2. The most up to date and recommended parking source applicable for the DVSP buildout scenarios and mixed-use developments are the parking rates from the Urban Land Institute 3rd Edition Shared Parking.
3. The recommended parking reduction methodology applicable for the DVSP buildout scenarios and mixed-use development is the 16.5% mode share and 18% internal capture reductions from Methodology II.
a. This methodology assumes feasible implementation of transportation improvement measures and moderate mode shift to alternative transportation based on inherent DVSP project characteristics and development goals.
b. These parking reduction values are a reasonable assumption. There is the option to increase the mode share split if additional TDM and infrastructure improvements are implemented.
4. The total estimated parking supply for the DVSP buildout (Land Use Scenario B & C) is unknown at this time since redevelopment of the area with higher land use densities will impact the current parking supply and where future parking spaces are located. a. Assuming the recommended ULI parking rates and Methodology II parking reductions, buildout of the DVSP would have a peak parking demand between 6,764 to 8,880 spaces. This estimated parking demand does not exceed the 10,121 to 13,650 Municipal Code required parking supply.
b. To ensure there is sufficient parking capacity to meet the anticipated parking demand, it is recommended that the City develop a parking management plan to identify parking strategies and policies for the Downtown Specific Plan area.
5. This analysis only provides parking demand calculations. Actual parking supply for the DVSP can be calculated once site specific details are available to conduct a sensitivity analysis preventing parking overflow into adjacent neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENT 8
76 City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
Shared Parking Analysis
20 The recommended shared parking scenario results are shown in Table 9. The range of results for each parking analysis methodology is summarized in Table 10 and Table 11.
Table 9 – DVSP Recommended Shared Peak Parking Demand
B C
Parking Rate
Source Methodology Land Use
Land Use
Parking
Rat
e
DVSP
Minimum
Bu
ildout
DVSP
Maximum
Bu
ildout
Office 3.1 to 3.7 61 76
Retail 2.8 to 4.4 1,895 3,402
Residential 0.8 to 2.5 4,807 5,322
6,764 8,800
12 AM
8 PM
10,121 13,650
TBD TBD
NOTES:
Land Use Program based on City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan (April 2019) Parking Demand shown is the peak shared use by time of day from ITE or ULI distribution data. See individual analysis sheets for peak hour period
Mode Share accounts for multi-modal users (walk, bike, transit, etc.). For ULI, percentage is estimated from the potential TDM measures and alternative transportation mode infrastructure proposed in DVSP based on 20 21 CAPCOA Transportation Measures / Guidelines. For ITE, mode share is accounted for in the base parking d d tInternal Capture accounts for patrons that are already parked and visit multiple land uses in a mixed-use site.
For ULI, percentage is estimated from DVSP land uses based on NCHRP 684 methodology for mixed-use dev
elopments. For ITE, internal capture is accounted for in the base parking demand rate. Internal Capture reduction not applied to Multifamily DVSP District since this zone does not have mixed-use commercial and
Marina Municipal Code Required Parking
Estimated Parking Supply in DVSP
Weekday Total Peak Parking Demand (# vehicle spaces)
Shared Use Parking Demand Analysis by Peak Time of Day Land Use Scenario 1 ULI (3rd Ed)
II
16.5% Mode Share
18 % Internal Capture Total Peak Demand
Peak Hour Period
ATTACHMENT 8
77 City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
Shared Parking Analysis
21 Table 10 – DVSP Shared Peak Parking Demand Summary
A B C
Parking Rate
Source Methodology Land Use
Land Use
Parking
Rate
Existing
Uses
DVSP
Minimum
Buildout
DVSP
Maximum
Buildout
Office 3.1 to 3.7 47 72 108
Retail 2.8 to 4.4 2,116 3,141 5,240
Residential 0.8 to 2.5 2,802 5,723 6,336
4,965 8,935 11,683
8 PM 8 PM 8 PM
Office 3.1 to 3.7 39 61 76
Retail 2.8 to 4.4 1,348 1,895 3,402
Residential 0.8 to 2.5 2,340 4,807 5,322
3,726 6,764 8,800
8 PM 12 AM 8 PM
Office 3.1 to 3.7 31 51 63
Retail 2.8 to 4.4 1,130 1,580 2,836
Residential 0.8 to 2.5 1,961 4,008 4,435
3,123 5,637 7,333
8 PM 8 PM 8 PM
Office 2.39 151 150 1,657
Retail 3.77 2,243 2,928 5,907
Residential 1.21 1,840 4,154 2,269
4,234 7,232 9,833
6 PM 7 PM 1 PM
Office 2.39 83 0 218
Retail 1.55 859 0 1,943
Residential 1.21 2,034 5,690 4,599
2,976 5,690 6,760
7 PM 12 AM 7 PM
5,863 10,121 13,650
7,990 TBD TBD
Weekday Total Peak Parking Demand (# vehicle spaces)
Shared Use Parking Demand Analysis by Peak Time of Day Land Use Scenario 2 ITE (5th Ed)
IV
Base Rates with
inherent Mode Share
& Internal Capture Total Peak Demand
Peak Hour Period
Peak Hour Period
3 Marina Data
& ITE (5th Ed)
IV
Base Rates with
inherent Mode Share
& Internal Capture Total Peak Demand
Peak Hour Period
Land Use Program based on City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan (April 2019) Parking Demand shown is the peak shared use by time of day from ITE or ULI distribution data. See individual analysis sheets for peak hour period
Mode Share accounts for multi-modal users (walk, bike, transit, etc.). For ULI, percentage is estimated from the potential TDM measures and alternative transportation mode infrastructure proposed in DVSP based on 2021 CAPCOA Transportation Measures / Guidelines. For ITE, mode share is accounted for in the base parking demand rate.
Internal Capture accounts for patrons that are already parked and visit multiple land uses in a mixed-use site. For ULI, percentage is estimated from DVSP land uses based on NCHRP 684 methodology for mixed-use developments. For ITE, internal capture is accounted for in the base parking demand rate. Internal Capture reduction not applied to Multifamily DVSP District since this zone does not have mixed-use commercial and residential components.
III
30% Mode Share
18% Internal Capture Total Peak Demand
Peak Hour Period
Marina Municipal Code Required Parking
Estimated Parking Supply in DVSP
NOTES:
1 ULI (3rd Ed)
I
0% Mode Share
0% Internal Capture Total Peak Demand
Peak Hour Period
II
16.5% Mode Share
18% Internal Capture Total Peak Demand
ATTACHMENT 8
78 City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
Shared Parking Analysis
22 Table 11 – DVSP Adjusted Peak Parking Demand Rate Summary
A B C
Parking Rate
Source Methodology Land Use
Land
Use
Un
it
Existing
Uses
DVSP
Minimum
Bu
ildout
DVSP
Maximum
Bu
ildout
Office
Retail
Residential DU 1.22 1.22 1.22
8 PM 8 PM 8 PM
Office
Retail
Residential DU 1.02 1.02 1.02
8 PM 8 PM 8 PM
Office
Retail
Residential DU 0.85 0.85 0.85
8 PM 8 PM 8 PM
Office
Retail
Residential DU 0.80 0.88 0.44
6 PM 7 PM 1 PM
Office
Retail
Residential DU 0.88 1.21 0.88
7 PM 12 AM 7 PM
Adjusted Peak Parking Demand Rate shown provides comparision between each Land Use Scenario (A,B,C) accounting for differences in land use size, parking reduction methodology, and peak hour period.
Mode Share accounts for multi-modal users (walk, bike, transit, etc.). For ULI, percentage is estimated from the potential TDM measures and alternative transportation mode infrastructure proposed in DVSP based on 2021 CAPCOA Tr
ansportation Measures / Guidelines. For ITE, mode share is accounted for in the base parking demand rate.
Internal Capture accounts for patrons that are already parked and visit multiple land uses in a mixed-use site. For ULI, percentage is estimated from DVSP land uses based on NCHRP 684 methodology for mixed-use developments. For ITE, int
ernal capture is accounted for in the base parking demand rate. Internal Capture reduction not applied to Multifamily DVSP District since this zone does not have mixed-use commercial and residential components.
1.06 1.21
Peak Hour Period
NOTES:
Land Use Program based on City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan (April 2019)
2.09 2.24
Peak Hour Period
II
16.5% Mode Share
18 % Internal Capture
KSF 1.38 1.27 1.451
ULI (3rd Ed)
I
0% Mode Share
0%
Internal Capture
KSF 2.15
Peak Hour Period
III
30% Mode Share
18 % Internal Capture
KSF 1.15
3 Marina Data
& I
TE (5th Ed)
IV
Base Rates with
in
herent Mode Share
& Internal Capture
KSF 0.94 0.00 0.86
Peak Hour Period
Peak Hour Period
Adjusted Parking Demand Rate (# spaces / LU) by Peak Time of Day Shared Use Parking Demand Analysis by Peak Time of
Day
Land Use Scenario
2 ITE (5th Ed)
IV
Base Rates with
in
herent Mode Share
& Internal Capture
KSF 2.38 2.00 3.16
ATTACHMENT 8
79 City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
Shared Parking Analysis
23 Potential Parking Management Strategies
To improve parking capacity and operations for the proposed mixed-use development in the DVSP buildout scenarios, the following potential parking management strategies and TDM infrastructure measures could be implemented to reduce vehicle trips and reduce the vehicle parking demand.
Preferential Parking Spaces
• Provide reserved parking spaces for online retail and food pickup service (including DoorDash and mobile orders). These spaces should be located close to the business entrances and identified with signing/striping with a maximum set time limit. • Provide reserved parking spaces for electric vehicles and charging stations. These spaces should be identified with signing/striping and located in an accessible area with sufficient lighting and utilities.
Short-Term and Long-Term Duration Spaces
• Establish time limits for on-street parking spaces using parking meters, signing, or striping along the curb. Parking violations should be enforced by the City.
Rideshare / Transportation Network Company (TNC) Hub
• Establish a central loading area for rideshare and TNC vehicles to pickup and drop-off passengers in the Specific Plan area to mitigate traffic congestion and queuing on local streets and parking areas.
• Recommend potential rideshare hub to be located in the DVSP Core district.
TDM Transit Infrastructure
• Provide high quality transit stops on Reservation Road and Del Monte Boulevard. • Provide wayfinding signs between transit stops and downtown destinations.
TDM Bicycle Infrastructure
• Construct Class I or Class IV bike facilities on Reservation Road and Del Monte Boulevard. • Provide on-site bike racks, storage, and repair facilities. • Provide showers and lockers for office users.
TDM Pedestrian Infrastructure
• Establish a grid network of pedestrian connectivity throughout the site for shortest walking paths between destinations.
ATTACHMENT 8
80 City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
Shared Parking Analysis
24 Affordable Housing and Assembly Bill 2097
A portion of the residential units in the DVSP Multifamily zone would provide affordable housing to support the local businesses in downtown. The City does not have an established parking requirement for affordable housing or below market rate (BMR) units and the final amount of affordable housing planned in the DVSP buildout scenarios still being determined.
For reference, other affordable housing projects in the City of Marina such as the University Villages Specific Plan is proposing to provide a minimum parking requirement of 1.3 spaces per dwelling unit.
California Assembly Bill 2097 approved by the State Assembly and Governor on 9/22/2022 eliminates parking mandates for homes and commercial buildings near transit, or neighborhoods with low rates of car use. The bill prohibits a public agency from imposing any minimum automobile parking requirement on any residential, commercial, or other development project that is located within ½ mile of public transit.
Most of the DVSP boundary would be located within ½ mile of public transit from the proposed MST SURF bus rapid transit project and would likely satisfy the parking provisions described in AB 2097. The proposed MST improvement project would provide high quality BRT stops at the Del Monte / Palm intersection and MST Transit Exchange along Reservation Road. Figure 2 and the Appendix shows the ½ mile radius of the proposed MST transit stops in downtown and the parcels that are potentially impacted by AB 2097.
Figure 2 – MST Transit Stop Locations in Downtown Marina
MST Transit Exchange Del Monte/Palm BRT
½ mile transit stop radius
ATTACHMENT 8
81 City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
Shared Parking Analysis
25 Affordable housing units proposed in the DVSP would likely meet the provisions of AB 2097 and be exempt from providing minimum off-street parking. For comparison purposes only, it is assumed that the parking demand for the BMR residential units would be reduced from the total peak parking demand. Table 12 shows the estimated DVSP parking demand if up to 612 affordable housing units are affected by the AB 2097 parking provisions. With affordable housing and AB 2097, buildout of the DVSP would potentially have a peak parking demand between 6,020 to 8,056 spaces.
