Attachment 9
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 707.542.9500 w-trans.com SANTA ROSA • OAKLAND • SAN JOSE
Memorandum
Date: May 6, 2019 Project: SOX580
To: Mr. Andy Gustavson
City of Santa Rosa
From: Zack Matley
[email protected]
Subject: May 2019 Roseland Village Parking Evaluation Updates Following completion of the Traffic Impact Study for the Roseland Village Project Final Repor t, prepared by W-Trans and dated June 14, 2018, several changes to the site plan and tentative map have been made that affect the number of residential reserved spaces and the total number of spaces provided on the site. The project proposes to provide 175 reserved residential spaces (one reserved space per unit), in contrast to the 168 reserved residential spaces referred to in the 2018 report. Additionally, the site’s total parking supply would be 323 spaces instead of the 342 spaces noted in the 2018 report. Upon incorporating these revised figures into the shared parking analysis, the project’s calculated peak hour of parking demand was found to equal the 323-space parking supply. The project’s peak parking demand would still met by its proposed supply, and no substantive changes to the report’s conclusions or recommendations would result.
This memorandum and its attached revisions supersede those provided to the City of Santa Rosa in a prior memorandum titled Roseland Village Parking Evaluation Errata, dated August 2, 2018.
The affected pages of the report are attached, with deletions noted in red strikeout and additions noted in green underline.
2 Traffic Impact Study for the Roseland Village Project May 6, 2019 Errata
[Executive Summary, p. 2]
should be responsible for relocating the eastbound CityBus stop closer to the intersection of Sebastopol Road/West Avenue. The project should also construct or contrib ute funds toward the installation of pedestrian-scale lighting at the CityBus stops near the project site.
The project would fall approximately 5170 spaces short (or about 1318 percent) of meeting the parking requirements specified in the City’s zoning code and State density bonus laws. A shared parking analysis focusing on time-of-day parking demands was conducted, revealing that some efficiencies among the various uses can be achieved. Based on the shared parking anal ysis, the project is anticipated to experience a peak parking demand on weekday afternoons that is slightly less than equals the 342323- space supply. During overnight periods, the site is anticipate d to have a parking surplus of at least 4829 spaces. Given the anticipated shared parking efficiencies, proximity to high-frequency transit and nearby commuter rail, and strong orientation to biking and walking, th e City could consider granting reductions in parking requirements for the project.
35 Traffic Impact Study for the Roseland Village Project May 6, 2019 Errata
Parking
Parking Supply
The proposed project would include a total of 342323 parking spaces. These would be comprised of 10386 public on-street spaces within the site and along Sebastopol Ro ad as well as 239237 spaces on the site’s two residential parcels. Of these residential parcel parking s paces, 168175 would be reserved for the exclusive use of residents, and 7162 would be “shared” and available to accommodate any of the park ing demand generated from within the entire project site.
Parking Requirements
The project’s proposed parking supply was assessed using the parking requirements contained in Chapter 20-36 of the City of Santa Rosa zoning code, in addition to State of California density bonus laws that apply to the site’s residential units. The density bonus laws are co mplex, but essentially allow infill projects that have a minimum proportion of affordable units to apply parking ratios that are often lower than those required by local jurisdictions. For the Roseland Village project, the lowered parking ratios would apply to all residential units on the site (both affordable and market rate), at one space per one-bedroom unit and two spaces per two- or three-bedroom unit. A summary of the parking requirements is shown in Table 12.
