POLO COURT SAN MATEO, CA

Transcription

1 SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS & PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN POLO COURT SAN MATEO, CA Prepared for: COASTAL RIM PROPERTIES, INC.

2 Walker Parking Consultants 606 S. Olive Street, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA Voice: Fax: February 7, 2011 Mr. Miguel Vasquez VP Development Services Coastal Rim Properties, Inc. 1 MacArthur Place, Suite 100 Santa Ana, CA Re: Polo Court --- Final Report Shared Parking Analysis & Parking Management Plan Dear Mr. Vasquez, Attached please find the final report containing 1) the Shared Parking Analysis of, and 2) the Parking Management Plan for the proposed Polo Court development in San Mateo, California prepared by Walker Parking Consultants ( Walker ). Walker tailored a shared parking model to the site which provided the required detail in terms of user groups, hour-by-hour projections, and month-to-month comparisons required to prepare a parking management plan. We have incorporated changes based on our discussions with you and the that you forwarded from Christy Usher at the City of San Mateo (dated December 7, 2010). We believe that this final report reflects all critical concerns while maintaining a third-party perspective regarding parking adequacy and the practicality of implementing shared parking and the proposed parking management plan. Please review this final report and contact us with any questions or concerns. It has been a pleasure working with you and providing value-added parking solutions for Polo Court; we look forward to working with you again in the future as opportunities arise. Sincerely, WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Ezra D. Kramer, AICP, CPP Parking Consultant Rio J. Lupisan, CPP Parking Consultant EDK:edk Enclosure J:\ Polo Court\Report\Final for City\Rpt Polo Court-SPA-PMP-Final.doc

3 SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS & PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN POLO COURT SAN MATEO, CA Prepared for: COASTAL RIM PROPERTIES, INC. Walker Project No.:

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 Background... 1 Market Area... 2 Project Site... 2 Report Organization and Methodology... 5 Quantitative Analysis... 5 Parking Management Plan... 5 Parking Supply... 6 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS 6 Program Data... 7 City Based Minimum Parking Requirements... 7 Shared Parking Approach... 8 Shared Parking Analysis --- Polo Court ) Data Collection ) Parking Base Ratios: ) Modal Split Adjustment ) Non-captive Adjustment ) Chronological Factors ) Peak Parking Calculation ) Peak Parking Scenario ) Critical Parking Needs & Management Concerns Findings: Parking Adequacy PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN 17 Parking Access Parking Supply Dedicated Resident/Office Parking Parking Space Allocation Residents / Resident Guests Office / Office Visitors Parking Access Credentials Vehicle Hangtags Option A: Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) Option B: Remote Gate Access / Clickers Supplemental Option --- Space Availability Display Monitoring / Enforcement LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Program Data 7 Table 2: City-Based Required Ratios 7 Table 3: City-Based Required Spaces 8 Table 4: Base (Unshared) Parking Ratios, Weekday & Weekend 11 Table 5: Means of Transportation to Work --- To San Mateo 12 Table 6: Peak Shared Parking Demand, Weekday 14 Table 7: Peak Shared Parking Demand, Weekend 14 Table 8: Parking Allocation 15 Table 9: Parking Summary 19 Figure 1: Market Area 3 Figure 2: Project Site 4 Figure 3: On-street Parking 6 Figure 4: ULI Shared Parking Methodology 9 Figure 5: Hourly Parking Accumulation - Weekday 15 Figure 6: Hourly Parking Accumulation - Weekday 16 Figure 7: Garage Access from Elkhorn Avenue 18 Figure 8: Parking Allocation 20 Figure 9: Secured Parking Gate --- Level A 24 Figure 10: Secured Parking Gate --- Level B 24 APPENDIX A: SCOPE OF SERVICES... Appendix A APPENDIX B: BASE SCENARIO DATA TABLES... Appendix B APPENDIX C: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO PROJECTIONS.. Appendix C APPENDIX D: RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW... Appendix D i

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Walker Parking Consultants was retained by Coastal Rim Properties, Inc. to perform a shared parking analysis and parking management plan for the proposed Polo Court development in San Mateo, California. Walker s key findings are as follows: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY General Information Polo Court is proposed to consist of 197 residential units and 125,978 GSF of office space..san Mateo municipal code requires 739 parking space Coastal Rim proposes to provide 649 off-street spaces in a subterranean parking facility. 13 on-street parking spaces existing along the west side of Elkhorn Court, adjacent to the site. Base Scenario: Walker performed a conservative shared parking analysis of the site and found the resulting peak parking demand of 649 spaces. Assumptions include: o Built-in effective supply cushion of 5% - 10%; o Mode split adjustment of 84.7% (2000 Census); o No non-captive adjustment. Given the findings of Walker s analysis the site would provide adequate parking for all user groups with a parking supply of 649 spaces without conflict (not accounting for possible use of on-street spaces). Alternative Scenario: Walker performed an alternative scenario (Appendix C) which indicated a peak parking demand of 627 spaces. Assumptions include: o Built-in effective supply cushion of 5% - 10%; o Mode split adjustment of 79.9% (2009 ACS); o Non-captive adjustment for residents also employed on-site of 1% (from office parkers). Given the findings of Walker s alternative scenario the site would provide a 22-space parking surplus for all user groups with a parking supply of 649 spaces (not accounting for possible use of on-street spaces). ii

6 The proposed Parking Management Plan would maximize use of the project s overall parking supply and coordinates use of the shared parking supply to ensure that it is available to serve the respective peak parking demands of the residents, office employees, and visitors. The following are key aspects of the management plan: A total of 37 dedicated Visitor Parking Only spaces to accommodate the resident and office visitor parking demand during the peak hours (weekdays at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.) The use of vehicle hangtags, uniquely colored for each of the following user groups, to ensure that each of the designated parking areas is utilized by authorized parkers only: o General office employees o Office employees assigned to park within the shared parking area o Residents assigned to park within the shared parking area (with 24-hr access) o Residents assigned to park within the shared parking area (with access restricted from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Optional solutions for access into the secured resident parking area: o Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) for comprehensive monitoring and tracking capabilities o Remotes, or clickers, for less controlled, yet more flexible use of secured resident area iii