Table 12 – DVSP Shared Peak Parking Demand with Affordable Housing & AB 2097 (Comparison)
B C
Parking Rate
Source Methodology Land Use
Land Use
Parking
Rat
e
DVSP
Minimum
Bu
ildout
DVSP
Maximum
Bu
ildout
Office 3.1 to 3.7 61 76
Retail 2.8 to 4.4 1,895 3,402
Residential 0.8 to 2.5 4,807 5,322
6,764 8,800
12 AM
8 PM
744 744
6,020 8,056
Parking demand estimates shown are for comparison purposes only Estimated Affordable Housing Parking Demand (612 Units) Total Peak Parking Demand minus Affordable Housing
NOTES:
Land Use Program based on City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan (April 2019) Parking Demand shown is the peak shared use by time of day from ITE or ULI distribution data. See individual analysis sheets for peak hour period
Assumes up to 612 affordable housing units are reduced from the total peak parking demand based on the AB 2097 parking provisions and 1/2 mile proximity to transit stops Weekday Total Peak Parking Demand (# vehicle spaces)
Shared Use Parking Demand Analysis by Peak Time of Day Land Use Scenario 1 ULI (3rd Ed)
II
16.5% Mode Share
18 % Internal Capture Total Peak Demand
Peak Hour Period
ATTACHMENT 8
82 City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
Shared Parking Analysis
26 9. References
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). December 2021. Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). February 2019. Parking Generation, 5 th Edition
Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2011. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 684 Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments
Urban Land Institute (ULI). February 2020. Shared Parking, 3 rd Edition
10. Appendix
A. Parking Occupancy Survey Data (September 2022)
B. NCHRP 684 – Internal Capture Reduction for DVSP
C. US Census Data for Multifamily residential bedroom size distribution D. ULI 3rd Edition Parking Rates –Parking Demand Analysis E. ITE 5th Edition Parking Rates –Parking Demand Analysis F. Marina Field Data & ITE 5th Edition Parking Rates –Parking Demand Analysis
ATTACHMENT 8
83 City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
Shared Parking Analysis
Appendix A - Parking Occupancy Survey Data (September 2022)
ATTACHMENT 8
84 ATTACHMENT 8
85 Building / Business Name Land Use (DVSP Definitions) Size (SQFT) Marina Tire Auto Repair Services, Major (Motor Vehicle Service) 4,050 Ace Hardware Retail Sales, Minor 10,025
Cheesecake Dreamations Restaurant, Minor (Convenience Restaurant) 2,660 Wash & Dry Service, Minor (General Service) 2,150
Vacant N/A 1,990
Daddy's City Diner Restauarant, Minor 3,025
Purity Foot Massage Service, Major (Massage Establishments) 1,470 Body Massage Service, Major (Massage Establishments) 1,420 Michael's
Grill and Taqueria Restaurant, Minor (Restaurant with Beer and Wine Sales) 1,540 Lola's Kusina Restaurant, Minor 1,150
Ray's Hair Cut Salon Service, Minor (General Service) 985 Glow Brows Salon Service, Minor (General Service) 610 Lopez Tax Refund Service, Minor (Professional Offices) 1,380 Farmers Insurance Service, Minor (Professional Offices) 1,725 Twisted Roots Retail Sales, Minor 1,520
Nails Fashion Service, Minor (General Service) 660
Domino's Restaurant,
Minor (Convenience Restaurant) 1,830
Health New Image Service, Minor (Fitness and Health Establishment) 1,760 McDonald's Restaurant, Minor (Convenience Restaurant) 3,810 Clothes/Shoes Donation Station 210
Total 43,970
Marina Square Shopping Center ‐ 250 Reservation Road
ATTACHMENT 8
86 Building / Business Name Land Use (DVSP Definitions) Size (SQFT) Auto Zone Retail Sales, Minor 8,260
Chase Bank Service, Minor (Bank, Retail) 7,120
Goodwill Store Retail Sales, Minor 6,470
Mountain Mike's Pizza Restaurant, Minor (Convenience Restaurant) 4,180 UPS Store Service, Minor (General Service) 2,060
Donuts and Bagels Restaurant, Minor (Convenience Restaurant) 2,235 Vacant N/A 1,415
Subway Restaurant, Minor (Convenience Restaurant) 1,350 Dollar Store Retail Sales, Minor 3,180
Picture Perfect Pet Grooming Service, Minor (Animal Service) 1,765 Vacant N/A 1,425
Indian Fashion Trends Retail Sales, Minor 1,930
H&R Block Service, Minor (Professional Offices) 820
Evelyn Nails Service, Minor (General Service) 1,430
Lucky Noodle House Restaurant, Minor (Convenience Restaurant) 1,570 Poke House Restaurant, Minor (Convenience Restaurant) 1,300 Lucky Store Supermarket 43,843
CVS/Pharmacy Pharmacy 32,445
Vacant N/A 4,986
Total 127,784
Seacrest Plaza Shopping Center ‐ 250 Reservation Road
ATTACHMENT 8
87 Marina Square Time: 12:00PM
Lot ID
Parking Space
Supply ADA Supply
Reserved
Supply
Occupied
Spaces
Occupancy
Rate
1 75 4 3 32 43%
2 41 0 0 12 29%
3 35 2 4 24 69%
Total 151 6 7 68 45%
Marina Square Time: 1:00PM
Lot ID
Parking Space
Supply ADA Supply
Reserved
Supply
Occupied
Spaces
Occupancy
Rate
1 75 4 3 35 47%
2 41 0 0 12 29%
3 35 2 4 17 49%
Total 151 6 7 64 42%
Marina Square Time: 5:00PM
Lot ID
Parking Space
Supply ADA Supply
Reserved
Supply
Occupied
Spaces
Occupancy
Rate
1 75 4 3 21 28%
2 41 0 0 13 32%
3 35 2 4 9 26%
Total 151 6 7 43 28%
Marina Square Time: 6:00PM
Lot ID
Parking Space
Supply ADA Supply
Reserved
Supply
Occupied
Spaces
Occupancy
Rate
1 75 4 3 25 33%
2 41 0 0 7 17%
3 35 2 4 9 26%
Total 151 6 7 41 27%
Marina Square
Lot ID 12:00PM 1:00PM 5:00PM 6:00PM
1 43% 47% 28% 33%
2 29% 29% 32% 17%
3 69% 49% 26% 26%
Total 45% 42% 28% 27%
OCCUPANY RATE SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT 8
88 Seacrest Shopping Center Time: 12:00PM
Lot ID
Parking Space
Supply ADA Supply
Reserved
Supply
Occupied
Spaces
Occupancy
Rate
1 217 6 0 51 24%
2 213 9 2 87 41%
3 37 0 0 3 8%
Total 467 15 2 141 30%
Seacrest Shopping Center Time: 1:00PM
Lot ID
Parking Space
Supply ADA Supply
Reserved
Supply
Occupied
Spaces
Occupancy
Rate
1 217 6 0 52 24%
2 213 9 2 88 41%
3 37 0 0 1 3%
Total 467 15 2 141 30%
Seacrest Shopping Center Time: 5:00PM
Lot ID
Parking Space
Supply ADA Supply
Reserved
Supply
Occupied
Spaces
Occupancy
Rate
1 217 6 0 62 29%
2 213 9 2 105 49%
3 37 0 0 7 19%
Total 467 15 2 174 37%
Seacrest Shopping Center Time: 6:00PM
Lot ID
Parking Space
Supply ADA Supply
Reserved
Supply
Occupied
Spaces
Occupancy
Rate
1 217 6 0 44 20%
2 213 9 2 77 36%
3 37 0 0 9 24%
Total 467 15 2 130 28%
Seacrest Shopping Center
Lot ID 12:00PM 1:00PM 5:00PM 6:00PM
1 24% 24% 29% 20%
2 41% 41% 49% 36%
3 8% 3% 19% 24%
Total 30% 30% 37% 28%
OCCUPANY RATE SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT 8
89 City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
Shared Parking Analysis
Appendix B - NCHRP 684 – Internal Capture Reduction for DVSP
ATTACHMENT 8
90 Trip Generation Planner (ITE 11th Edition) - Summary Report Weekday Trip Generation Project Name
Trips Based on Average Rates/Equations Project Number
ITE
Code
Internal Capture Land
Use Land Use Description
Independent
Variable Setting/Location
No. of
Units
Avg
Rate
or Eq
Daily
Rate
AM
Rate
PM
Rate
Daily
Trips
AM
Trips
PM
Trips
AM
Trips
In
AM
Trips
Out
PM
Trips
In
PM
Trips
Out
Daily
Trips
AM
Trips
PM
Trips
AM
Trips
In
AM
Trips
Out
PM
Trips
In
PM
Trips
Out
220 Residential Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) Dwelling Unit(s) General Urban/Suburban 5205 Avg 6.74 0.40 0.51 35, 082 2,082 2,655 500 1,582 1,673 982 27,796 2,024 1,626 490 1,534 937 689 710 Office General Office Building 1,000 Sq Ft General Urban/S uburban 824.58 Avg 10.84 1.52 1.44 8,940 1,253 1,187 1,103 150 202 985 7,348 1,135 8 76 1,027 108 108 768 820 Retail Shopping Center 1,000 Sq Ft GLA General Urban/Suburban 1556. 4 Avg 37.01 0.84 3.40 57,602 1,307 5, 292 810 497 2,540 2,752 48,484 1,195 4,070 752 443 2,089 1,981 1,000 Sq Ft 824.58 8,940 1,253 1,187 1,103 150 202 985 7,348 1,135 876 1,027 108 108 768 1,000 Sq Ft 1556.4 57,602 1,307 5,292 810 497 2,540 2,752 48,483 1,195 4,070 752 443 2,089 1,981 1,000 Sq Ft
1,000 Sq Ft
Dwelling Unit(s) 5205 35,082 2,082 2,655 500 1,582 1,673 982 27,795 2,024 1,626 490 1,534 937 689 Room(s)
Grand Total 101,624 4,642 9,134 2,413 2,229 4,415 4,719 83,628 4,354 6,572 2,269 2,085 3,134 3,438 Internal Capture Trip Delta (Total Trips - Net Trips) 17,996 288 2,562 144 144 1,281 1,281 Internal Capture Percentage 18% 6% 28% 6% 6% 29% 27%
Subtotal before
Internal Capture
Total Office
Total Retail
Total Restaurant
Total Ciema/Entertainment
Total Residential
Total Hotel
Total Other
Marina DVSP
Max Buildout Scenario
Rates Total Trips Net Trips after Internal Capture
NCHRP684_DVSP IC_TripGenPlannerV10_20221011.xlsx Page 1 ATTACHMENT 8
91 Project Name: Organization:
Project Location: Performed By:
Scenario Description: Date:
Analysis Year: Checked By:
Analysis Period: Date:
ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting
Office 710 825 1,000 Sq Ft 1,253 1,103 150 Retail 820 1,556 1,000 Sq Ft 1,307 810 497 Restaurant - 1,000 Sq Ft 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment - 1,000 Sq Ft 0 0 0 Residential 220 5,205 Dwelling Unit(s) 2,082 500 1,582 Hotel - Room(s) 0 0 0
All Other Land Uses2 - 0 0 0 0
4,642 2,413 2,229
Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office 1.00 5% 5% 1.00 5% 5%
Retail 1.00 5% 5% 1.00 5% 5%
Restaurant 1.00 5% 5% 1.00 5% 5%
Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 5% 5% 1.00 5% 5%
Residential 1.00 5% 5% 1.00 5% 5%
Hotel 1.00 5% 5% 1.00 5% 5%
All Other Land Uses
2 1.00 5% 5% 1.00 5% 5%
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office
Retail
Restaurant
Cinema/Entertainment
Residential
Hotel
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 42 0 0 0
Retail 44 0 10 0
Restaurant 0 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 32 16 0 0
Hotel 0 0 0 0
Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 4,642 2,413 2,229 Office 7% 28%
Internal Capture Percentage 6% 6% 6% Retail 7% 11%
Restaurant N/A N/A
External Vehicle-Trips
5 3,918 2,041 1,877 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A
External Transit-Trips6 218 114 104 Residential 2% 3%
External Non-Motorized Trips6 218 114 104 Hotel N/A N/A Table 3-A: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) Internal Capture for Shared Parking 10/11/2022
NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool
Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Marina, CA DW
0 Origin (From) Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
2022 FV
AM Street Peak Hour 10/11/2022
Table 1-A: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) Land Use Development Data (For Information Only ) Estimated Vehicle-Trips3 Table 2-A: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates
Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips
Table 4-A: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Origin (From) Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
Table 5-A: Computations Summary Table 6-A: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 0 0
0 0
6Person-Trips
*Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual , published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-A vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be made to Tables 5-A, 9-A (O and D). Enter transit, non-motorized percentages that will result with proposed mixed-use project complete. 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual ).
NCHRP684_DVSP IC_TripGenPlannerV10_20221011.xlsx Page 1 ATTACHMENT 8
92 Project Name:
Analysis Period:
Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.00 1103 1103 1.00 150 150
Retail 1.00 810 810 1.00 497 497
Restaurant 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Residential 1.00 500 500 1.00 1582 1582
Hotel 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 42 95 2 0
Retail 144 65 70 0
Restaurant 0 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 32 16 316 0
Hotel 0 0 0 0
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 259 0 0 0
Retail 44 0 10 0
Restaurant 154 65 25 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 33 138 0 0
Hotel 33 32 0 0
Internal External Total Vehicles
1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2
Office 76 1027 1103 925 51 51
Retail 58 752 810 676 38 38
Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 10 490 500 440 25 25
Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0
All Other Land Uses3 00 0 0 0 0
Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 42 108 150 98 5 5
Retail 54 443 497 399 22 22
Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 48 1534 1582 1380 77 77
Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0
All Other Land Uses3 00 0 0 0 0
Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
AM Street Peak Hour
0 Table 7-A: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Land Use Table 7-A (D): Entering Trips Table 7-A (O): Exiting Trips Table 8-A (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Origin (From) Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
0 0
0 0
0 Table 8-A (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Origin (From) Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
0 0
0 0
1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A 2Person-Trips
3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Table 9-A (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Destination Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* Table 9-A (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* NCHRP684_DVSP IC_TripGenPlannerV10_20221011.xlsx Page 2 ATTACHMENT 8
93 Project Name: Organization:
Project Location: Performed By:
Scenario Description: Date:
Analysis Year: Checked By:
Analysis Period: Date:
ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting
Office 710 825 1,000 Sq Ft 1,187 202 985 Retail 820 1,556 1,000 Sq Ft 5,292 2,540 2,752 Restaurant - 1,000 Sq Ft 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment - 1,000 Sq Ft 0 0 0 Residential 220 5,205 Dwelling Unit(s) 2,655 1,673 982 Hotel - Room(s) 0 0 0
All Other Land Uses2 - 0 0 0 0
9,134 4,415 4,719
Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office 1.00 5% 5% 1.00 5% 5%
Retail 1.00 5% 5% 1.00 5% 5%
Restaurant 1.00 5% 5% 1.00 5% 5%
Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 5% 5% 1.00 5% 5%
Residential 1.00 5% 5% 1.00 5% 5%
Hotel 1.00 5% 5% 1.00 5% 5%
All Other Land Uses2 1.00 5% 5% 1.00 5% 5%
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office
Retail
Restaurant
Cinema/Entertainment
Residential
Hotel
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 197 0 20 0
Retail 55 0 716 0
Restaurant 0 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 39 254 0 0
Hotel 0 0 0 0
Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 9,134 4,415 4,719 Office 47% 22%
Internal Capture Percentage 28% 29% 27% Retail 18% 28%
Restaurant N/A N/A
External Vehicle-Trips
5 5,918 2,822 3,096 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A
External Transit-Trips6 327 156 171 Residential 44% 30% External Non-Motorized Trips6 327 156 171 Hotel N/A N/A Table 3-P: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) Internal Capture for Shared Parking 10/11/2022
NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool
Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Marina, CA DW
0 Origin (From) Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
2022 FV
PM Street Peak Hour 10/11/2022
Table 1-P: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) Land Use Development Data (For Information Only ) Estimated Vehicle-Trips3 Table 2-P: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates
Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips
Table 4-P: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Origin (From) Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
Table 5-P: Computations Summary Table 6-P: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 0 0
0 0
6Person-Trips
*Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-P vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual).
