Loading...
01-19-2010 - (2)City of West. Covina Memorandum TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager AGENDA and City Council ITEM NO. E-2 FROM: Jeff Anderson, Acting City Planner DATE: January 19, 2010 Planning Department SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PRECISE PLAN NO NO.07-07 APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-05 APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO.08-05 NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Roland Cordero (Foothill Transit) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolutions: 1) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING PRECISE PLAN NO. 07- 07 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO.08-05 2) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-05 DISCUSSION: The applicant is appealing a decision by the Planning Commission to deny a precise plan, conditional use permit and tree removal permit to allow for the construction of a parking structure and relocate the existing automated teller machine (ATM) on the property occupied by the Chase bank building (formerly Washington Mutual). The public hearing was continued from the September 15, 2009 meeting due to notification issues and from the October 20, 2009 and December 15, 2009 meetings at the request of the applicant. The property is owned by Foothill Transit. The parking structure is proposed on the northerly portion of the property to replace an existing surface parking lot. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 27, .2009. , At that time, the Commission continued the public hearing and requested further information from Foothill Transit. When the applicant submitted the information requested by the Commission, revised plans were .also submitted. The revised plans reduced the height and overall size of the proposed parking structure. The Planning Commission staff report is attached fora more thorough review of the project. The applicant, Foothill Transit, is proposing a five -and -a -half story (56 feet, 2 inches) parking structure to provide park and ride spaces for bus patrons and carpoolers. The proposed parking structure would provide 654 parking spaces, 536 of which would be reserved for park and ride purposes. The remaining spaces in the parking structure as well as parking spaces in the redesigned surface parking area to the east of the Chase Bank building would be available for tenants and customers. The ground floor of the parking structure includes 2,000 square feet of retail space to be utilized for transit -oriented retail. The tree removal permit is required due to the proposed removal of a Eucalyptus tree located in the front setback. The parking structure has been designed to simulate the appearance of an office building. Precast concrete panels are proposed in a horizontal pattern with, narrow separations between the panels. Openings in the panels are designed to appear. like windows and include semi -opaque glass panels in variable widths within the openings. This architectural treatment is proposed on the north, west, and south elevations. The. east elevation has been designed with a more traditional parking structure design. The ground floor of the west elevation is comprised of clear glass storefronts where the retail space is proposed. Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.1'0\Council Staff Report.doc PP 07-07, CUP No. 08-05, 1*No. 08-05, 100 S. Vincent Avenue January 19, 2010 - Page 2 The proposed colors for the structure are earthtone, with blue accent colors. Tower elements (clad in a bronze metal lattice framework) are proposed on the north and south end of the west elevation of the structure to screen the staircases and elevators. The upper deck of the parking structure includes a shade structure that allows for the installation of solar photovoltaic panels. The design incorporates a metal canopy along the Vincent Avenue frontage (west elevation) to provide for weather protection for patrons waiting for buses. Currently, the site provides access from Vincent Avenue and Lakes Drive. The access from Vincent Avenue will remain, however, the existing access on Lakes Drive will be closed and a new access point located approximately 110 feet east of the current location will be provided. The new access on Lakes Drive will be aligned with the driveway serving the former Wickes site. The proposed site design includes a total of 752 parking spaces. The parking structure would provide 654 parking spaces while 98 parking spaces would be provided in the surface parking lot to the east of the building. The uses on the property currently require 153 parking spaces. Foothill would designate 536 parking spaces for park -and -ride purposes and 216 parking spaces would be available for use by the tenants of the building. Access into the parking structure will be provided through the existing drive aisle north of the building. The Municipal Code requires the approval of a conditional use permit for ATM's. The proposal includes a new canopy (consistent in design with the -parking structure towers) that would cover the ATM's. The existing ATM has seven queuing spaces while the proposed ATM will have eleven queuing spaces. A survey and site observations of the amount of transaction activity was provided by the traffic consultants. The survey indicated that the busiest days are Friday and Saturday. During the busiest time of the observation period (3:00 p.m.) there_ were often eight to eleven vehicles queuing. The proposed increase in queuing spaces from seven to eleven is expected to reduce the number of conflicts with vehicles circulating in the parking lot. Because there are tenants in the building, the applicant is requesting a phasing plan that allows for use of a portion of the parking spaces throughout the construction period. The total estimated construction time is 18 months and the project would be constructed in three phases. The last two phases require the use of off -site parking spaces to comply with the parking demand generated by the existing uses. Traffic Impact A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As part of the report a traffic study was prepared. The traffic study indicated that the following improvements were necessary to reduce traffic impacts caused by the traffic generated by the park -and -ride structure. 1. The Vincent Avenue and Lakes Drive/Plaza Drive intersection would be impacted in the p.m. peak.hour. The impacts at this intersection would be mitigated by widening the northbound approach to the intersection and adding a dedicated right -turn lane from Vincent Avenue onto. Lakes Drive (in front of the Elephant Bar). 2. The on -ramp from northbound Vincent Avenue to the San Bernardino Freeway was impacted in the p.m. peak hour. The congestion would be improved by adding a lane to the on -ramp of the freeway. This improvement would increase the number of lanes on northbound Vincent Avenue to four, two through lanes and two lanes onto the freeway on -ramp. Both mitigations require dedications, one from the subject property (a variable width dedication from 10 feet to 18 feet that also allows for a bus turnout), and a dedication from the Elephant Bar property. The proposed bus turnout allows buses to pick-up and drop-off without interfering with vehicles on Vincent Avenue. In addition to the above, the City added as a condition the need for Foothill Transit to construct a pedestrian bridge over Vincent Avenue if bus stops along Vincent Avenue are not relocated. Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\Council Staff Report.doc PP 07-07, CUP No. 08-05, 0 No. 08-05, 100 S. Vincent Avenue January 19, 2010 - Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND ACTION: The Planning Commission held two public hearings regarding this matter. The public hearings were held on January 27, 2009 and on August 11, 2009. At the conclusion of the hearing on August 11, 2009, the. Commission voted 3-2 (Commissioner's Sotelo and Sykes opposed) to deny the proposed park -and -ride structure In denying the project, the primary reason cited by the majority of the. Planning Commission was that the location was not appropriate. The consensus of the Commission was that a park -and -ride facility was needed. However, concern was expressed about the amount of traffic in the area, the traffic generated by the proposed park -and -ride, and that the park -and -ride would be detrimental to future development in the Lakes Entertainment area. The Planning Commission discussed concerns regarding the parking structure blocking visibility to the adjacent shopping center (The Marketplace at the Lakes).. The Commission discussed the possibility of designing a subterranean (or partial subterranean) parking structure to reduce visibility impacts, relocating the parking structure to another portion of the lot, and issues regarding federal funds for the project. A representative of the neighboring property owner spoke against the project during the public hearings. The representative testified to concerns that the project will create difficulties in leasing and marketing vacant tenant spaces if the buildings are not visible from the freeway and Vincent Avenue. Based on that testimony, it may be beneficial for the adjacent property owner and the applicant to meet to discuss the issues. In order to allow the City Council to take an informed action, staff has included both denial and approval resolutions. FISCAL IMPACT: Because the property is owned by Foothill Transit (as they are a government entity) this parcel is exempt from property tax. Therefore, the new parking structure will not generate any property tax revenue. However, Foothill Transit is required to pay possessory interest on that portion of the building rented out for commercial office space. If these commercial rents were to increase as a result of the proposed parking structure, then the possessory interest tax revenues would also increase. Additionally, if Foothill Transit were to charge for parking or lease out the parking structure to a commercial entity, the parking structure could also be subject to the possessory interest tax. Pre d by: Jeff Anderson Reviewed Approve by: stopher J. Chung Acting City Planner CDC Director Attachments: Attachment 1 — Draft Precise Plan Resolution for denial Attachment 2 - Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution for denial Attachment 3 — Appeal Letter from Applicant Attachment 4 — Letter of Opposition, September 15, 2009 Attachment 5 — Planning Commission Minutes; August 11, 2009 Attachment 6 — Planning Commission Staff Report, August 11, 2009 Attachment 7 — Planning Commission Precise Plan Resolution No. 09-5334 Attachment 8 - Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit No. 09-5335 Attachment 9 — Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 2009 Attachment 10 — Draft Negative Declaration Resolution for approval . Attachment 11 — Draft Precise Plan Resolution for approval Attachment 12 — Draft Conditional Use Permit for approval Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\Council Staff Report.doc ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION -NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING PRECISE PLAN NO.07-07 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO.08-05 PRECISE PLAN NO.07-07 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO.08-05 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Roland Cordero (Foothill Transit) LOCATION: 100 S. Vincent Avenue WHEREAS, there was filed with this Council a verified application on forms prescribed in Chapter.26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, requesting approval of a precise plan of design to: Allow for the construction of a five -and -a -half -level parking structure On that certain property generally described as: Assessor's Parcel Number 8474-007-937 and 8474-007-938, in the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission upon giving the required notice did, on the 27th day of January, 2009, the 24th day of March, 2009, the 26t' day of May, 2009, the 14t' day of July, 2009, and the 11ffi day of August, 2009, conduct duly advertised public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said application; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 2009, the Planning Commission did adopt Resolution No. 0975334 denying the application; and WHEREAS, on August 25, 2009, an appeal of the Planning Commission action was filed by Doran Barnes (Foothill Transit); and WHEREAS, the City. Council did, on the .15th day of September, 2009, 20t' day of October, 2009, 150' day of December, 2009 and 19t' day of January, 2010, conduct duly advertised public. hearings as prescribed by law, and considered evidence presented by the Planning Commission, Planning Department, and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, consistent with this request; a conditional use permit for operation of a drive -through automated teller machine (ATM) has been submitted; and WHEREAS, consistent with this request a tree removal permit has been submitted for the removal of an existing significant tree due to its location in the front setback; and WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Council and in its behalf reveal the following facts: 1. The project consists of a request for a precise plan to allow for the construction of a five- and -a -half -level parking structure on the northerly portion of the lot at 100 S. Vincent Avenue. The applicant is requesting a deviation from the Parking Lot Design Standards to provide a turn -around on a dead-end driveway on the top level of the parking structure. 2. The applicant is requesting the removal of one Eucalyptus tree located within the 15-foot front setback along Lakes Drive. ZACase Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\PP Reso denial.doc Resolution No. Precise Plan No. 07-07 & Tree Removal Permit No. 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 2 of 2 3. The applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit to. allow for two drive -through service aisles for drive -through automatic teller machine (ATM) service. 4. Appropriate findings for approval of a precise plan of design are as follows: a. That consideration has been given and restrictions imposed to the extent necessary to permit the same degree of enjoyment of the subject property, but subject to the same degree of protection of adjoining properties, as would be accorded in normal circumstances, by the standard restrictions imposed by the Municipal Code. b. That strict adherence. to the development standards of the applicable zone and the proposed precise plan will not measurably depreciate property values in the vicinity or interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity or endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. That the project is reviewed in terms of its architectural design, general exterior appearance, landscaping, color, texture of surface - materials and exterior construction, shape and bulk and other physical characteristics including location and type of public utility facilities and is found to facilitate the orderly development of the precise plan area. 5. The initial study prepared for the project disclosed that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment.' Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project's design and as conditions of approval to reduce impacts on the environment to a less than significant level. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows: 1. On the basis of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, the City Council makes the following findings: b. The subject property is in an urbanized area and is located south of the Interstate 10 (San Bernardino) Freeway. Freeway ramps are located on Vincent Avenue allowing access to, the eastbound and westbound San Bernardino Freeway. The subject property is situated between the Westfield West Covina Mall to the west and The. Lakes Office/Entertainment area to the east. The property is situated on Vincent Avenue, which is one of the busiest streets in the City of West Covina. The subject property is a key site in the core of the primary commercial area in the City. The construction of a five -and -a -half -story parking structure at the proposed location will be inconsistent and inharmonious with the surrounding retail development in that the bulk and mass of the structure will block site lines from Vincent Avenue to existing commercial/retail businesses to the east of the proposed parking structure. Although the proposed park and ride facility will provide parking for park and ride commuters, the use and architecture do not contribute to the commercial/retail/entertainment uses in the area. Furthermore, the proposed parking structure will actually interfere with the commercial district by disrupting the urban form by placing a use at the gateway to the largest commercial district in the City that does not provide spin-off or complementary benefits to the commercial uses. The proposed project would be detrimental to the surrounding properties. The proposed structure would be a 56-foot tall, 300-foot long structure. The structure would serve.as a physical barrier that separates retail and. commercial uses and introduces traffic to the area that further separates the surrounding uses. Furthermore, the proposed project would be detrimental to surrounding property values. Per the testimony received at the public hearing on January 27, 2009, a representative of a neighboring property owner stated that the construction of the park -and -ride structure would negatively affect their property value. Moreover, concern was expressed that the presence of the parking structure would contribute to empty storefronts in that it would be more difficult to attract tenants due to the obstruction of views. ZACase Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\PP Reso denial.doc Resolution No. • Precise Plan No. 07-07 & Tree Removal Permit No. 08-05 January 19, 2010 Page 3 of 3 c. The project does not facilitate the orderly development of the area due to the physical characteristics of.the. parking structure. The existing building is an office building that provides banking, dental services and professional offices. The surrounding properties are developed with retail, food service, and entertainment uses. The existing building does provide service uses that complement the surrounding uses. The proposed parking structure's shape and bulk divide the surrounding uses and serve to isolate the retail uses on the east side of Vincent Avenue from those on the west side of Vincent Avenue. The proposed general exterior appearance and architecture does not contribute to the surrounding character of development. Although the proposed parking structure has been designed to incorporate architectural elements with similarities to office buildings, the structure continues to include architectural features associated with typical parking structure design, including openings for ventilation, open parking on the top deck, and ground floor parking along Vincent Avenue. The proposal is not in character with the surrounding development in terms of form, mass and architectural style. 2. That pursuant to all of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further based on the findings above, Precise Plan No. 07-07 and Tree Removal PermitNo. 08-05 is denied subject to the provisions of the West Covina Municipal Code. PASSED AND APPROVED on this 19t' day January, 2010. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF WEST COVINA ) 1, Laurie Carrico, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19t' day of January, 2010'. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DATE: January 19, 2010 APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney ZACase FileS\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\PP Reso denial.doc ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-05 CONDITIONAL USE'PERMIT NO.08-05 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Roland Cordero (Foothill Transit) LOCATION: 100 S. Vincent Avenue WHEREAS, there was filed with this Council, a verified application on the forms prescribed in Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, requesting approval of a conditional use permit to: Operate two drive -through ATM's in conjunction with a bank on -site. Assessor's Parcel No. 8474-007-937 and 8474-007-938, in the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 27th day of January, 2009, the 241h day of March, 2009, the 26th day of May, 2009, the 14th day of July, 2009, and the 1 l th day of August, 2009, conduct duly advertised public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said application; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 2009, the Planning Commission did adopt Resolution No. 06-5192 denying the application; and WHEREAS, on August 25, 2009, an appeal of the Planning Commission was filed by Doran Barnes (Foothill Transit); and WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 151h day of September, 2009, 201h day of October, 2009, 151h day of December, 2009, and 19th day of January, 2010, conduct duly advertised public hearings as prescribed by law, and considered evidence presented by the Planning Commission, Planning Department, and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, consistent with this request, a precise plan for the site design and architecture of parking structure and ATM structure has been submitted; and WHEREAS, consistent with this request a tree removal permit has been submitted for the removal of an existing significant tree due to its location in the front setback; and WHEREAS, studies and investigations made- by this Council and in its behalf reveal the following facts: 1. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for two drive -through service aisles for drive -through automatic teller machine (ATM) service. 2. The project consists of a request for a precise plan to allow for the construction of a five - and -a -half -level parking structure on the northerly portion of the lot at 100 S. Vincent Avenue. The applicant is requesting a deviation from the Parking Lot Design Standards to provide a turn -around on a dead-end driveway on the top level of the parking structure. 3. The applicant is requesting the removal of one Eucalyptus tree located within the 15-foot front setback along Lakes Drive. Z:\CaseFi.1es\CUP\2008\08705 Drive Thru ATM 100 S Vincent\CC 1.19.1 Mesolution CUP.Denial.doc Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 2 4. Findings necessary for approval of a conditional use permit are as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility that will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community. b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare or persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. c. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and is so shaped as to accommodate said use, as well as all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and any other features necessary to adjust said use, with the land and uses in the neighborhood and make it compatible thereto. d. That. the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and improvements to carry traffic generations typical of the proposed uses and the street patterns of such a nature exist as to guarantee that such generation will not be channeled through residential areas on local residential streets. e. That the granting of such conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City, or any other adopted plan of the City. 5. The initial study prepared for the project disclosed. that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Mitigation measures. have been incorporated into the project's design and as conditions of approval to reduce impacts on the environment to a less than significant level. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of. 1970, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of West Covina as follows: 1. On the basis of evidence presented, both oral and documentary, the City Council makes the following findings for approval of a conditional use permit: a. The proposed drive -through automatic teller machine is part of a larger project that would allow the construction of a five -and -a -half -story parking structure allowing for park and ride usage. The construction of a five -and -a -half -story parking structure at the proposed location will be inconsistent and inharmonious with the surrounding retail development in that the bulk and mass of the structure will block site lines from Vincent Avenue to existing commercial/retail businesses to the east of the proposed parking structure. Although the proposed park and ride facility will provide parking for park and ride commuters, the use and architecture do not contribute to the commercial/retail/entertainment uses in the area. Due to these ramifications, the accompanying drive -through ATM facility is also detrimental to the general welfare of the City. 1 That pursuant to all of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further based on the findings above, Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05 is denied subject to the provisions of the West Covina Municipal Code. ZACase Files\CUP\2008\08-05 Drive Thru ATM 100 S Vincent\CC 1.19.10\Resolution CUP.Denial.doc Resolution No: Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 3 PASSED AND APPROVED on this 19th day January, 2010 ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY. OF WEST COVINA ) I, Laurie Carrico, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of January, 2010. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DATE: January 19, 2010 APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney Z:\Case Files\CUP\2008\08-05 Drive Thru ATM 100 S Vincent\CC 1.19.10\Resolution CUP.Denial.doc AACH M EN T 3 Foothill Transit WE L7RIVE 100 S. Vincent Ave., Ste. 200, West Covina, CA 91790-2944 ph:626.967.3147 fax:626.915.1143 vwwv.foothilltransit.org RECEIVED AUG 19 2009 August 14, 2009 , FFICE CITY C�ER STCOV NA CITY of WE Laurie Carrico, City Clerk City of West Covina 1441 W. Garvey Avenue South West Covina, CA 91790 Re: Application to appeal to City Council Precise Plan 07-07 Conditional Use Permit 08-08 Tree Removal Permit 08-08 At the August 11fh Planning Commission Hearing, the Commission denied Foothill Transit's application for Precise Plan 07-07, Conditional Use Permit 08-05, and Tree Removal Permit 08- 05. Foothill Transit wishes to appeal the Commission's decision with the City Council. Attached is. a check for $300 in payment of the appeal fee. Please advise us as to the next steps in the process. Thank ou r your ance. ince ely, Fjoran nes, ExecutIV it executive Board Peggy Delach President, Michael De La Torre vice President, Lola Storing Treasurer, Paula Lantz Member, Roger Chandler Member, Executive Director Doran J. Barre! Member Cities Arcadia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bradbury, Claremont, Covina, Diamond Bar, Duarte, El Monte, Glendora, Industry, Irwindale, La Puente, La Verne, Monrovia, Pomona, San Dimas,.South El Monte, Temple City, Walnut, West Covina and Los Angeles County A Public Agency September 15, 2009 VIA EMAIL Honorable Mayor and Council Members of The City of West Covina City Hall 1444 West Garvey Avenue West Covina, CA 91790 Re: Appeal Hearing: Precise Plan No. 07-07 Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05 Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Applicant/Appellant: Roland Cordero (Foothill Transit) Dear Mayor and Council Members: As a resident of West Covina and park and rider on Foothill Transit's 498 line for many, many years, I write to voice my concerns about the proposed appeal of Precise Plan No. 07-07 for the development of a multi -level parking structure. I vote NO to the site. The idea is great and much needed for our community as well as for commuters in general, and the structure design is attractive, however, due to heavy traffic already on Vincent and the 10 freeway, the idea of putting a multi -level parking stricture at this site is just plain dumb. There just isn't enough room on the street to support additional cars and busses that will be added to Vincent. Not to mention when the Cluistmas season is here, traffic is even heavier. Vincent already has 3-4 lanes of traffic, two of which go onto the freeway and additional buses and cars that will be routed onto Vincent will make traffic unbearable.' The plan also has the buses taking routes through West Covina that are unnecessary, and will be utilizing very small streets to get through to drop off and pick up passengers, causing further traffic issues. With the big push in the country for commuting to save energy, providing convenient park and ride lots is a must. Will this structure support growth? With 650 spaces, it doesn't sound like it. Since Foothill's corporate offices are at the same location as the parking structure, I'm sure they will be utilizing quite a few of the parking spaces for their employees, thus taking more spaces away from the bus takers. And where will the spill over parking be? On the surrounding streets and into parking lots of Barnes & Noble, Wickes and the Edwards Theater, where I'm sure parking tickets will be issued like candy from a Pez dispenser. 95987.1 Honorable Mayor and Council Members of I The City of West Covina Septennber 15, 2009 Page 2 Tile sun°oundin- business in that location will be secluded from vice!. Passersby on tie Freeway «Don't know what stores are in the area due to the parking structure blocking signs and views_ And while di•ivino 65 on the freeway, there won't be much time for reading signage. 1s well as it being a huge headaehe for those who do business at the Chase Bank or in the Cliase office. building where Iaoothill's corporate offices are located. l have recently changed banks.just for this reason alone — the traffic and parking in this complex is. already a problem. M to the end, I agree witll file parking structure, but not in Footh`ill's desired location_ How about. the empty areas around Hollenbeck and the .10freeway, on cither side? Or at Citrus and the 10 freeway where the old 'Trader Joe's. was, quite empty there too. There are a few spots stall left in Shiest Covina that surely can support the park. and ride lot.. Thank you for your Consideration of_my comments. Cordially., Kini. Nielsen Planning Commission Minutes! Page 2 — August 11, 2009 ATTACHMENT 5 Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Sotelo, to approve the items listed. Motion carried 5-0. HEARING PROCEDURE: You are encouraged by this Commission to express your views on any matter set for public hearing. It is our procedure to first receive the report of the Planning staff, then to ask for public testimony; first from those in favor of the matter, followed by testimony: from those in opposition to it, and, if there be opposition, to allow those in favor, rebuttal testimony only as to the points brought up in opposition. To testify on a matter, you need - to simply come forward to the lectern at the appropriate time, give your name and address and make your statement. In addition, please sign in on the sheet provided at the podium so it will facilitate preparation of our minutes. Do not be concerned with your possible lack of experience in public hearings. We are interested in what you say, not your level of expertise as a public speaker. After a hearing has been closed, you may not further speak on the matter unless requested to do so by a member of the Commission. C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (1) PRECISE PLAN NO.07-07 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-05 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 08-05 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Roland Cordero (Foothill Transit) LOCATION: 100 South Vincent Avenue REQUEST: The project consists of the request for a precise plan to construct a five -level parking structure on the northerly portion of the property to replace the existing surface parking. lot, a conditional use permit to relocate a two-lane drive -through automatic teller. machine, and a tree removal permit to remove a tree in the front setback (Lakes Drive). The proposed parking structure would be used for tenants of the office building and for park -and -ride. These items were continued from July 14, 2009. Chairman Stewart reopened the public hearing. Acting City Planner Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. Mr. -Anderson told the Commission that this matter was continued to allow the applicants time to provide the Commission with information regarding traffic on Vincent Avenue, and the economic impact of parking structures on adjacent local businesses. He added that in the interim; the applicants had amended their plans. Mr. Anderson also presented the amended plans, which included the relocation of a turn lane and the relocation of an ATM to provide for more efficient traffic circulation on the property. The plans were also amended to include partial subterranean parking. Mr. Anderson also said that a letter in opposition had been submitted on behalf of the property owner, to the east after agenda packets had been delivered and a copy of that letter had been provided to the Commission prior to the meeting. Chairman Stewart and Commissioner IRedholtz stated for the record that they had met with the owners of the adjacent retail center. PROPONENT: Roland M. Cordero, Director of Facilities for Foothill Transit, Greg Verabian, Architect, Nord Ericksson, ASLA, EPT Landscape Architects,. Mike Miller, President of the West Covina Chamber of Commerce, Cheryl Smith, Ferdy Chan and Doran Barnes, Executive Director of Foothill Transit, spoke in favor of the application. Mr. Cordero spoke to the Commission regarding the proposed •park and .ride facility, the economic impact of bus riders shopping at the adjacent retail centers, proposed routes for the bus lines, and Foothill Transit's efforts to secure a permanent location for their park and ride structure. ZAPLANCOM\MINUTES\2009 MINUTES\8.11.09 minutes.doc Planning Commission Minutes • Page 3 — August 11.2009 Mr. Verabian explained the proposed landscape architecture and the use of various plants to screen the structure, buffer possible fumes, minimize the sunlight on the asphalt and incorporate existing eucalyptus trees into the landscape plans. Michael Miller, President of the West Covina Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the project. He also stated his willingness to help Foothill Transit establish the park and ride facility in West Covina. Ms. Smith and Mr. Chan spoke in favor of the project because they both ride the bus on a regular basis. Both of them said that the park and ride facility needs to be in a permanent place. Ms. Smith spoke about having a difficult time adjusting each time the park and ride facility has changed locations. She also expressed her concern that West Covina City Hall, which is where she currently parks, will begin charging for parking in the near future. Mr. Chan also spoke regarding problems parking at City Hall. OPPONENTS: Royall Brown, Steve Sheldon, Denis Bilodeau, representing the Infrastructure Group, and Kim Nielsen spoke in opposition. Mr. Brown expressed his opposition to the proposed parking structure because the traffic .on Vincent Avenue is especially heavy, which could hurt the City's sales tax revenue. He suggested that subterranean parking be proposed. Mr. Sheldon, representing the owner of the adjacent shopping center, expressed his concern that the structure would block visibility of the stores currently located in the shopping center. He also addressed the Commission regarding a possible reduction in the property value if the park and ride. facility is built next door. Mr. Bilodeau, representing the Infrastructure Group, addressed the Commission regarding the need for a new environmental impact report. He also expressed his concern that Cal Trans would not pay for the necessary mitigation measures. He added that this project would have a significant, negative impact on the area. Ms. Nielsen expressed her opinion that the buses and structure would generate more . traffic in the area. REBUTTAL: Doran Barnes, representing Foothill Transit, spoke in rebuttal. He told the Commission that subterranean parking would double the cost of the project. He also said that Foothill Transit has been searching for a permanent location for a number of years but had not been successful in securing one. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Mike Lee, Assistant Community Development Director, said that he had provided the Commission with a memorandum outlining Community Development's concerns with the proposed structure. He spoke about the Community Development Commission's five- year goal to help businesses in this area. There was a lengthy discussion by the Commission regarding this project. Much of the discussion was about the concern that there would be a negative impact by the parking structure on the adjacent shopping center in terms of blocking visibility. In addition, the Commission considered the impact of additional traffic generated by the park and ride facility on Vincent Avenue. Also discussed was the possibility. of creating a subterranean parking structure, and federal funding for this project. The Commission also gave consideration to the impact the parking structure would have on future development and tenants in the area. ZAPLANC0M\MINUTES\2009 MINUTES\8.11.09 minutes.doc Planning Commission Minutes* . Pa eg 4=August 11, 2009 Commissioner Sotelo asked Mr. Cordero about other sites that have been explored. Mr. Cordero gave a brief explanation of other locations and the problems encountered in the negotiations. He also told the Commission that Foothill Transit has been seeking a site for approximately 15 years. The Commission also asked questions regarding the possibility of using the parking structure at the Lakes, and the redirection of the bus routes. It was the consensus of the Commission that a park and, ride facility is needed to accommodate bus riders and give them a safe place to park their cars. Commissioner Sotelo suggested that the City help identify a blighted property that would be suitable for the park and ride facility. Commissioner Sykes expressed his support of the project since the park and ride facility would help alleviate traffic and encourage the use of public transportation, as mandated by State and Federal guidelines. The Commission concurred that, while a park and ride facility is needed in the community, this is not the most advantageous location. