OAK MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA Land Use Retail Residential - Studio Guest Residential - 1 Bedroom Guest Residential - 2 Bedrooms Guest Co-Work Commercial Office Size 7.310 KSF 30 DU 87 DU 59 DU 1.960 KSF Total Pkg Rate[2] 4 /KSF 0.2 /DU 0.2 /DU 0.2 /DU 4 /KSF Spaces = Comparison w/ Gross 29 Spc. 6 Spc. 17 Spc. 12 Spc. 8 Spc. 72 Parking Supply Spaces Shared 51 Spaces Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Parking Surplus Time of Day Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Demand (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 1 50 7:00 AM 6 45 8:00 AM 11 40 9:00 AM 18 33 10:00 AM 25 26 11:00 AM 28 23 12:00 PM 31 20 1:00 PM 31 20 2:00 PM 32 19 3:00 PM 30 21 4:00 PM 29 22 5:00 PM 33 18 6:00 PM 37 14 7:00 PM 48 3 8:00 PM 44 7 9:00 PM 38 13 10:00 PM 32 19 11:00 PM 25 26 12:00 AM 14 37 = Green highlighted represents morning peak parking demand hour = Blue highlighted represents afternoon peak parking demand hour = Yellow BOLD highlighed represents overall/evening peak parking demand hour Notes: [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. 0 1 2 2 2 14 4 14 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 14 4 7 12 2 8 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 5 2 9 5 6 11 11 11 11 5 4 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 6 5 4 4 6 5 4 3 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 19 19 1 1 2 7 13 17 21 21 20 19 19 18 15 9 3 1 0 N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Spruce & Red Oak Parking Study & Parking Management Plan 03-19-2024 - Copy.docx TABLE 4 WEEKEND COMMERCIAL SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY [1] SPRUCE & RED OAK MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA Land Use Retail Residential - Studio Guest Residential - 1 Bedroom Guest Residential - 2 Bedrooms Guest Co-Work Commercial Office Size 7.310 KSF 30 DU 87 DU 59 DU 1.960 KSF Total Pkg Rate[2] 4.0 /KSF 0.2 /DU 0.2 /DU 0.2 /DU 4.0 /KSF Spaces = Comparison w/ Gross 29 Spc. 6 Spc. 17 Spc. 12 Spc. 8 Spc. 72 Parking Supply Spaces Shared 51 Spaces Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Parking Surplus Time of Day Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Demand (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 2 49 7:00 AM 8 43 8:00 AM 14 37 9:00 AM 22 29 10:00 AM 25 26 11:00 AM 29 22 12:00 PM 30 21 1:00 PM 31 20 2:00 PM 30 21 3:00 PM 29 22 4:00 PM 28 23 5:00 PM 31 20 6:00 PM 37 14 7:00 PM 47 4 8:00 PM 46 5 9:00 PM 43 8 10:00 PM 38 13 11:00 PM 28 23 12:00 AM 16 35 = Green highlighted represents morning peak parking demand hour = Blue highlighted represents afternoon peak parking demand hour = Yellow BOLD highlighed represents overall/evening peak parking demand hour Notes: [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. 11 9 4 15 13 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 5 4 15 4 15 4 15 11 7 1 6 0 1 3 1 3 11 11 0 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 60 0 02 8 4 0 2 8 13 0 0 0 16 17 18 0 03 9 0 19 0 21 0 22 23 1 23 1 22 21 1 17 1 14 1 7 0 01 01 N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Spruce & Red Oak Parking Study & Parking Management Plan 03-19-2024 - Copy.docx TABLE 5 COMPARATIVE PARKING RATIO SUMMARY AND DEMAND SPRUCE & RED OAK MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA Tenant & Guest Tenant & Guest Peak Parking Saturday Ratio - Daytime Peak Spaces per DU Parking Ratio City Address Development Summary Parking Supply Retail Survey Period (Peak Hour) (Peak Hour) 1 Anton Residential Mid-Rise Building Costa Mesa 580 Anton Boulevard 250 Unit Luxury Apartments • 80 2 Bedroom Units • 170 Studio/1 Bedroom Units Structure 438 Spaces • Residents - 330 sp. • Guests - 108 sp. -- -- 1.75 (Peak Hour N/A)-- 2 Main Street Village [a]Irvine 2555 Main Street 481 Unit Apartments • 265 1 Bedroom Units • 200 2 Bedroom Units • 16 3 Bedroom Units Structure 1,020 Spaces • Residents - 847 sp. • Public/Guests - 173 sp. --Wednesday & Thursday 10PM-12AM 1.42 (@ 12:00 AM)-- 3 279 Unit Complex [b]Irvine -- 279 Unit Apartments • 2 Studio Units • 162 1 Bedroom Units • 115 2 Bedroom Units Gated Structure 600 Spaces -- Tuesday 6PM-1AM 1.36 (Peak Hour N/A)-- 4 403 Unit Complex [b]Irvine -- 403 Unit Apartments • 326 1 Bedroom Units • 77 2 Bedroom Units Gated Structure 643 Spaces -- Tuesday 6PM-1AM 1.29 (Peak Hour N/A)-- 5 460 Unit Complex [b]Orange -- 460 Unit Apartments • 256 1 Bedroom Units • 204 2 Bedroom Units Gated Structure, Gated Surface Lot 784 Spaces -- Tuesday 6PM-1AM 1.4 (Peak Hour N/A)-- 6 183 Unit Complex [b]Fullerton -- 183 Unit Apartments • 129 1 Bedroom Units • 54 2 Bedroom Units Gated Residential Structure 223 Residential Spaces Yes -- 1.1 (Peak Hour N/A)-- 7 250 Unit Complex [b] Santa Ana -- 250 Unit Apartments • 108 1 Bedroom Units • 145 2-3 Bedroom Units Gated Residential Structure 453 Residential Spaces Yes -- 0.94 (Peak Hour N/A)-- 8 Paragon at Old Town [a]Monrovia 700 S. Myrtle Avenue 163 Unit Apartments • 82 1 Bedroom Units • 81 3 Bedroom Units Surface Lot, On-Street Parking 404 Spaces • Residents - 329 sp. • Public/Guests - 75 sp. --Wednesday & Thursday 6PM-12AM 1.48 (@ 11:00 PM)-- 9 Trio Apartments [a]Pasadena 44 N. Madison Avenue 304 Unit Apartments • 46 Studio Units • 141 1 Bedroom Units • 117 2 Bedroom Units Surface Lot, On-Street Parking 480 Spaces • Residents - 450 sp. • Public/Guests - 30 sp. --Wednesday & Thursday 10PM-12AM 1.22 (@12:00 AM)-- 10 Adagio on the Green [d] Mission Viejo 2660 Oso Parkway 256 Unit Apartments