Table 12 – Parking Requirements
Category Quantity Unit Ratio Required
Residential
1 space per 1BD 70 1-BD units 1.0 per BD 70
2 spaces per 2BD or 3BD 105 2-3BD units 2.0 per BD 210
Residential Total 280
Retail
Retail 1,000 square feet 1 per 250 sf 4
Mercado 7,000 square feet 1 per 250 sf 28
Retail Total 32
Office
Office 11,000 square feet 1 per 250 sf 44
Office Total 44
Library
1 space per 300 sf 11,000 square feet 1 per 300 sf 37
Library Total 37
TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED 393
Proposed Spaces 342323
Parking Reduction Needed 5170 spaces
(-1318%)
Notes: BD=bedroom; sf=square feet
36 Traffic Impact Study for the Roseland Village Project May 6, 2019 Errata
Shared Parking
In addition to the analysis of th e parking requirements specified by City code, a shared-use analysis was performed. A parking demand met hodology that co nsiders shared parking principles can significantly improve the accuracy of determin ing actual parking demand. The U L I p u b l i c a t i o n Shared Parking , 2 nd Edition, 2005, includes methodologies for determining parking demand based on the various components of a specific project. The ULI s hared parking methodology focu ses on temporal data, determining when the overall peak demand for various land uses occurs, including what time of day, whether it is a weekday or weekend, and what month of the year. The recommended parking supply is then tied to that maximum demand period. The ULI model considers the proposed mix of land uses, including quantities of each type of use.
The ULI shared parking model includes the hourly parking demand created by residential, retail, and office uses. The methodology includes an average residential parking demand of 1.65 spaces per unit. Custom time-of-day parking demand profiles for the library were developed based on the typical operating hours and usage at other library facilities in Santa Rosa, assuming that the maximum parking demand would be equal to the City’s parking requirements for libraries (1 space per 300 square feet, or 37 spaces). For reference, the applied hourly parking demands generated by each of the non-residential project components are shown in Graph 1 and Graph 2.
Graph 1 – Weekday Parking Demand by Non-Residential
Use
Graph 2 – Weekend Parking Demand by Non-Residential
Use
Cumulative Parking Demand
The parking demand profile for the project was assessed by summ ing the hourly demands of each project component. The methodology considers the number of shared vers us non-shared spaces, which for the proposed project includes 168175 reserved residential parking spaces (one reserved space per unit) that
37 Traffic Impact Study for the Roseland Village Project May 6, 2019 Errata
would not be available to other site wide uses. From this cumulative parking demand profile, it is possible to determine the hour or hours of the day when the site as a whole would likely experience its peak parking demand. Based on the assessment, the site-wide peak parking demand would occur on weekdays between approximately 24:00 and 65:00 p.m. with a total peak parking demand of 319 to 322323 spaces among the various uses. On weekends, the cumulative parking demand peaks at 5:00 p.m. with a demand of 306307 spaces. The cumulative weekday parking demands for weekdays and weekends are shown in Graph 3 and Graph 4.
Graph 3 – Weekday Cumulative Parking Demand G r a p h 4 – Weekend Cumulative Parking Demand
Parking Findings
A s s h o w n i n T a b l e 1112, based on the parking requirements contained in the City’s zoning code and including density bonus provisions, the project would need to p rovide 393 parking spaces. The proposed supply of 342323 spaces is 5170 spaces short of meeting parking requirements, which translates to an 1318 percent reduction.
The shared parking analysis completed for the project indicates that some parking efficiencies may be gained, since different onsite u ses would encounter peak parkin g demands at different times of day. An example of this is the interaction between residential and office uses; the office uses generate peak parking
38 Traffic Impact Study for the Roseland Village Project May 6, 2019 Errata
demand during the same periods that residential demand is at its lowest. Application of the shared parking methodology indicates that the project’s peak hour parking demand of 321323 spaces is anticipated to be less thanequal the proposed 342323-space supply. The site’s highest parking demand would occur during late afternoon periods on weekdays, though d uring overnight per iods between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., 4829 or more vacant shared parking spaces are projected to be available.
Zoning Code Provisions for Reductions to Parking Requirements With respect to the City’s ability to grant reductions to parking requirements, section 20-36-050 (A) of the zoning code indicates that:
In a mixed use project, parking may be shared by the different uses. A mixed use project composed of residential and retail uses may reduce the required vehicle parking up to 50 percent of the required parking for either the residential or retail use, whichever is smaller. A mixed use project composed of residential and office or institutional uses may re duce the required vehicle parking up to 75 percent of the required parking for either the residential or office/institutional use, whichever is smaller.