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Carrico, to accept findings for denial as recommended by staff. There was further discussion by the Commission. regarding another property that would be more suitable. Commissioner Sotelo said that he would prefer to continue this matter to another meeting and give the applicant a chance to present another amended plan that would address the Commission's concerns. At the conclusion of this discussion, Commissioner Redholtz restated his motion. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Carrico, to adopt findings for denial as recommended by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Sotelo, Sykes opposed.) Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Carrico, to waive further reading of the body of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 09-53354 denying Precise Plan No. 07-07 and Tree Removal Permit No. 08-05. Motion carried 3-2 (Sotelo, Sykes opposed.) Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Carrico, to. adopt findings for denial as recommended by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Sotelo, Sykes opposed.) Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Carrico, to waive further reading of the body of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 09-5335, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05. Motion carried 3-2 (Sotelo, Sykes. opposed.) Chairman Stewart stated that this action was final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days. Chairman Stewart called a recess at 9:10 p.m. Chairman Stewart reconvened the meeting at 9:25 p.m. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 09-06 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Carole Stephenson, American Beauty College LOCATION: 646 South Sunset Avenue REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a 2,696-square foot beauty school (college) within an existing two-story office building. No new construction is proposed in conjunction with the school. ZAPLANC0M\MINUTES\2009 MINUTES\8.11.09 minutes.doc ATTAC H ME N T C PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT PRECISE PLAN NO.07-07 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-05 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO.08-05 AGENDA ITEM NO. C - 1 DATE: 8/11/09 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Roland Cordero (Foothill Transit) LOCATION: 100 S. Vincent Avenue I. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION The project consists of the request for a precise plan to construct a five -and -a -half - level parking structure with 654 parking spaces and 2,000-square foot of retail space on the northerly portion of the property to replace the existing surface parking lot, a conditional use permit to relocate a two-lane drive -through automatic teller machine, and a tree removal permit to remove a tree in the front. setback (Lakes Drive). The proposed parking structure would be used for tenants of the office building and for Foothill Transit's park && ride. The subject property is located on the northeasterly corner of Vincent Avenue and Lakes Drive. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution certifying the Mitigated .Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and also adopt resolutions approving Precise Plan No. 07-07, Conditional Use Permit No 08-05, and Tree Removal Permit No. 08-05. III. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The initial study prepared for the project disclosed that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project's design and as conditions of approval to reduce impacts on the environment to a less than significant level. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended. A Traffic Study was prepared and concluded that mitigation measures were required. In addition, an Air Quality Analysis and Noise Impact Analysis were prepared. Other significant impacts were noted for biological resources and public services. Mitigation measures for these impacts have been identified in the Initial Study and are included as conditions of approval. The applicant also provided information on Cultural Resources (contact, with the Native American Heritage Commission) in regards to potential archeological issues. An Environmental Justice.. Analysis was provided that evaluates negative affects on the health or environment of minority and low-income populations. No adverse affects were found in either study. The project will be partially funded with federal grants, therefore the project must comply with the National . Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). The NEPA process follows Federal standards and is similar to CEQA procedures. In this case the lead agency approving the environmental analysis is the Federal Transit ZACase Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\PC 8.11.09\.Staff_Report.doc PP 07-07, CUP 08-05, TRP*5 Foothill Transit Parking Structure August 11, 2009 - Page 2 The applicant. also provided information on Cultural Resources (contact with the Native American Heritage Commission) in regards to potential archeological issues. An Environmental Justice Analysis was provided that evaluates negative affects on the health or environment of minority and low-income populations. No adverse affects were found in either study. The project will be partially funded with federal grants, therefore the project must comply with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). The NEPA process follows Federal standards and is. similar to CEQA procedures. In this case the lead agency approving the environmental analysis is the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The. review document, known as. an Environmental Assessment (EA), was issued on May 23,.2008 and the review period concluded on June 23, 2008. The FTA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on July 10, 2008. During the NEPA EA review period, letters were submitted from the property owners to the east and south of the subject property (Best Buy, DSW, Starbucks property and Elephant Bar property) protesting that the document did not address visual impacts in that the project would obscure the view of those businesses from the I-10 Freeway and Vincent Avenue.. The Final EA includes response to comments. The responses indicate that views to and from commercial sites are not considered protected or sensitive views and that obstructions are not considered impacts that require mitigation. The response also indicates Foothill Transit's willingness to discuss signage opportunities and shared parking arrangements. The following is a summary of the Traffic Impact Analysis, Air Quality Analysis and Noise Impact Analysis. Traffic Impact Anal A traffic study prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants (September 2008) was submitted for the project to assess potential traffic impacts. In order to evaluate the potential impacts to the local street system, six intersections were analyzed. The intersections studied included: 1; N. Vincent Avenue & I-10 Westbound Ramps 2. S. Vincent Avenue & I-10 Eastbound Off -ramp 3. S. Vincent Avenue & Lakes Drive/Plaza Drive 4. S. Vincent Avenue & West Covina Parkway 5. ' Lakes Drive & Lakes Drive (Adjacent to the. theater) 6. California Avenue & Plaza Drive The analysis supports the following conclusions and recommendations: e The project consists of the construction of a five -and -a -half -level, 654- space parking structure on the site, which is occupied by surface parking and an existing office building that is occupied by Foothill Transit's administrative headquarters, a bank (Chase) and other tenants. Altogether the site would provide a total of approximately 752 on -site parking spaces (structured and surface). Of these, 161 are required by code to serve the I xisting on -site uses and approximately 591 spaces would be available for the park & ride use. Buildout is planned for 2010. Site access would be provided.by the existing right-turn-in/right-turn-out driveway on Vincent Avenue and a relocated full -access driveway on Lakes Drive, which would be shifted approximately 110 feet east of its current location. It would be aligned directly opposite a retail driveway on the south' side of Lakes Drive and approximately 100 feet west of the nearest retail driveway on the north side . of Lakes.' Drive. This configuration will allow eastbound traffic to better utilize the existing two- way left -turn lane on Lakes Drive and will minimize the potential for conflicts with other nearby driveways. It will also improve conditions for Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\PC 8.11.09\Staff_Report (2)_cc.doc PP 07-07, CUP 08-05, TRP 05 Foothill Transit Parking Structure August 11, 2009 - Page 3 drivers exiting the site onto Lakes Drive by increasing sight distance to the east, relative to the existing driveway. • A bus stop would be constructed at the western edge of the project site on northbound Vincent Avenue to serve Foothill Transit commuter buses that proceed eastbound onto I-10. The existing northbound nearside .bus stop on Vincent Avenue at Lakes Drive/Plaza Drive would be eliminated and transit patrons would be served by other nearby bus stops. The existing southbound far -side bus stop on Vincent Avenue at Lakes Drive/Plaza Drive would be retained and supplemented by a new bus stop to be located on the north side of Lakes Drive adjacent to the site to serve westbound commuter buses, which operate only in the a.m. peak hour. The existing westbound bus stop near there, used by the City's local shuttle (Go West), could potentially be consolidated into this stop. • The existing drive -through' automated teller machines (ATMs) on the site would be relocated with the. proposed project, adding capacity to store vehicles in queue and reducing the incidence of queue spillback into the adjacent parking lot. • The project is estimated to generate approximately 146 net new trips in the a.m. peak hour (the highest one hour'period between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m.) and 298 trips in the p.m. peak hour (the highest one hour period between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m.). These estimates are based on empirical data collected in 2006 and 2008 at existing park & ride lots located in the same general area of the greater Los Angeles region as the proposed project. These are in addition to the trips already generated by the existing office building. These trips, related to the proposed park & ride facility, would not be new to the general area, but are already being made to their ultimate destinations, either directly or via other park & ride facilities. • The project would result in a significant traffic impact at the intersection of Vincent Avenue and Lakes Drive/Plaza Drive in the p.m. peak hour. The impact could be fully mitigated by widening the northbound approach to the intersection to provide a dedicated northbound right -turn lane. The project's fair -share contribution to the cost of this mitigation is calculated to be 20%, based on the portion of traffic growth that is attributable to the project. • Analysis of potential project impacts at the on -ramps and off -ramps to the i-10 freeway were assessed. It was determined that the project would significantly impact the I-10 eastbound on -ramp north of the project site, which already operates above capacity in the p.m. peak hour, causing queuing onto Vincent Avenue. The site plan allows for widening of northbound Vincent Avenue north of the existing driveway on the site to provide a fourth travel lane. This would allow for the provision of two northbound through lanes and two lanes onto the freeway on -ramp, providing additional queuing space leading to the on -ramp and fully mitigating the identified impact. The project's fairshare contribution to the cost of the on -ramp mitigation is calculated to be 16%, based on the portion of traffic growth there that is attributable to the project. In conclusion, the Traffic Study analysis indicates that the project is forecasted to have a significant impact at Intersection No. 3 - S. Vincent Avenue and Lakes Drive/Plaza Drive. The addition of project traffic at that intersection_ would result in a reduction of Level of Service (LOS) from "E" to "F" during the p.m. peak hour. Mitigation measures have been included that would offset the significant traffic impact at the above intersection. The mitigation requires that Vincent Avenue be widened south of Lakes Drive/Plaza Drive with a dedication of a' strip of landscape area in front of Elephant Bar '(east side of Vincent Avenue). With the Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\PC 8.11.09\Staff Report (2)_cc.doc PP 07-07; CUP 08-05, TRP*5 Foothill Transit Parking Structure August 11, 2009 - Page 4 implementation of this mitigation measure, this intersection would be mitigated to a less -than -significant level. Air Quality Analysis According to the Air. Quality Study prepared by LSA Associates, Inc„ the construction and operation emissions will not exceed threshold emissions. The proposed construction activities would occur independently of the park & ride operational activities. For this reason, the project would not contribute substantially to regional or local air pollution problems in the area. The project will require grading and construction, which creates the. potential for the generation of fugitive dusts (particulates), which may impact the surrounding properties. Mitigation measures are required to include wetting down soils, chemical stabilization of unattended construction areas, planting vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites, and physically covering all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or other loose materials to and from the site. Noise Impact Analysis A Noise Impact Analysis was prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. The analysis found that there would be no significant short or long-term noise impacts as a result of the construction or operation of the park .& ride facility. There are no noise -sensitive land uses in close proximity to the subject property. The closest residences are approximately 650 feet away on the north side of the I-10 Freeway. However, due to short-term noise impacts to nearby commercial uses due to site excavation and grading, the following mitigation has been included. Prior to commencement of construction activities, a Noise Control Plan (NCP) shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer. The plan shall include: • An inventory of construction equipment used during daytime and nighttime. • An estimate of projected construction noise levels. • Locations and types of measures that may be needed to meet specified noise limits. • Periodic noise monitoring at strategic locations during construction. • Consideration of alternatives to pile driving. • Changing of the timing or sequence of the noisiest operations (particularly pile driving) where feasible to avoid sensitive times of the day, including nighttime and/or off-peak construction hours, pending approval by the City. • Whenever possible, use of noise control devices such as equipment mufflers, enclosures, and barriers, and staging construction operations away from businesses. The project shall comply with the City of West Covina's noise ordinance, as it relates to construction activities and noise abatement. The plan shall be submitted to the City of West Covina Planning Department for review and approval as part of plan check requirements. Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration Due to modifications made to the project since the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, an Addendum is proposed. Modifications to the original development include: reduction in the height from 75 feet, 6 inches to 56 feet, 2 inches; the size of the parking structure is being reduced from 221,400 square feet to 217,579 square feet; total number of parking spaces increases from 718 to 752; and architectural revisions to the parking structure and the ATM structure (including addition of retail space on.the ground level). Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\PC 8.11.09\Staff_Report (2)_cc.doc PP 07-07, CUP 08-05, TRP • . Foothill Transit Parking Structure August 11, 2009 - Page 5 As part of the Addendum, an addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the changes to the project. That analysis evaluated the addition of the 2,000 square feet of retail space as well. as changes to the number of parking spaces. V. HISTORY The Planning Commission approved Precise Plan No. 492 on September 4, 1968. The approval allowed the construction of a six -story office building. For many, years the office building was occupied by Home Savings of America. Foothill Transit purchased the building in March 2006. The Planning Commission approved UUP 335 to allow the installation of drive -through ATM's on October. 14, 1992. VI. SUMMARY OF DATA` r'� �'"S� 1y �. •` + 4- ""sJ `2 A' �k t} F4�^ � d "�3- } �rSTANDARD�, .y �3 �E � i^ ,g W. 11% 11 XIS STINGS 3fyr� �` i. 'eJs%�TS a�PR POSED�'t� � 4 REQUIRED/ ' Site Area 2.92 Acres. 2.92 Acres 30 acres (R-C) (127,200 s.£) Building Area 44,134 s.f. N/A N/A Building Coverage Office 7,400 s.f 7,400 s.f ATM 1,140 s.f. Parking Structure -- (39,180 s.f) Total 8,540 s.f. 58,141 s.f. (7.4%) . (50.0% allowed) Parking Structure Setbacks Front -- 180' 5' minimum, 15' average required Street Side -- 3' None specified Interior Side -- 11' None Specified Rear -- 18' 5' minimum, .15' average required Parking Structure -- 56' 2" No height limit Height Elevator Tower (Original 75' 6") Landscaping --- 32,900 sq. ft. 23,256± sq. ft. (Coverage) (25.9%) (20% required) Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07707 Foothill Transit\PC 8.11.09\Staff_Report (2)_cc.doc PP 07-07, CUP 08-05, TRP 05 Foothill Transit Parking Structure August 11, 2009 - Page 6 Subject Property General Plan Designation: Regional Commercial Subject Property's Zoning: "R-C" (Regional Commercial) Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: North: San Bernardino Freeway South: "Regional Commercial" (R-C) — Restaurant and Bank East: "Regional Commercial" (R-C) = Shopping Center West: "Regional Commerical" (R-C) Shopping Center Notices of Public Hearing have been mailed to 38 owners and occupants of properties located within 300 feet of the subject site. A sign was also posted on the property (near the onramp to the I-10 Freeway) advertising the public hearing. VII. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a precise plan to allow the construction of a five -and -a - half -level parking structure on the existing surface parking lot at 100 S. Vincent Avenue. The proposed parking structure would be located north of the existing multi -story office building. The main purpose of the parking structure is to provide park & ride parking spaces for bus patrons and carpoolers.. The applicant is also requesting approval of a conditional use permit for a drive -through automatic teller machine (ATM) to replace the existing ATM that will be removed. A tree removal permit is also requested to remove a tree located in the front setback. The property is owned by Foothill Transit. The subject property is located in an urbanized area and is located south of the Interstate 10 (San Bernardino) Freeway. Freeway ramps are located on Vincent Avenue allowing access to the eastbound and westbound San Bernardino Freeway. The site is bounded by Vincent Avenue on the west and Lakes Drive on the south. The.Marketplace at the Lakes Shopping Center is located to the east of the subject property The initial public hearing was held on January 27, 2009. At that hearing the Planning Commission continued the item requesting that the applicant provide the following information: • Information or studies on economic impact on retail businesses in the vicinity of park & ride facilities. • Proposed revisions to bus routes and bus stops. This information should include existing bus routes/stops and proposed bus routes/stops. • Information on left -turn movements from South Vincent Avenue to Lakes Drive. Concern was expressed that no mitigations were proposed for that movement. Information submitted should explain why no mitigations were required by the Traffic Impact Analysis. • Information alternative locations considered by Foothill Transit for the park & ride facility. Foothill did express_ some locations in other cities, the Commission is interested in locations considered in the City of West Covina. Locations cited at the hearing were the Kmart property and the Lakes, Office development parking structures. Subsequently, the item was also continued to and held over on March 24, 2009, May 26, 2009, and July 7, 2009. Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\PC 8.11.09\Staff_Report (2)_cc.doc PP 07-07, CUP 08-05, TRP 605 • Foothill Transit Parking Structure August 11, 2009 -Page 7 That information has been provided for the Planning Commission's consideration. In addition, the applicant considered the input from the Planning Commission and the community and decided to modify the architectural design of the parking structure. The applicant has reduced the height from 6 levels (75 feet 6 inches) to five:and-a-half levels (56 feet 2 inches), added 2,000 square feet of retail on the ground floor street frontage, and revised three elevations to appear more like an office building. In reducing the height of the parking structure, the applicant also added a partial subterranean level. Information Requested by the Planning Commission As mentioned previously, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant provide further information based on the discussion at the January 27, 2009 public hearing. Staff has summarized the submitted material. Information or studies on economic impact on retail businesses in the vicinity of park & ride facilities. The applicant submitted a study. titled "Evaluation of Shared Use Park and Ride Impact on Properties". The study analyzes survey results of park & ride users. The study concludes that approximately 40 percent of those surveyed made purchases in the area of a park & ride that they would have made at other places or not at all. Proposed revisions to bus routes and bus stops. This information should include existing bus routes/stops and proposed bus routes/stops. The applicant has provided maps of the area detailing existing bus routes and proposed bus routes for the park & ride facility. Information. on left -turn movements from South Vincent Avenue to Lakes Drive. Concern was expressed that no mitigations were proposed for that movement. Information submitted should explain why no mitigations were required by the Traffic Impact Analysis. A memorandum from Fehr and Peers was submitted that summarizes the proposed traffic improvements and that those improvements would result in improved operating conditions for the southbound left -turn movement: • Information alternative .locations considered by Foothill Transit for the park & ride facility. Foothill did express some locations in other cities, the Commission is interested in locations considered in the City of West Covina. Locations cited at the hearing were the Kmart property and the Lakes Office development parking structures. A report was submitted summarizing the efforts. of Foothill Transit to develop a park & ride facility from 1990 to present. Additionally, the City's Community Development Commission (CDC) submitted a memo (Attachment 10) to the Planning Department that raised potential concerns about the proposed parking structure and its location within the West Covina Redevelopment Project Area. The CDC's concerns include: (1) the parking structure blocks the visibility of adjacent retail businesses (Best Buy, DSW, Barnes and Nobles and Starbucks); (2) the location of the parking structure may not contribute to an attractive gateway edge to the City when being accessed from the freeway; and (3) the proposed project is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the CDC's 2005-09 Redevelopment Implementation Plan in that the proposed project could potentially inhibit future efforts to attract tenants and redevelop adjacent commercial retail areas. Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\PC 8.11.09\Staff Report (2)_cc.doc PP 07-07, CUP 08-05, TRP 105 Foothill Transit Parking Structure August 11, 2009 - Page 8. Precise Plan The subject property is developed with a six -story office building that was originally constructed for Home Savings of America. The office building is located on the southwest corner of the property. The building is owned by Foothill Transit and the ground. floor is occupied by Chase Bank. A drive -through automated teller canopy (ATM) is located on the southeast corner of the property. The remainder of the property is improved with surface parking facilities. The proposal entails the .addition of a five -and -a -half -level parking structure on the north side of the property to replace the existing surface parking lot at the northerly portion of the site adjacent to Vincent Avenue. The parking structure is rectangular with the longer elevations on the east and west. The purpose of the parking structure is to provide parking for transit patrons and rideshare participants. Additionally, the proposal includes relocating the existing drive -through ATM to the north of the current location. The relocation allows for a more efficient parking lot design and circulation. The project also includes right-of-way dedications along Vincent Avenue allowing for widening of the street to accommodate the addition of lanes. Due to the changes in the site layout, extensive changes are proposed for landscape areas. The Municipal Code requires that eight percent of the lot be landscaped. The proposed design provides landscaping on 25.9 percent of the site. The existing landscape areas along Vincent Avenue, Lakes Drive and the freeway onramp will remain. Landscaped areas are also proposed around the office building and in triangular areas along the eastern property line. A tree removal permit is required since .the proposal includes the removal of some of the trees along Lakes Drive. The subject property has a number of large trees within the landscape areas in the parking lot, along frontages and around the office building. These trees are primarily Eucalyptus and palms. The Municipal Code defines trees located in the front setback that have a trunk circumference greater than one foot as a "significant tree". One of the Eucalyptus trees currently located to the south of the existing drive -through ATM is located within the front setback and is located where a driveway is proposed. Although the tree is not significant due to its species, it is significant due, to its location. A condition of approval requiring replacement trees is included in the precise plan resolution. Park & Ride Structure The proposed park & ride (PNR) structure has been redesigned since the public hearing of January 27, 2009. The proposed parking structure has been designed to simulate the appearance of an office building., Precast concrete panels are proposed in a horizontal pattern with small openings between the panels that simulate reveals. Openings in the panels are designed to appear like windows and include variable - width semi -opaque glass panels within the openings. The window surrounds protrude one -and -a -half feet from the building wall, creating movement, wall off -set, and providing for shadow lines. The revised architectural treatment is proposed on three elevations, the north, west and south elevations. The east elevation has been designed with a more traditional parking structure design that includes four -foot high concrete guardrails at each level. The parking structure is proposed to be located 18 feet from the existing property line along Vincent Avenue. However, due to the need for a bus turnout, the Engineering Division is requiring a variable width dedication between the drive approach on Vincent Avenue and the onramp to the San Bernardino Freeway. This dedication reduces the setback of the building, at its closest point, to approximately three feet. Upon dedication, the setback in that area would range from ten feet to three feet from the property line. The right-of-way would be developed with an eight -foot public sidewalk. Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\PC 8.11.09\Staff Report (2)_cc.doc PP 07-07, CUP 08-05, TRP �5 • Foothill Transit Parking Structure August 11, 2009 - Page 9 Towers are proposed along the west elevation at the north and south end of the structure for the. elevators and staircases. Two elevators and a staircase are proposed within the towers at the. southwesterly corner of the parking structure and a staircase is proposed at the northwesterly corner. The tower elements are the tallest portion of the structure with a proposed height of 56 feet, 2 inches. The office building is 120 feet, tall. The top deck of the parking structure also includes a bronze metal canopy shade structure that will also allow for the installation of solar photovoltaic panels. The colors of the proposed parking structure are earthtone. The ground floor of parking structure would be open, with the exception of the retail frontage that would be developed with clear glass storefronts and bronze mullions. The exterior of the parking structure will primarily be light sandblasted .precast concrete (beige in color). The window elements around. the openings will be painted blue to be consistent with Foothill's colors. The elevator towers on each end of the west elevation would be comprised of a variegated medium brown colored CMU (concrete material unit) block. The towers would be clad in a lattice structure of variable -width bronze horizontal metal components that provide off -site visibility into the staircase and elevator lobbies for security purposes. The applicant is proposing a metal canopy that extends seven feet from the building facade along Vincent Avenue. The metal canopy would be bronze, consistent with the color of the tower structure. This canopy is an architectural feature and serves to provide weather protection for patrons waiting for buses. Due to the proposed three- foot setback, the canopy would extend into the public right-of-way along the central portion of the structure. An encroachment permit would need to be obtained from the Public Works Department. A condition has been included in the resolution. Vehicular access to the. PNR structure is proposed on the south elevation via the existing drive aisle to the north of the office building. The parking aisle within the parking structure is double -loaded (parking on both sides of the . drive aisle). Vehicles would travel through the levels of the parking structure in a circular pattern. The parking spaces on the easterly side of the structure would form the ramp. The redesigned plan includes a partial subterranean level as well as a partial sixth level. The partial sixth level would be located on the easterly side of the structure. The top deck of the parking structure is opened. to the sky. The City's parking standards require a 12-foot turn -around area for all dead-end drives. In this case, one turn- around area is required on the top deck and one is required at the end of the subterranean level. These turn -around spaces allow vehicles to turn around if all parking spaces are filled. Parking and Circulation The proposed project would provide 654 parking spaces in the parking structure and another 98 surface parking spaces in the southeastern section of the lot. The businesses at the site include a bank, dental office,. and professional office. These uses require 153 parking spaces. In addition, the proposed parking structure includes 2,000 square .feet of retail space to be utilized for transit -oriented retail. The retail component requires eight parking spaces, therefore a total of 161 parking spaces must be provided for the on -site uses. Since.there are only 98 surface parking spaces, 105 parking spaces in the PNR structure would be reserved for tenant parking. The remaining 536 parking spaces in the structure would be reserved for park & ride users. All surface parking spaces and parking spaces in the structure are 8 feet, 6 inches by 18 feet. A breakdown on the number of parking spaces is provided in the chart below. ZACase Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\PC 8.1.1.09\Staff_Report (2)_cc.doc PP 07-07, CUP 08-05, TRP 105 Foothill Transit Parking Structure August 11, 2009 - Page 10 Standard Handicapped Total Lower Level 76 0 76 Ground Level .83 13 96 2° Level 118 0 118 3 Id Level 118 0 118 4 Level 117 .0 117 5 Level 129 0 129 Subtotal 641 13 654 Surface Parking 94 4 98 Total 735 17 752 Currently, the site provides access from public streets on Vincent Avenue and on Lakes Drive. The access from Vincent Avenue will remain the same. The drive approach on Lakes Drive will be closed and relocated approximately 110 feet west of the current location. The relocation allows for a more efficient parking layout, allows the driveway to be aligned with the driveway on the south. side of Lakes Drive that serves the former Wickes site, and provides better vehicle queuing. Dedication Bus Turnout Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis, a street dedication is required along the westerly frontage of the property north of the drive approach on Vincent Avenue. The dedication is a variable -width dedication ranging from approximately 10 feet to 18 feet in width. The street dedication will allow for the addition of a second dedicated right turn lane onto the eastbound I-10 (San Bernardino) Freeway. Additionally, a bus turnout is proposed on a portion of the frontage allowing for bus pick-up and drop-off without interfering with vehicles entering the .freeway. The provision of the bus turnout requires that the dedication be a variable -width dedication. Relocation of ATM As part of the proposal, the existing drive -through ATM structure will be demolished and a. new canopy and drive -through lanes constructed. The existing ATM structure is located in the southeasterly portion of the property. The proposed structure would be located north of the existing location and the drive -through lanes would be configured so that vehicles would enter from the east and travel in a westbound direction to access the ATM's. The proposed ATM structure is 1,140 square feet in size. The canopy is 12 feet tall. The.canopy has been designed to complement the parking structure and incorporates the same architectural design and materials as the elevator and staircase towers. The proposed structure is composed of bronze horizontal metal slats which allow for ventilation and visibility. The roof design incorporates triangular shapes forming rectangles. The triangular shapes slope downward to provide articulation. The center of the structure includes a solid metal roof to protect the ATM's and . customers from the weather. Phasing The.proposal entails phasing the construction into three phases. Currently there are 192 parking spaces on the propertyand the existing uses require 153 parking spaces. The following chart provides information on the proposed phases. Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\PC 8.11.09\Staff_Report (2)_cc.doc PP 07-07, CUP 08-05, TRP Foothill Transit Parking Structure August 11, 2009 -Page 11 Phase Construction Parking Phase One ■ Demo triangular area north of 167 parking spaces (3 months) existing ATM's provided on site ■ Construct ATM Structure and drive lanes ■ Demo existing ATM structure ■ Construct new ATM structure Phase Two. ■ Demo surface parking lot on 129 parking spaces (3 Months) south side provided on site . ■ Construct new parking layout and (24 parking spaces drive approaches must be leased off - site) Phase Three ■ Demo surface parking lot on 98 parking spaces (12 months) north side provided on site ■ Construct parking structure (55 parking spaces must be leased off - site) As indicated, in the chart, during Phase Two and Phase Three the amount of parking provided would be less than the amount of parking required. The applicant has indicated that they would be providing the necessary parking at an off -site location during the construction period. The proposal is that the off --.site parking spaces would be used by employees of Foothill Transit while the other tenants in the office building would use the on -site parking spaces. A condition of approval has been included in the precise plan resolution requiring the submittal of phasing plan with documentation for off -site parking provided at each phase. Conditional Use Permit The West Covina Municipal Code requires a conditional use permit for drive - through automatic teller machines (ATM's). A conditional use permit for the existing drive -through ATM's was approved in 1992. Since `the project entails constructing a new drive -through ATM, a conditional use permit is required. The proposed drive -through is designed with two drive -through aisles that can accommodate stacking of 11 vehicles at a time without affecting the drive aisle (four in one. lane and five in the other). The existing ATM provides queuing of seven vehicles. In May of 2008, during a 10-day period, a survey of transaction activity at the ATM on the site was conducted by Fehr and Peers traffic consultants. The data from the survey indicated that from Sunday through Thursday there are an average of 850 to 900 transactions per day and on Fridays and Saturdays there are an average of 1,200 to 1,300 transactions per day. Additionally, site observations where completed by the traffic consultant on Friday, May 16, 2008; from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Typical transaction times were observed to be one to two minutes. During the majority of that period, six or fewer vehicles were queued to use the ATM's. During the busiest time of that observation period (3:00 p.m.) there. were often eight to eleven vehicles queuing. The current seven space queuing was exceeded about 20 times during the observation period. It was noted that during that time thequeuing obstructed the free movement of circulation in the parking lot two times. The proposed drive -through ATM design increases the number of queuing spaces from seven to eleven spaces. In addition, the proposed ATM design includes wider lanes that would be striped. The current ATM lanes are not striped which Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\PC 8.11.09\Staff_Report (2)_ce.doc PP 07-07, CUP 08-05, TRP 05 • Foothill Transit Parking Structure August 11; 2009 - Page 12 results in the inefficient use of the queuing space. The proposed project is not likely to affect the level of activity at the drive -through ATM'. s. The increase in the queuing space is expected to reduce the number of conflicts between vehicles waiting to use the ATM and those circulating through the parking lot. Conclusion Foothill Transit is proposing the construction of a park & ride facility. Historically, there have been sites where park & ride facilities were located on a temporary basis (Eastland and City Hall). This proposal would allow for the. provision of a permanent facility. The park & ride facility would continue to serve residents of the City and nearby communities who are patrons of the public transit system. The location of the PNR facility. adjacent to the I-10 Freeway provides convenient access for commuters boarding buses or carpooling. The parking structure has been designed to complement the existing multi -story office building. Although parking structures do not always provide an attractive design, the parking structure has been designed utilizing a variety of forms and colors. The parking structure has been designed to provide articulation and a variety of forms with emphasis in architectural detail placed on the north, west and south elevations. The Vincent Avenue and Lakes Drive/Plaza Drive is one of the, most congested intersections in the City. Any new buildings or uses that generate.more vehicle trips in that area will have negative impacts on the intersection as well as on the I- 10 Freeway ramps. The proposed PNR facility will mainly be used by commuters that will be utilizing the freeway... The PNR structure will generate additional traffic to the street system. To mitigate the additional traffic impacts, a dedicated right turn lane is required as part of the mitigation measures in the. traffic impact analysis. These mitigations have been included in the resolutions. The applicant has submitted information requested by the Planning Commission based on issues raised by the Planning Commission at the January 27, 2009. These issues included traffic, negative impacts to surrounding retail uses, and visibility. The City's Community Development Commission (CDC) submitted. a memo (Attachment 10) to the Planning Department that raised potential concerns about the proposed parking structure and its location within the West Covina Redevelopment Project Area. The. CDC's concerns include: (1) the parking structure blocks the visibility of adjacent retail businesses (Best Buy, DSW, Barnes and Nobles and Starbucks); (2) the location of the parking structure may not contribute to an attractive gateway edge to the City when being accessed from the freeway; and (3) the proposed project is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the CDC's 2005-09 Redevelopment Implementation Plan in that the proposed project could potentially inhibit future efforts to attract tenants and redevelop adjacent commercial retail areas. . VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission choose one of the following options: a) Adopt a resolution certifying Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and adopt resolutions approving Precise Plan No. 07- 07, Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05 and Tree Removal Permit No. 08-05. b) Continue the item with direction to the applicant -to relocate the parking structure somewhere else on the property, or to revise the bulk and mass of the parking structure. Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\PC.8.11.09\Staff_Report (2)_cc.doc PP 07-07, CUP 08-05, TRP #5 • Foothill Transit Parking Structure August 11, 2009 - Page 13 c) Adopt resolutions denying Precise Plan No. 07-07, Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05 and Tree Removal Permit No. 08-05. PREPARED BY: Jeff Anderson Acting City Planner Attachments: Attachment 1 — Mitigated Negative Declaration Resolution Attachment 2 — Precise Plan Resolution for Approval Attachment 3 — Conditional Use Permit Resolution for Approval Attachment 4 — Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 5 — Addendum to Traffic Impact Analysis Attachment 6 — Planning Commission Minutes, 1/27/09 Attachment 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report, 1/27/09 Attachment 8 — Precise Plan Resolution for Denial Attachment 9 — Conditional Use Permit Resolution for Denial Attachment 10 — Community Development Commission Memorandum Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\PC 8.1.1.09\Staff_Report (2)_cc.doc • ATTAC H M;E N T PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTLON NO. 09-5334 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING PRECISE PLAN NO.07-07 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO.08-05 PRECISE PLAN NO.07-07 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO.08-05 NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. APPLICANT: Roland Cordero (Foothill Transit) LOCATION: 100 S. Vincent Avenue WHEREAS, there was filed with this Commission, a verified application on the forms prescribed in Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, requesting approval of a precise plan to: Allow for the construction of a five -and -a -half -level parking structure on that certain property described as:.. Assessor's Parcel No. 8474-007-937 and 8474-007-938 in the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission upon giving the required notice did on the 27th day of January, 2009, the 241h day of March, 2009, the 26' day of. May, 2009, the 141h day of July, 2009, and the llth day of August, 2009, conduct duly advertised public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said application; and . WHEREAS, consistent with this request, a. conditional use permit for operation of a drive -through has been submitted; and WHEREAS, consistent with this request a tree removal permit has been submitted for the removal of an existing significant tree due to its location in the front setback; and WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Commission and in its behalf reveal the following facts: 1. The project consists of a request for a precise plan to allow for the construction of a five -and -a -half -level parking. structure on the northerly portion of the lot at 100 S. Vincent Avenue. The applicant is requesting a deviation from the Parking Lot Design Standards to provide a turn -around on a dead-end driveway on the top level of the parking structure. 2. The applicant is requesting the removal of one Eucalyptus tree located within the 15-foot front setback along Lakes Drive. 3. The applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit to allow for two drive - through service aisles for drive -through automatic teller machine (ATM) service. 4. Appropriate findings for approval of a precise plan of design areas follows: ZAResos\2009\09-5334 PP 07-07 Foothill Transit.doc Planning Commission Resolution No:___ -5334 PP 07-07 & TRP 08-05 August.11, 2009 - Page 2 a. That consideration has been given and restrictions imposed to the extent necessary to permit the same degree of enjoyment of the subject property, but subject to the same degree of protection of adjoining properties; as would be accorded in normal circumstances, by the standard restrictions imposed by the Municipal Code. b. That strict adherence to the development standards of the applicable zone and the proposed precise plan will not measurably depreciate property values in the vicinity or interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity or endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. c. That the project is reviewed in terms of its architectural design, general exterior appearance,. landscaping, color, texture of surface materials and exterior construction, shape and bulk and other physical characteristics including location and type of public utility facilities and is found. to facilitate the orderly development of the precise plan area. 5. The initial study prepared for the project disclosed that the project will not have a, significant impact on the environment. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project's design and as conditions of approval to reduce impacts .on the environment to a less than significant level. A Negative .Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows: 1. On the basis of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: b. The subject property is in an urbanized area and is located south of the Interstate 10 (San Bernardino) Freeway. Freeway ramps are located on Vincent Avenue allowing access to the eastbound and westbound San _Bernardino Freeway. The subject property is situated between the Westfield West Covina Mall to the west and The Lakes Office/Entertainment area to the east. The property is situated on Vincent Avenue, which is one of the busiest streets in the City of West Covina. The subject property is a key site in the core of the primary commercial area in the City. The construction of a five -and -a -half -story parking structure at the proposed location will be inconsistent and inharmonious with the surrounding retail development in that the bulk and mass of the structure will block site lines from Vincent Avenue to existing commercial/retail businesses to the east of the proposed parking structure. Although the proposed park and ride facility will provide parking for park and ride commuters, the use and architecture do not contribute to the commercial/retail/entertainment uses in the area. Furthermore, the proposed parking structure will actually interfere with the commercial district by disrupting the urban form by placing a use at the gateway to the largest commercial district in the City that does not provide spin-off or complementary benefits to the commercial uses. The proposed project would be detrimental to the surrounding properties. The proposed structure would be a 56-foot tall, 300-foot long structure. The structure would serve as a physical barrier that separates retail and commercial uses and introduces traffic to the area that. further separates the surrounding uses. Furthermore, the proposed project would be detrimental to surrounding property values. Per the testimony received at the public hearing on January 27, 2009, a representative of a neighboring property owner stated that the construction of the park -and -ride structure would negatively affect their property value. Moreover, concern was expressed that the presence of the parking structure would contribute to empty storefronts in that it would be more difficult to attract tenants due to the obstruction of views. c. The project does not facilitate the orderly development of the area due to the physical characteristics of the parking structure. The existing building is an office building that provides banking, dental services and professional offices. The , surrounding ZAResos\2009\09-5334 PP 07-07 Foothill Transit.doc Planning Commission Resolution 10.,E-5334 PP 07-07 & TRP 08-05 August 11, 2009 Page 3 properties are developed with retail, food service, and entertainment uses. The existing building does provide service uses that complement the surrounding uses. The proposed parking structure's shape and bulk divide the surrounding uses .and serve to isolate the retail uses on the east side of Vincent Avenue from those on the west side of Vincent Avenue. The proposed general exterior appearance and architecture does not contribute to the surrounding character of development. Although the proposedparking structure has been designed to incorporate architectural elements with similarities to office buildings, the structure continues to included architectural features associated with typical parking structure design, including openings for ventilation, open parking on the top deck, and ground floor parking along Vincent Avenue. The proposal is not in character with the surrounding development in terms of form, mass and architectural style. 2. That pursuant to all of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further based on the findings above, Precise Plan No. 07-07 is denied subject to the provisions of the West Covina Municipal Code. I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina, at a regular meeting held on the 1 lth day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Redholtz, Carrico, Stewart NOES: Sotelo, -Sykes ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DATE: August 11, 2009 taw& Dave Stewart; Chairman Planning Commission Jeff/Berson, AICP, Secretary Planning Commission ZAResos\2009\09-5334 PP 07-07 Foothill Transit.doc ATTAC�HM�ENT 8 P L ANNIN G C OM M IS S I ON RESOLUTION NO.09-5335 A. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING. COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-05 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-05 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Roland Cordero (Foothill Transit) LOCATION: 100 S. Vincent Avenue WHEREAS, there was filed with this Commission, a verified application on the forms prescribed in Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow: The operation of a two drive -through ATM's in conjunction with a bank on -site. on that certain property described as: Assessor's Parcel No. 8474-007-937 and 8474-007-938 as listed in the records of the office of the Los Angeles County Assessor; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 27th day of January, 2009, the 241h day of March, 2009, the 261h day of May, 2009, the 14`h day of July, 2009, and the I Ith day of August, 2009, conduct duly advertised public hearings as prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, consistent with this request, a precise plan for the site design and architecture of parking structure and ATM structure has beensubmitted; and WHEREAS, consistent with this request a tree removal permit has been submitted for the removal of an existing significant tree due to its location in the front setback; and WHEREAS, studies and investigations. made by this Commission and in its behalf.reveal the following facts: 1: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for two drive -through service aisles for drive -through automatic teller machine (ATM) service. 2. The project consists of .a request for a precise plan to allow for. the construction of a five - and -a -half -level parking structure on the northerly portion of the lot at 100 S. Vincent Avenue. The applicant is requesting a deviation from the Parking Lot Design Standards to provide a turn -around on a dead-end driveway on the top level of the parking structure. 3. The applicant is requesting the removal of one Eucalyptus tree located within the 15-foot front setback along Lakes Drive. 4. Appropriate findings for approval of a conditional use permit are as follows: a. That the proposed use at a particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility that will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood.. or community. b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular, case, be detrimental to health, safety, peace, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. Z:\Resos\2009\09-5335 CUP 08-05 Foothill Transit.ATM.doc t Planning Commission Resolution N6.`-09-5335 Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05 August 11, 2009, Page 2 c. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and is so shaped as to accommodate said use, as well as all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust such use with the land and uses in the neighborhood and make it compatible thereto. d. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and improvements to carry traffic generations typical of the proposed use and that the street patterns of such a nature exist as to guarantee such generations will not be channeled through residential streets on local residential streets. e. That granting of such. conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City, or any other adopted plan of the City. 5. The initial study prepared for the project disclosed that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project's design and as conditions of approval to reduce impacts on the environment to a less than significant level. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of.197.0, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows: 1. On the basis of evidence presented; both oral and documentary, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: a. The proposed drive -through. automatic teller machine is part of a larger project that would allow the construction of a five -and -a -half -story parking structure allowing for park and ride usage. The construction of a five -and -a -half -story parking structure at the proposed location will be inconsistent and inharmonious with the surrounding retail development in that the bulk and mass of the structure will block site lines from Vincent Avenue to existing commercial/retail businesses to the east of the proposed parking structure. Although the proposed park and ride facility will provide parking for park and ride commuters, the use and architecture do not contribute to the commercial/retail/entertainment uses in the area. Due to these ramifications, the accompanying drive -through ATM facility is also detrimental to the general welfare of the City. 2. That pursuant to all of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further based on the findings above, Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05 is denied subject to the provisions of the West Covina Municipal Code. I, HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina, at a regular meeting held on the 1Ith day of August, 2009, by the following votes: AYES: Redholtz, Carrico, Stewart NOES: Sotelo, Sykes ABSENT: None ABTAIN: None DATE: August 11, 2009 Dave Stewart, Chairman Planning Commission Jeff erson, AICP, Secretary Pla ning Commission Z:\Resos\2009\09-5339 CUP 08-05 Foothill Transit.ATM.doe Planning Commission Minutes • Page 2 — January 27, 2009 ATTAC H M ENT 3. REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-03 (ON -SALE ALCOHOL) APPLICANT: Round Table Development Company LOCATION: 2270 South Azusa Avenue (The Heights at West Covina) Review of operation. Recommendation. to receive and file report. EXTENSION OF TIME PRECISE PLAN NO.06-15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.06-21 APPLICANT: Tien H. Chu LOCATION: 1600 East Francisquito Avenue (South Hills Academy) The applicant is requesting .the second one-year. extension of time for the above - referenced items. Acting City Planner presented the staff report. During his presentation; Mr. Anderson told the Commission that there was one public hearing scheduled for the February 10, 2009 meeting. He also spoke to the . Commission regarding the requests for extensions: Motion by Stewart, seconded by Carrico, to approve the items listed. Motion carried 5-0. HEARING PROCEDURE: You are encouraged by this Commission to express your views on any matter set for public hearing. It is our procedure to first receive the report of the Planning staff, then to ask for public testimony; first from those in favor of the matter, followed by testimony from those in opposition to it, and, if there be opposition, to allow those in favor, rebuttal testimony only as to the points brought up in opposition. To testify on a matter, you need to simply come forward to the lectern at the appropriate time, give your name and address and make your statement. In addition, please sign in on the sheet provided at the podium so it will facilitate preparation of our minutes. Do not be concerned with your possible lack of experience in public hearings. We are interested in what you say, not your level of expertise as a public speaker. After a hearing has been closed, you may not further speak on the matter unless requested to do so by a member of the Commission. C. PUBLIC HEARING (1) PRECISE PLAN NO. 07-07 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-05 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO.. 08-05 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Andrea Urbas (Foothill Transit) LOCATION: 100 South Vincent Avenue REQUEST: The project consists of the request for a precise plan to construct a six -level parking structure on the northerly portion of the property to replace the existing surface parking lot, a conditional use permit to relocate a two-lane drive -through automatic teller machine, and a tree removal permit to remove a tree in the front setback (Lakes Drive). The proposed parking structure would be used for tenants of the office building and for park -and -ride. Chairman Redholtz opened the public hearing. Acting City Planner Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. During his presentation, Mr. Anderson spoke about the environmental reviews, the traffic study and traffic mitigation measures proposed, proposed improvements to Vincent Avenue, the proposed design and color of the parking structure and mitigation measures for pedestrian safety and traffic. Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2009 MINUTES\1.27.09 minutes.doc Planning Commission Minute* Page 3 — January 27, 2009 PROPONENT: • Doran Barnes, representing Foothill Transit, spoke in favor of the project and answered questions by the Commission regarding the proposed park and ride facility. Mr. Barnes further addressed the Commission regarding the history of Foothill Transit's search for a suitable location for a permanent park and ride. facility. In addition, the Commission viewed a power point presentation regarding the project. OPPONENTS: David Graham, Steve Sheldon and Lloyd Johnson spoke in opposition. Mr. Graham and Mr. Sheldon spoke on behalf of the merchants at the shopping. center adjacent to the proposed location and said that there was concern that a six -story parking structure would block the center's visibility from the freeway. Mr. Graham commented on concerns that the proposal would reduce property values in the area, create empty tenant spaces, and contribute to the downward spiral of the economic vitality of the surrounding area. Mr. Johnson stated his agreement with the other opponents and also expressed his concernthat the existing businesses in the center would be adversely affected by the lack of visibility. REBUTTAL: Mr. Barnes rebutted the testimony of the opponents by saying that the view of the shopping center was already obscured by landscaping and an existing building. In addition, he told the Commission that Foothill Transit had considered a subterranean parking structure but decided against it because it would double the construction costs. Chairman Redholtz closed the public hearing. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the required environmental review, the recommended traffic mitigation measures, the history of Foothill Transit's search for a suitable park and ride location, the improvements proposed by the applicant to help the flow of traffic on Vincent Avenue, the proposed art program for the site, possible positive and negative impacts on the Lakes Entertainment Center, possible alternative sites for the park and ride facility and possible negative impacts to the traffic on Vincent Avenue. The Commission also considered the statements by the opponents that the park and ride building would block their visibility from the freeway and have a negative impact on their tenants' businesses. In addition, the Commission asked Mr. Barnes about the number of cars currently using the park and ride and the locations of the existing park and ride facilities. It was the consensus of the Commission that further information was. necessary in order for them to make a more informed decision. The Commission concurred that the hearing. should be continued until March 24, 2009. They also requested information regarding the economic impact on. retail businesses in the vicinity of park and ride facilities, and proposed revisions, to bus routes and stops, information on left turn movements from southbound Vincent Avenue to eastbound Lakes Drive and information on alternative sites considered by Foothill Transit in the City of West Covina. Motion by Sotelo, seconded. by .Sykes, to reopen the public hearing and continue consideration of this matter at the March 24, 2009 meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Deputy City Attorney Scott Nichols stated that there would no further notice of the continued public hearing and that all interested parties should be present at the March 24, 2009 meeting to voice their concerns. ZAPLANCOM\MINUTES\2009 MINUTES\1.27.09 minutes.doc ATTAC HM ENT 10 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR PRECISE PLAN NO. 07-07, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-05, AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 08-05, PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Roland Cordero (Foothill Transit) LOCATION: 100 S. Vincent Avenue WHEREAS, there was filed with this City verified applications on forms prescribed in Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina. Municipal Code requesting the approval of a precise plan, conditional use permit, and tree removal permit to facilitate the construction of a six -level parking structure and drive -through ATM structure on that certain property generally described as: Assessor's Parcel Number No's 8474-007-937 and..8474-007-938 in the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor; and WHEREAS,. the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, an initial study was prepared for said project; and WHEREAS, based upon the findings of the initial study, it was determined. that the proposed .project will not have a significant impact on the environment and will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, . as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared for the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and mitigation measures are included in said Negative Declaration in support of the finding that there will not be a significant effect on the environment as a result of this project. WHEREAS,. the Planning Commission upon givin& the required notice did on the 27th day of January, 2009, the 24th day of March, 2009, the 26 . day of May, 2009, the 14th day of July, 2009, and the IItn day of August, 2009, conduct duly advertised public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said application; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 2009, the Planning Commission denied the proposal; and WHEREAS, on August 25, 2009, an appeal of the Planning Commission action was filed by Doran Barnes (Foothill Transit); and WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 15"' day of September, 2009, 20th day of October, 2009, 151h day of December, 2009 and 19th day of January, 2010, conduct duly advertised public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said environmental documents, and considered evidence presented by the Planning Commission, Planning Department and other interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of West Covina does hereby resolve as follows: ZACase Fi1es\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill TransitTC1.19.10Neg Dec Reso.doc Resolution No. • MND for PP 07-07, CUP 08-05 & TRP 08-05 January 19, 2010 — Page 2 1. After receiving and considering all determinations, studies, documents, and recommendations, as well as other appropriate public comments, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina hereby recommends to the City Council certification of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, subject to compliance with the mitigation measures that are recommended in the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as outlined below: Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Monitoring Dept./Agency Monitoring Methods Air Quality The project will implement the following Building/ Pre - requirements of SCAQMD Rule Engineering construction 403: plan check ❑ Apply nontoxic chemical soil South Coast Air stabilizers according to manufacturers' Quality On -site I pecifications to all inactive construction Management construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for District inspections 10 days or,more). ❑ Water active sites at least twice daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving.) ❑ All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114. ❑ Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 miles, per hour (mph) or less. The project will also implement the following additional dust suppression measures in the CEQA Handbook: ❑ All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (including instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour (mph). ❑ All streets shall be swept once a day if visible soil. materials are carried to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). ❑ All on -site surfaces to be paved shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered periodically, or chemically stabilized. ❑ The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all ZACase Files.\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\Neg Dec Reso.doc Resolution No. 0 MND for PP 07-07, CUP 08-05 & TRP 08-05 January 19, 2010 — Page 3 construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or diesel -powered equipment in lieu of gasoline -powered engines where feasible. The Construction Contractor shall time the construction activities so as to not interfere with peak -hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flagger shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the project plans and specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Department for inclusion of a statement that construction equipment shall be shut off when not in use and not idle for more than15 minutes. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the project plans and specifications. shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Department, for inclusion a statement that. queuing of trucks on and off site shall be limited to periods when necessitated by . grading or construction activities. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate that building lighting uses energy efficient light bulbs (compact fluorescent or equivalent efficiency) to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. Biological A landscaping plan shall. be prepared for Planning Plan check Resources the project and reviewed and approved by Department the City Planning Department as part of the Precise Plan review process. Any required trees required to be replaced and the replacement trees shall be indicated on the landscape plan. Cultural If human remains are encountered, State Contractor, On -site Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 County Coroner construction states that no further disturbance. shall and possibly a inspection occur until the County Coroner has made Native American a determination of origin and disposition Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\Neg Dec Reso.doc Resolution No. MND for PP 07-07, CUP 08-05 & TRP 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 4 pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall. complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. descendant Noise Prior to commencement of construction Planning Pre - activities, a noise control plan shall be Department construction prepared by an acoustical engineer. The plan check plan shall include: Building/ ❑ An inventory of construction equipment Engineering Field used during daytime and nighttime Divisions Observation ❑ Estimate projected construction noise after levels Construction ❑ Locations and types of measures that may be needed to meet specified noise limits ❑ Periodic noise monitoring at strategic locations during construction ❑ Alternatives to pile driving shall be considered ❑ Changing of the timing or sequence of the noisiest operations (particularly pile driving), where feasible, to avoid sensitive times of the day including nighttime and/or off-peak construction hours, pending approval by the City ❑ Whenever possible, use. of noise control devices such as equipment mufflers, enclosures, and barriers, and stage construction operations away from businesses The project shall comply with the City of West Covina's noise ordinance, as it relates to construction activities and noise abatement. The plan shall be submitted to the City of West Covina Planning Department for review and approval as part of plan check requirements. Public Services As part of the site planning process with Planning Precise Plan the City, Foothill Transit will coordinate Department Review with the City to design safety and security components for the parking structure. Police Other security methods may be I Department ZACase Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC 1. 19. 1 Meg Dec Reso.doc Resolution No. MND for PP 07-07, CUP 08-05 & TRP 08-05 January 19, 2010 — Page 5 considered, including increased security patrols,. as deemed appropriate to the City Planning Director and Police Chief. Traffic Prior to occupancy of the parking City of West Prior to structure, Foothill Transit will work with Covina issuance of the City of West Covina to implement certificates of operational and design improvements to Caltrans use the South Vincent Avenue/Lakes Drive and occupancy intersection. Acquisition of additional right-of-way (ROW) will be completed by Foothill Transit and deeded to the City for public street ROW use: Prior to construction of the parking structure, Foothill Transit will work with Caltrans regarding the encroachment permit and proposed second dedicated access lane to the eastbound I-10 ramp. 2. Non-compliance with the aforementioned mitigation measures as by the monitoring department/agency and any. measures taken to correct said non-compliance shall be immediately reported to the Planning Department on the City of West Covina Monitoring Checklist Form. 3. The applicant agrees to implement the aforementioned mitigation measures and monitoring or reporting requirements. 4. Failure to comply with any aforementioned mitigation measures and/or monitoring or reporting requirements will result in a written notice of violation from the City to the applicant at which time the City may order that all or a portion of pre - construction, construction, post -construction activity or project implementation must cease until compliance is reached. 5. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and local guidelines, rules, regulations, and procedures adopted pursuant thereto permits the City of West Covina to impose any fees or charges associated with implementing the above monitoring program upon the applicant. 6. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Resolution Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\Neg Dec Reso.doc Resolution No. • MND for PP 07-07, CUP 08-05 & TRP 08-05 January 19, 2010 —Page 6 PASSED AND APPROVED on this 19th day January, 2010. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF WEST COVINA ) I, Laurie. Carrico, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular" meeting thereof held on the 19th day of January, 2010. .AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DATE: January 19, 2010 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ZACase Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\Neg Dec Reso.doc ATTACHMENT 11 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST . COVINA, CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING PRECISE PLAN NO.07-07 PRECISE PLAN NO.07-07 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO.08-05 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Roland Cordero (Foothill Transit) LOCATION: 100 S. Vincent Avenue WHEREAS, there was filed with this Council a verified application on forms prescribed in Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, a requesting approval of a precise plan of design to: Allow for the construction of a five -and -a -half -level parking structure On that certain property generally described as: Assessor's Parcel Number 8474-007-937 and 8474-007-938, in the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission upon giving the required notice did, on the 27th day of January, 2009, the 241. ' day of March, 2009, the 26th day of May, 2009, the.14th day of July, 2009, and the 1lth day of August, 2009, conduct duly advertised public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said application; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 2009, the Planning Commission did adopt Resolution No. 09-5334 denying the application; and WHEREAS, on August 25, 2009, an appeal of the Planning Commission action was filed by Doran Barnes (Foothill Transit); and WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 15th day of September, 2009, 20th day of October, 2009, 15th day of December, 2009, and 19th day of January, 2010, conduct duly advertised public hearings as prescribed by law, and considered evidence presented by the Planning Commission, Planning Department, and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, consistent with this request; a conditional use permit for operation of a drive -through has been submitted; and WHEREAS, consistent with this request a tree removal permit has been submitted for the removal of an existing significant tree due to its location in the front setback; and WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Council and in its behalf reveal the following facts: 1. The project consists of a request for a precise plan to allow for the construction of a five- and -a -half -level parking structure on. the northerly portion of the lot at 100 S. Vincent Avenue. The applicant is requesting a deviation from the Parking Lot Design Standards to provide a turn -around on. a dead-end driveway on the top level of the parking structure. 