Garage, Surface Lot 512 Spaces • Residents - 424 sp. • Public/Guests - 88 sp. -- Wednesday & Thursday 7PM-2AM Saturday: 12PM-3PM, 7PM-2AM 1.45 (@12:00 AM) 0.97 (@ 2:00 PM & 3:00 PM) 11 Skye at Laguna Niguel [d] Laguna Niguel 28100 Cabot Road 142 Unit Apartments • 97 1 Bedroom Units • 45 2 Bedroom Units Garage 294 Spaces • Residents - 240 sp. • Public/Guests - 54 sp. -- Wednesday & Thursday 7PM-2AM Saturday: 12PM-3PM, 7PM-2AM 1.49 (@ 11:00 PM) 1.07 (@ 12:00 PM) 12 Apex Laguna Niguel [d] Laguna Niguel 27960 Cabot Road 284 Unit Apartments • 32 Studio Units • 161 1 Bedroom Units • 91 2 Bedroom Units Garage 539 Spaces • Residents - 461 sp. • Public/Guests - 78 sp. -- Wednesday & Thursday 7PM-2AM Saturday: 12PM-3PM, 7PM-2AM 1.28 (@ 2:00 AM) 1.13 (@ 3:00 PM) Average: 1.35 85th Percentile: 1.48 95th Perentile: 1.61 1.21 1.52 1.31 1.47 1.65 1.58 - 1.66 1.62 1.45 238 260 283 Notes: [a] Source: Parking Demand Analysis for the Proposed Fifth Avenue/Huntington Drive Mixed-Use Project City of Monrovia, California, prepared by LLG, Oct. 2012 [b] Source: Parking Study for AMLI Orange Apartment Project , prepared by IBI Group, Nov. 2012 [c] Source: Parking Reform Made Easy , Richard W. Willson, 2013 [d] Source: Counts collected by LLG on December 2016. Parking Facility Additional Parking Ratio References: Parking Calculation Using Empirical Rates Above (176 DU's for Spruce & Red Oak) Average Demand (1.35 x 176 DUs): 85th Percentile Demand (1.48 x 176 DUs): 95th Percentile Demand (1.61 x 176 DUs): Comparable Site ITE Parking Generation , 5th Edition Low-Rise Apartment Average: 85th Percentile: ULI Shared Parking : Residential (Rental) Units Field Studies in Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga [c] American Community Survey (ACS) in Ontario [c] Household Surveys in San Bernardino and Riverside [c] ITE Parking Generation , 5th Edition Mid-Rise Apartment Average: 85th Percentile: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-23-4662-1 Spruce & Red Oaks Mixed Use Development, Rancho Cucamonga N:\4600\2234662 - Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use, Rancho Cucamonga\Report\4662 Dividers.doc APPENDIX A SHARED PARKING WORKSHEETS Land Use Size KSF Pkg Rate[2]/KSF Mode Adjust Non-Captive Ratio Gross Spaces Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 1%000000000000009%1111111111111111111111111111 7:00 AM 5%1001111111111114%1111111111111121122222222222 8:00 AM 14%2112222222222223%1111111111111132233333333333 9:00 AM 32%6334444444446541%2111111111122284455555555687 10:00 AM 54% 10 6677777767710868%423333333333431489101010101010910101411 11:00 AM 68% 13 889999999910131186%533434444344541811111312131313131213141815 12:00 PM 90% 17 10 10 12 11 12 12 12 12 11 12 13 17 14 90%533434444344542213131614161616161416172218 1:00 PM 90% 17 10 10 12 11 12 12 12 12 11 12 13 17 14 90%533434444344542213131614161616161416172218 2:00 PM 86% 16 10 10 11 11 12 12 11 12 11 11 12 16 14 90%533434444344542113131514161615161415162118 3:00 PM 77% 15 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 11 15 12 90%533434444344542012121413141414151314152016 4:00 PM 77% 15 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 11 15 12 90%533434444344542012121413141414151314152016 5:00 PM 77% 15 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 11 15 12 90%533434444344542012121413141414151314152016 6:00 PM 81% 15 9 9 11 10 11 11 11 11 10 11 12 15 13 90%533434444344542012121513151515151315162017 7:00 PM 72% 14 8 8 10 9 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 14 12 90%533434444344541911111412141414141214141916 8:00 PM 59% 11 77888888789111081%533434444344541610101211121212121012131614 9:00 PM 41%7445555555567654%322222222222331066777777778109 10:00 PM 14%2112222222222236%2111111111122242233333333444 11:00 PM 5%1001111111111118%1111111111111121122222222222 12:00 AM 0%000000000000000%0000000000000000000000000000 Notes: Appendix A SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS) WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] 29Guest Spc.23 6 Emp. Spc. 7.310 4 Shared Parking Demand [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. Total Spaces Shopping Center (Typical Days) Employee Parking Demand 0.90 1.00 0.90 0.90 Guest Parking Demand Land Use Size KSF Pkg Rate[2]/KSF Mode Adjust Non-Captive Ratio Gross Spaces Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 1%0000000000000010%1111111111111111111111111111 7:00 AM 5%1001111111111115%1111111111111121122222222222 8:00 AM 30%6334444444446540%2111111111122284455555555687 9:00 AM 50% 10 6677777767710875%533434444344541599111011111111911111512 10:00 AM 70% 13 889999999910131185%533434444344541811111312131313131213141815 11:00 AM 90% 17 10 10 12 11 12 12 12 12 11 12 13 17 14 95%544444444445552214141615161616161516182219 12:00 PM 95% 18 11 11 12 12 13 13 12 13 12 12 14 18 15 100%544444444445552315151616171716171616192320 1:00 PM 100% 19 11 11 13 12 13 13 13 14 12 13 14 19 16 100%544444444445552415151716171717181617192421 2:00 PM 100% 19 11 11 13 12 13 13 13 14 12 13 14 19 16 100%544444444445552415151716171717181617192421 3:00 PM 95% 18 11 11 12 12 13 13 12 13 12 12 14 18 15 100%544444444445552315151616171716171616192320 4:00 PM 90% 17 10 10 12 11 12 12 12 12 11 12 13 17 14 100%544444444445552214141615161616161516182219 5:00 PM 80% 15 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 11 15 12 95%544444444445552013131414141414151414162017 6:00 PM 75% 14 8 8 10 9 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 14 12 85%533434444344541911111412141414141214141916 7:00 PM 70% 13 889999999910131180%533434444344541811111312131313131213141815 8:00 PM 65% 12 77989999889121075%533434444344541710101311131313131112131714 9:00 PM 50% 10 6677777767710865%423333333333431489101010101010910101411 10:00 PM 30%6334444444446545%3222222222223395566666666698 11:00 PM 10%2111111111112115%1111111111111132222222222232 12:00 AM 0%000000000000000%0000000000000000000000000000 Notes: Shopping Center (Typical Days) SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS) Appendix A WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Total Spaces23 Guest Spc.6 Emp. Spc. Shared Parking DemandEmployee Parking Demand [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. 