The Roseland Village project includes residential, office/insti tutional, and retail uses. Application of the above provision to the office/institutional (library) parking requirements would reduce the required supply by 60 spaces, to a total of 333 spaces required. The proposed 342323-space supply would exceed fall short of this by nineten spaces. Additionally, t The zoning code’s shared parking provision is unclear whether deductions can be taken to account for three different uses at the site (residential, office, and retail). If the C i t y a l l o w s 5 0 p e r c e n t o f t h e r e tail demand (16 spaces) to be c ounted as part of the shared parking provisions in addition to 75 percent of the office/ institutional demand, the total resulting required parking would be 317 spaces, which the project’s 342323-space supply would satisfyies.
Section 20-36-050 (C) describes additional mechanisms that the City can employ at a discretionary level to adjust the number of required parking spaces. A deduction of up to 25 percent can be applied by the City in cases where it is determined that the proposed use will generate a parking demand that differs from the standards contained in the zoning code, and the number of parki ng spaces approved will be sufficient for its safe, convenient, and efficient operation. If the City is able to make these findings and allow a n 1318 percent reduction in the project ’s parking requirements, the project’s parking requirements would be satisfied.
The City could consider allowing the project to apply a n 1318 percent reduction to parking requirements, b a s e d o n t h e p r o j e c t ’ s s t r o n g o rientation to local community us es, provision of robust bicycle and pedestrian facilities and connectivity to the surrounding bicyc le and pedestrian networks, and transit- accessible location. The site’s transit orientation may provid e an especially compelling justification for parking reductions, given the location of transit stops directly in front of the site with two bidirectional CityBus routes that result in a frequency of up to 12 buses per hour on weekdays and six buses per hour on weekends (with all routes connecting to the SMART rail station and downtown bus transfer center). In addition to using bus connections to SMART, the site is also within a one-mile walking or bicycling distance to the SMART station, with a large portion of that distance on off-street paths including the Joe Rodota Trail and SMART multi-use path. Finally, the shared parking an alysis indicates that the project’s actual parking demand is antic ipated to be contained within the propos ed number of spaces, with the highest parking demand periods occurring outside of overnight periods w hen spillover parking could adversely affect nearby residential neighborhoods.
39 Traffic Impact Study for the Roseland Village Project May 6, 2019 Errata
AB 744 Parking Provisions
Additional provisions relating to parking requirements at sites incorporating affordable housing near transit were adopted by the State of California in Assembly Bill 744 (AB 744), which became effective in January 2016. AB 744 allows qualifying projects to apply reduced parking ratios of 0.5 spaces per bedroom, which is substantially lower than the state density bonus law rates that are currently being applied to the Roseland Village project. AB 744 requires that a project be located within one-half mile of a major transit stop. The downtown SMART commuter rail station qualifies as a major trans it stop, but is located 0.53 to 0.60 miles from the Roseland Village site (depending on the points measured), just beyond the half-mile criteria. The intersection of two major bus routes with service intervals of 15 minutes or less during peak hours also qualifies as a major transit stop under AB 744. Along the project frontage on Sebastopol Road, Santa Rosa CityBus Route 9 runs at 15-minute intervals in each direction (8 buses per hour total), and Route 12 runs at 30-minute intervals in each direction (4 buses per hour total). The routes run in parallel along Sebastopol Road, however, and do not intersect as indicated in AB 744. As a re sult, the Roseland Village project falls just short of meeting two different methods of qualifying for the lowered parking ratios afforded by AB 744.
While the AB 744 parking requirem ents may not available to the project by right, the City may wish to consider the project’s near-qua lification for AB 744 provisions as evidence to support parking reductions associated with a combination of housing affordability and transit accessibility.