2. The applicant is requesting the removal of one Eucalyptus tree located within the 15-foot front setback along Lakes Drive. ZACase Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill TransitTC1.19.10TI? Reso Apprvl.doc Resolution No. • Precise Plan No. 07-07 & Tree Removal Permit No 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 2 3. The applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit to allow for two drive -through service aisles for drive -through automatic teller machine (ATM) service. 4. Appropriate findings for approval of a precise plan of design are as follows: a. That consideration has been given and restrictions imposed to the extent necessary to permit the same degree of enjoyment of the subject property, but subject to the same degree of protection of adjoining properties, as would be accorded in normal circumstances, by the standard restrictions imposed by the Municipal Code. b. That strict adherence to the development standards of the applicable zone and the proposed precise plan will not measurably depreciate property values in the vicinity or interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity or endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. C. That the project is reviewed in terms of its architectural design, general exterior appearance, landscaping, color, texture. of surface materials and exterior construction, shape and bulk and other physical characteristics including location and type of public utility, facilities and is found to facilitate the orderly development of the precise plan area. 5. The initial study prepared for the project _disclosed that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project's design and as conditions of approval to reduce impacts on the environment to a less than significant level. A Negative Declaration of .Environmental Impact has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows: On the basis of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, the City Council makes the following findings: a. The project consists of a request for a precise plan to allow for the construction of a five -and -a -half -level parking structure and `a drive -through ATM facility. The footprint of the parking structure' is 39,180 square feet and the drive -through ATM facility is 1,140 square feet. The existing six -story office building at the site will remain. The parking structure will be constructed on the northerly surface parking lot (between the existing driveway on Vincent Avenue and the I-10 Freeway. The easterly surface parking lot will be redesigned. A total of 752 parking spaces are proposed, 98 parking spaces on the surface parking lot to the east of the existing office building and 654 parking spaces in the parking structure. The lower levels of the parking structure will be available for tenant parking while the remaining parking spaces will be reserved for park -and -ride commuters. A total of 536 parking spaces will be available for park -and -ride purposes. The proposed project will meet or exceed all applicable Municipal Code requirements, including but not limited to, parking spaces, landscaping, and building coverage. The property is zoned "Regional Commercial" (R-C) Zone, which allows this type of use. b. The project site is a relatively flat area that is currently developed as a surface parking lot for the office building. The property is 2.92 acres and is currently separated into two parcels. A condition of approval has been included requiring that the applicant file a covenant to hold the two parcels as one. The proposed construction consists of a five -and -a -half -level parking structure and drive - through ATM facility. The site can adequately accommodate the use at the site and the project can be developed adhering to the development standards set forth in the West Covina Municipal Code. Therefore, the construction of parking structure will not depreciate property values, interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity, or endanger the public peace, health, safety or general ZACase Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\PP Reso Apprvl.doc Resolution No. • Precise Plan No. 07-07 & Tree Removal Permit No 08-05 January 19, 2010 -Page 3 welfare, due to its location, and the .general compatibility of the project with the other commercial uses in the surrounding area. C. The project is found to facilitate the orderly development of the area. The architectural design of the parking structure. is. proposed in a manner that is consistent with the existing office building on the subject property. The proposed parking structure has been designed to simulate the appearance of an office building. Precast concrete panels are proposed in a horizontal pattern with small openings between the panels that simulate reveals. Openings in the. panels are designed to appear like windows and include variable -width semi -opaque glass panels within the openings. The window surrounds protrude one -and -a -half feet from the building wall, creating movement, wall off -set, and providing for shadow lines. The revised architectural treatment is proposed on three elevations, the north, west and south elevations. The east elevation has been designed with a more traditional parking structure. design that includes four -foot high concrete guardrails at each level. The site is designed to fit into the circulation network in the area by providing an additional traffic lane allowing access to the eastbound San Bernardino Freeway. The design also allows for the addition of a northbound lane at the Vincent Avenue and Lakes Drive/Plaza Drive intersection. Therefore, the project after widening of Vincent Avenue, can be adequately served by the street system, while providing safe circulation and access for pedestrians. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. The subject property is located within the Regional Commercial land use designation of the General Plan. In addition the subject property is located within the area defined as the Central Business District, which is bounded by the San Bernardino Freeway, Glendora Avenue, Walnut Creek Channel and Cameron Avenue. The Regional Commercial land use designation calls for projects to be strategically located to. serve the general area of the East San Gabriel Valley region. One of the goals of the Economic Development Element is to "balance economic development with other city goals and objectives". Furthermore, one of the goals of the General Plan Circulation Element is to "encourage alternate means of transportation whenever possible to reduce the number of automobiles on the streets ". As such the proposed project intends to provide an alternate means of transportation to commuters that reside within the City and nearby communities. Therefore, reducing the number of vehicles on the streets and freeway; thus reducing traffic congestion. 2. That pursuant to all of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further based on the findings above, Precise Plan No. 07-07 is approved subject to the provisions of the West Covina Municipal Code, provided that the physical development of the herein described property shall conform to said plan and the conditions set forth herein which, except as otherwise expressly, indicated, shall be fully performed and completed or shall be secured by bank or cash deposit satisfactory to the Planning Director, before the use or occupancy of the property is commenced and before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and the violation of any of which shall be grounds for revocation of said precise plan by the Planning Commission or City Council. 3. That the precise plan shall not be effective for any purpose until the owner of the property involved (or a duly authorized representative) has filed at the office of the Planning Director, his affidavit stating he is aware of, and accepts, all conditions of this precise plan as set forth below. Additionally, no permits shall be issued until the owner of the property involved (or a duly authorized representative) pays all costs associated with the processing of this application pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 8690. 4. The costs and expenses of any enforcement activities, including, but not limited to attorneys' fees, caused by the applicant's violation of any condition imposed by this approval or any provision of the West Covina Municipal Code shall be. paid by the applicant. Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC 1.19.10\PP Reso Apprvl.doc Resolution No. • Precise Plan No. 07-07 & Tree Removal Permit No 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 4 5. That the approval of the precise.plan is subject to the following conditions: a. Comply with plans reviewed by the City Council on January 19, 2010. b. Comply with all applicable sections. of the West. Covina. Municipal Code. C. Comply with all requirements of the "Regional Commercial" (R-C) Zone. d. A minimum 12400t turn -around shall be provided on the top deck of the parking structure and at the basement level of the parking structure. The turn -around area shall include pavement marking and signage. e. All parking spaces shall be a minimum of 8.5 feet by 18 feet. f. A Phasing Plan shall be submitted with construction plans as part of the plan check process. The phasing plan shall clearly indicate the type of construction to be completed during each phase and shall include information on parking and landscaping installation. If phases require the provision of offsite parking; information on the number and location of offsite parking shall be provided.. In addition, a copy of the lease agreement for offsite parking shall be submitted prior to. building permit issuance for each phase.. g.. A minimum five-foot landscape area shall be provided along Lakes Drive per West Covina Municipal Code section 26-577. h. A bus shelter or cover shall be provided on the property in the vicinity of the bus stop on Lakes Drive to provide shelter for patrons waiting for a bus. The bus shelter shall be designed to compliment the architecture of the buildings at the site and shall be included in the construction plans submitted for plan check.. i. Parking spaces that are at right angle (or nearly right angle) corners shall be separated by at least two feet to ensure adequate access to each of the spaces, per the Planning Department. j. A Transit Restructuring Study shall be submitted detailing the bus route changes and bus stop changes. The Study shall be. submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. k. If bus stops are not relocated to reduce pedestrian movement across Vincent Avenue and Lakes Drive/Plaza Drive, a pedestrian bridge will be required to reduce impacts to the intersection. 1. Bus stops on Vincent Avenue. or Lakes Drive serving the Park and Ride Structure shall not be relocated without the approval of the City of West Covina. in. A pedestrian access shall be included to allow access to the commercial property to the east of the subject property. n. Revise surface parking to provide landscape fingers on the end of the double -row of parking in the center of the surface parking area. o. The approved use. shall not create a public nuisance as defined under Section 15- 200 of the West Covina Municipal Code. P. The approved use shall be in compliance with the Noise Ordinance (Chapter 15). q. This precise plan approval shall become null and void if building permit is not obtained within one (1) year of the date of this approval. r. The applicant shall sign an affidavit accepting all conditions of this approval. ZACase Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\PP Reso Apprddoc Resolution No. Precise Plan No. 07-07 & Tree Removal Permit No 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 5 S. All new gutters and downspouts shall not project from the vertical surface of the building pursuant to Section 26-568 (a) (3). t. The existing 30-inch screen wall along the Lakes Drive frontage shall remain. If removed, a 36-inch screen wall shall be provided per Section 26-575. U. Any bollards proposed at the site shall be decorative bollards, per Planning Department approval. v. All new ground -mounted, wall -mounted and/or roof -mounted equipment not shown on the approved plans, shall be screened from all views, in a manner that is architecturally compatible with the main building. Plans and elevations indicating the type of equipment and method of concealment shall be. submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. W. The location of new electrical transformers, vaults, antennas, mechanical and all other equipment not indicated on the approved plans must be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance. of building permit. Provide construction details prior to issuance of a building permit. X. All new pole mounted parking lot lighting shall be accurately indicated on the grading plan and shall be located within landscaped or hardscaped. area. Pole locations shall be accurately staked prior to installation by the Engineer. Y. A parking lot lighting plan showing electrolier types and locations, average illumination levels, points of minimum illumination and photometric data. in conformance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 2513 and as requested shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Z. Building and parking lot lighting is required to be architecturally integrated with the building design. Standard security wall packs are not acceptable unless they are provided with hooding that is architecturally compatible with the building. aa. That prior to final building permit approval, a detailed landscape and irrigation. plan be submitted for all planted areas to .be affected by project. Plans shall include type, size and quantity of landscape. materials and irrigation equipment. All vegetation areas shall be automatically irrigated and a detailed watering program and water budget shall be provided. All damaged vegetation shall be replaced and the site shall .be kept free of diseased or dead plant materials and litter at all times. bb. Significant trees removed shall .be replaced at a ratio of two 244nch box trees for each significant tree removed. CC. Clinging vines shall be installed on all retaining or freestanding walls to assist in deterring graffiti. dd. Graffiti -resistant coatings shall be used on all walls, fences, sign structures, or similar structures to assist in deterring graffiti. ee. Any graffiti that appears on the property during construction shall be cleaned or .removed on the same business day. ff. All existing trees shall be shown on the grading plan. The .plan shall clearly indicate what trees are to be preserved and what trees are to be removed. gg. All outdoor trash areas shall be screened on all sides from public view by a minimum 5'6" high decorative block wall with a gate constructed of durable materials and a solid architectural cover. Provide construction details prior to issuance of a building permit. Z:\Case Fi1es\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\PP Reso Apprddoc Resolution No. • • Precise Plan No. 07-07 & Tree Removal Permit No 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 6 hh. This approval does not include approval of signs; a separate sign permit shall be obtained. All signs shall be required to comply with the City of West Covina Sign Code. ii. In. the event that the availability of parking is negatively impacted, the Planning Commission shall review the precise plan for.the use and may, at its discretion, modify or impose new conditions or suspend or revoke the precise plan pursuant to Section 26-253 of West Covina Municipal Code. jj. Any sidewalk, hardscape or parking facility, with potholes, broken, raised or depressed sections, large cracks, mud and/or dust; accumulation of loose material, faded or illegible pavement striping or other deterioration shall be repaired. kk. Parking lots or other paved areas with a cracked, broken or otherwise deteriorating surface, in excess of ten (10) percent of the surface area shall be considered a nuisance and shall be repaired. I All new utilities shall be placed underground prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. All relocated on -site utility service lines shall be underground when the cost or square footage of anaddition or alteration exceeds 50% of the existing value or area. WCMC 23-273. MM. The applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City Of West Covina (City), its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, proceeding or damages against the City, its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set . aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this case file. Further, the applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City Of West Covina (City), its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, proceeding or damages against the City, its agents, officers, or employees arising out of the action, inaction or negligence of the applicant,' its employees, officers, agents, contractors, subcontractors, successors or assigns in planning, engineering, constructing or in .any manner carrying out the file or any improvements required for the case file. The indemnity shall be contained in a written document approved . by the City Attorney. nn. The ATM canopy shall be a color consistent with the colors of the PNR facility. oo.. Should significant safety or aesthetic issues arise due to maintenance or operation of the ATM, the City of West Covina may require that the ATM(s) be removed. pp. Comply with California Financial Code Section 13040, in relation to the illumination, construction and operation of ATM's. qq. In case that the automated teller machines cease to function or the use of the bank is abandoned, the ATM(s) structure and all equipment associated shall be removed within 30 days of the discontinuance of the use. In addition, the site shall be paved or improved to the approval of the Planning Department. A private lease for a facility located on private property is encouraged to include terms for equipment removal, since the property owner shall be ultimately responsible for removal of the structure, equipment, and restoration of the site. rr. That any proposed change to the approved site plan, floor plan or elevations be reviewed by the Planning, Building, Fire and Police Departments and the Redevelopment Agency and that the written authorization of the Planning Director shall be obtained prior to implementation. ss. All approved materials and colors shall be clearly indicated on the plans. tt. The applicant shall meet any and all monitoring or reporting requirements necessary to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures contained in the Negative ZACase Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\PP Reso Apprvl.doc Resolution No. • Precise Plan No. 07-07 & Tree Removal Permit No 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 7 Declaration of Environmental Impact as those may be determined by the City, including, but not limited to, entering . into an agreement to perform and/or for monitoring and reporting during project construction and implementation. The applicant further agrees it will cease construction of the project immediately upon. written notice of a violation of such requirement and that such a provision may be part of any agreement of City and. applicant. uu. Comply with the mitigation measures as outlined in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment dated December 2008 as follows: 1. The project will implement the following requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403: • Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or, more). • Water active sites at least twice daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving.) • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer) in accordance, with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114.. • Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 miles per hour (mph) or less. 2 The project will also implement the following additional dust suppression measures in the CEQA Handbook: • All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (including instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour (mph). • All streets shall be swept once a day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). • All on -site surfaces to be paved shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered periodically, or chemically stabilized. • The. area disturbed by clearing,, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. 3. The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 4. The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or diesel -powered equipment in lieu of gasoline -powered engines where feasible. 5. The Construction Contractor shall time the construction activities so as to not interfere with peak -hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flagger shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. 6. The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. 7. Prior to issuance of any grading or. building permit, the project plans and specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Department for inclusion of a statement that construction equipment shall be shut off when not in use and not idle for more than 15 minutes. 8. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the project plans and specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Department, for inclusion a statement that queuing of trucks on and off site ZACase Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\PP Reso Apprvl.doc Resolution No. • • Precise Plan No. 07-07 & Tree Removal Permit No 08-05 January 19, 2010 Page 8 shall be limited to periods when necessitated by grading or construction activities. 9. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate that building lighting uses energy efficient light bulbs (compact fluorescent or equivalent efficiency) to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. 10. A landscaping plan shall be prepared for the project and reviewed and approved by the City Planning Department as part of the Precise Plan review process. Any required trees required to be replaced and the replacement trees shall be indicated on the landscape plan. 11. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the .find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MID). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. 12. Prior to commencement of construction activities, a noise control plan shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer. The plan shall include: • An inventory of construction equipment used during daytime and nighttime • Estimate projected construction noise levels • Locations and types of measures that may be needed to meet specified noise limits • . Periodic noise monitoring at strategic locations during construction • Alternatives to pile driving shall be considered • Changing of the timing or sequence of the noisiest operations (particularly pile driving), where feasible, to avoid sensitive times of the day including nighttime and/or off-peak construction hours, pending approval by the City • Whenever possible, use of noise control devices such as equipment mufflers, enclosures, and barriers; and stage construction operations away from businesses 13. The project shall comply with the City of West Covina's noise ordinance, as it relates to construction activities and noise abatement. The plan shall be submitted to the City of West Covina. Planning Department for review and approval as part of plan check requirements. 14. As part of the site planning process with the City, Foothill Transit will coordinate with the. City to design safety and security components for the parking. structure. Other security methods may be considered, including increased security patrols, as deemed appropriate to the City Planning Director and Police Chief. 15. Prior to occupancy of the parking structure, Foothill Transit will work with the City of West Covina to implement operational and design improvements to the South Vincent Avenue/Lakes Drive intersection. Acquisition of additional right-of-way (ROW) will be completed by Foothill Transit and deeded to the City for public street ROW,use.. ZACase Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\PP Reso Apprvl.doc Resolution No. • Precise Plan No. 07-07 & Tree Removal Permit No 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 9 16. Prior to construction of the parking structure, Foothill Transit will work with Caltrans regarding the encroachment permit and proposed second dedicated access lane to the eastbound I-10 ramp. w. Police Department 1. Provide security patrols through the parking structure, to the satisfaction of the Police Chief. Should safety issues arise, the Police Chief may require more frequent security patrols. 2. Provide video surveillance for each level of the parking structure to the satisfaction of the Police Chief. 3. Sufficient light levels should be provided to enhance safety and allow clearer images on surveillance video. Illumination levels shall be in compliance with the City's Parking Lot Design and Lighting Standards (Structured Parking/Ramps). ww. Fire Department 1: "Conditions of Approval" shall appear on the cover page .of the architectural plans under the heading of "Fire Department Notes" and be followed by all required notes for further review. 2. This development shall conform to Title 19 and Title 24 of the California Code of kegulations, 2007 CBC; CEC, CMC, CPC, 2006 International Fire Code, the 2007 California Fire Code and the West Covina Municipal Code. 3. Fire lanes shall be determined by the Fire Department and painted or posted before construction final. Please delineate the proposed fire lanes on the plans. 4. Plans for fire department access roadsshall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 25 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (WCMC and IFC, Section 503.2.1). All parts of the building's exterior wall shall be within 150 feet of an approved fire department access road. Please show all dimensions on the plans 5. Turn radii for fire department access shall be a minimum of 35' (on -center 12 feet). Approved provisions for the turning radius of fire apparatus shall also be provided when a dead-end access roadway (if applicable) is in excess of 150 feet in length (IFC, Section 503.2.4). 6. Plans and specifications for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to construction. Fire.hydrant location and spacing shall comply with IFC, Appendix C and fire flow requirements shall comply with IFC, Appendix B. Fire flow shall comply with the Fire Code requirements, but shall not be less than 1000 gpm for residential projects and 1500 gpm for commercial projects for the duration of 2 hours. A current letter from the water company shall verify the required fire flow (IFC, Section 508.5). 7. New public and/or on -site fire hydrants may be required. Maximum spacing is 300 feet or .150 feet from the end of a cul-de-sac or dead-end. Show all fire hydrant locations, on a site map, within 300 feet of the project. 8. A water supply system shall be designed and installed, capable of providing the minimum fire flow as required by .the Fire Code and verified by the water company. On -site fire hydrants shall be installed as required prior to the construction phase of the development. Plans for the on -site water system shall Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\PP Reso Apprvl.doc Resolution No. • • Precise Plan No. 07-07 & Tree Removal Permit No 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 10 be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to construction beginning. 9. Provide this .note on the plans: Provide this noteon the plans: Any structure in excess of 150 feet from a water supply required for fire protection, measured to the rear of the structure, must be provided with an additional on -site fire hydrant. In accordance with IFC, Section.104.9, an approved automatic fire sprinkler system may be accepted as an alternate means of protection. or for an open parking structure, an approved standpipe system w/fire pump will be required. 10. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all new buildings exceeding five thousand (5,000) square feet in floor area (WCMC, Sec 10-27). 11. Sprinkler system plans for new and/or modified systems are permitted separately by the Fire Department and must be approved before work begins. Contact West Covina Fire Department at 626-338-8800 to inquire about plan submittal requirements. 12. Fire alarm/fire sprinkler monitoring system plans for new and/or modified systems are permitted separately by the Fire Department and must be approved before work begins. Contact West Covina. Fire Department at 626-338-8800. to inquire about plan submittal requirements. The following comments are a partial list of requirements for architectural plan submittal. At the time of actual plan submittal, additional comments may be identified. Additionally, at the time of actual architectural submittal, the plans shall comply with the new state and local code adoptions and any revised City Ordinances. 1. Submitted plans must .identify the scope of the project, occupancy classification; construction type, total square footage of the building and whether the building is equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler and/or fire alarm/monitoring system. 2. The Fire. Department must be contacted a minimum of 3-5 days in advance to schedule inspections and/or testing. 3. Reproduce a copy of the 2000 UFC Article 87 on the plans. These are fire/life safety regulations that the contractor must adhere to during construction. 4. Construction barriers to the project shall be provided with a minimum of two (2) exits/entrances for Fire Department response. 5. Provide portable fire extinguishers as required. Start the placement of fire extinguisher near the exterior exit doors. Mount the fire extinguisher in a visible and accessible location, 3% to 5' above the finish floor to the handle. Buildings with multiple floors must have at least one fire extinguisher per floor. Extra Hazard (auto repair, warehousing with . HPS, flammable liquid usage) Occupancies require "4A60BC" fire extinguishers. The maximum coverage area is 4,000 sq. ft. per extinguisher 6. The path of exit to and within a building is required to be identified by exit signs conforming to the requirements of the California Building Code. Exit signs are required to be readily visible from any direction of approach. Exit signs are required to be located as necessary to clearly indicate the direction of egress travel (CBC, Section 1003.2.8). 7. All fire stopping systems shall be installed as detailed in the installation instruction of the listing (CBC, Sections 703, 709 & 710). ZACase Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\PP Reso Apprvl.doc Resolution No. • . • Precise Plan No. 07-07 & Tree Removal Permit No 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 11 xx. Engineering Division 1. Comply with all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5.67. Which outlined the requirements of grading, street improvement, exterior lighting, water supply, all bonds, trees, landscaping, drainage, and building. related improvements, etc. 2. Sanitary sewers shall be provided to each "lot" in compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article 2, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3. The required street improvements shall include those portions of Vincent Avenue and Lakes Drive contiguous to subject property. 4. All existing concrete driveway approaches and wheelchair ramps shall be removed and reconstructed to meet current ADA requirements. 5. All damaged concrete curbs, gutters,. sidewalk, etc., shall be removed and reconstruct per City standard. 6. The developer. shall either deposit $62,000 prior to the issuance of building permits or provide street .rehabilitation work up to centerline of all street contiguous to.subject property. 7. A variable width required street dedication shall include that portion of Vincent Avenue contiguous to subject property be recorded in the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder prior to the issuance of any Building Permits and/or Engineering Permits. 8. Nine -foot wide sidewalks (with trees in tree wells) shall be constructed along Vincent Avenue and Lakes Drive adjacent to property line 9. Adequate provision shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 10. Parking lot and driveway improvements on private property for this use shall. comply with Planning Commission Resolution No. 2513 and be constructed to the City of West Covina Standards. 11. Prior to (issuance of Building Permit) (approval of a final map), all of the following requirements shall be satisfied: a) A final grading and drainage plan showing existing and proposed elevations and drainage structures (and showing existing and proposed on - site and off -site improvements) shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department and Engineering Division. b) A parking lot lighting plan showing electrolier types and locations, average illumination levels, points of minimum illumination and photometric data in conformance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 2513 and as requested shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. c) An itemized cost estimate for all on -site and off -site improvements to be constructed (except buildings) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval. Based upon the approved cost estimates, required fees shall be paid and improvement securities for all on -site and off -site improvements .(except buildings) and 100% labor/material securities for all off -site improvements, shall be posted prior to final approval of the plans. ZACase Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\PP Reso Apprvl.doc ResolutionNo. • • Precise Plan No. 07-07 & Tree Removal Permit No 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 12 12. Covenant to hold two or more parcels as. one shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the City Engineer. 13. Comply with all regulations of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and Article H of Chapter 9 of the West Covina Municipal Code concerning Stormwater/Urban Run-off Pollution control. yy. Building Division 1. All Conditions, of Approval as approved by the City Council shall appear as notes on the plans submitted for building plan check and permits. 2. Building design shall comply with the 2007 California Building Code (CBC). 3. Separate application, plan check, and permit(s) is/are required for: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Demolition work of any existing building on site Signs Fire sprinkler systems. Specify on plans "Plans will be submitted for a. fire sprinkler system on a separate permit." Plumbing Mechanical Electrical Re -striping and other site work for Bank Building parking lot. 4. Compliance with the State of California Accessibility regulations is required, including: a) Accessible path of travel to entrances from the public sidewalk. Clearly show connection to public sidewalk. b) All sidewalks and curb within any pedestrian path of travel shall be made accessible by use of curb ramps. c) The number of accessible stalls shall be sized per CBC § 1129B. d) Accessible parking shall. be located at each main entrance and may be located on .the first level only. Level with accessible parking shall be provided with 8'-2" vertical clearance to any obstruction. e) Provide Van Accessible parking stall design with 8' wide loading zones. f) Bank building and parking lot shall be provided with separate accessible parking complying with CBC § 1129B. g) Bus stops shall comply with CBC § 1121 B for accessibility design. h) ATM installation and design shall comply with CBC § 1117B.7 for accessibility design. i). Please clearly define accessible path of travel from ground floor to adjacent streets. Path shall not be shared with vehicular traffic unless specially defined with detectable warning per CBC § 1133B.8.5. j) Pursuant to CBC § 1114.1.2 requiring that an accessible path of travel shall be provided all areas . of any building required to be accessible, vehicle ramps shall be designed at slope no more than 5% or separate accessible ramps shall be designed. k) Relocate accessible stall on gridline A.6 and 17/18 to outside of vehicular traffic path. 5. West Covina Municipal Code requires fire sprinklers for the projects listed below except for open garages as defined by the 2007 California Building Code. WCMC § 7-18.13. a) On all new buildings exceeding five thousand (5,000) square feet in floor area. Z:\Case Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\PP Reso Apprvl.doc Resolution No. Precise Plan No. 07-07 & Tree Removal Permit No 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 13 6. Provide design for vehicle barriers meeting the requirements of CBC § 406.2.4. 7. Protected and unprotected openings along East and South side shall be design to comply with CBC § 704. Clearly showcompliance to CBC § 704.8 and CBC § 406.3.3.1 at gridline "C" with 1 F-0 setback. Also, provide calculations for all glazed openings to meet both sections mentioned above. 8. Soil report is required. 9. Exit path at ground level shall be clearly defined. Design exit discharge per CBC § 1024. reconfigure stairs to direct occupants to the immediate exterior of the building. 10. Provide design to meet accessible means of egress requirement of. CBC § 1007. 11. Elevators shall be designed to comply with CBC § 1116B and Chapter 30. 12. It appears that a separate plumbing, mechanical and electrical plan check may be required. Complete plans shallbe submitted for review. 13.Oil and grease separate is required and shall be designed per CPC Chapter 10. 14. All walls facing the public right of way shall be landscaped with shrubs or vines so as to discourage graffiti. 15. All new on -site utility service lines shall be placed underground. WCMC 23- 273. zz. Public Works Comments 1. All Conditions of Approval as approved by the City Council shall appear as notes on the plans submitted for building plan check and permits. 2. Sanitation District Industrial waste approval or waiver is required. (310) 945-8200 3. Mechanical ventilation is required for the parking structure unless it is an open parking garage.. 4. All block walls facing the public right of way shall be landscaped or planted with vines to discourage graffiti. . 5. Comply with City Parking standards. Dead end aisles not permitted. 