7.310 4 29 0.90 Guest Parking Demand 0.90 0.90 1.00 Land Use Size 30 DU Pkg Rate[2]2 /DU Mode Adjust Non-Captive Ratio Gross Spaces Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of # Of % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3]Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3]Spaces Peak [3]Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100%39 90%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 7:00 AM 10%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 76%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 8:00 AM 19%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 64%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 9:00 AM 19%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 52%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 10:00 AM 19%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 48%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 11:00 AM 19%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 43%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 12:00 PM 19%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 38%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 1:00 PM 19%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 38%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 2:00 PM 19%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 38%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 3:00 PM 19%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 38%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 4:00 PM 19%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 43%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 5:00 PM 38%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%39 48%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 6:00 PM 57%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%39 57%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 7:00 PM 95%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 100%39 67%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 8:00 PM 95%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 100%39 76%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 9:00 PM 95%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 100%39 81%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 10:00 PM 95%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 100%39 90%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 11:00 PM 76%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 100%39 92%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 43 43 44 44 44 44 44 12:00 AM 48%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%39 95%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 Notes: [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. Appendix A RESIDENTIAL (Studio) WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 Reserved Parking DemandGuest Parking Demand Resident Parking Demand Residential (Studio) Shared Parking Demand [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. Guest Spc.Resid. Spc.Total Spaces639Reserv Spc.0 45 Land Use Size 30 DU Pkg Rate[2]2 /DU Mode Adjust Non-Captive Ratio Gross Spaces Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of # Of % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3]Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3]Spaces Peak [3]Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100%39 100%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 7:00 AM 20%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 95%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 8:00 AM 20%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 88%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 9:00 AM 20%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 80%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 10:00 AM 20%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 75%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 11:00 AM 20%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 70%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 12:00 PM 20%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 68%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 1:00 PM 20%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 65%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 2:00 PM 20%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 65%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 3:00 PM 20%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 68%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 4:00 PM 20%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%39 71%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 5:00 PM 40%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%39 74%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 6:00 PM 