Parking Easement with Adjacent Property
On July 25, 1956 Roseland Village, a California Corporation, and Codding Enterprises executed a Reciprocal Parking and Driveway Easement (“Easement”) Recorded in Book 1467 Page 415 of the Official Records. The Easement benefits and encumbers Sonoma County Assessor Parcel Number 125-111-37 (“Commission Property”) and a portion of Sonoma County Assessor Parcel Numbe r 125-111-45, 46, 47 and 48 (“Paulsen Property”). Page 3 of the Easem ent clarifies that the Easement was created so that each property would Grant each other “reciprocal easements over that portion of said real property which has been, and will be in the future, set aside for vehicular parking lots and drive-ways.” The Easement does not describe a specific location for vehicular parking and/or driveway uses on either the Commission or Paulsen Properties. Rather, Roseland Village and Codding Enterprises granted each other a “non-exclusive easement to use a nd to allow the use of vehicula r parking lots and drive-ways which presently exist or will be developed hereafter” (Easement Page 3). Nowhere in the Grant of the Easement does it restrict the development of either property bound by the Easement. In fact, as evidenced by the above language, the Easement contemplates further development by both parties. Any questions regarding the Easement is a private party matter that is currently being addressed by the owners of the properties bound by the Easement.
As indicated in the parking evaluation above, the Roseland Village project is anticipated to generate a peak parking demand that can be accommodated within the available parking supply. In other words, the project would not rely upon the availability of parking spaces on the adjacent Paulsen property. While during the busiest peak periods the Roseland Village project is anticipated to have only a few unused parking spaces available, during many times of the day and overnight the project is projected to have 30 or more available parking spaces. Any open parking spaces on the Roseland Villag e project site would remain available for use by occupants of the Paulsen property, per the terms of the parking easement.
Finding – The project would fall 5170 parking spaces short of meeting the requirements set forth in the City of Santa Rosa zoning code and provisions allowed by State density bonus laws. 40 Traffic Impact Study for the Roseland Village Project May 6, 2019 Errata
Finding – The City’s zoning code allows reductions in parking requirements if supported by findings made by the Director or decision-making body.
Finding – The project site is well-served by transit, includes onsite pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and would effectively tie into the surrounding transit, pedestrian, a n d b i c y c l e n e t w o r k s , t h e r e b y r e d u c i n g automobile reliance and potentially reducing parking demand.
Finding – With shared parking principles applied, the project would be expected to experience a peak hour demand of 318 to 321 323 parking spaces on weekdays between approximately 24:00 and 65:00 p.m., which is less thanequals the proposed 342323-space supply.
Finding – Peak parking demand is projec ted to occur during the afterno on periods, rather than overnight periods when potential impacts to adjacent neighborhoods would be of greater concern.
Finding – The project nearly qualifies for AB 744 parking provisions that would reduce parking requirements to 0.5 spaces per bedroom, given the proximity of major transit services and the site’s inclusion of affordable housing.
Finding – The project is anticipated to accommodate all of its parking demand within the available parking supply with no reliance on parking spaces at the adjacent Paulsen property; the Roseland Village project is projected to have available parking spaces that could be used b y entities on the Paulsen property under the terms of the existing parking easement.
Recommendation – The City of Santa Rosa could consider granting a n 1318-percent reduction in parking requirements based on the site’s land use mix and context, transit accessibility, and efficiencies associated with provision of shared parking.
41 Traffic Impact Study for the Roseland Village Project May 6, 2019 Errata
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
The project has an expected trip generation of 1,775 weekday trips, which includes 109 new trips during the a.m. peak hour, and 183 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips. The study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably at LOS D or better overall upon the addition of project-generated traffic to existing volumes. This is considered a less-than-significant impact.
The study intersections are expe cted to continue operating acce ptably upon the addition of project- generated traffic to Future volumes. This is considered a less-than-significant impact. Shortening of the existing westbound right-turn lane at Sebasto pol Road/West Avenue is anticipated to result in less-than-significant queuing impacts.
At the Sebastopol Road/West Avenue intersection, 95 th percentile queues in the northbound through/right-turn pocket and in the eastbound right-turn pocke t are projected to spill over into a d j a c e n t l a n e s , t h o u g h w o u l d n o t c a u s e a n y q u e u i n g t o e x t e n d i nto adjacent intersections; 95 th percentile queues on other controlled movements at this intersection and at Sebastopol Road/Street D are projected to remain within the available storage. As a res ult the projected queuing conditions are considered to be acceptable.
During the peak of morning school drop-off activity at Roseland Elementary School, the 95th percentile queues in the center left-turn l ane on Sebastopol Road between S t r e e t D a n d W e s t A v e n u e a r e anticipated to exceed available storage, spilling over into adj acent through traffic lanes. When such queuing conditions occur, they will lead to increased congestio n during the school drop-off period.