7 Walker Parking Consultants ( Walker ) was retained by Coastal Rim Properties, Inc. ( Coastal Rim ) to perform a shared parking analysis and parking management plan for the Polo Court development in San Mateo, California. The following report details our understanding of the project, project methodology, and findings. The analysis and plan generated based on the scope of services identified within Walker s proposal (provided within appendices). INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Coastal Rim is currently in the process of site plan approval for the Polo Court development, a mixed-use project that is proposed to be located on the two parcels north of W. 20 th Avenue and east of Elkhorn Court in San Mateo, California. The northern parcel will consist of 197 luxury apartments on four levels with a mix of (80) studios, (83) 1- bedroom units, and (34) 2-bedroom units. A three-level, 125,978 square foot (Gross Floor Area) Class A office building is proposed for the southern parcel. The residential and office land uses will be served by two levels of subterranean parking, which is accessed via driveway from Elkhorn Court. Minimum parking requirements found within the City of San Mateo ( City ) municipal code require a combined 739 spaces for site (detailed later within this report). Coastal Rim believes that a portion of the parking supply for the development may be shared without conflict. The City requires that a shared parking study and a parking management plan be provided which would illustrate how shared parking theory would be supported through parking management techniques. These techniques would ensure that parking supply is provided to each user group as needed throughout the day. Toward that end Coastal Rim retained Walker Parking Consultant to review the parameters of the project, perform a shared parking analysis, and develop a parking management plan that will identify how the parking supply will be managed through the use of parking management techniques. 1

8 MARKET AREA The market area for this engagement includes the City of San Mateo. Walker researched parking demand generation characteristics unique to this market, which include transit availability and use as well as parking time-limit restrictions and paid parking. San Mateo is served by numerous forms of transit; bus service for local routes is provided by samtrans while rail service is operated by CalTrain. Paid parking is not commonplace in most areas within San Mateo, but is prevalent within the San Francisco Bay Area. Parking turnover for most on-street parking within San Mateo is managed through posted time limits where needed, although metered parking does exist along Fourth Avenue in downtown. PROJECT SITE The project site is bounded by the J. Arthur Younger Freeway to the north, Elkhorn Court to the east, W 20 th Avenue to the south and residential (Corte Bella) and office space to the west. The project site is served by nearby bus routes along J. Arthur Younger Freeway, Alameda De Las Pulgas and El Camino Real. The CalTrain Hayward Park station is located within ¾-mile of the project site and can be reached by crossing El Camino Real at a signalized intersection and crossing rail lines via the pedestrian bridge along J. Arthur Younger Freeway. We assume that there is no paid parking within the vicinity; no parking meters were observed on-street and no parking access control equipment was observed at parking supplies serving nearby multitenant residential or office buildings. The following figure, Figure 1, highlights the project area within the surrounding market. Figure 2 provides a more detailed view of the project site. 2

9 Figure 1: Market Area Hayward Park CalTrain Polo Court El Camino Real Alameda De Las Pulgas 3

10 Hayward Park CalTrain Figure 2: Project Site Polo Court El Camino Real Alameda De Las Pulgas 4

11 REPORT ORGANIZATION AND METHODOLOGY This report contains two main sections, 1) a quantitative analysis of parking requirements, parking demand generation, and parking adequacy, and 2) a discussion of parking demand management techniques. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS The quantitative analysis provides the calculated minimum parking requirement for the site under municipal code. Minimum parking requirements are defined in the municipal code (Section 27.64). Walker will quantify the parking demand generated by Polo Court utilizing the methodology provided within the Urban Land Institute ( ULI ) publication, Shared Parking, 2 nd Edition. Estimates of the future parking supply were provided by Coastal Rim. Pairing these proposed future conditions we will determine on-site parking adequacy. Coastal Rim has provided guidance regarding preferred management of the parking supply for Polo Court. In the final portion of the quantitative analysis we break down the parking supply based on intended use to test beyond theory. The preferred management strategies are explored and tested to ensure that from a quantitative standpoint they are feasible for the site. PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN The final step in any shared parking analysis is to develop and recommend a parking management plan to ensure that shared parking will occur as the quantitative analysis shows. Walker will discuss both passive and active management techniques and provide a blended strategy that best fits Polo Court based on the mix of land uses and specific site and market characteristics. The recommended parking management plan will encourage the efficient use of the on-site parking supply and suggest other options if necessary. Other options include implementing transportation demand management ( TDM ) strategies, active on-site management, as well as shifting some users off-site to a nearby parking supply. 5

12 The quantitative analysis is based on the proposed future conditions for Polo Court. Coastal Rim has provided proposed land use quantities, and layouts as well as parking supply quantities and layouts. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS PARKING SUPPLY The parking supply proposed to serve Polo Court consists of a two-level subterranean parking garage numbering 649 spaces (See Figure 8 on page 20 for a diagram). Vehicular access to the parking supply in Level A will be provided from Elkhorn Court; internal circulation will guide parkers to Level B, below. Residential parking has been designed on the northern half of both subterranean levels, while office parking spaces will occupy the southern portions. Through the use of access control equipment, such as keycard readers and gates, 231 spaces on both levels of the residential parking allocation will be secured. The remaining spaces (418) would be available throughout the day for office employee and visitors and resident employees and visitors. The use of these 418 spaces and how they will be managed is found within the latter parts of the Quantitative Analysis and within the Parking Management Plan. We approximate 13 on-street spaces currently exist along the west side of Elkhorn Court; an additional 13 spaces exist on the east side. Although these spaces are not considered as part of this analysis, from a practical standpoint, they would be available for all user groups at Polo Court if they deem those spaces more desirable. The land use mix nearby suggests that these spaces would be available for the majority of the day. Figure 3 shows the current usage of on-street spaces. Figure 3: On-street Parking Source: Google Earth,