6. Widen northbound Vincent from the existing bus turn out to Lakes Drive prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7. Widen northbound Vincent from the main existing driveway on Vincent to the freeway on -ramp. Obtain a Cal Trans approval and permit prior to the issuance of any building permits. 8. Alignment of the new driveway on Lakes. to be directly across from the existing DW approach on the opposite side of the street is required. 9. Install curb, sidewalk or planter in place of wheel. stops. If a planter is used, landscaping shall be low groundcover or turf and shall not exceed the height of the six-inch curb. 10. All new or relocated on -site utility service lines shall be placed. underground. ZACase Files\PP\2007\PP 07-07'Foothill Transit\CC1.19.10\PP Reso Apprvl.doc Resolution No. . • Precise Plan No. 07-07 & Tree Removal Permit No 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 14 11. The developer is responsible for all necessary and required bus stop improvements such as bus turns out, concrete bus pads, and bus shelters structures and accessories to be built. according to the requirement of the Public Works Department. 6. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Resolution. ATTEST: PASSED AND APPROVED on this 19`" day January, 2010. Mayor City Clerk .STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF WEST COVINA ) I, Laurie Carrico, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of January, 2010. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DATE: January 19, 2010 EXPIRATION DATE: January 19, 2011 if not used. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk ZACase Files\PP\20VTP 07-07 Foothill Transit\CC 1. 19. 10\PP Reso Apprvl.doc A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-05 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-05 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Roland Cordero (Foothill Transit) LOCATION: .100 S. Vincent Avenue WHEREAS, there was filed with this Council, a verified application on the forms prescribed in Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, requesting approval of a conditional use permit to: Operate two drive -through ATM's in conjunction with a bank on -site. Assessor's Parcel No. 8474-007-937 and 8474-007-938 in the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 27 h day of January, 2009, the 24ffi day of March, 2009, the 26 h day of May, 2009, the 14'h day of July, 2009, and the 11d' day. of August, 2009, conduct duly advertised public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said application; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 2009, the Planning Commission did adopt Resolution No. 06-5192 denying the application; and WHEREAS, on August. 25, 2009, an appeal of the Planning Commission was filed by. Doran Barnes (Foothill Transit); and WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 15`h day of September, 2009, 20th day of October, 2009, 15`h day of December, 2009, and 19'h of January, 2010, conduct duly advertised public hearings as prescribed by law, and considered evidence presented by the Planning Commission, Planning Department, and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, consistent with this request, a precise plan for the. site design and architecture of parking structure and ATM structure has been submitted; and ' WHEREAS, consistent with this request a tree removal permit has been submitted. for the. removal of an existing significant tree due to its location in the front setback; and WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Council and in its behalf reveal the following facts: 1. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for two drive -through service aisles for drive -through automatic teller machine (ATM) service: 2. The project consists of a request for a precise plan to allow for the construction of a five- and -a -half -level parking structure on the northerly portion of the lot at 100 S. Vincent ® Avenue. The applicant is requesting a deviation from the Parking Lot Design Standards to provide a turn -around on a dead-end driveway on the top level of the parking structure. 3. The applicant is requesting the removal of one Eucalyptus tree located within the 15-foot . front setback along Lakes Drive. ZACase Files\CUP\2008\08-05 Drive Thru ATM 100 S Vincent\CC 1.19.10\Resolution CUP.Apprddoc Resolution No. • Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05 January 10, 2010 - Page 2 4. Findings necessary for approval of a conditional use permit are as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable, to provide a service or facility that will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood .or community. b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare or persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and is so shaped as to accommodate said use, as well as, all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and any other features necessary to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood and make it compatible thereto. d'. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and improvements to carry traffic generations typical of the proposed uses .and the street patterns of such a nature exist as to guarantee that such generation will not be channeled through residential areas on local residential streets. e. That the granting of such conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City, or any other adopted plan of the City. 5. The initial study prepared for the project disclosed that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project's design and as conditions of approval to reduce impacts on the environment to a less than significant. level. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of West Covina as follows: 1. On the basis of evidence presented, both oral and documentary, the City Council makes the following findings for approval of a conditional use permit: a. The construction of drive -through lanes to replace the existing drive -through lanes. is desirable at the proposed location because it will provide convenient services for residents and customers. The proposed drive -through lanes are offered in conjunction with a bank on the site in the office building. The bank customers are accustomed to having the convenience of drive through automated teller machines. Therefore, allowing for the relocation of the facility somewhere else within the site will ensure that the bank remains competitive in the array of services it offers its current and future customers that bank at the location. (Conditions have been placed on the operation of the facilities to ensure it will not be a. detriment to the area.) The parking structure design, location, and proposed lighting and security features will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, or general welfare of customers, or persons working in the vicinity. b. The proposed project is compatible with surrounding commercial uses. The site is designed to accommodate efficient vehicular circulation on -site without creating impacts on adjacent properties or public right-of-ways. C. The subject property is 2.92 acres. As designed, the project meets or exceeds all applicable development standards of the West Covina Municipal Code. Further, conditions have been placed on the project approval to mitigate potential impacts on surrounding properties. d. The site abuts Vincent Avenue to the west, designated a "Principal Arterial" in the West Covina General Plan. Vincent Avenue is designed to carry through traffic and provide access to commercial uses in the vicinity. Access to the subject property is via Vincent Avenue and Lakes Drive. The public and onsite circulation system ZACase Fi1es\CUP\2008\08-05 Drive Thru ATM 100 S Vincent\CC 1.19.10\Resolution CUP.Apprvl.doc Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 3 have been designed in accordance. with established City standards. The Fire Department has reviewed.the proposed project to ensure that the project complies with their emergency access requirements. e. The granting of the conditional use. permit is consistent- with the City's General Plan. The Economic Development Element calls to "develop and expand the local economy in order to create new employment opportunities, attract new investment and strengthen the tax base. of the City and to preserve and strengthen existing development in the City The proposed project will result in retaining the existing services provided by the bank and therefore, strengthening the existing bank operation by improving the drive through automated teller machines. 2. That pursuant to all of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary; and further based on the findings above, Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05 is approved subject to the provisions of the West Covina Municipal Code provided that the physical development of the herein described property shall conform to said conditional use permit and the conditions set forth herein which, except as otherwise expressly indicated, shall be fully performed and completed or shall be secured by bank or cash deposit satisfactory to the Planning Director before the use or occupancy of the property is commenced and before a certificate of occupancy is issued, and the violation of any of. which shall be grounds for revocation of said conditional use permit by the Planning Commission or City Council. 3. The conditional. use permit shall not be effective for. any purpose until the owner of the property involved (or his duly authorized representative) has filed at the office of the Planning Director his affidavit stating he is aware of, and accepts, all conditions of this conditional use permit as set forth below. Additionally, no permits shall be issued until the owner of the property involved (or a duly authorized representative) pays all costs associated with the processing of this application pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 8690. 4. The costs and expenses of any enforcement activities, including, but not limited to attorney's fees, caused by the applicant's violation of any condition imposed by this approval or any provision of the West Covina Municipal Code shall be paid by the applicant. 5. That pursuant to all of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary and further based on the findings above, Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05 is approved subject to the .following conditions: a. Comply with plans reviewed by the City Council on January 19, 2010. b. Approval of this conditional use permit is contingent upon the approval of Precise Plan No. 07-07. C. Comply with all, other requirements of the "Regional Commercial" (S-C) Zone. d. Should significant safety or aesthetic issues arise due to maintenance or operation of the walk-up or drive -through ATM's, the City of West Covina may require that the ATM(s) be removed. e. Comply with California Financial Code Section 13040, in relation to the illumination, construction and operation of ATM's. f. In case that the automated teller machines cease to function, the ATM(s) structure and all equipment associated shall be removed within 30 days of the discontinuance of the use. In addition, the site shall be paved or improved to the approval of the Planning Department. A private lease for a facility located on. private property is encouraged to include terms for equipment removal, since the property owner shall be ultimately responsible for removal of the structure, equipment, and restoration of the site. ZACase Files\CUP\2008\08-05 Drive Tlw ATM 100 S Vincent\CC 1.19.10\Resolution CUP.Apprvl.doc Resolution No. • • Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 4 g. In the event that significant safety or aesthetic issues arise due to maintenance or operation of the ATM(s), the Planning Commission may revise existing conditions or impose new conditions. h. Graffiti -resistant coatings shall be used on all walls, fences, sign structures, or similar structures to assist in deterring graffiti. i. Any graffiti that appears on the property during construction shall be cleaned or removed on the same business day. j. The conditional use permit may be revoked, amended and suspended by the Planning Commission under the provisions of Section 26-253 of the West Covina Municipal Code. k. Licenses and permits as required in Chapter 14 of the West Covina Municipal Code shall be obtained prior to the start of the operation of the use. 1. The approved use shall not create a public nuisance as defined under Section 15- 200 of the West Covina Municipal Code. M. The approval of this conditional use permit shall be valid for a period of one year, if not used in accordance with the requirements as outlined in Section 26-253 of the West Covina Municipal Code. n. That any proposed change to the approved site plan, floor plans, or elevations be reviewed by the Planning, Public Works, Fire, and Police Departments, and by the Redevelopment Agency, and that written authorization of the Planning Director shall be obtained prior to implementation. o. The applicant shall meet any and all monitoring or reporting requirements necessary to ensure compliance with the mitigation. measures contained in the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as those may be determined by the City, including, but not limited to, entering into an agreement to perform and/or for monitoring and reporting during project construction and implementation. The applicant further agrees it will cease construction of the project immediately upon written notice of a violation of such requirement and that such a provision may be part of any agreement of City and applicant. P. Comply with the . mitigation measures as outlined in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment dated December 2008 as follows: 1. The project will implement the following. requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403: • Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). • Water active sites at least twice.daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving.) • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle.Code (CVC) Section 23114. • Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 miles per hour (mph) or less. 2. The project will also implement the following additional dust suppression measures in the CEQA.Handbook: All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (including instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour (mph). All streets shall be swept once a day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). ZACase Files\CUP\2008\08-05 Drive Thru ATM.100 S Vincent\CC 1. 19. 10\Resolution CUP.Apprvl.doc Resolution No. • Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 5 • All on -site surfaces to be paved shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered periodically, or chemically stabilized.. • The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. 3. The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 4. The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or diesel -powered equipment in lieu of gasoline -powered engines where feasible. 5. The Construction Contractor shall time the construction activities so as to not interfere with peak -hour traffic and minimize obstruction. of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flagger shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. 6.. The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. 7. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the project plans and specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Department for inclusion of a statement that construction equipment shall be shut off when not in use and not idle for more than 15 minutes. 8. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the project plans and specifications shall. be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Department, for inclusion a statement that queuing of trucks on and off site shall be limited to periods when necessitated by grading or construction activities. 9. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate that building lighting uses energy efficient light bulbs (compact fluorescent or equivalent efficiency) to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. 10. A landscaping plan shall be prepared for the project and reviewed and approved by the City Planning Department as part of the Precise Plan review process. Any required trees required to be replaced and the replacement trees shall be indicated on the landscape plan. 11. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. 12. Prior to commencement of construction activities, a noise control.plan shall be prepared by an' acoustical engineer. The plan shall include: • An inventory of construction equipment used during daytime and nighttime • Estimate projected construction noise levels ZACase Files\CUP\2008\08-05 Drive Thru ATM 100 S Vincent\CC 1.19.10\Resolution CUP.Apprvl.doc Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05 January 19, 2010 - Page 6 • Locations and types of measures that may be needed to meet specified noise limits • Periodic noise monitoring at strategic locations during construction • Alternatives to pile driving shall be considered • Changing of the timing or sequence of the noisiest operations (particularly pile driving), where feasible, to avoid sensitive times of the day including nighttime and/or off-peak construction hours, pending approval by the City • Whenever possible, use of noise control devices such as equipment mufflers, enclosures, and barriers, and stage construction operations away from businesses 13. The project shall comply with the City of West Covina's noise ordinance, as it relates to construction activities and noise abatement. The plan shall be submitted to the City of West Covina . Planning Department for review and approval as part of plan check requirements. 14. As part of the site planning process with the City, Foothill Transit will coordinate with the City to design safety and security components for the parking structure. Other security methods may be considered, including increased security patrols, as deemed appropriate to the City Planning Director and Police Chief. 15. Prior to occupancy of the parking structure, Foothill Transit will work with the City of West Covina to implement operational and design improvements to the South Vincent Avenue/Lakes Drive intersection. Acquisition of additional right-of-way (ROW) will be completed by Foothill Transit and deeded to the City for public street ROW use. 16. Prior to construction of the parking structure, Foothill Transit will work with Caltrans regarding the encroachment permit and. proposed second dedicated access lane to the eastbound I-10 ramp. 6. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Resolution. ZACase Files\CUP\2008\08-05 Drive Thru ATM 100 S Vincent\CC 1.19.10\Resolution CUP.Apprvl.doc Resolution No. • Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05 January 19, 2010 Page 7 ATTEST: APPROVED on this 19th day of January, 2010. Mayor City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF WEST COVINA ) 1, Laurie Carrico, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of January, 2010. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DATE: January 19, 2010 EXPIRATION DATE: January 19, 2011 if not used. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney ZACase Files\CUP\2008\08-05 Drive Thru ATM 100 S Vincent\CC 1.19.10\Resolution CUP.Apprvl.doc PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. E-2 JANUARY 19, 2010 TO: CITY COUNCIL #1 of West Covina Memorandum FROM: JEFF ANDERSON, ACTING CITY PLANNER DATE: JANUARY 19, 2010 SUBJECT: EXHIBITS FOR PROPOSED FOOTHILL TRANSIT PARK -AND -RIDE .4 The following exhibits are attached. A Set of Plans of the Proposed Parking Structure and Related Improvements Colored Rendering of the Proposed Parking Structure A Compact Disc (CD) of the Environmental Documentation for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (If you would like a hard copy of the document, one can be provided) • An Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) from Michael Brandman and Associates An Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis by Fehr and Peers. • Foothills Response (6/24/09) to the Questions Raised by the Planning Commission on January 27, 2009 Z:\MEMOLTRVA\2009\memos\CC.Foothill Exhibits.doe Michael Brandman associates Project Memorandum Bakersfield Date: July 22, 2009 661.334.2755 Fresno To: Roland Co,rdero, Foothill Transit 559.497.0310 Inine From: Kent Norton, Director of Environmental Services 714.508.4100 Subject: MND Addendum for Park -and -Ride Facility him Springs 7G0.322.8847 Sacramento In December 2008, the City of West Covina issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration 916.447.1100 (MND) on behalf of Foothill Transit for a proposed Park -and -Ride (PNR) facility on 2.92 San Bernardino acres at 100 South Vincent Avenue adjacent to the 1-10 Freeway. The PNR facility was 909.884.2255 proposed to be a 6-story structure with 221,400 square feet and 640 parking spaces San Ramon in addition to 78 existing at -grade parking spaces for existing office uses in the 925.830.22733 adjacent building -to the south (including Foothill Transit offices). Of the total 717 parking spaces, approximately 562 would be available for transit riders. The MND circulated for public comment, and a number of comments were received from an adjacent property owner to the east regarding several issues, including aesthetics (loss of view from the freeway) and traffic circulation. The City Planning Commission also expressed concern about traffic impacts of left turn movements from South Vincent Avenue onto Lakes Drive. In response to the various concerns about the project, Foothill Transit has modified the design of the PNR structure in the following ways: 1) height has. been reduced from 6 to 5.5 stories (from 75' 6" to 56' 2"); 2) footprint has been reduced from 221,400 to 217,579 square feet (-1.7%); 3) estimated parking for transit users remains the same (535 spaces); 4) total parking increases from 718 to 742 spaces (+3%) by using slightly narrower spaces; 5) the facade has changed to more resemble an apartment or commercial building typical of the area (see attached renderings); and 6) approximately 2,000 square feet of retail use has been added to the ground floor of the structure to provide services to PNR patrons and help reduce offsite trips: While the MND concluded that the impacts from the original PNR facility were less than significant, these changes will further reduce potential impacts of the. PNR facility related to.aesthetics, traffic, air quality, and noise. The following discussion of potential project impacts follows the same order of issues in sections 3 and 4 in the December 2008 MND document. iBA ENVIRONMENTAL SLRVICLS PLANNING • NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.brandman.com A�T-R Foothill Transit Park -and -Ride Facility Revised Design and MND Addendum Page 2 1. AESTHETICS. The MND concluded impacts to views, light, and glare would be less than significant with implementation of the PNR design as proposed and no mitigation measures were proposed. After public comments, the District has reduced the size of the PNR, both in terms of height and square footage, and changed the proposed fagade will make it appear to be more like a typical apartment or commercial building. With .these changes, potential aesthetic impacts are reduced even further, the .adjacent commercial. center is even more visible from the freeway than with the original PNR design, and aesthetic impacts are stiil considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is proposed. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. The MND concluded there were no impacts to agriculture since the site was currently developed for parking and an office building, and no mitigation measures were proposed'.' The proposed PNR design changes will. not have any effect on impacts related to agricultural resources, so impacts are still less than significant and no mitigation is proposed. 3. AIR QUALITY. The MND indicated short-term impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-8. Construction of a slightly smaller PNR facility will incrementally reduce short-term air pollutant emissions, and impacts would still be less than significant with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures for short-term emissions. The MND also concluded that long-term impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures were proposed. The revised PNR design is not expected to substantially change the anticipated traffic generated by the project, so long-term air pollutant emissions will remain approximately the same as estimated for the "original" PNR. Therefore, the revised project will still have less than significant long- term air quality impacts and no mitigation is proposed for long-term emissions. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. The MND concluded there were no impacts to plants or animals other than songbirds using onsite trees, since the site was currently developed for parking and an office building. The only mitigation measure proposed was submittal of a landscaping plan to the City for review and approval (B-1). The proposed PNR design changes will not have any effect on impacts related to biological resources, so impacts are still less than significant and the same mitigation would apply. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. The MND concluded there were no impacts to cultural resources other than the potential for discovery of human remains,since the site was currently developed. for parking and an office building. The only mitigation measure proposed was C-1 which outlines the procedures in the event human remains are discovered during excavation. The proposed PNR design changes will not have any effect on impacts related to cultural resources, so. impacts are still less than significant and the same mitigation would apply. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. The MND concluded there were no significant impacts related to geology. or soils. The site has already been developed for parking and an office building, and no mitigation measures were proposed. The proposed PNR design changes will not have any effect on impacts related to geology or soils since subsurface excavation is expected to be similar to that proposed for the "original" PNR. Therefore, impacts in this regard are still less than significant and no mitigation is proposed. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. The MND concluded there would be little or no impact of the project on hazards or hazardous materials, and no mitigation measures were proposed. The site has already been developed for parking and an office building. The proposed PNR design changes will not have any effect on impacts related to hazardous materials, fire hazards, or airport activities. Therefore, potential impacts will still be less than significant and no mitigation is proposed. Foothill Transit Park -and -Ride Facility Revised Design and MND Addendum Page 3 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. The MND concluded that construction and operation of the PNR facility would have no .significant impacts on water resources or water quality and no mitigation was proposed. The site has already been developed for parking and an office building, and runoff from the site is collected by storm drains .in local streets. The proposed PNR design changes will incrementally reduce the coverage of the site by the PNR, but the remaining land will still be covered by impervious surface (asphalt parking lot). The proposed PNR changes will not have any effect on water -related impacts, so impacts are still less than significant and no mitigation is proposed. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. The MND concluded there were no significant land use impacts and the PNR facility was generally consistent with surrounding uses, and no mitigation was proposed. After public review, Foothill Transit has proposed. severa I modifications to the .PNR design that will help it be more compatible and consistent with surrounding uses. The proposed retail uses will serve transit patrons only and will not attract any offsite trips. Therefore, land use impacts are still expected to be less than significant and no mitigation is proposed. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. The MND concluded there were no impacts to mineral resources since the site was currently developed for parking and an office building, and no mitigation measures were proposed. The proposed PNR design changes will not have any effect on impacts in this regard, so impacts are still less than significant and no mitigation is proposed. 11. NOISE. The MND concluded there were no significant noise impacts and the PNR facility.. was . generally consistent with surrounding uses, so no mitigation was proposed. After public review, Foothill Transit has proposed several modifications to the PNR design that will reduce it in size and will not substantially change the amount of traffic in or, out of the structure. Construction noise impacts are expected to be similar to those of the 'original" PNR structure. For these reasons, noise impacts are still expected to be less than significant and no mitigation is proposed. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. The MND concluded the PNR would have no impacts on local population or housing due to the type of project being proposed, and no mitigation measures were proposed. The proposed PNR design changes will still have no effect on population or housing, so impacts in this regard are still less than significant and no mitigation is proposed 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. The MND concluded there were no significant impacts related to public services, but that Foothill Transit would coordinate the installation of security devices/systems with the City (PS-1). The proposed PNR design changes will incrementally reduce the size of the facility, but will not have any substantial effect on public service, impacts. The proposed retail use is relatively small and will serve primarily transit patrons. It is not expected to attract any offsite trips since access has been designed to serve customers arriving on foot and no street parking is available along Vincent Avenue, or create any additional safety impacts. Therefore, public service impacts are still considered to be less than significant with implementation of the proposed mitigation measure. 14. RECREATION. The MND concluded there were no impacts to recreational programs or facilities since the site was currently developed for parking and an office building, and no mitigation measures were proposed. The proposed PNR design changes will not have any effect on impacts related to recreation so impacts are still less than significant and no mitigation is proposed. .15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Based on a comprehensive traffic study, the MND concluded the PNR would not create any significant traffic, circulation, or parking impacts and the PNR facility is compatible with surrounding uses in terms of circulation and access. The PNR did propose two mitigation measures to coordinate improvements with the City (TR-1) and Caltrans (TR-2). After public review, Foothill Transit Foothill Transit Park -and -Ride Facility Revised Design and MND Addendum Page 4 has proposed several modifications to the PNR design that will not have a substantial effect on traffic impacts. The revised design has the same number of transit parking spaces but would have slightly more non -transit spaces as the "revised" PNR uses slightly narrower parking spaces in its design. The traffic. study prepared by Fehr '& Peers (F&P) estimated the original PNR project would generate 146 AM peak hour trips and 298 PM peak hour trips. F&P has prepared an addendum to the original traffic analysis which is dated July 20, 2009 (see attached). The'addendum indicates the "revised" PNR project.will generate 141 AM peak hour trips (-3.4%) and 292 PM peak hour trips (-2%), therefore, traffic generated by the revised design is expected to be slightly less than that estimated for the original design. The proposed retail use is minimal (2000 square feet) and is expected to primarily serve transit patrons and not attract any offsite trips. Therefore, traffic -related impacts are still expected. to be less than significant with implementation of the same mitigation. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. The MND. concluded there were no significant impacts to local utility systems from construction or operation of the PNR facility, and no mitigation was proposed. After public review, Foothill Transit has proposed several modifications to the PNR design that will reduce it in size and will incrementally reduce utility impacts of the structure. Therefore, utility impacts are still expected to be less than significant and no mitigation is proposed. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.. The MND concluded that, with implementation of the project as designed and proposed mitigation measures, the anticipated impacts of the project would be less than significant, The proposed changes to the project design will reduce aesthetic impacts by reducing its height (6 to 5.5 _stories), size (square footage), and appearance (different fagade treatment). Since these changes will help reduce potential impacts of the PNR, project impacts are still considered to be less than significant with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. CONCLUSION. The preceding analysis indicates the proposed changes to the PNR design will help reduce its potential environmental impacts, which are still considered to be less than significant with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. The proposed changes do'not constitute significant new information, they do not raise any new significant impacts, nor do they increase the severity of any impacts identified previously in the MND. This analysis also. indicates that none of the mitigation measures recommended for the project as originally proposed need to be modified, nor are any additional measures required. Finally, this analysis demonstrates that the proposed changes do not meet any of the thresholds established in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines regarding preparation of an additional CEQA document or recirculation of an existing CEQA document. For these reasons, this document will serve as an Addendum to the MND dated December 2008 per CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 to identify minor changes in the project description prior to action on the MND by the City. Copies: Jeff Anderson, City of West Covina FFHR & PIERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULIANIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Roland Cordero,Foothill Transit FROM: Netai Basu DATE: July 20, 2009 SUBJECT: Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed REF: 2131-01 Foothill Transit Park & Ride Structure, West Covina, California This memorandum summarizes the results of additional analysis conducted y Fehr&Peersatthe request of the city of West Covina to update traffic impasie Foothill Park & Ride Facility proposed at 100 South Vincent Avenue in West Covina. Following detailed review and discussion, the traffic study for the proposed project (Traffic impact Analysis for the Foothill Transit Park & Ride Project, West Covina, California, September 2008) was accepted have by the City in November 2008. Since that time, certain elements of the proposed project I been modified. describes the original project as analyzed and the currently proposed project This memorandum updated trip generation estimates prepared to facilitate the ongpi,ng, decision - and documents upd making process for the proposed park & ride facility. ANALYZED PROJECT AND CURRENTLY PROPOSED. PROJECT The project as I analyzed in the traffic study was to be a six -level parking structure with approximately 640 1 spaces. Including the surface parking on the site, the total on -site parking supply would have been approximately 717 spaces. Allowing for code -required parking for the *562 spaces of the total supply would have been available for park & ride existing on -site uses, use. Figure 1 pre pro' , presents the site ground -level site plan for the project as i was analyzed in the traffic study. proposed, would construct a five -level parking structure with The project as currently approximately 654 spaces. Including the surface parkingon the site, the total on -site parking supply would be approximately 752 spaces. Updated information is now available on the square footage of the existing uses on the site, taking into account an agreement with the existing bank to provide more parking than is requ ired by the City's municipal code. In addition, the project is now , proposed to include a small area (2,000 square feet) for retail uses incidental to the other on -site xisting on -site uses, as well as for the proposed retail uses. Allowing for required parking for the e .201 Santa Monica Bouievard, Suite 500 Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 458-9916 Fax (310) 394-7663 www.fehrandpeers.com .1 To: Mr. Roland Cordero July 20, 2009 Page 2 space, 536.spaces of the total supply would be available for park & ride use. Figure 2 presents the ground -level plan for the site; including the parking structure as now proposed. Table A presents the revised allocation of the total parking supply on the site for the project. It includes the spaces required by the West Covina Municipal Code (Section 26-582) for the existing uses on the site. The parking allocated to the existing bank use exceeds the code requirement, agreement. The site would include 17. handicapped accessible pursuant to an .existing tenant spaces. As shown, the remaining 536 spaces would be available for park & ride use. The currently proposed project has not altered the proposed site access on the adjoining streets and the location of the internal vehicular access to the proposed parking structure. The existing driveway on Vincent Avenue .would remain as it currently exists, and the existing Lakes Drive driveway would be relocated approximately 110 feet east of its current location, aligning with a commercial driveway on the opposite side of the street. Two-way access to the proposed previously proposed, as would the location of the relocated Parking structure would remain as drive -through ATMs. TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS In the traffic study prepared for the project, locally developed trip generation rates for the park & ride use were used to estimate new trips generated by the project. As shown in Table B, the analyzed project (with 562. park & ride spaces) would have generated 146 new trips in . the morning peak hour and 298 trips in the afternoon peak hour. These trips, related to the proposed park & ride facility, would not be new to the general area but are already being made to their ultimate destinations, either directly or via other park & ride facilities. Following construction of the proposed project, these existing trips, whether they are made by bus, carpool or auto, would be drawn to the site to use the proposed park & ride facility. The currently proposed project would construct fewer park &ride spaces (536 spaces) than the analyzed project. but would also. construct 2,000 square feet of incidental retail space in the parking structure. It is likely that half or more of the patrons of this retail space would be drawn from people already on. the site for other purposes, either bank and office workers and visitors, or park & ride patrons. To provide a conservative analysis, however, this analysis does not make an adjustment for that phenomenon. Instead trip generation rates from Trip Generation, ; `h Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE], 2003) were used to estimate trips associated with that component of the project. The resulting trip generation estimates for the currently proposed project, shown in Table B, are 1,41 new, trips in the morning peak hour and 292 trips in the afternoon peak hour. d site -generated traffic would be slightly lower with As shown in Table B, the change in estimate the current development proposal. Compared to the analyzed project, the currently proposed project would result in a reduction of five trips in the a.m. peak hour (3%) and six trips in the p.m: peak hour (2%).. Because the currently proposed project would generate fewer trips than would the analyzed project, it can be concluded that it would not result in any new traffic impacts that were not identified in the traffic study. The impacts that were identified in the traffic study would be expected to occur with the currently proposed project, though their severity would be slightly decreased, and the traffic mitigation measures identified in the traffic study would effectively mitigate the impacts of the currently proposed project. To: Mr. Roland Cordero July 20, 2009 Page 3 CONCLUSION The trip generation estimates documented in this memorandum demonstrate that the currently proposed park & ride project would generate fewer trips than would the analyzed project, as evaluated in the traffic study reviewed and accepted by the City. for that project. The reduction in on -site parking spaces allocated to the park & ride use would reduce estimated new trip generation for the site, even with a conservative assessment of additional trips associated with incidental on -site retail space included in the currently proposed project. On this basis, it is concluded that the traffic study adequately assesses the potential impact of the currently proposed project. No new traffic impacts would result, and the severity of the impacts that were identified would be slightly 'lessened, though still present. The traffic mitigation measures identified in the traffic study would effectively mitigate the impacts of the currently proposed project. Feel free to contact' us with any questions or comments about the contents of this memorandum. Mill 4'wt _��=jai �'��I�Stq��.