NCHRP684_DVSP IC_TripGenPlannerV10_20221011.xlsx Page 3 ATTACHMENT 8
94 Project Name:
Analysis Period:
Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.00 202 202 1.00 985 985
Retail 1.00 2540 2540 1.00 2752 2752
Restaurant 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Residential 1.00 1673 1673 1.00 982 982
Hotel 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 197 39 20 0
Retail 55 798 716 138
Restaurant 0 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 39 412 206 29
Hotel 0 0 0 0
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 203 0 67 0
Retail 63 0 770 0
Restaurant 61 1270 268 0
Cinema/Entertainment 12 102 0 67 0
Residential 115 254 0 0
Hotel 0 51 0 0
Internal External Total Vehicles
1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2
Office 94 108 202 98 5 5
Retail 451 2089 2540 1881 104 104
Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 736 937 1673 843 47 47
Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0
All Other Land Uses3 000 0 0 0
Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 217 768 985 692 38 38
Retail 771 1981 2752 1783 99 99
Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 293 689 982 621 34 34
Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0
All Other Land Uses3 000 0 0 0
Table 8-P (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
PM Street Peak Hour
Table 7-P: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Land Use Table 7-P (D): Entering Trips Table 7-P (O): Exiting Trips Origin (From) Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
Origin (From) Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
0 110
0 0
0 Table 8-P (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Table 9-P (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) 0 0
0 0
0 Table 9-P (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Destination Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* 1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P 2Person-Trips
3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator NCHRP684_DVSP IC_TripGenPlannerV10_20221011.xlsx Page 4 ATTACHMENT 8
95 City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
Shared Parking Analysis
Appendix C - US Census Data for Multifamily residential bedroom size distribution
ATTACHMENT 8
96 Year 1 2 3 or more 1 2 3 or more
Total Efficiencies bedroom bedrooms bedrooms Total Efficiencies bedroom bedrooms bedrooms 1978 498 18 194 246 43 100 3 39 49 9
1979 570 15 219 283 53 100 3 38 50 9
1980 545 16 188 285 55 100 3 34 52 10
1981 447 11 152 237 48 100 2 34 53 11
1982 374 6 138 195 37 100 1 37 52 10
1983 467 9 166 247 44 100 2 36 53 9
1984 627 14 231 334 48 100 2 37 53 8
1985 631 14 227 343 47 100 2 36 54 7
1986 636 20 235 339 42 100 3 37 53 7
1987 546 16 193 296 41 100 3 35 54 7
1988 445 10 151 247 37 100 2 34 55 8
1989 397 13 138 207 39 100 3 35 52 10
1990 342 6 113 184 39 100 2 33 54 11
1991 253 7 73 144 29 100 3 29 57 12
1992 194 3 51 115 24 100 2 26 60 13
1993 153 4 37 87 26 100 3 24 57 17
1994 187 4 51 104 29 100 2 27 56 15
1995 247 5 65 138 40 100 2 26 56 16
1996 284 4 76 157 47 100 2 27 55 17
1997 284 6 76 155 46 100 2 27 55 16
1998 314 7 93 163 51 100 2 30 52 16
1999 334 9 98 163 65 100 3 29 49 19
2000 332 9 100 165 59 100 3 30 50 18
2001 315 6 89 153 66 100 2 28 49 21
2002 323 6 95 159 64 100 2 29 49 20
2003 292 7 81 144 60 100 2 28 49 21
2004 310 6 89 153 62 100 2 29 49 20
2005 296 6 71 149 69 100 2 24 50 23
2006 325 6 82 158 79 100 2 25 49 24
2007 284 5 80 138 61 100 2 28 49 21
2008 301 8 104 140 49 100 3 34 46 16
2009 274 6 104 130 35 100 2 38 47 13
2010 155 10 55 70 19 100 7 35 45 13
2011 138 4 45 65 25 100 3 32 47 18
2012 166 7 60 71 28 100 4 36 43 17
2013 195 10 79 79 27 100 5 40 41 14
2014 264 14 111 108 31 100 5 42 41 12
2015 320 16 131 139 35 100 5 41 43 11
2016 321 15 134 134 39 100 5 42 42 12
2017 358 21 152 145 39 100 6 43 41 11
2018 345 26 150 134 35 100 7 43 39 10
2019 352 26 149 138 40 100 7 42 39 11
2020 375 27 164 146 38 100 7 44 39 10
2021 371 30 160 147 35 100 8 43 40 9
RSE/SE 69669 (NA) 1111
Number of Multifamily Units Completed by Number of Bedrooms per Unit (Components may not add to totals because of rounding. Percents computed from unrounded figures.) Number of units (in thousands) Percent distribution
United States
ATTACHMENT 8
97 Year 1 2 3 or more 1 2 3 or more
Total Efficiencies bedroom bedrooms bedrooms Total Efficiencies bedroom bedrooms bedrooms Number of Multifamily Units Completed by Number of Bedrooms per Unit (Components may not add to totals because of rounding. Percents computed from unrounded figures.) Number of units (in thousands) Percent distribution
1978 41 1 23 13 4 100 3 56 33 9
1979 53 2 31 16 4 100 4 58 30 8
1980 46 2 24 16 4 100 5 52 34 9
1981 40 1 21 14 5 100 2 52 34 12
1982 41 (S) 24 13 3 100 (S) 59 32 7
1983 33 1 15 13 4 100 2 46 39 13
1984 40 3 18 15 5 100 7 45 37 12
1985 46 2 12 25 6 100 3 27 55 14
1986 61 3 25 30 4 100 4 41 49 6
1987 62 2 21 31 7 100 3 35 51 12
1988 62 2 18 33 9 100 4 29 53 14
1989 60 3 23 26 8 100 5 38 43 14
1990 31 1 9 18 3 100 3 30 57 11
1991 21 1 6 11 2 100 4 31 56 10
1992 23 1 9 11 1 100 5 39 50 6
1993 12 1462 1 008 3 2 4 8 1 3
1994 11 (S) 2 6 (S) 100 (S) 18 57 (S)
1995 19 1 8 8 (S) 100 5 40 44 (S)
1996 17 1592 1 003 3 1 5 3 1 3
1997 19 2485 1 00 1 0 2 2 4 2 2 6
1998 21 1 10 7 3 100 5 48 32 16
1999 28 3 8 11 6 100 9 29 40 22
2000 26 2 7 13 5 100 6 26 50 18
2001 31 1 8 15 6 100 4 27 49 20
2002 35 2 11 14 8 100 5 32 41 22
2003 41 2 10 20 9 100 6 24 49 21
2004 37 1 11 17 8 100 3 29 47 21
2005 39 2 9 15 13 100 5 24 38 33
2006 51 2 9 22 18 100 3 19 43 35
2007 40 1 11 18 10 100 3 28 45 24
2008 37 1 11 17 8 100 4 30 45 22
2009 40 1 14 18 6 100 3 36 46 16
2010 26 2 8 11 5 100 9 32 40 19
2011 29 2 11 12 4 100 7 40 40 13
2012 28 2 10 11 5 100 8 35 39 18
2013 27 3 11 9 4 100 11 41 34 14
2014 39 2 17 15 5 100 6 42 38 14
2015 46 5 15 20 5 100 12 33 44 12
2016 44 4 19 15 6 100 9 43 35 14
2017 57 5 23 23 6 100 8 41 41 10
2018 54 6 24 19 4 100 11 45 36 8
2019 60 5 25 23 7 100 8 42 39 12
2020 38 4 14 15 6 100 9 37 39 15
2021 50 5 19 21 5 100 10 39 42 9
RSE/SE 14 15 21 16 20 (NA) 1442
Northeast
ATTACHMENT 8
98 Year 1 2 3 or more 1 2 3 or more
Total Efficiencies bedroom bedrooms bedrooms Total Efficiencies bedroom bedrooms bedrooms Number of Multifamily Units Completed by Number of Bedrooms per Unit (Components may not add to totals because of rounding. Percents computed from unrounded figures.) Number of units (in thousands) Percent distribution
1978 117 2 44 60 10 100 2 38 51 8
1979 121 2 48 60 12 100 2 39 49 10
1980 104 1 38 54 11 100 1 36 52 10
1981 78 2 24 43 9 100 2 30 56 12
1982 51 (S) 16 28 6 100 (S) 32 55 12
1983 59 1 17 34 8 100 1 28 57 14
1984 65 1 20 37 7 100 2 31 59 11
1985 79 2 27 44 6 100 2 34 56 8
1986 100 4 34 56 5 100 3 34 56 5
1987 101 4 38 53 6 100 4 37 53 6
1988 89 2 34 47 6 100 2 38 53 7
1989 76 2 27 42 5 100 3 35 55 7
1990 68 1 21 41 5 100 2 31 59 8
1991 55 3 15 31 6 100 5 27 56 11
1992 50 (Z) 10 33 6 100 (S) 20 67 12
1993 42 1 9 25 6 100 3 22 59 15
1994 52 (S) 15 31 5 100 (S) 29 60 10
1995 56 1 10 35 9 100 2 18 63 16
1996 60 (Z) 12 37 11 100 (Z) 20 62 18
1997 59 (Z) 13 37 10 100 (Z) 22 63 17
1998 62 2 16 36 8 100 3 26 58 13
1999 58 4 15 32 8 100 7 26 55 13
2000 65 2 17 38 9 100 3 25 58 13
2001 55 1 13 30 11 100 2 24 54 20
2002 58 (Z) 14 34 9 100 1 25 59 16
2003 58 1 16 32 10 100 1 28 55 16
2004 59 1 15 33 9 100 2 26 57 16
2005 45 1 9 27 8 100 2 20 60 18
2006 40 (Z) 14 21 5 100 1 35 52 12
2007 34 (Z) 9 20 5 100 (Z) 26 60 14
2008 40 (Z) 11 23 5 100 1 27 59 14
2009 30 1 9 17 4 100 2 30 55 13
2010 25 2 8 13 3 100 7 30 51 11
2011 27 1 8 15 4 100 3 29 55 14
2012 25 1 7 13 3 100 5 29 53 13
2013 25 1 8 12 4 100 5 32 46 16
2014 45 3 15 21 6 100 7 33 47 13
2015 52 2 16 27 6 100 5 31 52 12
2016 47 2 16 23 6 100 4 34 49 13
2017 52 4 22 20 5 100 8 43 39 10
2018 44 3 17 19 6 100 8 37 43 13
2019 49 4 20 21 5 100 9 40 42 9
2020 57 8 25 20 4 100 13 44 36 7
2021 59 9 24 22 4 100 15 41 38 7
RSE/SE 8 16 10 10 16 (NA) 2231
Midwest
ATTACHMENT 8
99 Year 1 2 3 or more 1 2 3 or more
Total Efficiencies bedroom bedrooms bedrooms Total Efficiencies bedroom bedrooms bedrooms Number of Multifamily Units Completed by Number of Bedrooms per Unit (Components may not add to totals because of rounding. Percents computed from unrounded figures.) Number of units (in thousands) Percent distribution
1978 181 4 75 89 13 100 2 42 49 7
1979 227 5 90 116 17 100 2 40 51 7
1980 242 3 84 132 22 100 1 35 55 9
1981 218 5 76 116 20 100 2 35 53 9
1982 199 2 71 106 20 100 1 36 53 10
1983 270 4 100 142 23 100 2 37 53 9
1984 358 5 137 192 24 100 1 38 54 7
1985 298 5 117 156 21 100 2 39 52 7
1986 259 7 106 130 17 100 3 41 50 7
1987 193 4 77 101 11 100 2 40 52 6
1988 138 2 48 78 9 100 2 35 57 7
1989 129 4 48 67 11 100 3 37 52 9
1990 121 1 46 62 12 100 1 38 51 10
1991 91 1 30 50 10 100 2 33 55 11
1992 63 (S) 17 36 9 100 (S) 27 57 15
1993 56 (S) 14 32 10 100 (S) 25 57 18
1994 74 (S) 22 39 12 100 (S) 30 54 16
1995 109 1 33 59 16 100 1 30 54 15
1996 130 (S) 37 69 21 100 (S) 29 53 16
1997 129 1 39 70 18 100 1 30 55 14
1998 154 2 45 81 26 100 2 29 53 17
1999 163 1 49 78 34 100 1 30 48 21
2000 163 1 51 79 32 100 1 31 48 20
2001 148 1 42 71 34 100 1 28 48 23
2002 143 1 39 72 31 100 1 28 50 22
2003 120 1 34 60 26 100 1 28 50 21
2004 141 1 40 68 31 100 1 29 48 22
2005 143 2 35 72 34 100 1 24 51 24
2006 161 2 38 80 41 100 1 24 50 25
2007 135 2 41 62 30 100 1 30 46 23
2008 150 1 61 67 21 100 1 41 44 14
2009 135 1 55 63 16 100 1 41 47 12
2010 59 1 23 29 7 100 1 39 49 11
2011 60 (Z) 18 29 13 100 (Z) 30 49 21
2012 74 1 29 31 13 100 1 39 42 18
2013 93 2 42 39 11 100 2 45 41 12
2014 112 2 53 45 11 100 2 48 41 10
2015 138 3 65 57 13 100 2 47 41 9
2016 148 3 68 60 18 100 2 46 41 12
2017 159 3 73 66 17 100 2 46 41 11
2018 146 6 67 59 15 100 4 46 40 10
2019 138 4 60 58 16 100 3 44 42 11
2020 172 6 80 71 16 100 3 46 41 9
2021 180 6 84 72 18 100 3 47 40 10
RSE/SE 7 12 7 9 13 (NA) (Z) 1 2 1
South
ATTACHMENT 8
100
Year 1 2 3 or more 1 2 3 or more
Total Efficiencies bedroom bedrooms bedrooms Total Efficiencies bedroom bedrooms bedrooms Number of Multifamily Units Completed by Number of Bedrooms per Unit (Components may not add to totals because of rounding. Percents computed from unrounded figures.) Number of units (in thousands) Percent distribution
1978 160 8 52 84 16 100 5 32 52 10
1979 169 6 51 92 20 100 3 30 55 12
1980 153 10 42 83 19 100 6 27 54 12
1981 111 4 31 63 14 100 3 28 57 12
1982 82 2 25 47 8 100 2 30 58 10
1983 104 3 34 58 9 100 3 33 56 9
1984 164 5 56 90 12 100 3 34 55 7
1985 207 6 71 117 14 100 3 34 56 7
1986 216 6 70 124 16 100 3 32 57 7
1987 190 6 57 110 17 100 3 30 58 9
1988 156 4 51 88 13 100 3 33 57 8
1989 131 4 42 72 14 100 3 32 55 11
1990 121 3 37 64 18 100 2 30 53 15
1991 87 1 21 52 12 100 2 25 60 13
1992 58 1 15 35 7 100 2 25 60 13
1993 43 1 9 24 8 100 3 22 56 19
1994 50 2 12 27 10 100 4 24 54 19
1995 63 1 14 36 12 100 2 23 57 19
1996 77 1 21 42 14 100 1 27 54 18
1997 77 3 21 40 14 100 4 27 52 18
1998 78 2 23 39 14 100 3 30 50 17
1999 85 1 25 41 17 100 2 30 48 20
2000 77 4 25 35 14 100 5 33 45 18
2001 80 2 26 37 15 100 3 32 46 19
2002 88 3 30 39 17 100 3 34 44 19
2003 73 4 22 32 16 100 5 29 43 22
2004 74 3 23 34 14 100 4 31 46 19
2005 69 1 18 35 14 100 2 26 51 21
2006 74 2 21 36 15 100 3 28 49 21
2007 75 2 20 38 16 100 3 26 50 21
2008 75 5 22 33 15 100 7 29 45 19
2009 69 3 26 32 9 100 4 37 46 13
2010 45 5 16 18 5 100 12 36 41 12
2011 23 1895 1 006 3 3 4 0 2 1
2012 39 3 14 15 7 100 8 35 39 18
2013 50 4 18 20 8 100 8 36 40 16
2014 68 6 26 26 9 100 9 39 38 14
2015 85 5 35 35 10 100 6 41 41 12
2016 82 6 31 35 9 100 8 38 43 11
2017 90 9 34 36 11 100 10 38 40 13
2018 101 11 42 37 10 100 11 42 37 10
2019 104 13 43 36 12 100 12 42 34 12
2020 107 11 45 40 12 100 10 42 37 11
2021 82 10 32 31 8 100 13 39 38 10
RSE/SE 10 18 12 10 13 (NA) 1221
Footnotes:
RSE/SE - Relative Standard Error (percent), Standard Error (percentage points) NA - Not available
A - Represents an RSE or SE that is greater or equal to 100 percent or could not be computed Z - Less than 500 units or less than 0.5 percent
S - Withheld because estimate did not meet publication standards on the basis of response rate or a consistency review
2011-2021
10 YR AVG 9 39 39 13
West
ATTACHMENT 8
101
City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
Shared Parking Analysis
Appendix D - ULI 3rd Edition Parking Rates –Parking Demand Analysis
ATTACHMENT 8
102
Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association.