13 PROGRAM DATA The program data for Polo Court was provided by McLarand Vasquez Emsiek & Partners, Inc. ( MVE ) on February 7, The information provided phased construction. This analysis considers parking requirements, shared parking demand, and parking management of the project after completion of Polo Court. The proposed program for the site is summarized in the following table. Table 1: Program Data Land Use Residential: Studio 1-Bdrm 2-Bdrm Total Residential Office Quantity 80 Units 83 Units 34 Units 197 Units 125,978 SF (GFA) Source: MVE, CITY BASED MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS The City of San Mateo evaluates whether a development is providing adequate parking supply based on Section of the City s municipal code. The minimum requirements for land uses at Polo Court have been summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2: City-Based Required Ratios Land Use Residential: Studio 1-Bdrm 2-Bdrm Resident Guest Required Ratio 1.3 Spaces per Unit 1.6 Spaces per Unit 1.8 Spaces per Unit 0.2 Spaces per Unit Office > 100Ksf 1 Space/315 SF GLA Source: City of San Mateo Municipal Code, In general, parking requirements developed by cities consider each land use to stand alone, without consideration for the possibility of sharing parking between land uses on-site or with surrounding land uses. Under this scenario, we have applied the minimum parking requirement ratios from Table 2 to the program data from Table 1. We find a total parking requirement of 739 spaces as illustrated in Table 3. 7

14 Table 3: City-Based Required Spaces Land Use Quantity X Required Ratio = Required Spaces Residential: Studio 80 Units X 1.3 Spaces per Unit = 104 Spaces 1-Bdrm 83 Units X 1.6 Spaces per Unit = 133 Spaces 2-Bdrm 34 Units X 1.8 Spaces per Unit = 62 Spaces Resident Guest 197 Units X 0.2 Spaces per Unit = 40 Spaces Office 125,978 SF (GFA) X 1 Space/315 SF (GSF) = 400 Spaces TOTAL REQUIRED SPACES 739 Spaces Source: MVE, City of San Mateo Municipal Code, SHARED PARKING APPROACH Shared parking is based on the use of a single parking space to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. The ability to share parking spaces is the result of two conditions: 1. Variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour, by day, or by season at the individual land uses, and 2. Relationships among the land uses that result in visiting multiple land uses on the same auto trip. The key goal of a shared parking analysis is to quantify the number of parking spaces that is adequate to support a mix of land uses within a development from a commercial standpoint without requiring the wasteful construction of an excessive number of parking spaces, many of which will remain unused. Shared parking considers the types, quantities and user groups of land uses for a development, as well as site and market specific characteristics. The analysis begins with those quantities being multiplied by parking generation ratios. Adjustments (Modal Split and Non-captive) for each user group are then applied for morning, afternoon, and evening time periods based on a site and market analysis. Further adjustments are applied based on hourly and monthly activity factors for each user group. The shared parking model is structured to identify a peak parking demand period for both weekday and weekend conditions. Figure 4 outlines the ULI Shared Parking Methodology. 8

15 Figure 4: ULI Shared Parking Methodology Gather and review project data Type and quantity of land uses Local zoning standards of practices Existing conditions, parking pricing, local users, and facilities if appropriate Local mode splits, transit, and transportation demand management programs Physical relationships between uses Parking management strategies acceptable to the various parties Select parking ratios (space/unit land use) Weekends and weekdays Visitor/customer, employee/resident, and reserved Select factors and analyze differences in activity patterns Time of day Monthly Develop scenarios for critical parking need periods Adjust ratios for modal split and persons per car for each scenario Apply noncaptive adjustments for each scenario Calculate required parking spaces for each scenario Do scenarios reflect all critical parking needs and management concerns? NO YES Recommend a parking plan Test adequacy of parking for key scenarios Evaluate potential facilities and allocation of spaces for key scenarios Confirm physical relationships between uses to encourage shared parking Recommend parking management plan to achieve projected shared parking Source: Shared Parking, 2 nd Edition,

16 SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS --- POLO COURT Because we are using a computer model to identify the peak periods, the order of steps is slightly different than that of Figure 4. Modal split and non-captive adjustments are made before any time of day or month of year adjustments are applied. If we were not using a computer model we would need to calculate several peak periods using hourly and monthly adjustments, then test each by applying modal split and non-captive adjustments. The model eliminates the need to calculate and test several periods as this is calculated internally within the model. The model generates the peak weekday and weekend periods and overall parking demand as the output. Within the parking industry there are a few publications that provide statistical data regarding parking demand generation, but only the Urban Land Institute s Shared Parking provides a recommended methodology along with data sets for projecting shared parking demand. Therefore, we use the ULI-approved base parking ratios and ULI-approved monthly/hourly adjustments. 1) DATA COLLECTION The first step in the analysis is to understand the development itself, its geographic surroundings, and the demographics of residents, visitors and employees of the land uses on site. The program data for these developments is provided in Table 1. Other information that may be useful when developing our peak parking scenario includes: The site is located near El Camino Real and Alameda De Las Pulgas, which are major north-south corridors with available transit. Employees and/or residents of Polo Court may opt to utilize one of several bus routes that run along El Camino Real and Alamdea De Las Pulgas; this option should be included in the overall modal split (means of transportation to work). Polo Court is also located adjacent to the J. Arthur Younger Freeway. CalTrain maintains a rail stop (Hayward Park) within ¾-mile of the site. Employees and/or residents may opt to utilize the CalTrain line from the Hayward Park station; this option should be included in the overall modal split (means of transportation to work). Coastal Rim would like to provide adequate parking on-site without considering staffed parking; the parking supply is estimated to be 649 spaces. 10