���► �' d k 7.t k S fMINI -3 x t tom_ F l �:'.•©��R��®®®®®®������� fp F E H R .&t PEERS SITE PLAN TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS FIGURE 1 Jul 20, 2009 r nfplal �datar Jobs-)Active-2100sr 2131.01 -Foothill TransiUiGraphicsnACg0r Figure 1 and Z.dwg r. . � 0 FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Jul 20, 2009 \\fplol\dolo\Jobs\Active\2100s\2131.01 — Foothill Transit\Graphics\ACAD\Figure 1 and 2.dw9 n01 10 SME CURRENTLY PROPOSED PROJECT SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 • TABLE A SITE PARKING ALLOCATION REVISED PROJECT WITH 5-LEVEL?ARKING STRUCTURE Required Ratio Number of Land Use Size s aces/sf Spaces Parking Requirement Existing On -Site Uses Single Tenant Office (Foothill Transit HQ) 27,333 sf 1 / 300 92 General Office (Investment Firm) 4,194 sf 1 / 300 14 Medical/Dental Office 2,640 sf 1 / 150 18 Bank with Drive -Through 6,833 sf 1 / 250 67 Proposed New On -Site Use General Retail (within proposed parking structure) 2,000 sf 1 / 250 8 Total Parking Code Requirement 199 Parking Spaces Proposed Structure (5 levels) 654 Surface 98 Total Proposed Parking Supply 752 Handicapped Accessible Spaces Provided 17 Total Spaces Available for Park & Ride Use 536.:j Parking code requirement from West Covina Municipal Code Section 26-582. Fractional spaces are rounded up. Parking supply for the bank exceeds code due to an agreement with that tenant. i TABLE B PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES AND ESTIMATES REVISED PROJECT WITH 5-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE TRIP GENERATION RATES Land Use Units 11 A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour % In I%Otl Rate % In % Out Rate Park & Ride Structure General Retail [1 ] per space per 1,000 s.f. 67% 61 % 33% 39% 0.26 1.03 329/. 48% 68% 52% 0.53 3.75 TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Land Use Size A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Analyzed Project Park & Ride Structure 562 spaces 98 48 146 95 203 298 Total Trips - Analyzed Project 98 48 146 95 203 298 Revised Project Park & Ride Structure Retail (within parking structure) [2] 536 spaces 2,000 s.f. 93 1 46 1 139 2 91 4 193 4 284 8 Total Trips - Revised Project 94 4T 141 95 197 292 Reduction in Estimated Trips Percent of Analyzed Project (4) (1) (5) -3% 0 (6) (6) -2% [1 ] Rates for Land Use 820, Trip Generation, 7th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003). [2] To provide a conservative analysis, this calculation assumes that trips.generated by the incidental on -site retail use will be in addition to the other site -generated trips. January 19, 2010 --� •PP No.07-17, CUP No. 08-05, TRP No. 08-05 100 South Vincent Avenue Roland Cordero (Foothill Transit) j Foot -mill Transit WE D P-I r E 100 S. Vincent Ave., Ste. 200. West Covina, CA 91790-2944 ph:626.967.3147 fax:626.915.1143 www.foothilitransit.org June 24, 2009 Mr. Jeff Anderson Acting City Planner City of West Covina 1444 West Garvey Avenue West Covina, CA 91790 RE: Foothill Transit Park -and -Ride Facility Precise Plan No. 07-07, Conditional Use Permit No. 08-05. Tree removal Permit No. 08- 05 Dear Mr. Anderson: Please find below our responses to the questions posed by the Planning Commission at their January 27, 2009 meeting. We are prepared to address these with the Commission at their July 14, 2009 meeting. 1) Information or studies on economic impact on retail businesses in. the vicinity of park and ride facilities. Attachment 1 is a public transportation research study prepared by the National Center for Transportation Research (NCTR), titled "Evaluation of Shared Use Park & Ride Impact on Properties", April 2004. The study documents the economic benefit of shared use park and ride facilities located at retail centers. The research indicates that the park and ride users at the survey sites do indeed shop at.the shopping centers when they park at the park and ride. "Survey results indicate that between 25 to 45 percent of park-n-riders shop at the shopping center on a typical day on their way to or from work. Approximately two-thirds of this shopping activity is either diverted from other shopping locations or in newly induced shopping." 2) Proposed revision to bus routes and bus stops. This information should include existing bus routes/stops and proposed bus routes/stops. :ecutive Board Peggy Delach Presidem Michael De La Torre vase Pneswam Lola wring Trgsavw,, Paula Lantz Merrttrer; Roger Chandler Membm; Executive Director Doran J. Beau Member cities Arcadia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bradbury, Claremont, Covina, Diamond Bar, Duarte, 8 Monte, Glendora, Industry, Irwindale, La Puente, La Verne, Monrovia, Pomona, San Dimas, 5avth 9 Monte, Temple C4 Walnut, West Covina and Los Angeles County A Public Agency • - • Attachment 2 shows Foothill Transit's current and proposed route patterns for Lines 284, 480, 498, and Silver Streak in relation to the proposed West Covina Park & Ride. Included is a description of the effects of the proposed bus route pattern in connection with the traffic flow to and from the park -and -ride. 3) Information on left -turn movements from South Vincent Avenue to Lakes Drive. Concern was expressed that no mitigations were proposed for that movement. Information submitted should explain why no mitigations were required by the Traffic Impact Analysis. Attachment 3 is an Analysis of Improvements prepared by our Transportation Consultants, Fehr & Peers, and May 5, 2009. The memorandum explains how the development of the proposed project, including the recommended traffic mitigation measures, would in fact result in improved operating conditions for the southbound left - turn movement and at the intersection as a whole. Enclosed is the computer traffic simulation and images from the Future without Project and Future with Project scenarios. The recommended mitigations are also addressed in the enclosed analysis. 4) Information on alternative locations considered by Foothill Transit for the park and ride facility. Foothill did express some locations in other cities; the Commission is interested in locations considered in the City of West Covina. Locations cited at the hearing were the Kmart property and the Lakes Office development parking structures. Attachment 4 describes the history and evolution of Foothill Transit's Park -and -Ride project. Since 1990, Foothill Transit has been aggressively looking in the Covina and West Covina area for appropriate locations to build its Park -and -Ride structure We look forward to meeting with you and the Planning Commission next month. Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 626.931.7200 or Roland Cordero, Director of Facilities at 626.931.7246. Doran T,i Executive Attachments Attachment 1 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH STUDY Francis Wambalaba, PhD, AICP Principal Investigator Julie Goodwill Graduate Research Assistant ACT8. . <ffQCUTR Nademl Cani.r for Trinfli RN--M April, 2004 CTR, rdrMCUTR National Center for Transit Research NATIONAL CENTER FOR TRANSIT RESEARCH at the CENTER FOR URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT100 Tampa, FL 33620-5375 (813) 974-3120, SunCom 574-3120, Fax (813) 974-5168 Edward Mierzejewski, P.E., CUTR Director Joel Uolinski, NCTR Director Dennis Hinebaugh, Transit Program Director The contents.of this report reflect the views of the author, who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Research Institute Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. w • TF('NNICAl. R£PART RTANDARa TITI.F PA(-V 1. Report No. FDOT-BC 137, RPWO #49 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. NCTR-527-10 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Evaluation of Shared Use Park & Ride Impact on Aril 2004 6. Performing Organization Code Properties 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Francis Wambalaba, PhD., AICP, and Julie Goodwill. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 16. Work Unit No. National Center for Transportation Research 11. Contract or Grant No - Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida DTRS 98-9-0032 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT 100, Tampa FL 33620- 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address .. - 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of Research and. Special Programs U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.. 20690 Florida Department of Transportation 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 605 Suwannee Street, MS 26, Tallahassee, FL 32399 15. Supplementary Notes Supported by a grant from the Florida Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation 16. Abstract The purpose of this study is to document the economic benefit of shared use park and ride facilities located at retail centers. Transit agencies usually perceive shared use park and ride as mutually beneficial to both the transit agency through savings in land and . development costs and to park and ride providers through an increase in customer base and sales. In contrast, park and ride providers mayhold negative perceptions about shared use park and ride and often feel that allowing a `shared use park and ride on their property will bring problems such as increased' liability, vandalism, and litter, and will occupy spaces that potential shoppers might have used. This study attempts to document whether the presence of a "Shared Use. Park & Ride" has influence on shopping behavior patterns, whether it generates revenues for park and ride providers, and whether it generates ridership for transit service providers. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Shared use park and ride, park Available to the public through the' National and ride Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal, Springfield; VA 22181 ph (703) 487-4650 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified Horm V01' N' 170U.7 (8-69) Acknowledgments This report is prepared.by the National Center for Transit Research through the sponsorship of the Florida Department of Transportation and.the U.S. Department of . Transportation. FDOT Project Team: Jori Ausman, Transit Planning Program Manager, Florida Department of Transportation CUTR Project Team: Principal Investigator: Francis Wambalaba, PhD,.AICP Research Assistant: .Julie Goodwill Principal Authors: Francis'Wambalaba, PhD., AICP, CUTR Julie Goodwill, CUTR Contributors: Kimberlee Gabourel, Center, for Urban Transportation Research Reviewers: Internal: Rob Gregg, Center for Urban Transportation Research Joel Volinski, Center for Urban Transportation Research . Kristine Williams, Center for Urban Transportation. Research External: Barbara Kyung Son; PhD., CAL State University Peter Valk, Transportation Management Services Appreciation is expressed to the following individuals for their helpful comments: Tom Locke, University Mall.. Keith Gregory., Veterans Administration Sheron Abernathy, Hillsborough.Area Regional Transit Susan. Hancock, Manatee County Area Transit Al Tisnes, South Florida Vanpool Jeff Horton, Florida State University Tom Dornfeld, Oaks Mall. Gary Bales, Kmart Stores Sonny Mesnith, Kmart Stores ry EXECUTIVE SUMMARY :...... Table of Contents ........................................................... vi INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY..........................................................1 Background:...........:...................:..............................:...................................1 Methodology... ................................................................................................. 2 StudyDesign .... ......:........................................................:................ 2 ResearchTasks ...... :........................... ............................................... 4 REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PAST CASE STUDIES ... :............................. 5 GeneralFindings ....................... .................................................. .................. 5 Limitations of Shared Use Park & Rides ... ..................................... 7 Similar Other Studies.........:....................................................:..7 Sample Case Studies.:..:...:::....:.............:.........:..............:::.........:................8 Shared Park & Ride Arrangements ................................................:..8 Stakeholder Coordination ......................... ......................9 Similar Past Research Efforts ................. :...................................................11 RESEARCH STUDY:........:...............................................:...................................13 Results/Findings......... ................................................................................13 Travel Characteristics ........................ ;................. ........................... 14 Frequency of Use ....................................................... :........ 14 Parking Yesterday/Previous Game Day ........ :..................... 15 Alternative Trip Choice............................:........................16 Spending Patterns of P&R Users....:..............................................17 Purchases Made Yesterday/Previous Game Day...............17 Induced and Diverted Shipping ................... ......20 Shopping Frequency...., ..::....::..............:...:.....:.......................22 Average Weekly Purchases................................................23 Benefits to Users..................:...:::...:.:.............................................26 Comparative Summary With Previous Studies; ............. ............... ......... 27 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS......::.................:.::.....::....:...:::............:..........28 Recommendations .......................... ................................:.:.........::...:............ 29 APPENDICES.................................................................:.:.............................. 1 . Appendix>1::...........::........:.......:............:....::..:::::.....:.::....:...................31 Appendix2.............. .................................................................... :................ 32 ENDNOTES ...................... G. ..................33 .....................:.......................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY According to the Urban Land Institute, shared use park and ride is defined as park and ride spaces that can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment.' It typically involves property owners allowing commuters to park personal vehicles at their parking lots to access public transit or use a carpool/vanpool to their final destinations. However, benefits of shared use park and ride facilities located at commercial retail centers have not been widely documented. Transit agencies usually perceive shared use park and ride as mutually beneficial to both the transit agency through savings, inland and development costs and to park and ride providers through increases in customer sales and customer base. In contrast, potential shared use park and ride providers often feel that allowing a shared use park and ride on their property may not be cost beneficial and will bring problems such as increased liability, vandalism, and litter, and will occupy spaces that potential shoppers might have used. After an extensive review of literature, it was apparent that very little research has been done in this area since the early 1.980s. This study attempts to document the impacts of shared use park and ride at retail centers by examining the following three research questions: 1. Whether the presence of a "Shared Use Park & Ride" has influence on shopping behavior patterns of users 2. Whether the presence of a "Shared Use Park & Ride" generates retail revenues for shared use park and ride providers 3. Whether the presence of a "Shared Use Park & Ride" generates ridership for transit service providers Research Survey To provide a comparative perspective, this: study design, methodology, and data analysis were modeled after the study, "Park -and -Ride at Shopping Centers:A Quantification of Modal-Shift.and Economic Impacts," by Steven Smith." A survey was. developed to administer to park and ride users to find out their spending habits at.the businesses located nearby. This survey asked questions about frequency of use of the park and ride; reason for parking in the park and ride; alternative mode choices if the park and ride was non-existent; their shopping the previous day; alternative shopping choices if the park and ride had been non-existent; frequency of use of the stores; and amount spent at stores in an average week. An additional question was added that addressed how beneficial the availability of the park and ride has been to participants. Similarly, an adapted version of the survey was created to administer at a park and ride that was used for a special event shuttle service for the football games of a major university. The surveys were conducted at seven shared use park and rides in the following communities throughout Florida: Brandon (Hillsborough County), Tampa, Jacksonville, Ft. Lauderdale, Gainesville; and Miami. Out of the 274 surveys completed and returned, the largest number of surveys came from the park and rides located at two shopping malls: 134 surveys came from the football shuttle park and ride, and 70 surveys came from the mall park and ride operated by a 04' nearby hospital. The remaining five park and ride survey sites, which operated on.a much smaller scale, were combined to provide a total of 76 surveys (hence to be referred to as "smaller park and rides"',). The responses from the football shuttle park and ride were analyzed separately from the rest because they made up such a large proportion of the responses (48.9%), and a slightly different survey form was used. The hospital shuttle was analyzed separately as well because it also made up a significant proportion of the responses (25.6%), and was different than the smaller park and rides, in that users were regular employees commuting to work as well as hospital patients who used the park and. ride less frequently.. The .responses from the remaining five park and ride sites were combined and.analyzed . together because there were a smaller number of respondents at each site, and because they had a similar setup, in which most of the users were employees commuting to work everyday. Research Findings The findings were broken down into three major categories: travel characteristics, spending patterns and user benefits. Travel Characteristics Frequency. of Use: In the case of the smaller park and rides, the vast majority of the respondents (89.7% of 68 respondents) used the park and ride five days a week. In contrast, only. 22.9% of the 70 hospital shuttle respondents used the park and ride five days a week, while 48.66/o used the park and ride less than one to two days a week. The majority of the respondents from the football shuttle,(62.1 % of 123 respondents) indicated that they used the park and ride to get to at least 75% of the six football games, while 22.6% of the respondents indicated that they used the park and ride to get to less than 25% of the football games. Alternate Trip, Choice When survey respondents were asked how they would have gotten; to their destination if the park. and ride had not been there; the most. common response (49.4% of 174 respondents overall) was "would have driven all the way to my destination." Seventy-one percent of the 31 hospital shuttle respondents, 51.2% of the 86 football shuttle respondents, and 35.1 % of "the 57 respondents from the smaller park and rides chose this response. The impact on mode split was that 45%.of the 57 smaller shared use park and ride users were diverted to transit, i.e., 35.1 % would have "driven all the way" and 10.5% would have used "other" means of travel. Similarly, 83% of the 31 respondents were. diverted to the hospital shuttle and 61 % of the 86 respondents to the football shuttle, which also reflects savings on parking and traffic congestion at the . hospital and game venue respectively. vu Spending Patterns In this section (and in respective sections of this report), we will use "shopper" torefer to shared use park and ride users who actually shopped at the site while "park and ride'user" includes both respondents who shopped and those who did not shop at the site. - Purchases Made Yesterday/Previous Game Day: Of those respondents who had parked in the lot the previous day; 39.0% of the 59 smaller park and ride respondents and 38.7% of the 31 hospital shuttle respondents had also shopped there the previous day. Of the football shuttle. respondents who used the park and ride lot on the last game day, 40.9% of the 88 respondents also shopped at the mall that day. The football shuttle park and ride, had the highest average purchase ($25.19 per shopper and $10.11 per park•and ride user), followed by the smaller park and rides ($21.13 per shopper and $8.24 per park and ride user), and the hospital shuttle park and ride ($14.83 per shopper and $5.74 per park . and. ride user). The "shopper" amount refers to the average amount that.a park and ride user actually spent. The "park and ride user" amount includes both park and ride users who shopped and those who did not shop in calculating' the average amount spent. Induced and Diverted Shopping: Those park and ride users who indicated that they. shopped the previous day were then asked what they would have done about obtaining that day's purchases if the park and ride lot had not been there. The purpose of this question was to determine whether any of the shopping was diverted, meaning the respondents would have made their purchases somewhere else if they had not parked there that day;: or' diverted, meaning that the respondents would not have made the. purchases at all if they had not parked there that day. The' results indicate that 42.9% of the 70"respondents were either diverted (22.9%) or induced (20.0%) shoppers, and would not have made purchases at that shopping center if the park and ride lot had not been, there. Shopping Frequency.• Shopping frequency. refers to the number. of times respondents shop at the shopping center in a typical week/football season when using the park and ride, The overall average shopping frequency was 1.55 days per week for the smaller park and rides, 0.76 days per week for the hospital shuttle park and ride, and 1.72 game days per season for. the football shuttle park and ride. The overall percentage of respondents' who made purchases at the shopping center at least once a week when using the park and ride was. 69.1 % of 68 respondents for the smaller park and rides and'44.3% of 70 respondents for the hospital shuttle park and ride. Fifty percent of the 124 football shuttle respondents made purchases at the mall at least once a football.season when using the park and ride. Average Weekly Purchases: The smaller park and rides had a higher average weekly purchase amount ($3,7.79 per shopper and $26.12 per park and ride user) than the hospital shuttle park and ride ($25.06 per shopper and $12.17 per park and ride user), which can be expected since the smaller park and rides have a higher shopping frequency. ,The footballshuttle park and ride had an average purchase amount of $72.09 per shopper and $37.21 per park and ride user in a typical season.. As noted above, the "shopper" amount VM refers to the average amount that a park and ride user actually spent. The "park and ride user" amount includes both park and ride users who shopped and those who. did not shop in calculating the average amount spent. Benefits to Users When asked how beneficial the availability of a park and ride had been to them, overall, 83.5% of the 249 respondents gave a rating of one (very beneficial), 6.8% gave a rating of two, 6.8% gave a rating of three, 2.0% gave a rating of four, and 0.8% gave a rating of five (not beneficial). The football shuttle park and ride had the highest response rating, with 85.7% of the 11,2 respondents giving a rating of one, followed by the smaller park and rides with 83.8% of 68 respondents giving a rating of one, and then by the hospital shuttle with 79.7% of 69 respondents giving a rating of one. Concluding Remarks The research indicates that the park and ride users at the survey sites are indeed shopping at the shopping centers when they park at the park and ride. Sixty nine percent of the 68 respondents from the smaller park and rides shopped at the shopping center at least once a week when using the park and ride, spending a weekly average of $37.79 per shopper. Forty four percent of the 70 respondents from the hospital shuttle park and ride shopped at the shopping center at least once a week when using the park and ride spending a weekly average of $25.06 per shopper. Fifty percent of the 124 respondents from the football shuttle park and ride shopped at least once a football season when using the park and ride, spending an average of $72.09 per shopper each football season. These weekly averages could translate into annual expenditures of $1,965.08 per shopper for the smaller park and rides and $1,303.12 per shopper for the hospital shuttle park and ride. Furthermore, a significant proportion of those users would not have shopped at the retail center if the park and ride lot did not exist. Overall, 42.9% of the 70 shoppers would have either made their purchases elsewhere or not have made the purchases at all if they had not used the park and ride at that shopping center. These results show that the shared use park and rides studied actually did increase the shopping centers' customer base. Implications of these research findings indicate that shopping centers might.benefit if they are willing to allow their properties to be. used for shared use park and ride. It also shows that transit agencies may be able to provide concrete research data to prove to prospective shared use park and ride providers that they will benefit financially through an increased customer base and new revenues. Transit service. providers also may benefit from saved expenditures on park and ride facilities (some agencies invest in making customer -amenity improvements through a land use agreement with. the property owner), increases in ridership, and customer satisfaction for providing more park and rides. Similarly, the local community benefits from access to public transit and mitigation of traffic congestion and efficient use of parking facilities. It is important that similar research be expanded upon and conducted on a larger scale with direct transit agency involvement: This would help identify parameters for an ideal park and ride location, operational considerations and an account of all types of shared use park and ride facilities. While participation of park and ride providers would enhance ix the process'further; full participation by transit agencies would allow surveys to be done at bus stops where park and ride providers are reluctant to allow surveyors on their property. Additionally, an analysis of property owners hesitant to participate in shared park and ride facilities might provide a better understanding of partnership issues and benefits, Further research in other states or at a national level will provide a better comparative picture: x • • INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY The propose of this study is to document certain economic benefits, if any, of shared use park and ride facilities located at commercial retail centers. The perceived benefits and negative impacts of shared use park and ride arrangements have long been a topic of debate. Transit agencies usually perceive shared use park and ride as mutually beneficial to both the transit agency through savings in land and development costs and the shared use park and ride providers through an increase in customer base and sales. In contrast, prospective shared use park and ride providers (such as property owners or managers) tend to hold negative perceptions about providing a shared use park and ride and are usually not enthusiastic about entering into these agreements. They often feel that allowing a shared use park and ride on their property will bring problems such as increased liability, vandalism, and litter, and will occupy spaces that.potential shoppers might have used. Little published research could be found that validated either the positive or negative perceptions held by transit. agencies and shared use park and ride providers. Therefore this study. attempts to document whether the existence of.a shared use park and.ride at a retail center actually increases the customer, base of the retail center and if such a. park and ride increase ridership on the transit system. A number of factors are examined, but the research attempts to answer three main research questions: 1. Whether the presence of a "Shared Use Park & Ride" has influence on shopping behavior patterns of users 2. Whether the presence of.a "Shared. Use Park & Ride" generates revenues for shared use pa&and ride providers 3. Whether the presence of a `.`Shared Use Park & Ride" generates. ridership for transit service providers Background.. In the Guide for the Design of Park -and -Ride Facilities, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials define a shared use, or joint use; park and ride facility as "a parking lot used for a specific activity but also used to accommodate commuter vehicles from the beginning of the morning peak period until the end of the evening peak period.""' Examples of where shared use park and ride facilities are often located .include shopping centers, churches; recreational centers; .professional sports centers and*ive4n movie theaters. Traditional park and ride facilities, on the other hand, are usually parking lots developed and owned by the transit agency or department of transportation, and used solely for the parking of commuter vehicles. Shared use park and ride facilities can be a useful alternative to traditional park and ride facilities for several reasons. First, sharing the use of a private facility can save a considerable amount of money." In some cases the private property owner allows the transit agency to share the parking spaces for free, but even if the transit agency is required to pay leasing and maintenance expenses, it is still much less costly than buying and developing land for a new park and ride lot. Second, shared use park and ride allows for the flexible allocation, of transit service. Transit agencies are not bound to one location if customer demand or bus routes change as they would be if they had built their own park and ride lot. Third, shared use facilities have more activity and traffic during the day than traditional park and ride facilities, providing more security from theft and vandalism. Finally, a shared use park and ride facility can bring an. increased presence in the community for both the transit agency and the private property, whether it is a church or a shopping center or some other type of private facility. Although shared use park and ride has many benefits, there are also a number of. challenges involved inimplementing this type of arrangement. Due to possible negative perceptions and lack of awareness of potential benefits, it is often difficult to find . property owners/managers who are willing to allow their property to be used for a shared . use park and ride. Also, once shared use parking agreements are made, maintaining positive communication between the shared use P&R providers and the transit agencies is a challenge. Other issues that may arise and must be addressed include: maintenance of the site, site design to accommodate transit vehicles and customer amenities, overcoming the perceptions of theft and vandalism, and selling the positive benefits to both parties. . Methodology 1. Study Design To avoid reinventing the wheel as well as providing a base line, the study. design, methodology, and data analysis were modeled after the 1983 study, "Park -and -Ride at Shopping Centers: A Quantification of Modal -Shift and Economic. Impacts," by Steven Smith." The Smith study was chosen because of the breadth and similarity to our questions of interest. As already indicated, the current study attempted to answer three research questions; i.e., whether the presence of a "Shared Use Park & Ride" has influence on shopping behavior patterns of users, whether -it generates revenues for park and fide providers, and whether it generates ridership for transit service providers. To answer these research questions, a survey was developed to administer to park and ride users to find out their spending habits at the businesses located nearby: Like the survey in Smith's study, this survey asked questions about frequency of use of the park and ride; reason.for,parking at the park and ride; alternative mode choices if the park and ride was non-existent; shopping the previous day alternative shopping choices if the park and ride had been non-existent; frequency of use of the stores; and amount spent at stores in an average week. An additional question was added that addressed how beneficial the availability of the park and ride has been to the participant. The survey questions are listed below (see appendix 1. for details): 1) Your primary purpose for using this Park & Ride is to (check all that anplvl 2) How often do you park here? 3) Did you park here yesterday? 4) If the lot had not been here, what would you have done to get to your destination .yesterday? 5) Did you shop at any of the stores here yesterday on your way to or from your destination? 6) If this lot had not been here, what would you have done about obtaining yesterday's purchases? 7) In a typical week, how many times do you shop at these stores when you park here for your trip to your destination? 8) In a typical week, how much do you spend at these stores when you park here for your, trip to your destination? 