Based on a review of traffic simulation runs, queue backups through the West Avenue signal would still fully clear during the signal cycle approximately 90 percent of the time. The proposed project would include onsite pedestrian facilities that support walking, and would effectively tie into the surrounding sidewalk and pedestrian network, including connections to both bus and rail transit.
The project effectively ties int o the existing and planned on- and off-street bicycle network, and is consistent with the bicycle network identified in the Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan. The project site is well-served by transit, located along one o f the highest-frequency bus corridors in Santa Rosa and just over a half-mile from a SMART commuter rail stop, making transit a convenient and appealing option for project residents, employees, and visitors. The closest eastbound CityBus stop to the site is located on the opposite side of the Sebastopol Road from “Street B,” potentially encouraging transit users to cross Sebastopol Road in a location that does not have marked crosswalks.
42 Traffic Impact Study for the Roseland Village Project May 6, 2019 Errata
A c c e s s t o t h e p r o j e c t a t t h e t h ree proposed locations is antici pated to function acceptably. Sight distances at the project street intersections are adequate to meet the applied criteria from A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets for both entering and exiting movements. On West Avenue, the offsets between the Street C and Street A i ntersections, as well as between the Street A and Sebastopol Road intersections, are anticipated to function acceptably. The project would fall 5170 parking spaces short of meeting the requirements set forth in the City of Santa Rosa zoning code and provisions allowed by State density bonus laws. The City’s zoning code allows reductions in parking requirements if supported by findings made by the Director or decision-making body.
The project site is located on a major transit corridor, includes onsite pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and would effectively tie into t he surrounding transit, pedestr ian, and bicycle networks, thereby reducing automobile reliance and potentially reducing parking demand. With shared parking principles a pplied, the project would be ex pected to experience a peak hour demand of 319 to 322323 parking spaces on weekdays between approximately 24:00 and 65:00 p.m., which is less thanequals the proposed 342323-space supply. Peak parking demand is projected to occur during the afternoon periods, rather than overnight periods when potential impacts to adjacent neighborhoods would be of greater concern. The project nearly qualifies for AB 744 parking provisions that would reduce parking requirements to
0.5 spaces per bedroom, given the proximity of major transit se rvices and the site’s inclusion of affordable housing.
The project is anticipated to accommodate all of its parking demand within the available parking supply with no reliance on parking spaces at the adjacent Paulsen prop erty; the Roseland Village project is projected to have available parking spaces that could be used by entities on the Paulsen property under the terms of the existing parking easement.
Recommendations
The applicant should be responsible for funding and constructing the signal modification at Sebastopol Road/West Avenue as shown on the p r o j e c t s i t e p l a n , c o o r d i n a t i ng with the City of Santa Rosa as appropriate to maintain consistency with design standards. The applicant should be responsi ble for restriping the northbound approach of the Sebastopol Road/West Avenue intersection to extend the length of the left-turn pocket by 50 to 60 feet, concurrent with the modification of the traffic signal that will be completed as part of the project. Bicycle racks should be provided within the Plaza and near all of the project’s non-residential buildings. The project applicants should co ordinate with Santa Rosa CityBu s to relocate the ex isting eastbound bus stop on Sebastopol Road to the intersection of Sebastopol Road/West Avenue, including all amenities such as benches and shelters.
43 Traffic Impact Study for the Roseland Village Project May 6, 2019 Errata
The project applicants should be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o n s t r u c t i n g or contributing funds toward the installation of pedestrian-scale lighting at the eastbound and westbound CityBus bus stops near the project site.
A short raised median should be installed on Sebastopol Road within the existing center turn lane area at the Street B intersection in o rder to reinforce the intersection’s limitations to right-turn only in and out movements.
Any new landscaping and monument signs at the project intersections along Sebastopol Road should be less than three feet in height (or above seven feet for tree limbs) to maximize clear sight lines. The City of Santa Rosa c ould consider granting a n 1318-percent reduction in parking requirements based on the site’s land use mix and context, as well as the ef ficiencies associated with provision of shared parking.