60%4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 100%39 77%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 42 42 43 43 43 43 43 7:00 PM 100%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 100%39 80%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 8:00 PM 100%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 100%39 83%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 9:00 PM 100%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 100%39 86%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 10:00 PM 100%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 100%39 89%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 11:00 PM 80%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 100%39 92%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 43 43 44 44 44 44 44 12:00 AM 50%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%39 100%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 Notes: [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. 45 [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. 6 39 Reserv Spc.0 Total SpacesResid. Spc.Guest Spc. 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 Appendix A Reserved Parking Demand Residential (Studio) Shared Parking DemandGuest Parking Demand Resident Parking Demand WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] RESIDENTIAL (Studio) Land Use Size 89 DU Pkg Rate[2]2 /DU Mode Adjust Non-Captive Ratio Gross Spaces Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of # Of % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3]Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3]Spaces Peak [3]Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100%134 90%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 7:00 AM 10%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%134 76%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 8:00 AM 19%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 64%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 9:00 AM 19%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 52%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 10:00 AM 19%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 48%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 11:00 AM 19%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 43%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 12:00 PM 19%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 38%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 1:00 PM 19%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 38%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 2:00 PM 19%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 38%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 3:00 PM 19%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 38%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 4:00 PM 19%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 43%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 5:00 PM 38%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 100%134 48%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 6:00 PM 57%9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 100%134 57%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 7:00 PM 95%14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 100%134 67%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 8:00 PM 95%14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 100%134 76%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 9:00 PM 95%14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 100%134 81%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 10:00 PM 95%14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 100%134 90%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 11:00 PM 76%12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 100%134 92%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 145 145 146 146 146 146 146 12:00 AM 48%7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 100%134 95%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 Notes: [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. Appendix A RESIDENTIAL (1 Bedroom) WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 Reserved Parking DemandGuest Parking Demand Resident Parking Demand Residential (1 Bedroom) Shared Parking Demand [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. Guest Spc.Resid. Spc.Total Spaces17134Reserv Spc.0 151 Land Use Size 89 DU Pkg Rate[2]2 /DU Mode Adjust Non-Captive Ratio Gross Spaces Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of # Of % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3]Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3]Spaces Peak [3]Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100%134 100%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 7:00 AM 20%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 95%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 8:00 AM 20%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 88%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 9:00 AM 20%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 80%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 10:00 AM 20%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 75%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 11:00 AM 20%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 70%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 12:00 PM 20%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 68%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 