9) How beneficial has the availability of Park & Ride been to you?. (Please rank). An adapted version of the survey was created to administer at a park and ride that was used for a special' event: shuttle service for the football games of a major university (see appendix.2). Instead of asking questions such as how often the survey participant parked there in a given week and the amount spent in anaverage week, the question was rephrased to ask how often the participant parked there and how much he or she spent in an average football season. This study builds off of a previous National Center for• Transit Research (NCTR) study entitled "Commuter Choice Managers and Parking Managers Coordination:" In this earlier study shared use park and rides throughout Florida were identified, as well as the transit agencies that operated them and the, property managers of the shopping centers where the park and rides were located. During this previous research, park 'and ride providers were asked -for permission to conduct'a future park and ride user survey on their property for this current study. . This park and ride user survey was conducted at seven shared'use park and rides in the following communities throughout Florida: Brandon .(Hillsborough County), Tampa, Jacksonville, Ft. Lauderdale, Gainesville, and Miami. Survey 'sites included two shopping malls,, three shopping centers, and two Kmart shopping plazas. These included big box and strip mall stores with a presence of competing retail, centers. With the exception of the two shopping mall park and rides, the survey was administered at each site between 6:00 and 9:00 a.m. in an attempt to catch park and ride users on their way to work. One of the mall park and ride lots wag' operated exclusively for the staff and patients of a nearby hospital. The hospital operated a shuttle service that ran throughout the day between the mall and the hospital. The survey was administered at this site between 7:00 am. and 2:00 pm. The other mall was used as a park and ride for a shuttle service that transported people back and forth from the mall to football games at a nearby university. This survey was administered for two hours before the game started. 3 The administration of the survey was straightforward. Research staff approached the park and ride users as they departed from their vehicles and headed towards the bus stop. Park and ride users were asked to fill out a brief survey while they waited for the bus. In the event that the bus was pulling up or the rider felt there was not enough time to fill out the survey, they were given the survey with a stamped addressed envelope to mail back. 2. Research Tasks To accomplish this study's objectives, five key tasks were outlined as follows: Task 1: Research Review This. task involved a comprehensive. review of past research into efforts to document benefits of shared use park and ride programs for primary stakeholders (i.e., service providers,"" park and ride providers,""' and park and ride users"). This literature review identified methodologies and findings from past studies to serve as a starting point for the . research and to help avoid "reinventing the wheel" and refine specific gaps and deficiencies in the existing body of knowledge.' The review included an examination of previous research conducted on benefits of park and rides to stakeholders and changing trends in the industry'.". Similar other studies reviewed include arrangements of park and. . ride among individual institutions, shuttle programs and informal park and rides.X Task 2: State of the Practice of Business Benefits Measurement . While the current literature was very scanty, the study identified a few good quantitative surveys such as the article in the 1978 Newsletter of the Office of Highway Planning, entitled"Shopping Centers Make a Profit on Park -and -Ride,""' a 1982 study by the Southern California Rapid Transit District (RTD) titled "Shopping Center Park & Ride User's Survey`. Lines 71.6, 760, 762", "'" and a 1983. study entitled "Park -and -Ride at „ X" Shopping Centers: A Quantification of Modal -Shift and Economic Impacts. Each of., these studies provided key insights and the basis for further study. Task 3: Surveys of Park and Ride Users This task involved the actual survey of park and ride users and was the central goal for this study. The. task involved.gathering information from actual park and ride users using students to intercept them as they leave or depart for the high occupancy vehicle. The research replicated, the Smith study above to survey users regarding influence of park and .rides on park and ride user's shopping habits, potential for revenue generation for shared use park and ride providers,,and potential impact on ridership.fortransit service providers. Task 4 & 5: Analyses.of Findings & Reporting The last two tasks.involved the analysis of findings (task 4) and preparation of the final report (task 5). 4 REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PAST CASE STUDIES In late 1983, the Planning Journal published a special report written by Wilbur Smith, entitled What,'s New in Parking, which explored parking trends, ideas, and solutions. Smith states that, "clearly the need for parking will continue to grow. Parking needs are likely to fluctuate, depending on such variables as the extent to which transit systems are improved, the health of the central business districts, and the state of local economies." The report takes a broad look at parking based on an updated view of current developments in towns and cities, in energy, transportation, economics, environmental problems and more. The author asserts that- it. should come as no surprise to the casual observer of transportation and travel patterns that the private car continues overwhelmingly to be the number one choice of people for all trip purposes. According to the report, the costs of constructingand operating parking facilities of all kinds are . high. Likewise, other- possible barriers.to building parking facilities have included' finding adequate transit service, insufficient:rideshare programs, lack of suitable . incentives, and perceived security concerns. Fortunately, in recent years some land uses and activities have. required less parking. This phenomenon is. due to a combination of a jump in fuel prices, higher car operating costs, higher parking fees, and in some cases government policy. The Wilbur Smith report notes that parking rates are also being`used as tools in favor of HOVs. The study revealed that due to the high costs of parking construction and operations, the emphasis is on mixed -use projects built by the public and private sectors jointly. A shared (or joint) use park and ride involves sharing a private parking lot with commuters, usually provided by shopping centers, churches`and others. While there appears to be a growing need for park and ride facilities, throughout the U.S., review of literature indicates a limited amount of research available on shared use lots and their effectiveness. There is also limited quantitative data to support or refute'the benefits of shared use P&R, including reducing traffic.congestion and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Transit agencies tend to approach potential providers with emphasis on benefits to, the providers including shopping, while. providers.. tend to stress problems like liability and vandalism. -In the Tampa Bay area, one mall'has welcomed the,program while another would not even allow a bus on thepremise at its inception. Without objective research on this topic,, these issues remain inconclusive. 1. General Findings In a report entitled Public Transit Access to Private Property,, similar research focused on. the legal rights of public transit agencies to access private property as well as major concerns of private property owners relating to public transit access.X"" To identify concerns of private. property owners, written surveys were administered to public transit providers and private property owners, developers and managers. Interestingly, the surveys revealed that the perception transit agencies had regarding the concerns of park & ride providers were not the kind of incentives that park and. ride providers desired. In a report conducted for the Urban Land Institute by Barton Associates, in 1983, shared use park and ride is defined as park and ride spaces that can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment." ... The authors note that shared use park and ride only works with developments that meet certain conditions: • When there are variations in the peak accumulation of parked cars, due to the time differences inherent in the activity patterns of adjacent or mixed land uses • When the land uses are so related that people are attracted to two or more of them on a single auto trip to the development or area such as shopping and dining at the same complex The Federal' Highway Administration report, Parking Management Tactics: A Reference Guide Volume Ill also coniributed.to the literature on conditions that must be met for shared use park and ride to be feasible."' These include: • The proposed joint parking facility should be close to each participating land use • The time periods during which each development would use the parking facility should not overlap There should -be a legally enforceable agreement between each participating developer to ensure that the parking facility is built and operated in accordance with local zoning requirements The 1982 Public Technology Inc., USDOT sponsored research The Coordination of Parking with Public Transportation and Ridesharing further enhanced the literature on shared use park and ride." The authors defined shared use park and ride as a strategy that relocates the 'supply of parking from the city center to outlying areas, thus eliminating the need to provide parking in the city. Likewise, the authors noted that automobiles are used primarily for collection in low -density residential areas, while express buses, rapid transit, or shuttle services are used to complete the'trips. Finding appropriate lot locations for this approach is difficult. Consequently, practitioners prefer to use existing parking facilities at churches, community centers, and shopping centers rather than building a new parking facility. This is especially true since the cost of using existing parking lots is cheaper than creating a new park and ride facility, typically ranging from $7,000 to $25,000 per parking space depending on the location and type of.structure. The Federal Highway Administration report, Parking Management Tactics Volume III: A Reference Guide, contributes to the literature with their synopsis of criterion for a successful lease agreement."' .The authors assert that upon approaching the private property owners/managers, the lead -planning agency should have a preliminary policy for reimbursing or sharing some of the costs with the landowners. This would aid in alleviating the idea of adverse impacts to the private property and assuage the . owners/managers fear of incurring additional cost of maintenance, operation, enforcement, insurance and related costs. Limitations of Shared Use Park and Ride The Public Technology Inc. report, The Coordination of Parking with Public Transportation and Ridesharing,"ii asserts that despite the benefits that can arise fi•om the shared use park and ride approach, several factors can diminish its benefits. Consequently, these factors must be analyzed prior to establishment. These include: • Conflict between potential park and ride patrons and other users • Local environmental concerns • Existing traffic and travel hazards Similarly, an.FHWA report noted that use of shared use P&R is intended to lessen duplication of parking supply and optimize.the use of existing and new parking facilities: Yet despite its benefits, this report also identified limitations."". • There are -few instances where no conflicts exist in peak hours of:parking for two or'more uses • - There -should be no long distances between the lot and one or more of the developments • Enforcement of the joint use agreement through a land use covenant might scare off potential participants The study by the Urban Land Institute also asserts that shared use park and ride'has limitations,.""'' In their report; the authors studied the parking space demand characteristic of each component of mixed -use development and then estimated the effects' on demand'that occurred by combining these uses and eliminating duplications. Parking space demand 'characteristics for individual land uses (office, retail, restaurant, cinema, residential, hotel) were established'to represent the inaxirnum parking accumulation occurring on a given day. This relationship was displayed through hourly accumulation curves. 'the peak unit demand; hourly accumulation; and seasonal variation for each of the uses were examined. They concluded that the zoning code `language does not coverall of the uses. Similar Other'Studies - Besides the literature focusing on park and ride arrangements, this study also reviewed literature on issues surrounding public transit access to commercial shopping centers including capital projects arrangements between commercial shopping centers and public transportation providers. Two major sources included a study by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) entitled "Public Transit Access to Private Property"xxv and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) "State Park and :Ride Lot Program Planning Manual.""" The CUTR study entitled "Public Transit Access to Private 7 Property," focused on the legal rights of public transit agencies to access private property as well as major concerns of private property owners relating.to public transit access. . The FDOT study developed a planning manual for State Park & Ride Lots and described the various techniques for involving the private sector in the development and operation of park and ride facilities. The manual catalogs fifteen techniques.. 2. Sample Case Studies Beyond general literature about shared use park and ride arrangements, this study searched for innovativecase studies of shared use park and rides along with previous studies that attempted to document outcomes from shared use park and ride arrangements. Shared Park and Ride Arrangements Shared use park -and ride arrangements can take on many -forms. Transit agencies and park and ride providers can have informal verbal agreements or formal written agreements with each party having varying levels of responsibility for such things as maintenance, clean up, insurance, and installation of amenities and signage. In some . cases transit agencies lease the parking spaces.from park and ride providers, and in other cases the.transit agencies are allowed free use, of the spaces.. The following is a sample of examples from three transit agencies that have taken innovative approaches to shared use park and ride.. In Portland, Oregon, the Tri-Met Park and Ride Policy Report for January 15, 2001 addresses guidelines that the agencyshould utilize in the implementation of park and ride and shared use park and ride.""' The report suggests that despite the .fact .that landowners may seek reimbursement, the.,agency should. utilize one- time operating cost•construction and enhancements or tax breaks and avoid annual . operating. cost in operating shared use park and ride. To, reduce the possibility of negative impacts on landowners, intermingling between park and ride users and non -users should be. discouraged. Annual operating cost can include periodic. or ongoing landscape maintenance, pavement repair, lighting and electricity, maintenance of signs and pavement markings; periodic or ongoing sweeping and,. garbage collection, security, advertising trade or promotions and additional. liability insurance.. Other possible incentives that can be utilized if the total cost does not exceed the one-time operating cost construction include installation of lighting, paving, installation of landscape, slurry seal, additional signage, and pavement. markings. King County. Metro. in the state of Washington has two. different shared use park and ride programs."'"' Their more traditional Leased Park -and -Ride Program leases parking spots, primarily from churches, that are.otherwise unused. during . commuter hours. ,King County provides the signs and the insurance, and the property owner is paid a small sum of money and is responsible for maintaining the lot. This program has been very,successful. Many churches are glad to participate, seeing the program as a way to advertise their presence and give back to the community, as. well as offset some operating expenses. Their newer program, the Shop & Ride Program, partners commuters with 'local retail establishments. Each month, the commuter is required to purchase a small amount of merchandise (predetermined by the retail establishment), and in turn is provided with a parking space to use while commuting by bus, carpool, or vanpool. This arrangement ensures that all those involved (the transit agency, the retail establishment, and,the commuters) benefit. Pace Suburban Bus Service, which serves Chicago's six -county suburban region, takes a different approach to shared use P&R for their. vanpools.""," Pace has made a conscious decision not to be involved in negotiating deals with shopping centers in order to avoid inflated "rental rates" that .would be charged to Pace for use of the spaces. Instead, they have the actual vanpool group itself contact a shopping center as a "regular customer" who already shops there and would like to utilize a few .outlying. parking lot spaces as a meeting space for their vanpool group. This approach has been very successful. Pace has found that, in general, the shopping centers are more than willing to work with "a customer" at no. charge. Pace recommends, however, that its riders do not ,approach regional shopping centers, but rather concentrate on shopping centers that are more "neighborhood -focused," such as.a strip center, Target or Wal-Mart, or even a local grocery store. These types of establishments tend to offer a higher degree of success. Stakeholder Coordination It is important.to note that this current research builds off of an earlier study entitled "Commuter Choice Managers, and Parking Managers Coordination," from the National Center for Transit Research (NCTR) Public Transportation Synthesis Series."' Through feedback from stakeholders and a review of the existing literature, this earlier study investigated the level of coordination between transit agencies and park and ride providers involved in shared use park and ride: an•angements (the current. study takes the earlier research a step further, by surveying the -.actual users of shared use park and ride to determine their spending habits at nearby businesses). In regard to the level of coordination between transit agencies and park and ride providers and their perceptions, the literature revealed three key themes. First, most of the property owners' concerns are related to the physical attributes of the transit vehicles and the potential damage they can cause. Second, maintenance is one of the most important incentives to property managers, and also one of the most frequently offered incentives by transit agencies. Therefore, this should be a focus area when negotiating agreements. Finally, there is need for education among the stakeholders involved in order to lessen some of the misperceptions of transit services and, patrons. 9 In addition to the literature review, the stakeholder coordination study conducted surveys and interviews with the transit service providers and park and ride providers in Florida to solicit feedback about their perceptions and experiences with shared use park and ride, the importance of offering incentives, and lessons learned from such arrangements. Feedback from park and ride providers indicated that major concerns about shared use park and ride include perceived high levels of crime, ridership that was not part of their customer base, and damage to asphalt. The park and ride providers also identified that installation of amenities and concrete pads, maintenance of stops on site, and periodic cleanings were the most important incentives that could be offered by transit agencies. Feedback from transit agencies indicated that park and ride providers were more inclined to cooperate with the transit agencies when assured of more prospective customers.. Also, it was discovered that transit agencies may be reluctant to approach park and ride providers due to fear that they would say no or renege on past agreements. Therefore two key issues appear when studying the coordination between transit agencies and park and ride providers. First, there are differing perceptions among transit agencies and park and ride providers. Traditionally, property managers of retail centers have not been. eager about participating in a shared use park and ride arrangement because of negative perceptions that allowing a park, and ride on their property 'may create potential for criminal activities, lead to increased insurance liability, and take away parking spaces from customers. Conversely, transit agencies tend to view this type of arrangement as having a potential economic benefit to the property managers through an increased customer base and.the transit agencies.themselves through savings in land and development costs, as well as providing customers and the community with the benefit of improved transit service and shopping convenience. The second issue is a lack of communication between stakeholders. Communication is often nonexistent or limited between transit agencies and park and ride providers. To make this problem worse, management and ownership of retail properties has a high turnover mate. " In many cases, transit agencies make an agreement/contract with park and ride providers but are unaware when ownership or management changes later. Park and ride agreements often. "get lost in the cracks" when properties change hands, especially if the agreement was verbal. This predicament is worsened when transit service providers become reluctant to open up communication due to fear of new -management reneging on the contract. In these cases, new management usually -does not know a park and ride exists on the property. E Based on the stakeholder coordination research, the authors drew a number of conclusions. First, private property owners are reluctant to participate due to several negative misperceptions that exist about transit service and transit customers. These misconceptions must be refuted and overcome. Secondly, the most effective approach to solicit private property owners' participation is to appeal to their own self-interest, as opposed to an appeal`to a sense of civic responsibility.. And finally, transit agencies need to address the concerns of the park and ride providers. The authors also recommended using the following guidelines when implementing shared use park and ride: • Provide evidence of potential benefits to park and ride providers in terms of an increased customer and work pool. • Service providers should offer incentives including maintenance, cleaning and insurance. Involve, park and ride providers in the development and design of routing and amenities near and within their properties: • Try to get the 'government to offers incentives through reduction of developer parking requirements if the park and ride providers are willing to participate. • Sign an agreement outlining responsibilities. 3. Similar Past Research Efforts As mentioned before, search of the current literature revealed little information about shared use park and ride at retail'centers. Little has been done to document or quantify the effects' of park and ride facilities'at businesses: However, two quantitative surveys from the early 1980's appear to show financial benefrts'for businesses. The first study, entitled "Shopping.Center Park and Ride Users' Survey: Lines 716, 760, 762," was published in 1982.by the Southern California Rapid Transit District (RTD).x"X' In this study, users were surveyed at park and ride lots located at three shopping centers in the Los Angeles area: Fallbrook Square, Eastland Shopping Center, and Puente Hills .Mall. The survey addressed frequency of use of the park and ride, frequency of use of the shopping center, activities engaged in during last visit to the shopping center, mean amount spent per capita on last visit, type of bus fare paid, frequency of using other RTD bus lines, use of RTD buses on weekends and evenings, demographics of riders, household income, number of cars in household, and home zip code of riders. The study found that RTD park and ride patrons used shopping center services a median of 4.3 times a month and tended to use multiple services while they were there. Shopping was the most frequently cited reason for the last visit to the shopping center (89%), but one third also used.an eating establishment, one tenth used an entertainment facility, and one sixth used other services provided at the shopping center (e.g. bank, dry cleaners, etc). The average amount spent per person on all services used during the last visit to the shopping center was $46.79. 11 The second study, which the current study is trying to replicate, took place in 1983 in Montgomery County, Maryland, and was documented in an article entitled "Park -and-. Ride at Shopping Centers: A Quantification of Modal -Shift and Economic Impacts," published in 1983 by M. Laube and B. Dansker and written by Steven A. Smith.""" The study surveyed users at Montgomery Mall and Wheaton Plaza, which were both designated as fonnal park and rides, and. Aspen Hill Shopping Center, which had an informal agreement. The survey addressed issues of frequency of use of the park and ride; reason for parking in the park and ride; alternative mode choices if the park and ride was non-existent; shopping the previous day; alternative shopping choices if the park and ride had been non-existent; frequency of use of the stores; and amount spent at stores in an average.week. Forty four percent at Aspen Hill, 42% at Montgomery Mall and 25% at Wheaton Plaza indicated that they shopped at the shopping center. While not proven, it was interesting to note that Aspen Hill, where the parking spaces were closer -to, the stores, experienced a higher percentage rate while Wheaton Plaza, whose parking was. further from the stores, experienced a low percentage of patrons. The same pattern, was evident in expenditures. The average purchases were $14.10.at Aspen Hill, $25.26 at, Montgomery Mall. and $16.30 at Wheaton Plaza. Using a proportionate estimation, the study;concluded that the average daily amount spent per P&R user for Aspen Hill was $6.20, $10.61 for Montgomery Mall and $4.08 for Wheaton Plaza. - Furthermore, when asked about alternative shopping choices if the park and ride was non-existent, the majority of the respondents (45% to 61 %) indicated that they would have shopped at a different location, while 12% to 22% indicated that they would not. have made the purchase. The study contends that there can be a significant economic benefit to shopping center operators for allowing commuterparking to occur on their parking, lot. The survey results indicated that between .25%.and 45% of the park and riders shopped at the shopping center, and two thirds of these shoppers were induced or diverted from other shopping locations. Moreover, the presence of parkand ride activity caused an average $5.inerease in sales per park and ride user per day. Thus, as long as there is adequate parking supply for all customers, benefits will be derived by the shopping center operators. Cornmuters will benefit since work and shopping trips are easily linked. L°,kewise,. the public benefits since there is a reduced need for additional parking facilities and reduced vehicle travel. 12 RESEARCH STUDY Currently, several transit service providers rely on their own park and ride facilities_, shared use park and rides; or the state park and ride lots, especially for transit and . rideshare service. However, information in this area, particularly on shared,use park and rides in Florida, appears to be none.existent. The most comprehensive compilation of useful information currently includes a procedures manual for the state park and ride lot program, a regional Park and Ride Lot Plan for FDOT District 7.XX�" and the recent stakeholder coordination study. XxX"' This research strived to quantify the level of benefits relative to costs based on feedback from.commercial area shared use park and.ride users. The results from this study will benefit both transit service providers and park and ride providers by increasing the potential for improving their customer service and customer base, respectively while enhancing their determination of the feasibility for making such arrangements. Results/Findings In all, 274 surveys were completed and returned. The largest number of surveys came from the park and rides located at the two shopping malls: 134 surveys came from the football shuttle park and ride, and 70 surveys came from the mall park and ride. operated by the nearby hospital: The remaining five park and ride survey sites, which operated on a much smaller scale, were combined to provide a total of 70 surveys.. Because of the small sample of park and rides that were willing to participate and because it is unknown how many people: typically use these park and rides on any given day, it cannot be concluded whether or not this data is large enough .to be statistically significant. In order to.avoid an inaccurate representation of the data, 12 of the 274 surveys were left out of the,data analysis in cases_.where the answers were unclear or conflicted with other answers.. For example, instead of answering certain:questions with a numerical answer, such as the.number of times a week they shop at the shopping center when; using the park and ride,, some respondents gave answers such as "a lot": or "sometimes." In. other cases, the respondents gave conflicting responses, such as answering in one question that they shopped at the shopping center an average of 0 times a week, but then answering in the. next question that they spent an average of $25a week at the shopping center. Ten of the 12 surveys left out of the data analysis came from the football shuttle park and ride and the remaining two came from the smaller park and rides. It -is unclear why such a large proportion of the eliminated responses came from the football shuttle park and ride. One possible explanation is that there.were significantly morexespondents at this park and ride, which increases the chances of receiving faulty data.., The survey responses for each question are broken down into three categories determined by survey site type: first, the five smaller park and rides combined together; second, the hospital shuttle park and ride; and third, the football game. shuttle park and ride. The responses from the football shuttle park and ride were analyzed separately from the rest because they made up such a large proportion of the responses (48.9%), and a slightly different survey form was used. The hospital shuttle was analyzed separately as well because it also made up a significant proportion of the responses (25.6%), and was 13 different than the smaller park and rides, in that users were regular employees commuting . to work as well as hospital patients who used the park and ride less frequently. The responses from the remaining five park and ride sites were combined and analyzed together because there were a smaller number of respondents at each site, and because they had a similar set up, in which most of the users were employees commuting to work everyday (hence forth referred to as smaller park and ride)., It should be noted that not all of the respondents answered every question, so the total number of responses to each question will be different. It should also be noted that all of the survey participants used the park and ride to ride transit to their destination. None of the participants parked in the parking lot to catch a carpool or vanpool. Travel Characteristics Frequency of Use Table 1 displays the frequency of use of the park and rides. In the case of the smaller . park and rides, the vast majority of the respondents (89.7% of 68 respondents) used the park.and ride five days a'week. In_ contrast, only 22.9% of the 70 hospital shuttle respondents used the park and ride five days a week, while 48.6% of the 70 respondents used the park and ride less than one to two days a week. One -possible reason the frequency of use is so much lowerforthe hospital shuttle than the smaller park and rides is that a large proportion of the hospital shuttle riders are patients who only use the shuttle to come to doctor appointments, whereas those who use the smaller. park and rides Are more likely to be using the park and ride to commute to work everyday. The majority of the respondents from the football shuttle (62.1% of 123 respondents) indicated that they used the park and ride to get to at least.75% of the six( home football games during the season, while 22.6% respondents indicated that they used the park and ride to get to less than 25% of the football games. When looking at frequency of use of the football shuttle, it is important to note -that a significant number of the respondents were out of state visitors who were fans of the opposing team, and probably only attended one football game each season. Table 1 How often do you park Here? Smaller P&R's Hospital Shuttle Total Frequency No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent a. 5 days/week 61 89.7% 16 22.9% 77 55.8% b. 3-4 days/week . A 5.9% 5 7.1 % 9 6.5% c. 14 days/week 0 0.0% 15 21.4%. 15 10.9% d. less than that 3 4.4% 34 48.6% 37 26.8% Total ,68 70 138 14 • r Football Shuttle Frequency No. Percent a. 75% of games 77 62.1 % b. 50-75% of games 6 4.8% c. 25-50% of games 12 9.7% d..less than 25% .28 22.6% Total 123 Implicit impacts of these findings include increase in transit ridership along with mitigation of traffic congestion and parking problems: at park and ride users' destination sites. Each user of shared use park and ride saves an additional trip on local roads and parking facilities. Parking Yesterday/Previous Game Day Table 2 indicates how many of the respondents parked at the park and ride the previous day, or the.previous game day in the case of the _football shuttle, park and ride. Over 8.6% of the 68 respondents. from the smaller park and rides used the park and ride the previous day, 44.3% of the 70 hospital shuttle respondents.used the park and ride the previous day, and 74.4% of the 121 football shuttle respondents used the park and ride the previous game day. The percentage of hospital shuttle respondents who used the park and.ride the previous day is significantly lower than the percentages from both the smaller park and rides and the football shuttle park and ride. As explained in the previous section, a large proportion of the hospital shuttle riders are patients who only use. the shuttle to come to doctor appointments, thereby making it less likely that they, would have used the shuttle the previous day. Table 2 Did you park here yesterday? Smaller P&R's Hospital Shuttle Total Park here yesterday? No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent a. Yes 59 86:8% 31 44.3% 90 65.2% b. No 9 13.2% 39 55.7% 48 34.8% Total 68 70 138 Football Shuttle Park here. last game?. No. Percent a. Yes 90. 74.4% b. No 31 25.6% Total 121 15 Alternate Trip Choice As detailed in Table 3 and Figure 1 below, when the survey respondents were asked what they would have done to get to their destination the previous day if the park and .ride lot had not existed, the most common response (49.4% of 174 respondents overall) was "would have driven all the way to my destination." Seventy one percent of the 31 hospital shuttle respondents, 51.2% of the 86 football shuttle respondents, and 3 5. 1 % of the 57 respondents from the smaller park and rides chose this response. The second most common response (25.9% of 174 respondents overall) was "would have parked nearby (within walking distance) and caught the same bus," followed by (13.8 % of 174 respondents overall) "would have caught the bus somewhere else." The results indicate that the existence of a park and ride induced a modal shift from automobile, trips to using transit for almost half of the respondents. However, in the case of both the hospital shuttle and the football shuttle, it is probable that lack of other bus stops along the route between the park and ride and the final destination may have influenced riders to perceive that they did not actually have the hypothetical option of catching the same bus somewhere else: This may explain why significantly more respondents from the hospital and footballshuttles than from the smaller park and -rides indicated that they would have driven all the way to their destination if the park and ride lot had not been there. Table 3 If the lot had not been here, what would you have done to get to your destination yesterday? = Smaller P&R's Hospital Shuttle Football Shuttle Total Alternate Trip Choice (would have...) No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent a. parked nearby 17 29.8% 4 12.9% .24 27.9% 45 25.9% b. caught bus elsewhere 14 24.6% 1 3.2% 9 1.0.5% 24 13.8% c. driven all the way 20 35.1% 22 71.0% 44 51.2% 86 .49.4% d. other 6 10.5% 4 12.9% 9 10.5% 19 10.9% Total 57 31 86 174 16 • • Figure 1 Alternate Trip Choice if Lot Had Not Been There (would have...) Parked nearby Caught bus elsewhere Driven all the way Other 10.9% 29.8% .9% ❑Smaller P&R's ❑Hospital Shuttle ElFootball Shuttle OOverall Average 71.0% 0.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 Implicit in these findings is the impact on mode split of 45% of the 57 smaller shared use park and ride users diverted to transit, i.e., 3 5. 