Project: Marina Downtown Parking Study ‐ Existing Land Use in DVSP Description: 0% mode share and 0% internal capture reduction Quantity Unit 8 PM December 12 PM December
Retail (<400 ksf) 691,705 sf GLA 2.90 100% 99% 2.87 ksf GLA 3.20 100% 99% 3.18 ksf GLA 85% 100% 1,690 100% 100% 2,201 Employee 0.70 100% 98% 0.68 0.80 100% 98% 0.78 90% 100% 426 100% 100% 544 Residential, Suburban 0%
Studio Efficiency 207 units 0.85 100% 100% 0.85 unit 0.85 100% 100% 0.85 unit 80% 100% 142 68% 100% 120 1 Bedroom 897 units 0.90 100% 100% 0.90 unit 0.90 100% 100% 0.90 unit 80% 100% 646 68% 100% 549 2 Bedrooms 897 units 1.65 100% 100% 1.65 unit 1.65 100% 100% 1.65 unit 80% 100% 1,185 68% 100% 1,007 3+ Bedrooms 299 units 2.50 100% 100% 2.50 unit 2.50 100% 100% 2.50 unit 80% 100% 598 68% 100% 509 Reserved res spaces 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Visitor 2,301 units 0.10 100% 100% 0.10 unit 0.15 100% 100% 0.15 unit 100% 100% 231 20% 100% 69 Office 25 to 100 ksf 36,587 sf GFA 0.29 100% 100% 0.29 ksf GFA 0.03 100% 100% 0.03 ksf GFA 1% 100% ‐ 90% 100% 2 Reserved emp 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Employee 3.45 100% 93% 3.20 0.34 100% 93% 0.32 5% 100% 6 90% 100% 11 Office 100 to 500 ksf 277,466 sf GFA 0.23 100% 100% 0.23 ksf GFA 0.03 100% 100% 0.03 ksf GFA 1% 100% 1 90% 100% 7 Reserved emp 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Employee 2.91 100% 100% 2.91 0.29 100% 100% 0.29 5% 100% 40 90% 100% 73 1,922 2,279
3,044 2,813
‐ ‐
4,965 5,092
Weekend
Shared Parking Demand Summary
Peak Month: DECEMBER ‐‐ Peak Period: 12 PM, WEEKEND WeekdayWeekendWeekday
Project DataLand Use Peak Mo
AdjUnit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Peak Hr
Adj
Peak Mo
Adj
Office
Base
Ratio
Unit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Retail
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Entertainment and Institutions
Hotel and Residential
Food and Beverage
Base
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Peak Hr
Adj
Additional Land Uses
Total
Reserved
Employee/Resident
CustomerCustomer/Visitor
Employee/Resident
Total
Reserved
ATTACHMENT 8
103
Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association.
Project: Marina Downtown Parking Study ‐ DVSP Min Buildout Description: 0% mode share and 0% internal capture reduction Quantity Unit 8 PM December 12 PM December
Retail (<400 ksf) 386,780 sf GLA 2.90 100% 99% 2.87 ksf GLA 3.20 100% 99% 3.18 ksf GLA 85% 100% 943 100% 100% 1,228 Employee 0.70 100% 97% 0.68 0.80 100% 97% 0.78 90% 100% 236 100% 100% 302 Retail (400 to 600 ksf) 583,704 sf GLA 3.18 100% 99% 3.14 ksf GLA 3.57 100% 99% 3.54 ksf GLA 85% 100% 1,558 100% 100% 2,067 Employee 0.79 100% 97% 0.77 0.89 100% 97% 0.87 90% 100% 404 100% 100% 508 Residential, Suburban 0%
Studio Efficiency 423 units 0.85 100% 100% 0.85 unit 0.85 100% 100% 0.85 unit 80% 100% 288 68% 100% 245 1 Bedroom 1,833 units 0.90 100% 100% 0.90 unit 0.90 100% 100% 0.90 unit 80% 100% 1,321 68% 100% 1,123 2 Bedrooms 1,833 units 1.65 100% 100% 1.65 unit 1.65 100% 100% 1.65 unit 80% 100% 2,421 68% 100% 2,058 3+ Bedrooms 611 units 2.50 100% 100% 2.50 unit 2.50 100% 100% 2.50 unit 80% 100% 1,222 68% 100% 1,039 Reserved res spaces 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Visitor 4,701 units 0.10 100% 100% 0.10 unit 0.15 100% 100% 0.15 unit 100% 100% 471 20% 100% 141 Office 100 to 500 ksf 567,362 sf GFA 0.19 100% 100% 0.19 ksf GFA 0.02 100% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 1% 100% 1 90% 100% 10 Reserved emp 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Employee 2.51 100% 100% 2.51 0.25 100% 100% 0.25 5% 100% 71 90% 100% 129 2,972 3,446
5,963 5,403
‐ ‐
8,935 8,849
Additional Land Uses
Total
Reserved
Employee/Resident
CustomerCustomer/Visitor
Employee/Resident
Total
Reserved
Office
Base
Ratio
Unit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Retail
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Entertainment and Institutions
Hotel and Residential
Food and Beverage
Base
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Peak Hr
Adj
Weekend
Shared Parking Demand Summary
Peak Month: DECEMBER ‐‐ Peak Period: 8 PM, WEEKDAY
WeekdayWeekendWeekday
Project DataLand Use Peak Mo
AdjUnit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Peak Hr
Adj
Peak Mo
Adj
ATTACHMENT 8
104
Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association.
Project: Marina Downtown Parking Study ‐ DVSP Max Buildout Description: 0% mode share and 0% internal capture reduction Quantity Unit 8 PM December 12 PM December
Retail (400 to 600 ksf) 515,707 sf GLA 3.07 100% 99% 3.05 ksf GLA 3.43 100% 99% 3.41 ksf GLA 85% 100% 1,337 100% 100% 1,760 Employee 0.76 100% 98% 0.74 0.86 100% 98% 0.84 90% 100% 345 100% 100% 435 Retail (1,000 ksf to 2,000 ksf) 1,050,667 sf GLA 3.18 100% 99% 3.16 ksf GLA 3.58 100% 99% 3.56 ksf GLA 85% 100% 2,821 100% 100% 3,741 Employee 0.79 100% 98% 0.78 0.89 100% 98% 0.88 90% 100% 737 100% 100% 925 Residential, Suburban 0%
Studio Efficiency 468 units 0.85 100% 100% 0.85 unit 0.85 100% 100% 0.85 unit 80% 100% 319 68% 100% 271 1 Bedroom 2,030 units 0.90 100% 100% 0.90 unit 0.90 100% 100% 0.90 unit 80% 100% 1,462 68% 100% 1,242 2 Bedrooms 2,030 units 1.65 100% 100% 1.65 unit 1.65 100% 100% 1.65 unit 80% 100% 2,680 68% 100% 2,278 3+ Bedrooms 677 units 2.50 100% 100% 2.50 unit 2.50 100% 100% 2.50 unit 80% 100% 1,354 68% 100% 1,151 Reserved res spaces 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Visitor 5,205 units 0.10 100% 100% 0.10 unit 0.15 100% 100% 0.15 unit 100% 100% 521 20% 100% 156 Office 100 to 500 ksf 262,667 sf GFA 0.23 100% 100% 0.23 ksf GFA 0.03 100% 100% 0.03 ksf GFA 1% 100% 1 90% 100% 6 Reserved emp 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Employee 2.93 100% 100% 2.93 0.29 100% 100% 0.29 5% 100% 38 90% 100% 69 Office >500 ksf 561,914 sf GFA 0.20 100% 100% 0.20 ksf GFA 0.02 100% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 1% 100% 1 90% 100% 11 Reserved emp 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Employee 2.60 100% 93% 2.42 0.26 100% 93% 0.24 5% 100% 68 90% 100% 123 4,680 5,674
7,002
6,495
‐ ‐
11,683 12,169
Weekend
Shared Parking Demand Summary
Peak Month: DECEMBER ‐‐ Peak Period: 12 PM, WEEKEND WeekdayWeekendWeekday
Project DataLand Use Peak Mo
AdjUnit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Peak Hr
Adj
Peak Mo
Adj
Office
Base
Ratio
Unit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Retail
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Entertainment and Institutions
Hotel and Residential
Food and Beverage
Base
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Peak Hr
Adj
Additional Land Uses
Total
Reserved
Employee/Resident
CustomerCustomer/Visitor
Employee/Resident
Total
Reserved
ATTACHMENT 8
105
Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association.
Project: Marina Downtown Parking Study ‐ Existing Land Use in DVSP Description: 16.5% mode share and 18% internal capture reduction Quantity Unit 8 PM December 12 PM December
Retail (<400 ksf) 691,705 sf GLA 2.90 84% 83% 2.02 ksf GLA 3.20 84% 87% 2.32 ksf GLA 85% 100% 1,185 100% 100% 1,603 Employee 0.70 84% 45% 0.26 0.80 84% 47% 0.31 90% 100% 163 100% 100% 217 Residential, Suburban 0%
Studio Efficiency 207 units 0.85 84% 100% 0.71 unit 0.85 84% 100% 0.71 unit 80% 100% 118 68% 100% 101 1 Bedroom 897 units 0.90 84% 100% 0.75 unit 0.90 84% 100% 0.75 unit 80% 100% 540 68% 100% 459 2 Bedrooms 897 units 1.65 84% 100% 1.38 unit 1.65 84% 100% 1.38 unit 80% 100% 989 68% 100% 841 3+ Bedrooms 299 units 2.50 84% 100% 2.09 unit 2.50 84% 100% 2.09 unit 80% 100% 500 68% 100% 425 Reserved res spaces 0.00 84% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 84% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Visitor 2,301 units 0.10 84% 100% 0.08 unit 0.15 84% 100% 0.13 unit 100% 100% 193 20% 100% 58 Office 25 to 100 ksf 36,587 sf GFA 0.29 84% 100% 0.24 ksf GFA 0.03 84% 100% 0.03 ksf GFA 1% 100% ‐ 90% 100% 2 Reserved emp 0.00 84% 100% 0.00 0.00 84% 100% 0.00 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Employee 3.45 84% 69% 1.99 0.34 84% 69% 0.20 5% 100% 4 90% 100% 7 Office 100 to 500 ksf 277,466 sf GFA 0.23 84% 100% 0.19 ksf GFA 0.03 84% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 1% 100% 1 90% 100% 6 Reserved emp 0.00 84% 100% 0.00 0.00 84% 100% 0.00 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Employee 2.91 84% 100% 2.43 0.29 84% 100% 0.24 5% 100% 34 90% 100% 61 1,379 1,668
2,347 2,109
‐ ‐
3,726 3,777
Weekend
Shared Parking Demand Summary
Peak Month: DECEMBER ‐‐ Peak Period: 12 PM, WEEKEND WeekdayWeekendWeekday
Project DataLand Use Peak Mo
AdjUnit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Peak Hr
Adj
Peak Mo
Adj
Office
Base
Ratio
Unit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Retail
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Entertainment and Institutions
Hotel and Residential
Food and Beverage
Base
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Peak Hr
Adj
Additional Land Uses
Total
Reserved
Employee/Resident
CustomerCustomer/Visitor
Employee/Resident
Total
Reserved
ATTACHMENT 8
106
Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association.
Project: Marina Downtown Parking Study ‐ DVSP Min Buildout Description: 16.5% mode share and 18% internal capture reduction Quantity Unit 8 PM December 12 PM December
Retail (<400 ksf) 386,780 sf GLA 2.90 84% 80% 1.95 ksf GLA 3.20 84% 85% 2.28 ksf GLA 85% 100% 641 100% 100% 880 Employee 0.70 84% 35% 0.21 0.80 84% 39% 0.26 90% 100% 72 100% 100% 101 Retail (400 to 600 ksf) 583,704 sf GLA 3.18 84% 80% 2.13 ksf GLA 3.57 84% 85% 2.54 ksf GLA 85% 100% 1,059 100% 100% 1,481 Employee 0.79 84% 35% 0.23 0.89 84% 39% 0.29 90% 100% 123 100% 100% 169 Residential, Suburban 0%
Studio Efficiency 423 units 0.85 84% 100% 0.71 unit 0.85 84% 100% 0.71 unit 80% 100% 242 68% 100% 206 1 Bedroom 1,833 units 0.90 84% 100% 0.76 unit 0.90 84% 100% 0.76 unit 80% 100% 1,109 68% 100% 943 2 Bedrooms 1,833 units 1.65 84% 100% 1.39 unit 1.65 84% 100% 1.39 unit 80% 100% 2,033 68% 100% 1,728 3+ Bedrooms 611 units 2.50 84% 100% 2.10 unit 2.50 84% 100% 2.10 unit 80% 100% 1,027 68% 100% 873 Reserved res spaces 0.00 84% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 84% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Visitor 4,701 units 0.10 84% 100% 0.08 unit 0.15 84% 100% 0.13 unit 100% 100% 396 20% 100% 119 Office 100 to 500 ksf 567,362 sf GFA 0.19 84% 100% 0.16 ksf GFA 0.02 84% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 1% 100% 1 90% 100% 8 Reserved emp 0.00 84% 100% 0.00 0.00 84% 100% 0.00 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Employee 2.51 84% 100% 2.11 0.25 84% 100% 0.21 5% 100% 60 90% 100% 108 2,097 2,488
4,667 4,128
‐ ‐
6,764 6,616
Weekend
Shared Parking Demand Summary
Peak Month: DECEMBER ‐‐ Peak Period: 8 PM, WEEKDAY
WeekdayWeekendWeekday
Project DataLand Use Peak Mo
AdjUnit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Peak Hr
Adj
Peak Mo
Adj
Office
Base
Ratio
Unit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Retail
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Entertainment and Institutions
Hotel and Residential
Food and Beverage
Base
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Peak Hr
Adj
Additional Land Uses
Total
Reserved
Employee/Resident
CustomerCustomer/Visitor
Employee/Resident
Total
Reserved
ATTACHMENT 8
107
Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association.
Project: Marina Downtown Parking Study ‐ DVSP Max Buildout Description: 16.5% mode share and 18% internal capture reduction Quantity Unit 8 PM December 12 PM December
Retail (400 to 600 ksf) 515,707 sf GLA 3.07 84% 84% 2.17 ksf GLA 3.43 84% 87% 2.51 ksf GLA 85% 100% 950 100% 100% 1,297 Employee 0.76 84% 48% 0.31 0.86 84% 49% 0.35 90% 100% 142 100% 100% 182 Retail (1,000 ksf to 2,000 ksf) 1,050,667 sf GLA 3.18 84% 84% 2.24 ksf GLA 3.58 84% 87% 2.62 ksf GLA 85% 100% 2,005 100% 100% 2,757 Employee 0.79 84% 48% 0.32 0.89 84% 49% 0.37 90% 100% 305 100% 100% 387 Residential, Suburban 0%
Studio Efficiency 468 units 0.85 84% 100% 0.71 unit 0.85 84% 100% 0.71 unit 80% 100% 268 68% 100% 228 1 Bedroom 2,030 units 0.90 84% 100% 0.76 unit 0.90 84% 100% 0.76 unit 80% 100% 1,228 68% 100% 1,044 2 Bedrooms 2,030 units 1.65 84% 100% 1.39 unit 1.65 84% 100% 1.39 unit 80% 100% 2,251 68% 100% 1,914 3+ Bedrooms 677 units 2.50 84% 100% 2.10 unit 2.50 84% 100% 2.10 unit 80% 100% 1,137 68% 100% 966 Reserved res spaces 0.00 84% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 84% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Visitor 5,205 units 0.10 84% 100% 0.08 unit 0.15 84% 100% 0.13 unit 100% 100% 438 20% 100% 131 Office 100 to 500 ksf 262,667 sf GFA 0.23 84% 100% 0.19 ksf GFA 0.03 84% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 1% 100% 1 90% 100% 5 Reserved emp 0.00 84% 100% 0.00 0.00 84% 100% 0.00 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Employee 2.93 84% 100% 2.46 0.29 84% 100% 0.25 5% 100% 32 90% 100% 58 Office >500 ksf 561,914 sf GFA 0.20 84% 100% 0.17 ksf GFA 0.02 84% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 1% 100% 1 90% 100% 9 Reserved emp 0.00 84% 100% 0.00 0.00 84% 100% 0.00 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Employee 2.60 84% 69% 1.51 0.26 84% 69% 0.15 5% 100% 42 90% 100% 77 3,394 4,199
5,406
4,856
‐ ‐
8,800 9,055
Weekend
Shared Parking Demand Summary
Peak Month: DECEMBER ‐‐ Peak Period: 12 PM, WEEKEND WeekdayWeekendWeekday
Project DataLand Use Peak Mo
AdjUnit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Peak Hr
Adj
Peak Mo
Adj
Office
Base
Ratio
Unit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Retail
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Entertainment and Institutions
Hotel and Residential
Food and Beverage
Base
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Peak Hr
Adj
Additional Land Uses
Total
Reserved
Employee/Resident
CustomerCustomer/Visitor
Employee/Resident
Total
Reserved
ATTACHMENT 8
108
Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association.