1:00 PM 20%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 65%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 2:00 PM 20%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 65%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 3:00 PM 20%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 68%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 4:00 PM 20%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100%134 71%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 5:00 PM 40%6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 100%134 74%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 6:00 PM 60%9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 100%134 77%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 7:00 PM 100%15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 100%134 80%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 8:00 PM 100%15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 100%134 83%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 9:00 PM 100%15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 100%134 86%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 10:00 PM 100%15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 100%134 89%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 11:00 PM 80%13 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 100%134 92%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 146 146 147 147 147 147 147 12:00 AM 50%8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 100%134 100%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 Notes: [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. 151 [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. 17 134 Reserv Spc.0 Total SpacesResid. Spc.Guest Spc. 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 Appendix A Reserved Parking Demand Residential (1 Bedroom) Shared Parking DemandGuest Parking Demand Resident Parking Demand WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] RESIDENTIAL (1 Bedroom) Land Use Size 57 DU Pkg Rate[2]2 /DU Mode Adjust Non-Captive Ratio Gross Spaces Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of # Of % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3]Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3]Spaces Peak [3]Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100%114 92%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 7:00 AM 10%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%114 78%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 8:00 AM 19%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 65%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 9:00 AM 19%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 53%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 10:00 AM 19%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 49%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 11:00 AM 19%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 44%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 12:00 PM 19%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 39%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 1:00 PM 19%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 39%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 2:00 PM 19%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 39%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 3:00 PM 19%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 39%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 4:00 PM 19%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 44%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 5:00 PM 39%4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 100%114 49%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 117 117 118 118 118 118 118 6:00 PM 58%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 100%114 58%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 7:00 PM 97%10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 100%114 68%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 123 123 124 124 124 124 124 8:00 PM 97%10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 100%114 78%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 123 123 124 124 124 124 124 9:00 PM 97%10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 100%114 83%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 123 123 124 124 124 124 124 10:00 PM 97%10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 100%114 92%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 123 123 124 124 124 124 124 11:00 PM 78%8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 100%114 94%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 12:00 AM 49%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 100%114 97%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 118 118 119 119 119 119 119 Notes: [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. Appendix A RESIDENTIAL (2 Bedroom) WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 Reserved Parking DemandGuest Parking Demand Resident Parking Demand Residential (2 Bedroom) Shared Parking Demand [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. Guest Spc.Resid. Spc.Total Spaces11114Reserv Spc.0 125 Land Use Size 57 DU Pkg Rate[2]2 /DU Mode Adjust Non-Captive Ratio Gross Spaces Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of # Of % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3]Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3]Spaces Peak [3]Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100%114 100%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 7:00 AM 20%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 95%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 8:00 AM 20%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 88%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 9:00 AM 20%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 80%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 10:00 AM 20%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 75%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 11:00 AM 20%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 70%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 12:00 PM 20%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 68%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 1:00 PM 20%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 65%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 2:00 PM 20%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 65%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 3:00 PM 20%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 68%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 4:00 PM 20%2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%114 71%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 5:00 PM 40%4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 100%114 74%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 117 117 118 118 118 118 118 6:00 PM 60%6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 100%114 77%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 7:00 PM 100%10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 100%114 80%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 123 123 124 124 124 124 124 8:00 PM 100%10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 100%114 83%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 123 123 124 124 124 124 124 9:00 PM 100%10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 100%114 86%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 123 123 124 124 124 124 124 10:00 PM 100%10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 100%114 89%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 123 123 124 124 124 124 124 11:00 PM 80%8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 100%114 92%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 12:00 AM 50%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 100%114 100%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 Notes: [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. 125 [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. 11 114 Reserv Spc.0 Total SpacesResid. Spc.Guest Spc. 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 Appendix A Reserved Parking Demand Residential (2 Bedroom) Shared Parking DemandGuest Parking Demand Resident Parking Demand WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] RESIDENTIAL (2 Bedroom) Land Use Size KSF Pkg Rate[2]/KSF Mode Adjust Non-Captive Ratio Gross Spaces Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3]Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3]Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 1%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8:00 AM 20%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50%3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 9:00 AM 60%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 90%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 10:00 AM 100%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 6 11:00 AM 45%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100%6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 12:00 PM 15%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 1:00 PM 45%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 2:00 PM 95%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 95%6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 6 3:00 PM 45%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95%6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 4:00 PM 15%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85%5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5:00 PM 10%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60%4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 6:00 PM 5%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7:00 PM 2%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8:00 PM 1%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Notes: [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. Appendix A Office CO-WORK OFFICE WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Guest Parking Demand 2.200 4 Total Spaces 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 8 Shared Parking DemandEmployee Parking Demand [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. Emp. Spc.91Guest Spc. Land Use Size KSF Pkg Rate[2]/KSF Mode Adjust Non-Captive Ratio Gross Spaces Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3]Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3]Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 2%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 6%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 8%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10:00 AM 9%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11:00 AM 10%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12:00 PM 9%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1:00 PM 8%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2:00 PM 6%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 4%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 2%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 1%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 1%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Notes: Guest Spc. 0.90 Appendix A WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Office Total Spaces [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. 