17 Coastal Rim would like to provide 231 spaces (1 space per bedroom) in a separate and secure area within the parking supply. Coastal Rim would otherwise like to limit the amount of access control equipment at the site as they believe it to be a hassle for frequent users who do not require a separate and secure space for their vehicle. 2) PARKING BASE RATIOS: We elected to utilize the ULI Shared Parking base ratios, which vary slightly from those found in the City s municipal code; however, it is important to remain consistent in the ratios that are used because the hourly and monthly adjustments are also based on these ULI base ratios. ULI developed base ratios for each user group for a given land use for both a peak weekday and a peak weekend period. The ULI base ratios were developed through study of several isolated development land uses. These isolated developments offer no transit, and also have no proximate land use that could share the attached parking supply and therefore, skew the base ratios. Because these ratios were generated from actual study, an effective supply factor is built-in. Effective supply is the term used to describe the small cushion of spaces within a parking supply that is essentially a buffer between the number of vehicles parked and the number of spaces required so parkers do not perceive a full parking supply. The effective supply factor ranges from 5% (employees) to 10% (visitors) for the various user groups at Polo Court. The base ratios utilized in this analysis are found in Table 4. Table 4: Base (Unshared) Parking Ratios, Weekday & Weekend Weekday Weekend Land Use/User Group Visitor Res./Emp. Visitor Res./Emp. Unit Resident /unit Office = 100k /ksf GFA Office Visitor weighted average btwn 100K & 500K /ksf GFA Office >500,000 sq ft /ksf GFA Source: Walker Parking Consultants, ) MODAL SPLIT ADJUSTMENT Modal split considers the mode of transportation that patrons and employees would use to arrive at the development. Walker utilizes data provided by the US Census Bureau for the means of transportation to work to adjust modal split for employees. The Census Bureau data indicates that roughly 84.7% of workers employed in San Mateo drive a vehicle to their place of work. Site considerations, like the availability of transit and availability of parking, as well as 11

18 economic factors for differing employee types such as the cost of gas, and general vehicle maintenance are also used to gauge this adjustment. The site is located nearby major corridors which offer bus service, and within a mile of a commuter rail station. The modal split adjustment for this site considers pedestrian, bicycle, bus, train/bus, carpool and drop-off s as alternatives to a single-occupant vehicles being parked on-site. We believe that a 15.3% reduction is appropriate, in accordance with the Census Bureau data. Further reduction may be merited for this site based on its proximity to several transit lines in comparison to San Mateo on the whole; regardless, no further reductions were taken in an effort remain conservative. The timing of these findings should also be considered, as transit ridership has increased over the past several years (since the 2000 Census) due to significant fuel cost increase, and the overall economic downturn. Many of these new transit users will continue to utilize transit even if/when a single-occupant vehicle trip is comparatively less costly than under current conditions. Table 5: Means of Transportation to Work --- To San Mateo Total Workforce in San Mateo 43,629 Less: Work from Home 1,665 Parked Vehicle Generation Work Outside the Home 41, % Veh. Occ. Veh. Gen. Single Occupant Vehicle 33, % 1 33,077 Carpooled: 2-Person 4, % 2 2,088 3-Person % Person % /6-Person % or more Person % 7 5 Bus/Streetcar 1, % Total 35,558 Light or Heavy Rail % Ferryboat 4 0.0% Bicycle % Drive Ratio 84.7% Walked 1, % Taxi 8 0.0% Motorcycle % Other Means % 41, % Source: US Census Bureau, As for visitor modal split (both office and residential), the availability of transit options for an unfamiliar user will not easily influence their mode of transportation choice. Therefore, we do not believe that these user groups will arrive via transit, and no mode split adjustment is taken for them. The availability of transit options may be a draw for some residents of Polo Court. Some residents may not own a vehicle, or only own one 12

19 vehicle between two adults. Although this may be the case, we have conservatively not adjusted for reduced vehicle ownership. Within the appendices of this report we have provided an alternative scenario for shared parking demand utilizing slightly less conservative assumptions related to mode split. The assumptions within the appendices reflect to the location of this site within San Mateo, and additional adjustment based on the proximity of available transit compared to all areas of San Mateo on the whole. 4) NON-CAPTIVE ADJUSTMENT A non-captive adjustment takes into account any crossover in user groups that does not necessarily adjust that user s length of stay (if not a reserved parking space). For instance, a resident of Polo Court may also work in the office building. In this case the resident would create activity for the office without generating any additional demand for parking. The opportunity for a non-captive effect at this site is somewhat diminished based on the mix of land uses, therefore we have been conservative and assumed no non-captive adjustments for Polo Court. The alternative scenario provided within the appendices reflects how a 1% change in non-captive adjustment would impact the projected peak parking demand under shared parking methodology. 5) CHRONOLOGICAL FACTORS i) Time of Day Factors The time of day adjustment takes into account that most land uses will vary in activity and parking generation throughout the day. For instance, only a fraction of peak parking demand for office employees will be present during evenings and/or weekends, which allows for the alternate use of these parking spaces during non-office hours. The same trend applies to office visitors. For residential parking, the converse time periods generate peak and trough activity; weekends and evenings require the most resident parking while weekday daytime is roughly 20% of the peak period. Resident visitors also follow the same trend (when fewer people are home to visit, there will be fewer visitors). ii) Monthly Factors Monthly factors adjust each user group at the development based on activity and sales trends for that land use. Walker utilized ULIprovided monthly factors for the residential units and office space. These two land uses have very little variance by month according 13