Project: Marina Downtown Parking Study ‐ Existing Land Use in DVSP Description: 30% mode share and 18% internal capture reduction Quantity Unit 8 PM December 12 PM December
Retail (<400 ksf) 691,705 sf GLA 2.90 70% 83% 1.69 ksf GLA 3.20 70% 87% 1.94 ksf GLA 85% 100% 994 100% 100% 1,344 Employee 0.70 70% 45% 0.22 0.80 70% 47% 0.26 90% 100% 136 100% 100% 182 Residential, Suburban 0%
Studio Efficiency 207 units 0.85 70% 100% 0.60 unit 0.85 70% 100% 0.60 unit 80% 100% 99 68% 100% 84 1 Bedroom 897 units 0.90 70% 100% 0.63 unit 0.90 70% 100% 0.63 unit 80% 100% 452 68% 100% 385 2 Bedrooms 897 units 1.65 70% 100% 1.16 unit 1.65 70% 100% 1.16 unit 80% 100% 829 68% 100% 705 3+ Bedrooms 299 units 2.50 70% 100% 1.75 unit 2.50 70% 100% 1.75 unit 80% 100% 419 68% 100% 356 Reserved res spaces 0.00 70% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 70% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Visitor 2,301 units 0.10 70% 100% 0.07 unit 0.15 70% 100% 0.11 unit 100% 100% 162 20% 100% 48 Office 25 to 100 ksf 36,587 sf GFA 0.29 70% 100% 0.20 ksf GFA 0.03 70% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 1% 100% ‐ 90% 100% 1 Reserved emp 0.00 70% 100% 0.00 0.00 70% 100% 0.00 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Employee 3.45 70% 69% 1.67 0.34 70% 69% 0.17 5% 100% 3 90% 100% 6 Office 100 to 500 ksf 277,466 sf GFA 0.23 70% 100% 0.16 ksf GFA 0.03 70% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 1% 100% ‐ 90% 100% 5 Reserved emp 0.00 70% 100% 0.00 0.00 70% 100% 0.00 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Employee 2.91 70% 100% 2.03 0.29 70% 100% 0.20 5% 100% 28 90% 100% 51 1,156 1,398
1,967 1,768
‐ ‐
3,123 3,166
Weekend
Shared Parking Demand Summary
Peak Month: DECEMBER ‐‐ Peak Period: 12 PM, WEEKEND WeekdayWeekendWeekday
Project DataLand Use Peak Mo
AdjUnit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Peak Hr
Adj
Peak Mo
Adj
Office
Base
Ratio
Unit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Retail
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Entertainment and Institutions
Hotel and Residential
Food and Beverage
Base
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Peak Hr
Adj
Additional Land Uses
Total
Reserved
Employee/Resident
CustomerCustomer/Visitor
Employee/Resident
Total
Reserved
ATTACHMENT 8
109
Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association.
Project: Marina Downtown Parking Study ‐ DVSP Min Buildout Description: 30% mode share and 18% internal capture reduction Quantity Unit 8 PM December 12 PM December
Retail (<400 ksf) 386,780 sf GLA 2.90 70% 80% 1.62 ksf GLA 3.20 70% 85% 1.90 ksf GLA 85% 100% 534 100% 100% 733 Employee 0.70 70% 35% 0.17 0.80 70% 39% 0.22 90% 100% 60 100% 100% 84 Retail (400 to 600 ksf) 583,704 sf GLA 3.18 70% 80% 1.78 ksf GLA 3.57 70% 85% 2.11 ksf GLA 85% 100% 883 100% 100% 1,234 Employee 0.79 70% 35% 0.20 0.89 70% 39% 0.24 90% 100% 103 100% 100% 141 Residential, Suburban 0%
Studio Efficiency 423 units 0.85 70% 100% 0.60 unit 0.85 70% 100% 0.60 unit 80% 100% 202 68% 100% 171 1 Bedroom 1,833 units 0.90 70% 100% 0.63 unit 0.90 70% 100% 0.63 unit 80% 100% 925 68% 100% 786 2 Bedrooms 1,833 units 1.65 70% 100% 1.16 unit 1.65 70% 100% 1.16 unit 80% 100% 1,695 68% 100% 1,440 3+ Bedrooms 611 units 2.50 70% 100% 1.75 unit 2.50 70% 100% 1.75 unit 80% 100% 856 68% 100% 727 Reserved res spaces 0.00 70% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 70% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Visitor 4,701 units 0.10 70% 100% 0.07 unit 0.15 70% 100% 0.11 unit 100% 100% 330 20% 100% 99 Office 100 to 500 ksf 567,362 sf GFA 0.19 70% 100% 0.13 ksf GFA 0.02 70% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 1% 100% 1 90% 100% 7 Reserved emp 0.00 70% 100% 0.00 0.00 70% 100% 0.00 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Employee 2.51 70% 100% 1.76 0.25 70% 100% 0.18 5% 100% 50 90% 100% 90 1,748 2,073
3,889 3,440
‐ ‐
5,637 5,513
Weekend
Shared Parking Demand Summary
Peak Month: DECEMBER ‐‐ Peak Period: 8 PM, WEEKDAY
WeekdayWeekendWeekday
Project DataLand Use Peak Mo
AdjUnit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Peak Hr
Adj
Peak Mo
Adj
Office
Base
Ratio
Unit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Retail
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Entertainment and Institutions
Hotel and Residential
Food and Beverage
Base
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Peak Hr
Adj
Additional Land Uses
Total
Reserved
Employee/Resident
CustomerCustomer/Visitor
Employee/Resident
Total
Reserved
ATTACHMENT 8
110
Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association.
Project: Marina Downtown Parking Study ‐ DVSP Max Buildout Description: 30% mode share and 18% internal capture reduction Quantity Unit 8 PM December 12 PM December
Retail (400 to 600 ksf) 515,707 sf GLA 3.07 70% 84% 1.80 ksf GLA 3.43 70% 87% 2.10 ksf GLA 85% 100% 792 100% 100% 1,081 Employee 0.76 70% 48% 0.26 0.86 70% 49% 0.29 90% 100% 119 100% 100% 152 Retail (1,000 ksf to 2,000 ksf) 1,050,667 sf GLA 3.18 70% 84% 1.87 ksf GLA 3.58 70% 87% 2.19 ksf GLA 85% 100% 1,671 100% 100% 2,297 Employee 0.79 70% 48% 0.27 0.89 70% 49% 0.31 90% 100% 254 100% 100% 323 Residential, Suburban 0%
Studio Efficiency 468 units 0.85 70% 100% 0.60 unit 0.85 70% 100% 0.60 unit 80% 100% 223 68% 100% 190 1 Bedroom 2,030 units 0.90 70% 100% 0.63 unit 0.90 70% 100% 0.63 unit 80% 100% 1,023 68% 100% 870 2 Bedrooms 2,030 units 1.65 70% 100% 1.16 unit 1.65 70% 100% 1.16 unit 80% 100% 1,876 68% 100% 1,595 3+ Bedrooms 677 units 2.50 70% 100% 1.75 unit 2.50 70% 100% 1.75 unit 80% 100% 948 68% 100% 805 Reserved res spaces 0.00 70% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 70% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Visitor 5,205 units 0.10 70% 100% 0.07 unit 0.15 70% 100% 0.11 unit 100% 100% 365 20% 100% 109 Office 100 to 500 ksf 262,667 sf GFA 0.23 70% 100% 0.16 ksf GFA 0.03 70% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 1% 100% ‐ 90% 100% 4 Reserved emp 0.00 70% 100% 0.00 0.00 70% 100% 0.00 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Employee 2.93 70% 100% 2.05 0.29 70% 100% 0.20 5% 100% 27 90% 100% 49 Office >500 ksf 561,914 sf GFA 0.20 70% 100% 0.14 ksf GFA 0.02 70% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 1% 100% 1 90% 100% 8 Reserved emp 0.00 70% 100% 0.00 0.00 70% 100% 0.00 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% ‐ Employee 2.60 70% 69% 1.26 0.26 70% 69% 0.13 5% 100% 35 90% 100% 64 2,828 3,499
4,505
4,046
‐ ‐
7,333 7,546
Additional Land Uses
Total
Reserved
Employee/Resident
CustomerCustomer/Visitor
Employee/Resident
Total
Reserved
Office
Base
Ratio
Unit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Retail
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Non‐
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Entertainment and Institutions
Hotel and Residential
Food and Beverage
Base
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Peak Hr
Adj
Weekend
Shared Parking Demand Summary
Peak Month: DECEMBER ‐‐ Peak Period: 12 PM, WEEKEND WeekdayWeekendWeekday
Project DataLand Use Peak Mo
AdjUnit For
Ratio
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Peak Hr
Adj
Peak Mo
Adj
ATTACHMENT 8
111
City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
Shared Parking Analysis
Appendix E - ITE 5th Edition Parking Rates –Parking Demand Analysis
ATTACHMENT 8
112
ITE_Parking_DVSP_20221007.xlsx
Weekday
DVSP
District Type Size Unit ITE
Code
Average
Demand
Rate
Unit
Mode
Share
Adj
Internal
Capture
Adj
Time of
Day Peak
Demand
Combined
Peak
Parking
Demand
6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM Office 36.59 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 6 PM 18 ‐ 12 42 77 88 88 75 74 82 83 75 49 18 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 375.28 KSF 820 3.77 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 6 PM 1,217 ‐ ‐ 213 453 764 1,005 1,401 1,415 1,274 1,175 1,146 1,189 1,217 1,132 892 595 213 ‐ ‐ Residential 286.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 6 PM 229 312 267 194 156 139 129 125 125 129 149 156 191 229 253 267 298 319 336 347 Subtotal 1,464 312 279 449 68 6 991 1,222 1,601 1,614 1,485 1,40 7 1,377 1,429 1,464 1,395 1,159 893 532 33 6 347 Office 0.00 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 6 PM 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 0.00 KSF 820 3.77 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 6 PM 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Residential 1638.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 6 PM 1,309 1,784 1,527 1,110 892 793 734 714 714 734 853 892 1,091 1,309 1,447 1,527 1,705 1,824 1,923 1,982 Subtotal 1,309 1,784 1,52 7 1,110 892 793 734 714 714 734 853 892 1,091 1,309 1,44 7 1,527 1,705 1,824 1,923 1,982 Office 277.47 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 6 PM 133 ‐ 87 319 584 664 664 564 558 617 624 564 372 133 73 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 316.43 KSF 820 3.77 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 6 PM 1,026 ‐ ‐ 179 382 645 847 1,182 1,193 1,074 991 967 1,003 1,026 955 752 502 179 ‐ ‐ Residential 377.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 6 PM 302 411 352 256 206 183 169 165 165 169 197 206 251 302 334 352 393 420 443 457 Subtotal 1,461 411 439 754 1,172 1,492 1,68 0 1,911 1,91 6 1,860 1,812 1,73 7 1,626 1,461 1,362 1,104 895 599 443 45 7
0.0% 0.0% 6 PM 4,234 2,50 7 2,245 2,313 2,75 0 3,276 3,636 4,226 4,244 4,079 4,072 4,00 6 4,146 4,234 4,204 3,79 0 3,493 2,955 2,702 2,78 6 Existing Land Uses in DVSP ‐ Shared Use Parking Analysis by Time of Day Land Use Program ITE Parking Rate ITE Parking Demand ITE Parking Demand by Time of Day Core
Multifamily
Residential
Transition
TOTAL DVSP PARKING DEMAND
NOTES:
1) Land Use Program based on City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan (April 2019) 2) Parking Demand for DVSP land uses based on ITE Parking Generation 5th Edition. Peak parking demand by time of day based on ITE distri bution data 3) ITE parking rates derived from empirical sources account for mode share and internal capture reductions in average parking demand rates; no additional parking reductions applied to prevent double dipping Ex_1 Page 1
ATTACHMENT 8
113
ITE_Parking_DVSP_20221007.xlsx
Weekday
DVSP
District Type Size Unit ITE
Code
Average
Demand
Rate
Unit
Mode
Share
Adj
Internal
Capture
Adj
Time of
Day Peak
Demand
Combined
Peak
Parking
Demand
6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM Office 145.93 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 39 ‐ 46 168 307 349 349 297 293 325 328 297 196 70 39 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 583.70 KSF 820 3.77 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 1,761 ‐ ‐ 331 705 1,189 1,563 2,179 2,201 1,981 1,827 1,783 1,849 1,893 1,761 1,387 925 331 ‐ ‐ Residential 1497.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 1,323 1,631 1,395 1,015 816 725 671 653 653 671 779 816 997 1,196 1,323 1,395 1,558 1,667 1,758 1,812 Subtotal 3,123 1,631 1,441 1,514 1,82 8 2,263 2,583 3,129 3,14 7 2,977 2,934 2,89 6 3,042 3,159 3,123 2,782 2,483 1,99 8 1,758 1,812 Office 0.00 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 0.00 KSF 820 3.77 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Residential 1618.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 1,430 1,763 1,508 1,097 882 784 725 705 705 725 842 882 1,077 1,293 1,430 1,508 1,684 1,802 1,900 1,958 Subtotal 1,430 1,763 1,50 8 1,097 882 784 725 705 705 725 842 882 1,07 7 1,293 1,43 0 1,508 1,684 1,802 1,90 0 1,958 Office 421.44 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 111 ‐ 131 484 887 1,008 1,008 857 847 937 947 857 565 202 111 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 386.78 KSF 820 3.77 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 1,167 ‐ ‐ 219 467 788 1,036 1,444 1,459 1,313 1,211 1,182 1,225 1,255 1,167 919 613 219 ‐ ‐ Residential 1586.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 1,401 1,728 1,478 1,075 864 768 711 691 691 711 826 864 1,056 1, 267 1,401 1,478 1,651 1,766 1,862 1,920 Subtotal 2,679 1,72 8 1,609 1,77 8 2,218 2,564 2,755 2,992 2,99 7 2,961 2,984 2,903 2,84 6 2,724 2,679 2,39 7 2,264 1,985 1,862 1,92 0
0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 7,232 5,122 4,55 8 4,389 4,92 8 5,611 6,063 6,82 6 6,849 6,663 6,76 0 6,681 6,965 7,17 6 7,232 6,68 7 6,431 5,785 5,52 0 5,690 DVSP Minimum Buildout ‐ Shared Use Parking Analysis by Time of Day ITE Parking Rate
NOTES:
1) Land Use Program based on City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan (April 2019) 2) Parking Demand for DVSP land uses based on ITE Parking Generation 5th Edition. Peak parking demand by time of day based on ITE distribution data 3) ITE parking rates derived from empirical sources account fo r mode share and internal capture reductions in average parking demand rates; no additional parking reductions applied to prevent double dipping ITE Parking Demand ITE Parking Demand by Time of Day Land Use Program Core
Multifamily
Residential
Transition
TOTAL DVSP PARKING DEMAND
Min_1 Page 2
ATTACHMENT 8
114
ITE_Parking_DVSP_20221007.xlsx
Weekday
DVSP
District Type Size Unit ITE
Code
Average
Demand
Rate
Unit
Mode
Share
Adj
Internal
Capture
Adj
Time of
Day Peak
Demand
Combined
Peak
Parking
Demand