98Emp. Spc. 0.85 0.85 2.200 4 Guest Parking Demand 0.90 1 Shared Parking DemandEmployee Parking Demand CO-WORK OFFICE Planning Commission DRC2023-00154 July 10, 2024 Project: – Site plan and design review of a mixed-use development consisting of 176 residential units (including 2 live-work units), 7,870 square feet of commercial lease area, and 1,400 square feet of live-work commercial lease area on 1.8 acres of land; Entitlement: Design Review DRC2023-00154, Master Plan DRC2023-00346, & Minor Exception DRC2023-00280 Zoning Designation: Center 2 (CE2) General Plan Designation: City Center *Planning Commission is a recommending body on this item. A separate public hearing will be scheduled with the City Council for final decision at a later date. Project Overview Project Location Street View Overall Site/Landscape Plan Material Board Building Elevation Looking Northwest Building Building Elevation Looking Southwest Building Elevation Looking Southeast Equipment Locations Unit Composition UNIT SUMMARY Residential Unit Type Unit Size (SF - Net)Number of Units Studio 630 - 680 SF 30 1 Bedroom 650 to 1,050 SF 87 2 Bedroom 1,160 to 1,400 SF 59 Total Number of Units 176 Commercial Total Area Commercial (SF)N/A 7,870 Commercial-Live-Work (SF)N/A 1,400 Ground Floor Amenities Roof Top Emenities Development Code Compliance COMPLIANCE TABLE Development Standard Required Proposed Complies Density 40 to 100 DU/AC 98 DU/AC YES Non-Residential 1.0 to 2.0 .11 YES* Primary Build-to-Line 0 to 10 Feet Less than 10 Feet YES Secondary Build-to- line 0 to 10 Feet Less than 10 Feet YES Interior Setback None 10 Feet-6 inches YES Rear Yard 10 Feet Greater Than 10 Feet YES Building Height 92 Feet Max 87 Feet YES Open Space 30 SF/Unit (5,280 SF)30,441 SF YES *With Master Plan Approval Master Plan and Surrounding Land Uses Parking PARKING ANALYSIS Number of Units Square Footage Parking Ratio Required Parking Multi-family unit (studio)30 N/A 1.3 per unit (1 in garage or carport)39 Multi-family unit (one bedroom)87 N/A 1.5 per unit (1 in garage or carport)130 Multi-family unit (two bedrooms)59 N/A 2 per unit (1 in garage or carport)118 Guest parking 176 N/A 1 per 5 units 36 Commercial/Live-Work N/A 9,270 1 per 250 SF for commercial units 38 Total Garage Parking Required (Covered)176 Total Garage Parking Provided (Covered)339 Total Parking Spaces Required 362 Total Parking Spaces Provided 339 Parking Deficiency 23* *Minor Exception Submitted for Parking Reduction Parking Table Updated PMP COA •“Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, a final parking management plan shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning and Economic Development Director and City Engineer. The parking management plan shall describe how the retail portions of the project will be parked and how the prospective business(es) within this space will accommodate loading and unloading and how any potential resident/guest overflow will be addressed. The project shall remain in compliance with the approved parking management plan at all times. In the event of any observed parking violations to the parking management plan, the City reserves the right to require the preparation of off-site, on-street parking restrictions such as, but not limited to, permit parking, no parking signage, time-limit parking signage, red curb, and/or similar parking restrictions.” Roundabout Turning Radius Illustration Garage Turning Movement Design Review Committee •The Design Review Committee (DRC – Daniels, and Boling) reviewed the project on April 16, 2024; •The Committee was complimentary of the project design and amenities and recommended that the project be reviewed by the full Planning Commision. •The project is required to comply with the public art ordinance as outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. Based on the number of residential units and commercial square footage for this project, the total art value required per Section 17.124.020.C. is $141,270. A condition has been included pursuant to the Development Code that requires the public art requirement to be fulfilled prior to occupancy. Public Art Environmental Assessment •The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects; •Placeworks, the City’s CEQA consultant, prepared the infill exemption demonstrating that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment relating to biological resources, traffic, noise, air quality, or water. Public Notification •This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on June 14, 2024; •The property was posted on June 12, 2024; •Notices were mailed to 59 property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site on June 12, 2024. Staff Recommendation •Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolutions 2024-020, 2024-021, and 2024-022 recommending City Council approval of Design Review DRC2023-00154, Master Plan DRC2023-00346, and Minor Exception DRC2023- 00280, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (with the modified COA related to the Parking Management Plan.