20 to industry research. Several months maintain the 100% peak monthly adjustment (which means no adjustment). 6) PEAK PARKING CALCULATION Peak parking demand for Polo Court is projected by applying ULI and Walker monthly and hourly occupancy factors to each use. This results in approximately 250 discrete time periods being examined. The program data supplied, ULI-provided ratios and adjustment factors, and Walker professional opinion for modal split and non-captive adjustments result in the parking demand projections found in Table 6 (weekday) and Table 7 (weekend). Table 6: Peak Shared Parking Demand, Weekday Demand Weekday Unadj Month Adj Pk Hr Adj Non Captive Drive Ratio January Land Use/User Group Demand January 10:00 AM Daytime Daytime 10:00 AM Residential Visitor % 20% 100% 100% 6 Resident Secured % 100% 100% 100% 231 Resident % 75% 100% 100% 49 Office Visitor % 100% 100% 100% 31 Office Employee % 100% 100% 85% 332 Subtotal Visitor Spaces Subtotal Employee/Shared Resident Spaces Subtotal Secured Spaces Total Parking Spaces Source: Walker Parking Consultants, Table 7: Peak Shared Parking Demand, Weekend Demand Weekend Unadj Month Adj Pk Hr Adj Non Captive Drive Ratio January Land Use/User Group Demand January 10:00 PM Evening Evening 10:00 PM Residential Visitor % 100% 100% 100% 30 Resident Secured % 100% 100% 100% 231 Resident % 100% 100% 100% 65 Office Visitor 3 100% 0% 100% 100% 0 Office Employee % 0% 100% 85% 0 Subtotal Visitor Spaces Subtotal Employee/Shared Resident Spaces Subtotal Secured Spaces Total Parking Spaces Source: Walker Parking Consultants, ) PEAK PARKING SCENARIO The shared parking analysis under this scenario produces a peak period for weekend parking generation of 649 total spaces (which includes an effective supply cushion of between 5% and 10%) at 10:00AM in every month other than July and August. These two months returned a lower peak period demand (630 spaces); office generates fewer spaces during those months due to vacations. Figure 5 illustrates the patterns of hourly parking accumulation for every month 14

21 other than July and August. We have provided tables within the appendices that detail the numeric values associated with this graph. Figure 5: Hourly Parking Accumulation - Weekday Office Visitor Office Employee Resident Visitor Resident Shared Resident Secured Source: Walker Parking Consultants, ) CRITICAL PARKING NEEDS & MANAGEMENT CONCERNS Coastal Rim indicated that they would like to provide secured parking for 231 resident parking spaces; therefore we will pull those spaces out of the shared parking analysis and hold them separate. Utilizing the provided parking layouts and peak demand condition under shared parking we set aside 312 spaces to be utilized by the office employees and office visitors as follows: 19 Spaces along eastern wall will be set aside for office visitors. 293 Spaces on the southern half of Level A and B will be set aside for office employees. Table 8: Parking Allocation Source: Walker Parking Consultants, User Group Spaces Residential Secured 231 Non-secured Parking Office Visitor 19 Office Employee 293 Office Subtotal 312 Shared Parking Area 106 Non-Secured Subtotal 418 Total Parking Supply

22 The remaining 106 spaces on Level A, in the northern area will be shared between the four user groups as shown in Figure 6. Figure 6: Hourly Parking Accumulation - Weekday Office Visitor Office Employee Resident Guest Resident Shared 0 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, As indicated there are only two hours on weekdays (10:00AM 106, and 2:00PM 103) that will reach or near the projected peak parking condition of 106 spaces in the shared area. FINDINGS: PARKING ADEQUACY Parking adequacy is a measure of whether the parking supply can adequately provide for the parking demand generated at the development. Walker tested for adequacy based on a 649-space parking supply. Given the parking supply of 649 spaces, and a projected peak parking demand of 649 spaces (including effective supply cushion), this scenario would provide adequate parking to fulfill parking needs of all site users during the peak period. Walker s projected peak parking demand is based on conservative reductions/adjustments to both mode split and non-captive factors (see appendices for alternative scenario). We have also not accounted for the adjacent on-street parking spaces (13) located on Elkhorn Court, adjacent to Polo Court which from a practical standpoint may be used by Polo Court parkers as opposed to the subterranean shared area. Given these factors we believe from a practical standpoint the parking supply truly serving Polo Court provides a surplus of ±13 spaces. The parking management plan provides further detail regarding how the site will be laid out and signed, as well as function on a day-to-day basis. 16

23 The findings of our quantitative analysis for Polo Court provide a basis for further recommendations that would impact efficient use of on-site parking, and minimize conflict between user groups. Following are some points of interest and key findings that will guide our recommendations. PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN PARKING ACCESS Parkers for Polo Court will approach the subterranean garage via Elkhorn Court off of W. 20 th Avenue. Upon entry into the garage, signage located at the base of the ramp at Level A, indicating Office Visitor Parking and Resident Visitor Parking, will direct and reinforce parkers natural desire to gravitate as close as possible towards their respective destinations. The parking area located south of the ramp on both Levels A and B will be designated as office parking, while most of the northern parking areas on these same levels will consist of secured residential parking, with both areas located directly below the respective buildings for which they serve. Office parkers will be able to freely circulate through the office parking layout, but will be restricted from entering the dedicated resident parking areas since overhead rolling gates will be lowered at the designated access points. Only authorized residents with appropriate access devices will be allowed to circulate beyond these gates to their reserved parking spaces. Supplemental signage directing office visitors will be provided mid-aisle along the south and west drive aisles, and in the west aisle when approaching the south aisle (See Figure 8 on page 20 for diagram of signage placement). 17

24 Figure 7: Garage Access from Elkhorn Avenue RESIDENTIAL BUILDING To Garage Below OFFICE BUILDING Elkhorn Avenue Source: Walker Parking Consultants, W. 20 th Avenue PARKING SUPPLY DEDICATED RESIDENT/OFFICE PARKING The garage will provide a total of 649 parking spaces distributed between the two subterranean levels, 90 spaces short of that required by the City of San Mateo. For the proposed mix of apartment units, a total of 339 spaces are required. The number of spaces required for the amount of square footage for the office component equates to 400 spaces. Polo Court is proposed to provide a total of 231 secured resident spaces (108 spaces fewer than required). The site is also proposed to provide 312 spaces dedicated for office use (88 spaces fewer than required). To offset the parking shortfall, a shared parking supply of 106 spaces is proposed on Level A of the garage, to be used between the resident and office uses to satisfy their parking demands at varied times of the day (without encroachment). While the addition 18