6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM Office 262.67 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 1 PM 528 ‐ 82 302 553 628 628 534 528 584 591 534 352 126 70 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 1050.67 KSF 820 3.77 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 1 PM 3,962 ‐ ‐ 595 1,268 2,139 2,813 3,922 3,962 3,565 3,288 3,209 3,328 3,407 3,169 2,496 1,664 595 ‐ ‐ Residential 1658.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 1 PM 723 1,806 1,545 1,124 903 803 743 723 723 743 863 903 1,104 1,325 1,465 1,545 1,726 1,846 1,946 2,007 Subtotal 5,213 1,80 6 1,627 2,021 2,724 3,57 0 4,184 5,179 5,213 4,892 4,742 4,64 6 4,784 4,85 8 4,704 4,041 3,39 0 2,441 1,94 6 2,007 Office 0.00 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 1 PM 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 0.00 KSF 820 3.77 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 1 PM 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Residential 1792.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 1 PM 781 1,952 1,670 1,215 976 868 803 781 781 803 933 976 1,193 1,432 1,583 1,670 1,865 1,995 2,104 2,169 Subtotal 781 1,952 1,67 0 1,215 97 6 868 803 781 781 803 933 97 6 1,193 1,432 1,583 1,67 0 1,865 1,995 2,104 2,169 Office 561.91 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 1 PM 1,129 ‐ 175 645 1,182 1,343 1,343 1,142 1,129 1,249 1,263 1,142 753 269 148 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 515.71 KSF 820 3.77 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 1 PM 1,945 ‐ ‐ 292 623 1,050 1,381 1,925 1,945 1,750 1,614 1,575 1,634 1,673 1,556 1,225 817 292 ‐ ‐ Residential 1755.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 1 PM 765 1,912 1,636 1,190 956 850 786 765 765 786 914 956 1,168 1, 402 1,551 1,636 1,827 1,954 2,060 2,124 Subtotal 3,839 1,912 1,811 2,12 7 2,761 3,243 3,51 0 3,832 3,839 3,785 3,791 3,673 3,555 3,344 3,255 2,861 2,644 2,24 6 2,060 2,124
0.0% 0.0% 1 PM 9,833 5,67 0 5,108 5,363 6,461 7,681 8,49 7 9,792 9,833 9,48 0 9,466 9,295 9,532 9,634 9,542 8,572 7,899 6,682 6,11 0 6,300 DVSP Maximum Buildout ‐ Shared Use Parking Analysis by Time of Day Land Use Program ITE Parking Rate ITE Parking Demand ITE Parking Demand by Time of Day TOTAL DVSP PARKING DEMAND
NOTES:
1) Land Use Program based on City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan (April 2019) 2) Parking Demand for DVSP land uses based on ITE Parking Generation 5th Edition. Peak parking demand by time of day based on ITE distri bution data 3) ITE parking rates derived from empirical sources account for mode share and internal capture reductions in average parking demand rates; no additional parking reductions applied to prevent double dipping Core
Multifamily
Residential
Transition
Max_1 Page 3
ATTACHMENT 8
115
City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
Shared Parking Analysis
Appendix F - Marina Field Data & ITE 5th Edition Parking Rates –Parking Demand Analysis
ATTACHMENT 8
116
MarinaRates_Parking_DVSP_20221007.xlsx
Weekday
DVSP
District Type Size Unit ITE
Code
Average
Demand
Rate
Unit
Mode
Share
Adj
Internal
Capture
Adj
Time of
Day Peak
Demand
Combined
Peak
Parking
Demand
6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM Office 36.59 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 10 ‐ 12 42 77 88 88 75 74 82 83 75 49 18 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 375.28 KSF ‐ 1.55 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 466 ‐ ‐ 88 187 315 413 576 582 524 483 472 489 501 466 367 245 88 ‐ ‐ Residential 286.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 253 312 267 194 156 139 129 125 125 129 149 156 191 229 253 267 298 319 336 347 Subtotal 729 312 279 324 42 0 542 63 0 776 781 735 715 703 729 74 8 729 634 543 40 7 336 347 Office 0.00 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 0.00 KSF ‐ 1.55 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Residential 1638.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 1,447 1,784 1,527 1,110 892 793 734 714 714 734 853 892 1,091 1,309 1,447 1,527 1,705 1,824 1,923 1,982 Subtotal 1,447 1,784 1,52 7 1,110 892 793 734 714 714 734 853 892 1,091 1,309 1,44 7 1,527 1,705 1,824 1,923 1,982 Office 277.47 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 73 ‐ 87 319 584 664 664 564 558 617 624 564 372 133 73 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 316.43 KSF ‐ 1.55 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 393 ‐ ‐ 74 157 265 349 486 491 442 408 398 412 422 393 309 206 74 ‐ ‐ Residential 377.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 334 411 352 256 206 183 169 165 165 169 197 206 251 302 334 352 393 420 443 457 Subtotal 800 411 439 649 94 7 1,112 1,182 1,215 1,214 1,22 8 1,229 1,16 8 1,035 85 7 800 661 599 494 443 45 7
0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 2,97 6 2,507 2,245 2,083 2,259 2,44 7 2,546 2,705 2,709 2,69 7 2,797 2,763 2,855 2,914 2,97 6 2,822 2,84 7 2,725 2,702 2,78 6 Core
Multifamily
Residential
Transition
TOTAL DVSP PARKING DEMAND
NOTES:
1) Land Use Program based on City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan (April 2019) 2) Parking Demand for Retail land uses based on September 2022 parking occupancy surveys. Office and Residential land uses based on ITE Parking Generation 5th Edition. Peak parking demand by time of day based on ITE distri bution data 3) ITE parking rates derived from empirical sources account for mode share and internal capture reductions in average parking demand rates; no additional parking reductions applied to prevent double dipping Existing Land Uses in DVSP ‐ Shared Use Parking Analysis by Time of Day Land Use Program Marina Parking Rate Marina Parking Demand Marina Parking Demand by Time of Day Ex_1 Page 1
ATTACHMENT 8
117
MarinaRates_Parking_DVSP_20221007.xlsx
Weekday
DVSP
District Type Size Unit ITE
Code
Average
Demand
Rate
Unit
Mode
Share
Adj
Internal
Capture
Adj
Time of
Day Peak
Demand
Combined
Peak
Parking
Demand
6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM Office 145.93 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 12 AM 0 ‐ 46 168 307 349 349 297 293 325 328 297 196 70 39 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 583.70 KSF ‐ 1.55 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 12 AM 0 ‐ ‐ 136 290 489 643 896 905 815 751 733 760 779 724 570 380 136 ‐ ‐ Residential 1497.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 12 AM 1,812 1,631 1,395 1,015 816 725 671 653 653 671 779 816 997 1,196 1,323 1,395 1,558 1,667 1,758 1,812 Subtotal 1,812 1,631 1,441 1,319 1,413 1,563 1,663 1,84 6 1,851 1,811 1,85 8 1,846 1,953 2,045 2,08 6 1,965 1,93 8 1,803 1,75 8 1,812 Office 0.00 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 12 AM 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 0.00 KSF ‐ 1.55 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 12 AM 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Residential 1618.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 12 AM 1,958 1,763 1,508 1,097 882 784 725 705 705 725 842 882 1,077 1,293 1,430 1,508 1,684 1,802 1,900 1,958 Subtotal 1,958 1,763 1,50 8 1,097 882 784 725 705 705 725 842 882 1,07 7 1,293 1,43 0 1,508 1,684 1,802 1,90 0 1,958 Office 421.44 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 12 AM 0 ‐ 131 484 887 1,008 1,008 857 847 937 947 857 565 202 111 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 386.78 KSF ‐ 1.55 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 12 AM 0 ‐ ‐ 90 192 324 426 594 600 540 498 486 504 516 480 378 252 90 ‐ ‐ Residential 1586.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 12 AM 1,920 1,728 1,478 1,075 864 768 711 691 691 711 826 864 1,056 1, 267 1,401 1,478 1,651 1,766 1,862 1,920 Subtotal 1,920 1,728 1,609 1,649 1,943 2,10 0 2,145 2,142 2,13 8 2,188 2,271 2,20 7 2,125 1,985 1,992 1,85 6 1,903 1,85 6 1,862 1,92 0
0.0% 0.0% 12 AM 5,69 0 5,122 4,55 8 4,065 4,23 8 4,447 4,533 4,693 4,694 4,724 4,971 4,935 5,155 5,323 5,50 8 5,329 5,525 5,461 5,52 0 5,690 DVSP Minimum Buildout ‐ Shared Use Parking Analysis by Time of Day Marina Parking Rate
NOTES:
1) Land Use Program based on City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan (April 2019) 2) Parking Demand for Retail land uses based on September 2022 parking occupancy surveys. Office and Residential land uses based on ITE Parking Generation 5th Edition. Peak parking demand by time of day based on ITE distri bution data 3) ITE parking rates derived from empirical sources account for mode share and internal capture reductions in average parking demand rates; no additional parking reductions applied to prevent double dipping Marina Parking Demand Marina Parking Demand by Time of Day Land Use Program Core
Multifamily
Residential
Transition
TOTAL DVSP PARKING DEMA ND
Min_1 Page 2
ATTACHMENT 8
118
MarinaRates_Parking_DVSP_20221007.xlsx
Weekday
DVSP
District Type Size Unit ITE
Code
Average
Demand
Rate
Unit
Mode
Share
Adj
Internal
Capture
Adj
Time of
Day Peak
Demand
Combined
Peak
Parking
Demand
6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM Office 262.67 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 70 ‐ 82 302 553 628 628 534 528 584 591 534 352 126 70 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 1050.67 KSF ‐ 1.55 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 1,303 ‐ ‐ 245 522 880 1,157 1,613 1,629 1,466 1,352 1,320 1,368 1,401 1,303 1,026 684 245 ‐ ‐ Residential 1658.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 1,465 1,806 1,545 1,124 903 803 743 723 723 743 863 903 1,104 1,325 1,465 1,545 1,726 1,846 1,946 2,007 Subtotal 2,838 1,806 1,627 1,671 1,97 8 2,311 2,52 8 2,870 2,880 2,793 2,80 6 2,757 2,824 2,852 2,83 8 2,571 2,41 0 2,091 1,94 6 2,007 Office 0.00 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 0.00 KSF ‐ 1.55 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Residential 1792.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 1,583 1,952 1,670 1,215 976 868 803 781 781 803 933 976 1,193 1,432 1,583 1,670 1,865 1,995 2,104 2,169 Subtotal 1,583 1,952 1,67 0 1,215 97 6 868 803 781 781 803 933 97 6 1,193 1,432 1,583 1,67 0 1,865 1,995 2,104 2,169 Office 561.91 KSF 710 2.39 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 148 ‐ 175 645 1,182 1,343 1,343 1,142 1,129 1,249 1,263 1,142 753 269 148 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Retail 515.71 KSF ‐ 1.55 KSF 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 640 ‐ ‐ 120 256 432 568 792 800 720 664 648 672 688 640 504 336 120 ‐ ‐ Residential 1755.00 DU 220 1.21 DU 0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 1,551 1,912 1,636 1,190 956 850 786 765 765 786 914 956 1,168 1, 402 1,551 1,636 1,827 1,954 2,060 2,124 Subtotal 2,339 1,912 1,811 1,955 2,394 2,625 2,69 7 2,699 2,694 2,755 2,841 2,74 6 2,593 2,359 2,339 2,14 0 2,163 2,074 2,06 0 2,124
0.0% 0.0% 7 PM 6,76 0 5,670 5,108 4,841 5,34 8 5,804 6,02 8 6,350 6,355 6,351 6,58 0 6,479 6,61 0 6,643 6,76 0 6,381 6,43 8 6,160 6,110 6,300TOTAL DVSP PARKING DEMAND NOTES:
1) Land Use Program based on City of Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan (April 2019) 2) Parking Demand for Retail land uses based on September 2022 parking occupancy surveys. Office and Residential land uses based on ITE Parking Generation 5th Edition. Peak parking demand by time of day based on ITE distri bution data 3) ITE parking rates derived from empirical sources account for mode share and internal capture reductions in average parking demand rates; no additional parking reductions applied to prevent double dipping Core
Multifamily
Residential
Transition
DVSP Maximum Buildout ‐ Shared Use Parking Analysis by Time of Day Land Use Program Marina Parking Rate Marina Parking Demand Marina Parking Demand by Time of Day Max_1 Page 3
ATTACHMENT 8
119
ATTACHMENT 8
120
January 11, 2023 Item No. 11b
Members of the Marina City Council Meeting
City Council of January 18, 2023
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA READ BY TITLE ONLY AND APPROVE THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 202 3-, AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE MARINA MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADD SECTION 2.37.1 TO THE GENERAL PLAN IN RESPONSE TO SENATE BILL 478. THIS STATE LAW ENCOURAGES THE ADOPTION OF POLICIES THAT SUPPORT MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING PROJECTS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE EXE MPT FROM CEQA PER SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
REQUEST: It is requested that the Marina City Council:
1. Read by title only and waive further reading and approve the first reading of Ordinance 2023-, approving an a mendment to Sections 17.16 ( CR Z oning District), 17.18 (C -1 Zoning District), and 17.22 (PC Zoning District) of the Marina Municipal Code; and
2. Adopt a Resolution to add Section 2.37.1 to the General Plan; and
3. Find the action exempt from CEQA pursuant to Se ction 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
BACKGROUND:
New State Laws Impacting Local Planning & Development
Over the past several legis lative sessions, the state legislature has approved , and both Governors Brown and Newsom have signed , laws altering housing policy in California. While several bills in the most recent legislative session are acutely impactful to local governments (SB 8, SB 9, SB 10, and SB 478), these laws build on prior legislation. Together, these laws create a complex regulatory web aimed at increasing housing p roduction in the state to meet the housing needs of the state’s current and future residents. This web impacts local governments significantly.
Among other things, these complex laws constrain the City of Marina’s (City) ability to implement subjective design standards, proscribes processing timelines, indicates certain projects are ministerial, and provides som e development standards for certain projects. Further, the web of policies work together to limit a local government’s ability to deny certain typ es of housing projects. To prepare for the impacts in Marina, staff recommends the City Council adopt policies to ensure the City can limit negative impacts the laws may have on development and neighborhoods in Marina.
Of the laws from the most recent leg islative session, SB 478 is the focus of this report. This law became effective January 1, 2022.
SB 478 (Wiener): Planning and Zoning Law: Housing Development The new law applies to housing development projects located in a multifamily residential zone or a mixed-use zone. For the City , this could apply to several commercial districts that allow residential and commercial uses.
1 The law prohibits the City from the following:
• Imposing a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard that is less than 1.0 :1 on a housin g development project that consists of three to seven units, or less than 1.25:1 on a housing development project that consists of eight to ten units.
• Imposing lot coverage requirements that would physically pre clude a housing development project from achieving the FARs described above.
• Denying a housing development project located on an existing legal parcel sole ly on the basis that the proposed lot area does not meet the City’s requirements for minimum lot size.
Lot (or Site) Coverage and Floor Area Ratio
The terms “lot coverage” (or “site coverage” as used in the Marina Municipal Code (MMC)) and FAR can sometimes be confusi ng to decision -makers when evaluating projects. See below for definitions that may be of assistance.
Section 17.04.615 of the MMC d efines Site coverage as the percent of the site area covered by principal and accessory buildings.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is described in the General Plan (Section 1.13) as the ratio between the square footage of enclosed building space and the square foo tage of the site . Floor area ratios are given as numerical ratios. Thus, a FAR of 0.5 indicates that the per mitted enclosed floor area of a building is equal to one-half the square footage of the parcel on which it is located. An FAR of 1.0, therefore, indicates that a building may have a total floor area equal to the total square footage of its site. This means that 1.0:1 ratio would allow a one-acre parcel (43,560 square feet =1 acre) to have 43,560 square feet of building and a 1.25:1 ratio would allow 54,450 square feet of building. The building area allotted can be const ructed over the horizontal area of the lot or can be accomplished by adding floor area vertically as additional stories (see illustration below).
ANALYSIS:
On December 8, 2023, t he Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed amendments to the City ’s Zoning Ordnance and General Plan. T he Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the amendments.
2 In accordance with the Planning Commission recommendation, staff recomm ends adopting into the City’s General Plan and MMC the standards of SB 478 which addresses permissible increases to Floor Area Ratios . These requirements are straight-forward and may be referenced in the attached resolution and draft ordina nce. The change in state law could result in increased applications for housing developments of this size.
CORRESPONDENCE
No applicable correspondence to this project has been received as of January 4, 2023.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The adoption of this ordinance and resolution will have no impact on the City’s General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed project is exe mpt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines . Staff has determined that the exemption applies in this case because the General Plan and Municipal Code Amendments simply reflect pre-emptive state law effective January 1, 2022.
CONCLUSION
This request is submitted for City Council consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Christy Hopper, Planning Services Manager
Community Development Department
City of Marina
REVIEWED/CONCUR:
Guido Persicone, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Marina
__________________________
Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina
Draft Resolution with Draft Ordinance as “Exhibit 1” Attached Draft Resolution amending Marina General Plan
3 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTI ONS 17.16 (CR ZONING DISTRICT), AND
17.18 (C-1 ZONING DISTRICT), 17.22 (PC ZON ING DISTRICT) OF THE MARINA MUNICIPAL CODE IN RESPONSE TO SENATE BILL 478 . THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
WHEREAS, through Senate Bill 478 (SB 478) the legislature of the Stat e of California adopted regulations applicable to housing development projects located in a multifamily residential zone or a mixed-use zone; and
WHEREAS, updates to the City of Marina ( City) Municipal Code ( MMC) are necessary to bring regulations for housing development project s located in a multifamily residenti al zone or a mixed - use zone into compliance with State law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed draft ordinance is included and referenced herein as “Exhibit” 1; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed these items at a dul y noticed public hearing on December 8, 2022 and recommended City Council approval of the amendments; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code addresses permissible increases to Floor Area Ratios; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that the proposed amendments are not subject to CEQA pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15061(b)(3), because the proposed ordinance(s) are covered by the ge neral rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Marina does hereby:
1. Read by title only and waive fur ther reading an d approve the first reading of Ordinance 2023 -, approving amendments to Sections 17.16 ( CR Zoning District),
17.18 ( C-1 Zoning District), and 17.22 ( PC Zoning District) of the Marina Municipal Code; and
2. Find the acti on is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Secti on 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting duly held on the 18th day of January 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk
4 DRAFT “Exhibit 1”
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 17, ARTICLE 2 (SECTIONS 17.16, 17.18, AND 17.22) OF THE MARINA MUNICIPAL CODE
-oOo-
Findings
1. On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law Sen ate Bill 478 (SB 478), which requires, among other th ings, that local agencies provide specified minimum floor area ratios for housing development projects containing 3 to 10 dwelling units. This legislation is codified in Government Code §65585 and §65913.11.
2. An amendment to the City’s Municipal Co de (“MMC ” or “Code”) is needed to ensure compliance with State law.
3. Sections 17.16 (CR Zoning District), 17.18 (C -1 Zoning District), and
17.22 (PC Zoning District) are amended to add language to allow increased maximum floor area ratios for certain housing development projects.
4. Environmental. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff finds that this ordinance is not subject to CEQA pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Secti on 15061(b)(3), because the proposed ordinance is cover ed by the gener al rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA and no further environmental review is necessary.
5 DRAFT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth fully herein.
SECTION 2. Amendment of the Code.
New section 17.16.190, Increased Floor Area Ratio for Housing Developments of 3-10 Units, is added to MMC Chapter 17.16, C-R OR COMMERCIAL/MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, as follows:
17.16.190 Increased Floor Area Ratio for Housing Developments of 3‐10 Units A housing development project, as defined in California Government Code Section 65589.5, that is in the C-R Zoning District shall be allowed to increase its FAR as follows:
A. A housing development project of three to seven units shall have a minimum FAR of
1.0:1.
B. A housing development project of eight to ten units shall have a minimum FAR of
1.25:1.
C. This section shall not apply within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1, or within a site that is designated or listed on the City’s historic inventory.
6 DRAFT
New section 17.18.140, Increased Floor Area Ratio for Housing Developments of 3-10 Units, is added to MMC Chapter 17.18, C-1 OR RETAIL BUSINESS DISTRICT, as follows:
17.18.140 Increased Floor Area for Housing Developments of 3‐10 Units A housing development project, as defined in California Government Code Section 65589.5, that is in the C-1 Zoning District shall be allowed to increase its FAR as follows:
A. A housing development project of three to seven units shall have a minimum FAR of
1.0:1.
B. A housing development project of eight to ten units shall have a minimum FAR of
1.25:1.
C. This section shall not apply within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1, or within a site that is designated or listed on the City’s historic inventory.
New section 17.22.150, Increased Floor Area Ratio for Housing Developments of 3-10 Units, is added to MMC Chapter 17.22, PC OR PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, as follows:
17.22.150 Increased Floor Area for Housing Developments of 3‐10 Units A housing development project, as defined in California Government Code Section 65589.5, that is in the PC Zoning District shall be allowed to increase its FAR as follows:
A. A housing development project of three to seven units shall have a minimum FAR of 1.0:1.
7 DRAFT
B. A housing development project of eight to ten units shall have a minimum FAR of
1.25:1.
C. This section shall not apply within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1, or within a site that is designated or listed on the City’s historic inventory.
SECTION 3 . Severability. If any portion of this Ordinan ce is found to be unconstitutional or invalid the City Council hereby declares that it would have enacted the remainder of this Ordinance regardless of the absence of any such invalid part.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full forc e and effect on thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption and shall be posted within fifteen (15) days after the adoption.
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regu lar meeting of the City Council of the City of Marina duly held on January 18, 2023, and was passed and adopted at a regular meeting duly held on , 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk
8 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA
ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD SECTION 2.37.1 TO THE MARINA GENERAL PLAN . THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA
GUIDELINES.
WHEREAS, through Senate Bill 478 (SB 478) the legislature of the Stat e of California adopted regulations applicable to housi ng development projects located in a multifamily residential zone or a mixed-use zone; and
WHEREAS, updates to the City of Marina (“C ity”) General Plan are necessary to bring regulations for housing de velopment projects locate d in a multifamily residential zone or a mixed-use zone into compliance with State law; and
WHEREAS, the following new section is hereby added to General Plan:
2.37.1 Notwithstanding limitations on Floor Area Ratio (FAR) set forth in the General Plan, housing development projects as de fined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the California Government Code , as may be amended, shall be allowed to increase its FAR as follows:
1. A housing development project of th ree to seven units shall have a minimum FAR of 1.0:1.
2. A housing development project of eight to ten units shall have a minimum FAR of 1.25:1.
3. This bonus shall not apply within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Invent ory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the California Public Resources Code , or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
4. For mixed use development, total mixed use FAR shall be increased to the extent necessary to accommodate a non -residential floor area ratio of
0.4:1 for retail and retail-like uses only.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed these items at a duly noticed public hearing on December 8, 2022 and recommended City Council approve the amendment; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the General Plan addresses permissible increases to Floor Area Ratios; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and de termines, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that the proposed am endments are not subject to CEQA pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15061(b)(3), because the propos ed ordinance(s) are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
9 Resolution No. 2023-,
Page Two
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Marina does hereby:
1. Adopt Resolution 2023 - adopting a General Plan Amendment to add Section
2.37.1 to the Marina General Plan in response to Senate Bill 478 (SB 478), and
2. Find the action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting duly held on the 18th day of January 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk
10 January 10, 2023 Item No. 11c
Members of the Marina City Council Meeting
City Council of January 18, 2023
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA AMENDING MARINA MUNICIPAL CODE (M MC) CHAPTER 5.32 “CARDROOMS”
TO MODIFY THE CRITERIA FOR THE TRANSFER OF CARDROOM PERMITS PURSUANT TO M MC 5.32.090 AND TO AMEND M MC SECTIONS 5.32.102 TO
REMOVE TH E LOCAL MORATORIUM ON NEW CARDROOM PERMITS AND
5.32.106 TO CLARIFY NO MORE THAN TWO CARDROOM PERMITS. THE
PROPOSED AM ENDMENTS AR E EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PER SECTION 15060(c)(2) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
REQUEST: It is submitted for Marina City Council review and possible action:
1. Read by title only, waive further reading, and approve the first reading of Ordinance 2023-, approving Amendments to Title 5 of the Marina Municipal Code (MMC) by modifying Section 5.32.090 to clarify the assignment of cardroom permits and amend MMC Section
5.32.102 to remove the local moratorium on new cardroom permits and Section 5.32.106 to clarify a maximum of two (2) cardroom permits in the City of Marina (EXHIBIT A).
2. If the City Council approves the Ordinance above, then the next step will be to direct staff to take a z oning text amendment to the Planning Commission that identifies the zoning district or districts to allow cardrooms to be located. The Planning Commission would then make a recommendation to the City Council for review and possible action.
SUMMARY:
Recently, Park West Casinos, LLC (Park West) approached the City about opening a cardroom in the City. Should the Council wish to allow Park West to open and operate a cardroom establishment in the City, amendments to the City’s gaming and zoning ordinances would be required as outlined below.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s Current Cardroom Ordinance
Upon the City ’s incorporation in 1975, the re were two cardrooms operating in the city. In 1979, the City Council adopted Ordinance 79 -7, which set forth cardroom regulations in Chapter 5. 32 of the Marina Municipal Code (MMC).
In 1996, the City Council passed Ordinance 96-06, wh ich added Section 5.32.102 “Prohibition of additional cardroom permits” to the MMC. Section 5.32.102 prohibited the issuance of any additional new cardroom permits that did not exist prior to the adoption of Ordinance 96-06. (Attachment A). At the time of Section 5.32.102’s adoption, there were two issued cardroom permits.1
In 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2015 -01, which limited the total of cardroom tables to
20. 1 Also in 1996, the State of California en acted a statewide cardroom moratorium that prevented local jurisdictions from amending their ordinances in such a way that would allow new or expanded gambling operations for any establishment not licensed prior to December 31, 1999 (Attachment B).
1 Closure of Mortimer’s
Mortimer’s, a previous City cardroom permit holder, closed in September of 2015. Because Section
5.32.090 “Assignment of permit ” of the MMC requires cardroom permits to be re newed annua lly, Mortimer’s cardroom permit expired by operation of law when it was not renewed in 2016.
Upon the expiration of Mortimer ’s cardroom permit, only the cardroom permit held by the Marina Club remains.
Request by Park West
On July 28, 2022, Park West filed an application requesting amendments to the City’s Cardroom and Zoning ordinances (Attachment C) to allow them to obtain a cardroom permit and to allow them to locate a new cardroom in the city.2 Park West requested the zoning ordinance amendment (in addition to the cardroom ordinance amendment) because cardrooms are not currently an allowed u se in the City. (Mortimer’s and the Marina Club have operated as legal non-conforming uses.)
On November 16, 2022, Staff consulted with special counsel and drafted amendments to MMC Chapter 5.32 “Cardrooms” that would be necessary should Council wish to accommodate Park West’s requests. The amendments included deleting MMC Section 5.32.102 “Prohibition of additional cardroom permits,” and amending MMC Section 5.32.106 “Limit on the numb er of tables in the city ” to clarify that there will be no more than two (2) cardroom permits.
On Novemb er 17, 2022, Staff sent t he p roposed MMC amendments to the California Bureau of Gambling Control (Bureau) for review and comment prior to their adoption as required by Business and Professions Code section 19961.1.
On December 7, 2022, the Bureau sent the C ity of Marina a response to the Ordinance Amendments that stated (Attachment D):
The proposed amendments to sections 5.32.090 and 5.32.106 of the City’s Municipal Code do not appear inconsistent with the Gambling Control Act. The proposed deletion of section 5.32.102 does not appear inconsistent with the Gamblin g Cont rol Act, insofar as the dele tion, as the Bureau understands it, is not intended to allow an expansion of gambling as defined in Business and Professions Code section 19961, subdivision (b), but is instead intended to allow for the issuance of a permi t for a cardroom that has ceased o perations at the location initially allowed under the permit.
The background documents discussed above are attached for reference.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has proposed three required ordinance amendments for City Coun cil review should it wish to accommodate Park West’s request. The first will remove the language that prohibits new cardrooms from being issued. The second will clarify that only two cardroom permits can be issu ed at any give n time so that these changes will not result in a change to the total numbe r of permits that were established prior to the State’s moratorium. The final amendment simplifies the process for assignment of cardroom permits. The proposed changes are shown in EXHIBIT A. Specifically, the deletion of MMC Section 5.32.102 “Prohibition of additional cardroom permits ” will allow the City to issue a new cardroom permits.
2 Note that on January 20, 2022, the State of California Gambling Control Commission approved Park West Casino Marina’s request for an Initial State Gambling License (Attachment E).
2 The proposed amendme nts to MMC Section 5.32.106 “Limit on t he numb er of tables in the city ” clarifies that there shall be no m ore than two (2) cardroom permits issued by the City at any given time. (This ensures there will be no expansion to card rooms beyond what has histor ically been allowed.)