25 of this shared parking supply still results in the project being 90 spaces short of meeting the minimum number of space required by the City s code, the shared parking analysis demonstrates that the provision of 649 spaces actually results in efficient parking design for serving this particular project. Table 9: Parking Summary RESIDENTIAL BUILDING Secured Parking Parking Parking Net Unit Type # Units Requirement Required Provided Difference Studio /Unit BR Unit /Unit BR Unit /Unit 62 Guest Parking /Unit (108) OFFICE BUILDING Office Parking Parking Parking Net Total Square Feet Requirement Required Provided Difference 125, /315sf (88) Shared Parking Provided 106 Total Total Total Parking Parking Net Required Provided Difference (90) Source: Walker Parking Consultants, PARKING SPACE ALLOCATION At the peak hour (weekdays at 10:00 a.m.), the shared parking analysis indicates a total parking demand of 649 spaces, broken down as follows: 280 Resident spaces (231 secured; 49 unsecured); 6 Resident Guest spaces; 332 Office Employee spaces; and 31 Office Visitor spaces. The following figure and corresponding table indicates the dedicated parking supplies for the resident and office components, as well as the shared parking area that will accommodate both uses when their respective parking demands exceed their allocation of dedicated spaces. 19

26 LEVEL A Secured Resident Office SHARED Parking Parking Parking Total Level A Level B LEVEL B RESIDENT PARKING Figure 8: Parking Allocation AVI Access Control SHARED PARKING (18) Visitor Parking Only Spaces RESIDENT PARKING Residential Visitor Parking (D) Visitor Parking Only (S) AVI Access Control Additional Visitor Parking (D) Office Visitor Parking (D) (19) Visitor Parking Only Spaces Visitor Parking Only (S) OFFICE PARKING KEY: Red Text --- Access Control Points Black Text --- Visitor Space Allocations Blue Text --- Signage Recommendations (D) --- is Directional Signage (S) --- is per Space Signage OFFICE PARKING 20

27 RESIDENTS / RESIDENT GUESTS In addition to the 231 secured resident parking spaces on Levels A and B, residents and resident guests will have access to the shared parking area during the evening when their parking demand is projected to be greatest at 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and weekends 326 spaces, 95 beyond the secured amount of parking. At this time of the evening, no parking demand is generated by the office component and therefore, no competition will exist for the total of 106 shared spaces on level A. A total of approximately 65 residents will be allowed to park in this area and will be specifically assigned as such. Of this total, at least 15 of these will be restricted from parking in the garage from the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to allow additional shared spaces to be available for office use. While these spaces are easily accessible on Level A and conveniently located to the resident elevators, the fact that they are unsecured with some possessing time restrictions may warrant incentivizing this parking option through a discounted parking rate. During the daytime, or business hours for the office use, a modest resident guest parking demand of 6 spaces is projected and remains consistent throughout the day. A total of 18 spaces, signed with Visitor Parking Only, will exist in the shared parking area and will be reserved in the parking bay between two of the residential elevators, just north of the ramp. In the evening, the shared parking area will be sufficient to serve the projected 30 resident guest and 65 resident parkers. OFFICE / OFFICE VISITORS The greatest parking demand generated by the office use is projected to be experienced at 10:00 a.m. on weekdays, when approximately 332 office employees and 31 office visitors are expected to be on site. This total demand of 363 spaces exceeds the 312 spaces allocated on the office half of the two levels of parking by 51 spaces. 19 of the 33 office visitors projected at this time of the day will be able to park in the Visitor Parking Only signed spaces designated along the east wall of the office parking area on Level A. The remaining 12 office visitors will be directed via an Additional Visitor Parking sign to overflow towards the 18 Visitor Parking Only spaces within the shared parking area, where only 6 are projected to be occupied at this time by resident guests. Aside from some of the office visitors at the peak time of the day, 19 office employees will also need to park within the shared parking area. To prevent office parkers from maximizing and inundating the shared parking area for a matter of convenience, this area will be 21

28 prohibited from office parking use until 9:00 a.m., when a majority of the office parkers will already have been parked. Another option would be to authorize only 19 office employees to park within the shared parking area. In lieu of a reserved parking space, it would be desirable to set aside this parking privilege for tenant executives, sales staff, etc., who would be most likely to be out of the office in meetings and therefore, not occupying a space on site. PARKING ACCESS CREDENTIALS VEHICLE HANGTAGS All office employees, as well as residents assigned to park within the shared parking area, will be required to display vehicle hangtags. Employees will be issued one designated color of hangtag, while the residents will be issued two different colors one that authorizes 24- hour parking and another that authorizes restricted parking. A limitation on the number of resident and office hangtags issued for the shared parking area shall initially be based on the projected peak demands of 65 and 19, respectively; however, once stabilized conditions have been reached, parking/property management will have the flexibility to issue additional hangtags, if justified by unrealized usage of the shared parking area. Upon issuance of a hangtag, these parkers will be required to submit a permit application that will include vehicle information, such as make, model, color, and license plate number. By requiring vehicle hangtags to be displayed, residents unauthorized to park in the shared parking area will be prevented from doing so. Likewise, employee vehicles within the shared parking area will be able to be identified as such, while all other vehicles without hangtags, presumably guest/visitor parkers, will be required to park within the designated visitor spaces. The 18 visitor spaces within the shared parking area shall be periodically monitored to ensure that employees are not simply removing their hangtags and parking their vehicles within these unauthorized spaces. Any violations of the parking policy, such as employee parking in the shared parking area prior to 9:00 a.m., shall result in the issuance of a warning, followed by notification to the employer and possibly towing upon future violations. OPTION A: AUTOMATIC VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION (AVI) Functional Benefit: Ensures that only authorized resident vehicles are parked within the secured area and allows for individual parking activity to be tracked 22

29 AVI technology employs the use of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tags, or transponders, for detecting and identifying vehicles, similar to that used on local toll roads or lanes. For parking applications, the transponders are typically affixed to vehicle windshields and are read by AVI readers mounted overhead or polemounted for allowing parking access. Each transponder can be uniquely assigned to individuals with identification information associated with each device. The main difference between an AVI system and a proximity (prox) card system is that AVI allows hand-free access, while a prox system requires that a keycard be presented to shorter range reader. While a prox card system can offer much of the same functionality, an AVI solution is proposed to accommodate resident access for the Polo Court project, given the inability to lose additional parking spaces that would result from having to install equipment curb islands in the middle of the respective driveways. Similar to the issuance of vehicle hangtags, all residents authorized to park within the secured parking areas will be required to submit permit applications. The permit applications will identify which residents and corresponding vehicles are associated with each AVI transponder. The transponders will be non-transferrable for multiple entries or exits by employing a feature referred to as anti-passback. As its name implies, this functionality will prevent residents from passing their transponders back to possibly a guest, to allow them to park within the secured parking area. This is accomplished by requiring that for each recorded entry into a secured parking area, the subsequent access activity will need to be an exit out of the same area. An attempt to use an AVI transponder out of the required sequence can either send an alert to parking management staff or otherwise, deactivate the transponder altogether. Re-activation would then require that the violator report to the party issuing the transponders, at which time, a warning could be administered. The following figure reflects the equipment configuration for the secured parking area on Level A. The AVI readers will be activated upon the presence of a vehicle over a vehicle loop installed within the floor slab. Once the reader authenticates the access privilege of an AVI transponder, a signal will be transmitted to open the overhead rolling gate. In the event the gate is already open when a vehicle is approaching from the opposite direction, the corresponding AVI reader will still be activated upon approach of the opposing vehicle so that the access activity, whether entry or exit, can be recorded by the system, maintaining the integrity of the anti-passback policy. 23

30 Figure 9: Secured Parking Gate --- Level A Vehicle Loop (Typ.) AVI Readers Source: Walker Parking Consultants, For the secured parking area on Level B, the AVI configuration is modified from the standard layout due to the gate location relative to the base of the ramp. Since a resident will be in the middle of a turning maneuver as they enter the secured parking area from the ramp, the AVI reader is proposed to be installed such that AVI transponders will be read on the ramp, just prior to reaching the gate. This will minimize the possibility that a resident s turning maneuver would be outside of the read range of the AVI reader. Figure 10: Secured Parking Gate --- Level B RAMP from LEVEL A AVI Readers Source: Walker Parking Consultants,

31 OPTION B: REMOTE GATE ACCESS / CLICKERS Functional Benefit: Allows residents the flexibility to use/manage the secured area The use of standard remotes, also commonly referred to as clickers, to access the gates for the secured parking areas is another option that can still accomplish the objective of preventing office employees/visitors from indiscriminately occupying dedicated resident spaces. In this access configuration, the clickers would be used for entering the secured parking areas, but not necessary for exiting. Since the clickers would not be uniquely associated with each resident parker and their corresponding parking activity, anti-passback would not be an available feature. Therefore, the need to monitor vehicles exiting out of the secured area would not be necessary and instead, the gates would be programmed to automatically open upon the presence of an exiting vehicle. While the use of these clickers does not possess the same level of control that is associated with an AVI system, it does offer an opportunity for the secured parking area to be used more flexibly by residents. For example, until such time that the secured areas are parked to full capacity, available spaces can be utilized for periodic resident guest parking. This method of operation would work best with reserved resident spaces so that space availability, or lack thereof, would be evident. In a reserved parking situation, the use of parking spaces is practically self-policing in that once an available space becomes assigned to a new resident; other residents would no longer encroach on this parking space. SUPPLEMENTAL OPTION --- SPACE AVAILABILITY DISPLAY An optional solution for supplementing the garage signage is to provide a space availability display at the bottom of the ramp leading into Level A that would communicate the number of available spaces on Level B (office parking area only). These displays have become a popular tool for enhancing the parking experience in that the delay and frustration resulting from having to search for a parking space is minimized. Although the circulation in the proposed garage is relatively straightforward, this system can streamline the parking decision-making process by informing office employees when Level B is at or near capacity and as a result, when it is appropriate to proceed directly to the shared parking area for additional parking. The counts displayed on this sign would be updated in real-time, triggered by the number of vehicles that cross over the pairs of directional vehicle loops Space Availability Display --- Level B, Installed at Base of Ramp to Level A 25

32 on the ramp to/from Level B in both directions. With such wayfinding information available, the need to incorporate an effective supply cushion is reduced because the search for available parking and unnecessary circulation is minimized. MONITORING / ENFORCEMENT As with other parking operations that involve parking assignments, regular/periodical monitoring of the respective unsecured areas will be necessary to ensure that parking privileges are not being abused. The implementation of shared parking for this project requires a dynamic use of the respective parking area and compliance with the established parking policies will be necessary to maximize the likelihood for success of the operation. In addition to monitoring of the 18 Visitor Parking Only spaces in the shared parking area, the entire area in general should be monitored to ensure that it is not nearing capacity around mid- to late afternoon. Between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., office visitor demand is expected to decrease significantly, but if the shared parking area does not reflect such increased availability, then this may be an indication of unauthorized employees parked in this area. An inspection of vehicle hangtags should be performed to identify any violations. Since the resident parking demand will not exceed the capacity that exists on the resident parking side of the garage and the office component will not generate any parking in the evening, it would be logical to restrict access to the office side of the garage at approximately 9:00 p.m. This will ensure that residents do not store their vehicles in the office area in an attempt to utilize their secured space for unauthorized vehicles. An inspection of the office parking area prior to closure will also be necessary to confirm that any vehicles, authorized or otherwise, will not be present and locked-in as a result of the closure. 26

33 APPENDIX A: SCOPE OF SERVICES

34 SCOPE OF SERVICES TASK ONE --- PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN 1. Meet with Coastal Rim to gain a better understanding of the project, including the level of security desired for the residential parking area, determination of what form of access control equipment is envisioned, visitor access into the buildings from the garage, etc. 2. Update the shared parking analysis to reflect the current mix of apartment units and to evaluate the peak parking demand for residential and office visitor spaces. 3. Review the proposed locations for access control equipment, determine lane requirements for accommodating such equipment and any loss of spaces that may result from any required equipment curb islands. 4. Based on the results of the shared parking analysis, identify the most appropriate locations for residential and office visitor parking, considering vertical access locations for both buildings. 5. Prepare one draft Parking Management Plan (PMP) for the development that outlines the manner in which the garage will operate. This plan will include a narrative and accompanying graphics for describing parking demand, space allocations during business hours and after-hours, and locations and types of proposed access control equipment. 6. Meet with Coastal Rim to discuss the draft version of the PMP. 7. Provide one final version of the PMP, incorporating comments received from Coastal Rim.