Finally, the proposed modifications to MMC Section 5.32.090 “Assignment of permit ” will remove prohibitive language that only allows assignment of cardroom permits to family members under certain circumstances.
The City’s Zoning Ordinance does not currently allow cardrooms in any zoning district in the C ity.
Therefore, in th e future the a pplicant will need to apply for a Zoning Code amendment to allow cardrooms in at least one zoning district . The Zoning Code amendment, including the associated environmental review, would go to the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the Cit y Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The adoption of the proposed ordinance (as well as future changes to the Zoning Ordinance) will result in a second cardroom business coming back to the City. To understand the fiscal impact, please see MMC Section 5.32.124 “Gross revenue permit fees ,” followed by the total tax r evenue from cardrooms collected by the City by year for context.
If the Monthly Gross
Revenue is:
Over
But Not Over Computed Fee is: Of Amount
Over:
$ 0 $10,000 $ 500.00
10,000 15,000 750.00 + 5% $10,000
15,000 20,000 1,200.00 + 9% 15,000
20,000 and over 1,850.00 + 13% 20,000
2015* 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
$139,586 $133,729 $154,783 $160,147 $178,741 $142,225 $101,780 $211,466
* Please note that 2015 is the total tax revenue from two cardrooms (Mortimers and Marina Club) and all subsequent years are the total from one cardroom (Marina Club).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed amendments are not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA ) pursuant to the Stat e CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regula tions, Title 14, Chap ter 3, Sections:
15060(c)(2), because the proposed ordinance w ill not result in a direct or reasonably fore seeable indirect ph ysical change in th e environment; and 15061(b)(3), because the pr oposed ordinance is covered by the general r ule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for caus ing a significant effect on the environment.
CONCLUSION:
This request is submitted for City Council consideration and action.
3 Respectfully submitted,
Nicholas McIlroy
Associate Planner, Community Development Dept.
City of Marina
REVIEWED/CONCUR:
_______
______________________
Guido F. Persicone, AICP
Director, Community Development Dept.
City of Marina
_____________________________
Layne Long
City Manage
City of Marina
Exhibit A – Draft Amendment to Chapter 5.32
Attachment A – Ordinance 96-6
Attachment B – Letter from CA Gambling Control Commission Cardroom Moratorium Ending Attachment C – Parkwest’s Application Materials
Attachment D – Response to Ordinance Amendments from the CA Gambling Control Attachment E – January 20, 2022, State Gambling Control Letter
4 ORDINANCE NO. 2023-__
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CI TY C OUNCIL OF TH E CITY OF MARINA AMENDING MARINA MUNICIPAL CODE (MCC) CHAPTER 5.32
“CARDROOMS” TO MODIFY THE CRITERIA FO R THE TRANSFER OF CARDROOM PE RMITS PURSUANT TO MCC 5.32.090 AND TO AMEND MCC SECTIONS 5.32.102 AND 5.32.106 REGARDING THE LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF CARDROOMS PERMITS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
ARE EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PER SECTION
15060(c)(2) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
-oOo-
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
1. Section 5.32.090 of the Marina Municipal Code shall be amended as follows, with deletions shown in strikethrough and additions shown in bold, italic, underline:
“Section: 5.32.090 Assignment of permit . No cardroom permit, or any interest therein, issued under the authority of this chapter, may be transferred from person to person, assigned, pledged or hypothe cated in whole or in part, except as authorized by this chapter. Such perm it shall not be subject to transfer to any other holder or operator through the levy of any execution by any judgment creditor or any judicial sale under any proceedings to enforce o r collect any judgment, debt or obligation. The transfer of the cardroom activity to a different location may be approved by the chief of police prov ided the application or transfer fulfills all the conditions specified in Sections 5.32.040 and
5.32.050 for the issuance of cardroom permits and such location is allowed under Title 17 of this code (Zoning Ordinance). The transfer of a valid City cardroom permit to another person may be allowed by the chief of police when the permittee is deceased and the executor or administrator of his estate has applied for such transf er within thirty days after the date of death, or when the permittee has become physic ally incapacitated so that
EXHIBIT A
5 he is unable to conduct his cardroom business and will b e so incapacitated for a period of six months or more from the d ate of such application ; provided further, that any such application for transfer of a cardroom permit to ano ther person may only be made by or on behalf of a permittee holding a valid permit issued and unrevoked at the time of adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter and not by the transferee or such permit or any other person ; provided further, that the proposed recipient of any such permit transfer shall fulfill all the terms and c onditions of this chapte r for the issuance of any cardroom permit.”
2. Section 5.32.102 of the Marina Municipal Code shall be amended as follows, with deletions shown in strikethrough and additions shown in bold, italic, underline:
“5.32.102 Prohibition of ad ditional cardroom permit s. Notwithstanding any other provision or section of this chapt er, no cardroom permit for a cardroom not existing and legally permitted on the effect ive date of the ordinance codified in this se ction shall be issued by the city. (Ord. 96-6 § 1, 1996)”
3. Section 5.32.106 of the Marina Municipal Code shall be amended as follows with deletions shown in strikethrough and additions shown in bold, italic, underline:
“5.32.106 Limit on number of permits and tables in the city. No more than tw o cardroom permits shall be allowed in the city at one time . No more than a total of twenty tables shall be permitted in the city.”
4. Environmental. In accordance with th e California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff finds that this ordinance is n ot subject to California Environment al Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, California Cod e of Regulations, Titl e 14, Chapter 3, Sections: 15060(c)(2), because the proposed ordinance will not result in a direct or 6 reasonably foreseeabl e indirect physical change in the en vironment; and 15061(b)(3), because the proposed ordinance is covered by th e general rule that CE QA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment . Therefore, the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA, and no further environmental review is necessary.
5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption.
6. Severability. If any portion o f this Ordinance is found to be unco nstitutional or invalid the City Council hereby declares that it would hav e enacted the remainde r of this Ordinance regardless of the absence of any such invalid part.
7. Posting of Ordinance . Within fifteen (15) days a fter the passage of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause it to be posted in the three (3) public places designated by resolution of the City Council.
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Marina duly held on January 18, 2023, and was passed and adopted at a regular meeting duly held on ________________, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk
7 Attachment A
8 Attachment A
9 September 14, 2022
To: All Interested Parties
Re: Cardroom License Moratorium Ending Effective January 1, 2023 Currently, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 19962, local jurisdictions cannot pass ordinances that either authorize legal gambling, or amend their existing ordinances in a way that would constitute an expansion of gambling.
Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 19963, the California Gambling Control Commission (Commission) cannot issue a State Gambling License for a new gambling establishment that was not licensed prior to December 31, 1999 or did not have an application on file with the Department of Justice (Department) prior to September 1, 2000.
Collectively, these statutes form a moratorium on the expansion of controlled gambling, which has been in effect for more than two decades.
Historically, the Legislature extended this moratorium on the expansion of gambling.
However, a bill to extend the moratorium did not pass by the end of the 2022 legislative session. As a result, the existing moratorium, as currently constituted by Business and Professions Code sections 19962 and 19963, expires on January 1, 2023.
Despite the expiration of the moratorium, existing Cardrooms seeking to increase their authorized permanent tables, or individuals seeking to own or operate a new cardroom, must be in compliance with all relevant federal, state, and local laws.
Local ordinances limit the number of permanent gaming tables or gambling establishments allowed in their jurisdiction. Any application or request submitted must not exceed the gaming allowances provided by the local jurisdiction.
The Commission cannot approve a request for an increase in authorized tables, or approve an application for a State Gambling License to own or operate a new Cardroom, without the corresponding local jurisdiction having already enacted a gambling ordinance or expanded their existing gambling ordinance in compliance with Business and Professions Code section 19860, Business and Professions Code section 19960, and Business and Professions Code section 19961.
Attachment B
10 Cardroom Moratorium
September 14, 2022
For local jurisdictions seeking to enact a new gambling ordinance or expand an existing ordinance, there are instances in which an election must be held to approve the new or expanded ordinance pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 19960 and Business and Professions Code section 19961.
Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 19961.1, any amendment to a city or county ordinance relating to gambling establishments, or the Gambling Control Act, must be submitted to the Department’s Bureau of Gambling Control for review and comment before the ordinance is adopted by the city or county.
Business and Professions Code section 19860 and Business and Professions Code section 19923 expressly direct the Commission to deny gambling licenses to applicants who are not in compliance with the local ordinances governing gambling.
For those considering submitting an application for a new State Gambling License, applicants must be found suitable by the Commission, and part of that suitability includes the applicants obtaining all relevant approvals from the local jurisdiction in which they plan to own and operate a Cardroom.
Before submitting a request for additional authorized permanent tables, or an application for a State Gambling License, consult your local jurisdiction. Confirm that your local jurisdiction has a gaming ordinance that is in compliance with Business and Professions Code sections 19860, 19960, and 19961, and that your request does not violate the local ordinance. The Commission cannot grant approvals to applicants who are not in compliance with the local ordinance.
The Commission has updated the Frequently Asked Questions page on its website, under the “Cardroom” subcategory, with new information and guidance regarding the moratorium.
If you have any questions, please call the Commission at (916) 263-0700 or email [email protected].
Sincerely,
STACEY LUNA BAXTER
Executive Director
Attachment B
11 Attachment C
12 Attachment C
13 Attachment C
14 Attachment C
15 Attachment C
16 Attachment C
17 Attachment C
18 Attachment C
19 Attachment C
20 Attachment C
21 Attachment C
22 Attachment C
23 Attachment C
24 Attachment C
25 Attachment C
26 Attachment D
27 Attachment D
28 January 28, 2022
Joy Harn
Parkwest Casino Marina
100 Oceangate, Suite 100
Long Beach, 90802
Re: Approval of Initial State Gambling License
Dear Joy Harn:
The California Gambling Control Commission (Commission) has approved Parkwest Casino Marina and it’s owner-licensee’s Initial Cardroom Business License Applications at its January 20, 2022 Commission Meeting through January 31, 2024 with the following conditions:
The Owner-Licensee may not open or offer controlled games until the Bureau of Gambling Control has inspected the cardroom and determined that the cardroom is in compliance with all pertinent regulatory standards. Prior to the opening for business, the owner-licensee, shall provide to the Bureau of Gambling Control:
1. A current and fully completed Business Entity: Supplemental Information, CGCC-CH2-06 (New 05/20), or its most current successor form, which includes the new address of the gambling establishment;
2. The Owner-Licensee must comply with applicable relocation requirements pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 4, Division 18, Chapter 7, Article 1, Section 12364;
3. A current and valid business license issued by the City of Marina for the gambling establishment;
4. A current reviewed and approved Safety and Security Plan, as required by California Code of Regulations, title 4, sections 12370 and 12372;
5. A current Emergency and Evacuation Plan, as required by California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 12370, that has been approved by the responsible local authority;
6. A current lease for the gambling establishment’s premises, if applicable; and
7. A current and complete Chart of Accounts, as required by California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 12312.
Attachment E
Attachment C – January 28, 2022 State Gambling Control Letter 29 If you have any additional questions, you may contact me at (916) 263-6974. You may also find information on the Commission’s website at www.cgcc.ca.gov of assistance in identifying your responsibilities as a state gambling licensee.
Sincerely,
Katherine Martinez, Analyst
Licensing Division
Enclosures
Attachment E
Attachment C – January 28, 2022 State Gambling Control Letter 30 January 13, 2023 Item No. 13a
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Marina City Council of January 18, 2023
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSS POLICE CHIEF HIRING PROCESS TO INCLUDE
MAKEUP OF COMMUNITY PANEL AND PUBLIC MEETING AND PROVIDE STAFF WITH FURTHER DIRECTION.
REQUEST:
It is requested that the City Council:
1. Discuss the pros and cons of including City Council members or City Council recommended members to the Community Panel that will interview police chief candidates.
2. Discuss other aspects of the hiring process if City Council has other ideas.
3. Provide staff with any further direction in the matter.
BACKGROUND:
On November 1, 2022, City of Marina’s Mayor Pro-tem emailed the Mayor and City Manager the following request “Let's schedule an agenda item for City Council to consider at the appropriate time in advance of efforts to recruit new police chief.” On December 21, 2022, the City Manager sent and email to City Council describing how the police chief hiring process would proceed. City Councils of at least 2 other California cities (Tiburon and Vista) have voted to either interview police chief candidates (Tiburon) or “require City Manager to be in consultation and agreement with a majority of the City Council before hiring a department lead” (Vista).
Below are links to the City of Tiburon and City of Vista hiring process changes:
https://thecoastnews.com/vista-council-approves-change-to-city-managers-hiring-process/ https://www.marinij.com/2022/03/03/tiburon-council-to-interview-department-head-candidates- under-new-provision/
There are likely pros and cons to keep the process as the City Manager has planned or to modify it to allow more council and/or public involvement.
Two modifications suggested here to consider are 1) Two City Council members participating on the community panel or City Council voting to appoint some members of this panel and 2) holding a public meeting as other local cities have done for the final candidates to make presentations at a City Council meeting for the council and public to meet them and hear them.
There may be other ways City Council or the public may be involved and this staff report would allow those ideas to be discussed.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That Council Discuss the pros and cons of including City Council members or City Council recommended members to the Community Panel that will interview police chief candidates, discuss other aspects of the hiring process if City Council has other ideas, and provide staff with any further direction in the matter.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact for council and staff to discuss this matter.
CONCLUSION:
This request is presented for City Council consideration and possible action.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Bruce Delgado
Mayor
City of Marina
January 13, 2023 Item No. 13b
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of January 18, 2023
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSS IMPORTANT PROJECTS FOR NOT MORE THAN 30 MINUTES AND PROVIDE STAFF WITH FURTHER DIRECTION.
REQUEST:
It is requested that the City Council:
1. Discuss for not more than 30 minutes any projects from the below project list.
2. Provide staff with any further direction in the matter.
BACKGROUND:
Many projects within the City of Marina are complicated and may be on -going for up to decades without clear understanding by City Council or public how they are implemented, what status and next steps may be current, or whether there are obstacles to their implementation or improvement.
On occasion very short or light City Council agendas would provide some time for open and free discussion between council members and with staff and public. Such open discussion would help experienced and newer City Council members the opportunity to learn about on-going or new City projects and engage in discussion about them.
On December 20, 2022, City Council used this manner of agendizing topic discussion and discussed Maintenance of City’s 120-project priority list (prior to 2023 budget discussions).
Below is a short list of potential project topics City Council could discu ss and this list can be modified with additions or deletions at the discretion of City Council:
- Street sweeping program and its needs
- Security Plan for MEC
- Landscape Architect/Arborist
- Public Works mowers (still urgent?)
- Rec Staff instructors’ hourly rate and potential increase (to match Boys/Girls Club or other equitable comparatives)
- Del Monte Blvd and Reser vation Rd. median landscaping improvements (dead trees, weeds, upgrades)
- Status of deadlines agreed during 2021 and 2022 budget processes for priority projects (e.g. replacement of streetlights, landscape architect/arborist, Cypress Knolls planning) - Installation of speed humps or cushions as traffic calming means on streets such as Messinger Dr., Beach Rd., Reindollar Ave., etc..
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council discuss for not more than 30 minutes any City projects on the above list, suggest modifications to the list for future meetings, and provide staff with any further direction in this matter.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact for council and staff to discuss on-going or new projects.
CONCLUSION:
This request is presented for City Council consideration and possible action.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Bruce Delgado
Mayor
City of Marina