35 APPENDIX B: BASE SCENARIO DATA TABLES

36 Weekday - Entire Parking Supply Land Use/User Group 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 12:00 AM Residential Visitor Resident Secured Resident Office Visitor Office Employee Subtotal Guest/Visitor Subtotal Resident/Employee Subtotal Reserved TOTAL DEMAND Fewer Than Peak Period Hour-By-Hour Accumulation Weekend - Entire Parking Supply Land Use/User Group 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 12:00 AM Residential Visitor Resident Secured Resident Office Visitor Office Employee Subtotal Guest/Visitor Subtotal Resident/Employee Subtotal Reserved TOTAL DEMAND Fewer Than Peak Period Weekday - Shared Area Only Land Use/User Group 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 12:00 AM Residential Visitor Resident Office Visitor Office Employee Resident and Employee Resident and Office Visitors TOTAL DEMAND Fewer Than Peak Period

37 Weekday - Entire Parking Supply Land Use/User Group January February March April May June July August September October November December Late December Residential Visitor Resident Secured Resident Residential Shared, Owned Office Visitor Office Employee Subtotal Guest/Visitor Subtotal Resident/Employee Subtotal Reserved TOTAL DEMAND Fewer Than Peak Period Monthly Comparison Weekend - Entire Parking Supply Land Use/User Group January February March April May June July August September October November December Late December Residential Visitor Resident Secured Resident Residential Shared, Owned Office Visitor Office Employee Subtotal Guest/Visitor Subtotal Resident/Employee Subtotal Reserved TOTAL DEMAND Fewer Than Peak Period

38 APPENDIX C: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO PROJECTIONS

39 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO PROJECTIONS SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS --- POLO COURT Walker performed an additional scenario utilizing the majority of the same assumptions from the base analysis. We have tested somewhat less conservative, but also reasonable assumptions for both mode split and non-captive ratios. Walker reviewed means of transportation to work data from the American Community Survey ( ACS ), which is a sampling of the community and somewhat less comprehensive than the full Census but performed on an annual basis. Data set were available from 2005 through 2009 (September). Research indicated that single-occupant vehicle trips were down in 2009 compared to the 2000 Census data. The mode split adjustment ranged from 78.4% in 2008 to 84.0% in The mode split for 2009 was 79.9%. Therefore the following scenario considers a 79.9% mode split versus 84.7% from the base analysis. Walker also took a small adjustment for the possibility that a resident may also be employed within the adjacent office building. This scenario is not unlikely, and therefore should be considered. We have provided an analysis showing a 1% non-captive adjustment to office employees (resident/employee would not generate additional employee parking demand). A 1% adjustment reduces the office employee parking demand by 3 spaces. Those 3 spaces would already be accounted for within the residential parking demand for the 197 residential units; resident parking demand is projected at 296 spaces. The reduction of 3 spaces out of 296 suggests that 2 3 units would be occupied by residents who are also employees of the on-site office space. The shared parking analysis under this scenario produces a peak period for weekend parking generation of 627 total spaces at 10:00AM in every month other than July and August. These two months returned a lower peak period demand (610 spaces); office generates fewer spaces during those months due to vacations. The following figure illustrates the patterns of hourly parking accumulation for every month other than July and August. Tables within this appendix detail the numeric values associated with this graph. 1

40 Hourly Parking Accumulation --- Weekday, Alternative Scenario Office Visitor Office Employee Resident Visitor Resident Shared Resident Secured Source: Walker Parking Consultants, Again, we consider the removal of secured parking and office area parking. The remaining 106 shared spaces on Level A, in the northern area will be shared between the four user groups as shown in the following figure. The peak period for the shared parking area has shifted into the evening (10:00PM). Parking adequacy in this area would be 11 spaces, with a built-in effective supply cushion (between 5% and 10%). Hourly Parking Accumulation --- Weekday, Alternative Scenario Office Visitor Office Employee Resident Guest Resident Shared Source: Walker Parking Consultants,

41 Weekday - Entire Parking Supply Land Use/User Group 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 12:00 AM Residential Visitor Resident Secured Resident Office Visitor Office Employee Subtotal Guest/Visitor Subtotal Resident/Employee Subtotal Reserved TOTAL DEMAND Fewer Than Peak Period Hour-By-Hour Accumulation Weekend - Entire Parking Supply Land Use/User Group 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 12:00 AM Residential Visitor Resident Secured Resident Office Visitor Office Employee Subtotal Guest/Visitor Subtotal Resident/Employee Subtotal Reserved TOTAL DEMAND Fewer Than Peak Period Weekday - Shared Area Only Land Use/User Group 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 12:00 AM Residential Visitor Resident Office Visitor Office Employee Resident and Employee Resident and Office Visitors TOTAL DEMAND Fewer Than Peak Period

42 Weekday Land Use/User Group January February March April May June July August September October November December Late December Residential Visitor Resident Secured Resident Residential Shared, Owned Office Visitor Office Employee Subtotal Guest/Visitor Subtotal Resident/Employee Subtotal Reserved TOTAL DEMAND Fewer Than Peak Period Monthly Comparison Weekend Land Use/User Group January February March April May June July August September October November December Late December Residential Visitor Resident Secured Resident Residential Shared, Owned Office Visitor Office Employee Subtotal Guest/Visitor Subtotal Resident/Employee Subtotal Reserved TOTAL DEMAND Fewer Than Peak Period

43 . APPENDIX D: RESPONSE LETTER TO PEER REVIEW