1 % would have "driven all the way" and 10.5% would have used "other". Similarly, 83% of the 31 respondents were diverted to the hospital shuttle and 61 % of the 86 respondents to the football shuttle, which also reflects savings on parking and traffic congestion at the hospital and game venue respectively. Spending Patterns of Park and Ride Users Purchases Made YesterdavlPrevious Game Day Table 4 indicates how many of those respondents who parked at the park and ride lot the previous day, or the previous game day in the case of the football shuttle park and ride, also shopped at the adjacent shopping center on the way to or from their destination that day. Responses were proportionately similar across the board. Of those respondents who had parked in the lot the previous day, 39.0% of the 59 smaller park and ride respondents and 38.7% of the 31 hospital shuttle respondents had also shopped there the previous day. Of the football shuttle respondents who used the park and ride lot on the last game day, 40.9% of the 88 respondents also shopped at the mall that day. 17 u CJ Table 4 Did you shop at any of the stores here yesterday on your way to or from your destination? Smaller P&R's Hospital Shuttle Total Shop here yesterday? No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent a. yes 23 39.0% 12 38.76/6 35 38.9% b. no 35 59.3% 19 61.3% 54 60.0% no response 1 1.7% 0 0.0% 1 1.1 % Total 59 31 90 Football Shuttle Shop here last game? No. Percent a. yes 36 40.9% b. no 49 55.7% no response 3 3.4% Total 88 Table 5 and Figure 2 indicate the average amount spent on -purchases the previous day or game day. The average purchase amount is calculated per shopper, as well as per park and ride user that day. The "shopper" refers to the average amount that a park and ride user actually.spent. The "park and ride user" includes both park and ride users who shopped and those who did not shop in calculating the average amount spent. For each category, the sum of all the purchases made was divided by the number of respondents who shopped there that day and then by the total number of respondents who parked at the park and ride that day. The football shuttle park and ride had the highest average purchase ($25.19 per shopper and $10.31 per park and ride user), followed by the smaller park and rides ($21.13 per shopper and $8.24 per park and ride user), and the hospital shuttle park and ride ($14.83 per shopper and $5.74 per park and ride user). Table 5 If yes, about how much did you spend? Smaller P&R's Per Per P&R No. Shopper No. User Avg. Amount Spent Yesterday/ 23 $ 21.13 59 $ 8.24 Last Game Hospital,Shuttle . Per Per P&R No. Shopper No. User 12 $ 14.83 31 $ 5.74 18 • • Total Per Per P&R No. Shopper No. User Avg. Amount Spent Yesterday/ 36 $ 25.19 90 $ 10.31 71 $ 22.13 180 $ 8.83 Last Game Figure 2 Average Amount Spent Yesterday/ Last Gameday Smaller P&R's Hospital Shuttle Football Shuttle Overall Average Football Shuttle Per Per P&R No. Shopper No. User $14.83 - $21. 3 $25.19 .13 Via• - ; - - $ .24 $5.74 Y $10.31 w $ .� 8.83 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 Alternative Analysis 0 Per Shopper El Per P&R User It is important to note that the actual averages for amount spent are probably higher than the calculated averages, because 31 out of the 71 respondents who indicated that they had shopped there yesterday or the previous game day did not indicate how much they spent that day. Because those respondents left that question blank, their individual purchase amounts were computed into the first calculation as $0.00. If those respondents who left the purchase amount blank are left out of the calculation for the average purchase amount, then the average purchase amounts are significantly higher. (See Table 6 below.) With the second calculation the average purchase amount increases from $21.13 to $30.37 per shopper for the smaller park and rides, from $14.83 to $25.43 per shopper for the hospital shuttle park and ride, and from $25.19 to $53.35 per shopper for the football shuttle park and ride. . 19 Table 6 If yes, about how much did you spend? Hospital Football Smaller P&R's Shuttle Shuttle Total Per Per Per Per Shopper Shopper Shopper Shopper Avg. Amount Spent Yesterday/ $ 30.37 $ 25.43 $ 53.35 $ 39.27 Last Game It is not clear why so many of the respondents indicated that they shopped the yesterday or the previous game day, but then left.the purchase amount blank. It is possible that the respondents could not remember, how much they spent that day or that the failure to provide a purchase amount is an indicator that no shopping actually occurred. Another possibility is that the respondents left the purchase amount blank because they were in a hurry and wanted to finish the. survey quickly. In any case, it cannot be assumed that a blank purchase: amount means that no money was spent.At the shopping center that day. Therefore,, a third calculation of the average purchase amount was done by replacing the $0.00'9 of those shoppers Who. left the.purchase amount blank with average purchase amounts from the first calculation. For example, for thesmaller.park and rides group the shoppers who.left yesterday's purchase amount -blank would be counted as -having spent $21.1-3 (the.smaller.park and ride group's average from -the first -calculation) rather than $0.00.. When.using this calculation; the average purchase amourit:per shopper is $27.56 for the smaller park: and rides, $20.18 for the hospital -shuttle park and ride, and $38.43 for the football shuttle park and ride. (See Table-7). Table 7 If yes, about how much did you spend?. - Hospital Football ...Smaller P&R's Shuttle Shuttle Total Per Per Shopper Per -Shopper Per Shopper Shopper. Avg. Amount. Spent Yesterday/ $- 27.56 $ 20.18 , $; 38:43 $ . 31.82 Last Game.. Induced. and Diverted Shopping After indicating whether they made purchases at the shopping center the previous day or game day and the amount spent, the park and ride users were then asked what they would have done about obtaining that day's purchases if the park and ride lot had not been there. The purpose of this question was to determine whether the existence of the park and ride lot actually increased the shopping center's customer base. It is possible that the park and ride users who shopped at the shopping center that day would have made their purchases 20 there regardless of whether or not they had parked in the park and ride lot, in which case the existence of the park and ride lot would not financially benefit the shopping center. Asking this hypothetical question helps establish two things. First, whether the shopping that occurred was diverted, meaning that the survey respondents would have made their purchases somewhere else if they had not parked there that day. And second, whether the shopping was induced, meaning that the survey respondents would not have made the . purchases at all if they had not parked there that:day.. Please note, some of the responses for this question were taken out of the data analysis in cases where the respondents indicated that they did not shop at the shopping center yesterday, but still answered the question of what they would'have done about obtaining that day's purchases if the park and ride lot had not been there."" As detailed in Table 8 and Figure 3, overall the most common response was would have "bought the same things at this location on the way to or from my destination" (34.3% of 70 respondents overall), followed by would have "bought the same things at a different location" (22.9% of 70 respondents overall), would have "not.bought the things" (20.0% of 70 respondents overall), and would have "bought the same things at this location at a different time" (18.6% of 70 respondents overall). (See table below.) However, these results indicate that 42.9% of the 70 respondents were either diverted (22.9%) or induced (20.0%) shoppers, and would not have made purchases at that shopping center if the park and ride lot had not been there. Responses varied quite significantly when looking at each group individually. The smaller park and rides had the highest percentage of respondents who were diverted shoppers (39.1 % of 23 respondents), whereas the hospital shuttle had a highest percentage of induced shoppers (58.3% of 12 respondents). The football shuttle had the highest percentage of respondents who said they would have made their purchases either at the same location at the same time (42.9% of 35 respondents) or at the same location at a different time (20.0% of 35 respondents). Table 8 If this lot had not been here, what would you have done about obtaining yesterday's purchases? Smaller Hospital Football P&R's Shuttle Shuttle Total Alternate Purchase (would have shopped...) No. Percent No. Percent No.: Percent No. Percent a. same location and time 8 34.8% 1 8.3% 15 42.9% 24 34.3% b. same location, different time 4 17.4% 2 16.7% 7 20.0% 13 18.6% c. different location 9 . 39.1 % 2 16.7% 5 14.3% 16 22.9% d. not bought the things 2 8.7% 7 58.3% 5 14.3% 14 20.0% e. other 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 8.6% 3 4.3% Total 23 12 35 70 21 Same location and time Same location, different time Different location Not bought the things Other Figure 3 Alternate Purchase (would have shopped...) 34.8 0 0 42.9% �.�° 20.0°i .s°i° 9.P/o /o .3% - 22.9% 8.3% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% :N IO 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Shopping Frequencv ❑ Smaller P&Ws ❑ Hospital Shuttle Football Shuttle p Overall Average The survey respondents were asked to list the number of times they shop at the shopping center in a typical week/football season when using the park and ride to get to their destination. Table 9 indicates the shopping frequency of the park and ride users. The overall average shopping frequency was 1.55 days per week for the smaller park and rides, 0.76 days per week for the hospital shuttle park and ride, and 1.72 game days per season for the football shuttle park and ride. Table 9 also displays the number range (days per week/season) that the responses fell under. The smaller group of smaller park and rides had significantly higher shopping frequencies than the hospital shuttle. In the smaller park and ride group, 42.6% of the 68 respondents indicated that they shop one to two days a week, and 20.6% indicated that they shop three to four days a week. In the hospital shuttle group, 35.7% of the 70 respondents indicated that they shop one to two days a week, and 8.6% indicated that they shop three to four days a week. The difference can most likely be attributed to the fact that, due to their nature, the smaller park and rides have a much higher frequency of use than the hospital shuttle. As discussed earlier, 89.7% of the 68 respondents from the smaller park and ride group use the park and ride daily, while only 22.9% of the 70 respondents from the hospital shuttle use the park and ride everyday. Of the football shuttle respondents, 21.0% of the 124 respondents shopped one to two game days a season, 12.9% shopped three to four game days a season, and 16.1 % shopped five to six game days a season. 22 0 0 Table 9 In a typical week, how many times do you shop at these stores when you park here for your trap to your destination? Smaller. P&R's Hospital Shuttle Total Frequency of Shopping No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent 5 days/week 4 5.9% 0 0.0% 4 2.9% 3-4 days/week 14 20.6% 6 8.6% 20 14.5% 1-2 days/week 29 42.6% 25 35.7% 54 39.1% less than 1 21 30.9% 39 55.7% 60 43.5% Total 68 70 138 Average 1.55 0.76 1.15 Football Shuttle Frequency. of Shopping No. Percent a. 5-6 game days/season 20 16.1 % b. 3-4 game days/season 16 12.9% c. 14 game days/season 26 21.0% d. 0 game days/season 62 50.0% Total 124 Average 1.72 'The overall percentage of respondents who made purchases at the "shopping center at least once a week when using the park and ride was 69.1 % of 68 respondents for the smaller park and rides and 44.3% of 70 respondents for the hospital shuttle park and ride. Fifty percent of the 124 football shuttle respondents made purchases at the'mall at least once a football season when using the park and ride. Average Weekly Purchases Table 10 and Figure 4 indicate the average amount spent on purchases in a typical week or game season. The average amount is calculated per shopper, as well as per park and ride user. The "shopper" refers to the average amount that a park and ride user actually spent. The "park and ride user" includes both park and ride users who shopped and those who did not shop in calculating the average amount spent. The smaller park and rides had a higher average weekly purchase amount ($37.79 per shopper and $26.12 per park and ride user) than the hospital shuttle park and ride ($25.06 per shopper and $12.17 per park and ride user), which can be expected since the smaller park and rides have a higher shopping frequency. The football shuttle park and ride had an average purchase amount of $72.09 per shopper and $37.21 per park and ride user in a typical season. W 0 • Table 10 In a typical week, how much do you spend at these stores when you park here for your trip to your destination? Smaller P&R's Hospital Shuttle Per Per P&R Per Per P&R No. Shopper No. User No. Shopper No. User Avg. Total Purchase 47 $ 37.79 68 $ 26.12 34 $ 25.06 70 $ 12.17 (each week) Football Shuttle Per Per P&R No. Shopper No. User Avg. Total Purchase 64 $ 72.09 124 $ 37.21 (each season) Smaller P&R's Hospital Shuttle Football Shuttle Figure 4 Average Total Purchases Each Week/ Game Season 37.79 �;. $26.12 .06 °'° $2 $12.1 86 $72.0 $ 7.21 0 Per Shopper 0 Per P&R User $0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 Alternative Analysis Again, it is important to note that the actual averages for the amount spent are probably higher than the calculated averages because several of the respondents who indicated that they shopped at the shopping center each week/game season did not indicate how much they spent. The he purchase amounts for those respondents were computed into the calculation as $0.00. If those respondents who left the purchase amount blank are left out of the calculation, then the average purchase amount increases from $25.06 to $29.38 per shopper for the hospital shuttle park and ride and from $72.09 to $90.47 per shopper for the football shuttle park and ride. The average weekly purchase amount stays the same for the smaller park and rides. (See Table 11.) 24 0 Table 11 In a typical week, how much do you spend at these stores when you park. here for your trip to your destination? Smaller . Hospital. P&R's Shuttle Total Per, Per Shopper Shopper Per Shopper Avg. Total Purchase $ 37.79 $ 29.38 $ 34.58 (each week) Football Shuttle Per Shopper Avg. Total Purchase $ 90.47 (each season) 'Alternatively, the average purchase amount can be calculated by replacing the $0.00's of those shoppers who left the weekly purchase amount blank with the average purchase amounts from the first calculation. For example, for the smaller park and rides group the shoppers who left the weekly purchase amount blank would be counted as having spent $39.40 (the smaller park and ride group's average from the first calculation) rather than $0.00. When using this calculation, the average purchase amount per shopper is $39.40 per week for the smaller park and rides, $28.74 per week for the hospital shuttle park and ride, and $77.67 per season for the football shuttle park and ride. (See Table 12.) Table 12 In a typical week, how much do you spend at these stores when you park here for your trip to your destination? Smaller Hospital P&R's . Shuttle Total Per Per Shopper Shopper Per Shopper Avg. Total Purchase $ 39.40 $ 28.74 $ 34.92 (each week) Football Shuttle Per Shopper Avg. Total Purchase $ 77.67 (each season) 25 Benefits to Users At the end of the survey, respondents were asked to rate how beneficial the availability of the park and ride has been to them on a scale of one to five —one being very beneficial and five being not beneficial. The purpose of this question was to gauge user satisfaction with the parking arrangements and possibly learn about any areas that could be improved. As detailed in Table 13 and Figure 5, the responses were overwhelmingly positive. Overall, 83.5% of the 249 respondents gave a rating of one (very beneficial), 6.8% gave a rating of two, 6.8% gave a rating of three, 2.0% gave a rating of four, and 0.8% gave a rating of five (not beneficial). The football shuttle park and ride had the highest response rating, with 85.7% of the 112 respondents giving a rating of one, followed by the smaller park and rides, and then by the hospital shuttle. Table 13 How beneficial has the availability of Park & Ride been to.you7 Smaller P&R's Hospital Shuttle Football Shuttle Total How beneficial? No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent -a. 1 (very beneficial) 57 83.8% - 55 79.7% 96 85.7% 208 83.5% b. 2 4 5..9% 5 : 7.2% 8 7.1 % 17 6.8% c. 3 (beneficial) 5 7.4% 6 8.7% 6 5.4% 17 6.8% d. 4 1 1.5% . 2 2.9% 2 1:8% 5 2.0% e. 5 (not beneficial) . 1 1.5% 1 1.4% . 0. 0.0% 2 0.8% Total 68 69 112 249 . 26 (very beneficial) I 2 (beneficial) 3 4 (not beneficiaq.5/° Figure 5 How Beneficial Has the Park and Ride Been? 79.7% 85 :. 5. % 2% 7 71% s. % 7% /o 5;'-�74 % 1.25% .9% 1.8% ij 2.0% 1.5% 1.4% En- 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% Comparative Summary With Previous Studies O Smaller P&R's O Hospital Shuttle El Football Shuttle DOverall Average The table below shows some of the common elements between the findings from this study and the previous studies in Maryland and California discussed in literature review. While different from one another, they all show evidence of use of shared park and ride, of mode shift (resulting from use of park and ride), diverted shopping, and expenditures made at these and nearby retail facilities. Table 14 Location/Activity Florida Study 2003 MD 1982 CA 1982 Games Hospital Smaller Total P&Rs (univei hied) Parked 5 times per 62% 22% 906/o 55% 65% week - % Shopped 40% 38% 39% 38% 24- 4/month 40% % Diverted 14% 16% 39% 23% 67% Shopping % Induced 14% 5801/10 9% 20% 12% Shopping Recent Expenditure $25 $14 $21 $22 $18.55 $46.79 27 0 0 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS The purpose of this research was to document the economic benefit of shared use park and ride facilities located at retail centers. The research attempted to answer three main research questions. First; does the presence of a "Shared Use Park & Ride" have influence on shopping behavior patterns. of users? Secondly, does the presence .of a "Shared Use Park & Ride'." generate" revenues,forshared;use park and ride providers? And finally, does the presence of a "Shared Use Park & Ride" generate ridership for transit service providers? Further comparative review with other previous studies similarly reveals the potential for increase in customer base as well as sales revenues. The research indicates that the park and ride users at the survey sites are indeed shopping at the shopping centers when they park at the park and ride. As discussed earlier, 69.1 % of the 68 .respondents from the smaller park and rides shopped at the 'shopping center at least once a week when using the park and ride, spending a weekly average of $31.79 per shopper. Forty four percent of the 70 respondents from the hospital shuttle park and ride shopped at the shopping center at least once week when using the park and ride, spending a weekly average of $25.06 per shopper. Fifty percent of the 124 respondents from the football shuttle park and ride shopped at least once a football season when using the park and ride, spending an average of $72.09 per shopper each football season. Looking at the bigger picture, these weekly averages could translate into annual expenditures of $1,965.08 per shopper for the smaller park.and rides and $1,303.I2 per shopper for the hospital .shuttle park and ride. Furthermore, a significant proportion of those users would not .have -shopped at the retail center if the park and ride lot did not exist. Overall, 42.9% of the 70: shoppers would have either made their purchases. elsewhere or not have made. the purchases at all if they had not used the park and ride at that shopping center. These results. show that the, shared use park and rides studied actually did increase the -shopping centers' customer base. While a direct comparison is not possible. without consideration. of local conditions, available transit services, the type of arrangements and the periods of the study, these findings.mirror the Smith study in a number of ways. These include parking 5 times a week (55% versus 65%), percent of users who shopped (38% versus 40%), and amount of recent expenditures ($22 versus $18.55) between this study and Smith's study respectively. Noticeable differences included. diverted shoppers (23% versus 67%) and induced shoppers (20% versus 12%) between this study and Smith's study respectively. Several factors. can affect the comparison -even within.a specific study. As seen in this study, there are several factors that can affect the shopping frequency of shared use park and.ride users. The type of park and ride service provided (e.g., operated daily or used only `for special events) can deterYnine how often people can use the park and ride, which in turn affects shopping frequency. The demographics of the park and ride users themselves also affects how often they will shop. As seen in the case of the hospital shuttle, many of the park and ride users were patients of the hospital and only used the. park and:rideoccasionally to get to medical appointments. The hospital shuttle's average shopping frequency was much lower than that of the more traditional park and rides, in 28 which the users were employees commuting to work everyday. Although not examined in this research, a number of other factors can play a role in how much park and ride patrons use the adjacent shopping facilities, such as the mix of retail shops available at the shopping center where shared use park and ride is located, the distance between park . and ride spaces and business entrances, and the condition of the pathways from the park and ride to the shopping area. Another major finding was that the presence of park and ride lots, did have an impact on modal choice. Almost half of all of the survey respondents reported that they would have driven their- cars all the way to their destination if the park and ride lot had not been there. This significant modal shift from automobile trips to using transit indicates that the presence of a shared use park and ride does generate ridership for transit service providers. Implications of these research findings indicate that shopping centers might benefit if they are willing to allow their properties to be used for shared use park and ride. It also shows that transit agencies may be able to provide concrete research data to prove to prospective shared use park and ride providers that they will benefit financially through an increased customer base and new revenues. Other implicit impacts include relief on local traffic congestion and decrease on demand for parking at destination sites. Consequently, there is potential for secondary effects on vehicle miles traveled, environmental impacts and other transportation.related costs such as road maintenance, accidents, etc.. Recommendations: It is recommended that similar research be expanded upon and conducted on a larger scale with direct transit agency involvernent. This would help identify parameters for an ideal park and ride location, operational considerations and an account of all types of shared use park and ride facilities. While participation of park and ride providers would enhance the process further, full participation by transit agencies would allow surveys to be done at bus stops where park and ride providers are reluctant to allow surveyors on their property. Additionally, an analysis of property owners hesitant to participate in shared park and ride facilities might provide a better understanding of partnership issues and benefits. Further research in other states or at a national level will provide a better comparative picture. Future research should also explore the shopping centers' point of view, in terms of how much profit they hope to make from this type of arrangement in order to make it worthwhile for them (e.g., a spending ratio that includes the number of shared parking spaces being utilized as well as the number of hours the spaces are in use each week). It is important to consider what level of spending per park and ride user is meaningful to prospective park and ride providers. Another issue to look into is, whether the shared parking spaces would stay vacant if there was no shared park and ride. If the shared use park and ride would actually take up spaces needed by customers, then factors such as 29 how often those customers come to the shopping center and how much they spend (in comparison to how much the park and ride users would spend) should also be considered when determining if a shared use park and ride arrangement would be economically beneficial to the shopping center. 30 11 • APPENDICES Appendix 1 1) Your primary purpose for using this Park & Ride is to: Check all that Apply Walk to my destination Bike to my destination Carpool to my destination Vanpool to my destination Ride transit to my destination Other 2) How often do you park here? a). Usually 5 days a week b) 3-4 days a week c) 1-2 days a week d) Less than that .3) Did you park here yesterday? a) Yes b) No (If.no, skip to question.7) 4) If the lot had' not been here, what would you have done to get to your destination yesterday? a) Would have parked nearby (within walkingdistance) and caught'the same bus or car- pool b) Would have caught the bus or met the car-pool somewhere else' c) Would have driven all the way to my destination d) .Other 5) Did you shop 'at any of the stores here yesterday on your way to or from your destination? a),Yes b) No (If no, skip to question 7) c) If yes, about how much did you spend? $ 6) If this lot had not been here, what would you have done about obtaining yesterday's purchases? a) Bought the same things at this location on the way to or from my destination b) Bought the same things at this location at a different time (list probable day and time as best you can) c) Bought the same things at a different, location (list probable day and time as best you can) d) Not -bought the things e) Other 7) In a typical week, how many times do you shop at these stores when you park here for your trip to your destination? 8) In a typical week, how much do, you spend at these stores when you park here for your trip to your destination? $ 9) How beneficial has the availability of Park & Ride been to you? (Please rank). Very beneficial H Beneficial H Not beneficial 1 2 3 4 5 31 Appendix 2 The modified survey questions are listed below: 1) Your primary purpose for using this Park & Ride is to: Check all that Apply Walk to my destination Bike to my destination Carpool to my destination Vanpool to my destination Ride transit (shuttle) to my destination Other 2) How often do you park here? a) More than 75% of the game days b) 50-75% of the game days c) 25-50% of the game days d) Less than 25 percent of the game days 3) Did you park here for the most recent game? a) Yes b) No (If no, skip to question 7) 4) If the lot had not been here, what would you have: done to get to your destination on that day? a) Would have parked nearby (within walking distance) and caught the same bus or car- pool b) Would have caught the bus ormet the car-pool somewhere else c) Would have driven all the way to my destination d) Other 5) Did you shop at any of the stores here on that day on your way to or from your destination? a) Yes b) No (If no, skip to question 7) c) If yes, about how much did you spend? $ 6) If this lot had not been here, what would you have done about obtaining that day's purchases? a) Bought -the same things at this location on the way to or from my destination b) Bought the same things at this location at a different time (list probable day and time as best you can) c) Bought the same things at a different location (list probable day and time as best you can) d) Not bought the things e) Other 7) In a typical game season, how many times do you shop at these stores when you park here for your trip to your destination? 8) In a typical garne season, how much do you spend at these stores when you park here .,for your trip to your destination? $ 9) How beneficial has the availability of Park & Ride been to you? (Please rank). Very beneficial H Beneficial H Not beneficial 1 2 3 4 5 32. ENDNOTES Barton-Aschman Associates Inc. "Shared Parking Demand for Selected Land Uses." Urban Land, September 1983 " Smith, Steven. "Park and Ride at Shopping centers: A Quantification of Modal -Shift and Economic impacts." Transportation Research Record 908, 1983. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Design of Park -and - Ride Facilities. Washington, D.C., 1992. Public Technology, Inc. "The Coordination of Parking With Public Transportation and Ridesharing." U.S. Department of Transportation; Washington;, D.C., 1982. " Smith, Steven. "Park and Ride at Shopping centers: A Quantification of Modal -Shift and Economic impacts." Transportation Research Record 908, 1983. Wambalaba, F., Gabourel, K., and Goodwill, J.,.C.ommuter Choice. Managers and Parking Managers Coordination, National Center for Transit Research (NCTR) project, Contract No. BC 137, RPWO #38, Public Transportation Synthesis Series, Fall 2002. `"Trout, N.D. and Ulman, G.L. Special Event Park -arid -Ride Shuttle Bus Success Stoly, ITE Journal:.38- 43, 1997. Frederic R. Harris, Inc. State Park & Ride Lot Program. Florida Department of Transportation, 1989. Foote, P.J. Chicago Transit Authority Weekday Park -and Ride Users: Choice Market with Ridership Growth Potential. Transportation Research Record: No. 1735, 158-168, 2000. Allen, W.G:, Modeling Carpool and Transit Park-And=RideLots..'Sixth TRB Conference on the Application of Transportation Planning Methods, 1997. . Spillar, R. Smart Parks: The Neat Generation in Park -and Ride -Facilities. National Parking Association: 30-31,1999. ".Turnbull, K. Efrective Use of Park -and Ride Facilities. NCHRP Synthesis,:1995. Shopping Centers Make a Profit on Park -and -Ride, Newsletter, Office of Highway Planning, FHWA; Issue No. 5, Sept. 1978: Southern California Rapid Transit District. "Shopping Center Park and Ride Users' Survey: Line 716, 760, 762." Los Angeles, California; July 1982. Dansker; B. and M. Laube, Park -and -Ride at Shopping Centers: A Quantification of Modal -Shift and EconomicImpacts: Transportation Research Record: No. 908, 1983, 27-31. Smith, Wilbur. "What's New in Parking." Planning, 1983. Hinebaugh, D., Land, L. and Staes, L. Public Transit Access to Private Property. Center for Urban Transportation Research, 2000. 33 Barton-Aschman Associates Inc. "Shared Parking Demand for Selected Land Uses." Urbarr Land,, September 1983 Federal Highway Administration. Parking Management Tactics Volume III A Reference Guide. Washington D.C:. Federal Highway Administration, 1981. Public Technology Inc. "The Coordination of Parking with Public Transportation and Ridesharing." Urban Consortium Information Bulletin, June 1982. Federal Highway Administration. Parking Management Tactics Volume III: 'A Reference Guide. Washington D.C% Federal Highway Administration, 1981. Public Technology Inc. "The Coordination of Parking with Public Transportation and Ridesharing." Urban. Consortium Information Bulletin, June 1982. " Federal Highway Administration. Parking Management Tactics Volume III: A Reference Guide. Washington D.C:. Federal Highway Administration, 1981. Barton-Aschman Associates Inc. "Shared Parking Demand for Selected Land Uses." Urban Land, September 1983. Hinebaugh, D:, Land', L' . and Staes, L. Public Transit_Access to Private Pi operty. Center for Urban Transportation Research, 2000. Frederick R. Harris, Inc. State Park & Ride Lot Program Planning Manual. Florida Department of Transportation, 1989. Tri-Met internal, policy document Robin Anderson, Transit Planner, King County Department of Transportation, email correspondence, 6/17/03. "'x Barbara Ladder, Pace Suburban, Bus Service, email correspondence, 6/10/03. ... Wambalaba, F., Gabourel, K., and Goodwill, J., Commuter Choice Managers and Parking Managers Coordination, National Center, for Transit Research (NCTR) project, Contract No. BC 137, RPWO #38, Public Transportation Synthesis Series, Fall 2002. Southern California Rapid Transit District. "Shopping Center Park and Ride Users' Survey: Line 716, 760, 762." Los Angeles, California, July 1982. Smith, Steven. "Park and Ride at Shopping centers: A Quantification of Modal -Shift and Economic impacts." Transportation.Research Record 908, 1983. ICF Kaiser Engineers and Moore/Bowers. Regional Park and Ride Lot Plair. Florida Department of Transportation District Seven, 1994. xxxiv Wambalaba, F., Gabourel, K., and Goodwill, J., Commuter Choice Managers and Parking Managers Coordination; National Center for Transit Research (NCTR) project, Contract No. BC 137, RPWO #38, Public Transportation Synthesis Series, Fall 2002. 34 TRIS Online: PARK -AND -RIDE AT SHOPPING CENTERS: A QUANTIFICATION 0... Page 1 of 1 TRIS Online Record Title: PARK -AND -RIDE AT SHOPPING CENTERS: A QUANTIFICATION OF MODAL -SHIFT AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS Accession No: 00380176 Authors: • SMITH, S A Journal Title: . Transportation Research Record No. 908 Publisher: Transportation Research Board ISSN: 0361-1981 Corp. Authors • Transportation Research Board / Publisher: http__[/trb,o.r.g 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 USA Publication Date:' 19830000 Description: Abstract: Supplemental Information: TRT Terms Other Terms: Subject Areas: Availability: TRIS Files: Database: p. 27-31; References(1); Tables(1) The purpose of this research was to quantify the effects of park -and -ride facilities at shopping centers on commuter travel and shopping behavior. A survey of commuters at three shopping centers in Montgomery County, Maryland, was conducted to estimate these impacts. The analysis demonstrated that there can be a significant economic benefit to. shopping -center operators for allowing commuter parking to occur on their parking lot. Survey results indicate that between 25 and 45 percent of park -and -riders shop at the shopping center on a typical day on their way to or from work. Approximately two-thirds of this shopping activity is either diverted from other shopping locations or in newly induced shopping. For the shopping centers surveyed, the average increase in sales due to the presence of park -and -ride activity is $5/park-and-day. Also,.the presence of the park -and - ride facility, in itself, is responsible for 10-30 percent of the park -and -riders choosing to use transit or form a carpool. This paper appeared in Transportation Research Record No. 908, Transit Terminal Facilities and Urban Rail Planning. Carpools; Commuters; Fringe parking; Public transit; Ridership; Shopping; Shopping centers Park and ride systems;. Patronage U31 CONVENTIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES; H12 PLANNING; I72 Traffic and Transport Planning • Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 USA Order Document: http._//n_ationa.lacadem.ie..s,_org/trb...[.publications/..tris/out_of p.ri_n_,t_html. Order Number: DOTL JC • Find a library where document is available Order Document: http..;/[world_.c...at,_o.rg/ssn./03_.6..1„198_l.: UMTRIS; HRIS TRIS Online http://ntlsearch.bts.gov/tris/record/tris/003.80176.html?vie printable 6/24/2009 • • Attachment 2 EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE Bus transit lines operated by Foothill Transit currently serve the, bus stops on Vincent Avenue just south of Lakes Avenue. A major transit center is located west of the project site. The transit routes serving the project area are described below: • Line 272 — Line.272 connects Duarte and Baldwin Park with West Covina. Terminating at the transit center along West Covina Parkway. Buses operate on one -hour headways on .weekdays and weekend days. Average daily patronage of this line at the stops nearest to the project site is approximately 10 passengers (boardings plus alightings) per weekday and per weekend day. • Line 284 —,Line 284 connects San Dimas and Glendora with West Covina, terminating at the transit center along West Covina Parkway. Buses generally operate at 60-minute intervals on both weekdays and weekend days. Average daily patronage of this line at the stops nearest to the project site is approximately 50 passengers(boardings plus alightings) per weekday and per weekend day. • Line 480 — Line 480 connects Montclair and Pomona.with West Covina, terminating at the transit center along West Covina Parkway. Buses generally operate at 30-minute. intervals on both weekdays and weekend days. Average daily patronage. of this line at the stops nearest to the. project site is approximately 140 passengers (boardings plus alightings) per weekday and approximately 50 passengers per weekend day. Silver Streak — The Silver Streak is a long-distance trunk line that runs from Montclair to downtown Los Angeles generally along the San Bernardino Freeway. The line departs the freeway and circulates around the Plaza at West Covina. Buses generally operate on headways of 10 - 15 minutes on weekdays and 20 30 minutes weekend days. Average daily patronage of this line at the stops nearest to the project site is approximately 100 passengers (boardings plus alightings) per weekday and approximately 80 passengers per weekend day. • Line 498 —Line 498 offers long-distance commuter service from Azusa to downtown. Los Angeles generally along Grand Avenue and the San Bernardino Freeway. This line will be modified to serve the proposed park and ride facility. Eastbound service would utilize the . new bus stop adjacent to the site that is proposed as. part of the project (offered in the p.m. peak period only); westbound service (offered in the a.m. peak period only) would utilize a new bus stop on the north side of Lakes Drive adjacent to the site. Buses generally operate on headways of 5 10 minutes on weekdays only. Average daily patronage of this line at the stops nearest to the project site is approximately 150 passengers (boardings plus alightings) per weekday. Following completion of the proposed park ride facility, patronage of this line is expected to increase and much of the passenger activity occurring at the existing park & ride facilities at West Covina City Hall is expected to shift to the project site. 5 N U V l�l SAN BERNARDINO FWY "! West Covina Park & Ride Future Site ( Foothill f Transit Offices /� . Lakes DC, f 4a i Elephant Bar Restaurant E wa/nUtcr A� Z\N 00Foo'transit Park . Ri3de Current 0 MCaFOGYHILL :AWISM Glendora Square s� Wickes Furniture Rt. 284 - .. Rt. 480 Rt. 498 Silver Streak ®1 Rt. 284 Rt. 480 Rt. 498 Silver ` ' t Streak Baja ; 4 Fresh , v West Covina Park & Ride n Future Site . o The Plaza ai West Covina Bank of America (� { t Foothill Tranit Offices eak Westbound Plaza Dr. j Silver Str Silver Streak Lakes Dr. ?'+ Easbound Rt.284Yt �c Rt.284 Southbound I j�� NI.%F�\ Northbound Elephant Applebee's Rt, Restaurant R.48o �r«.urr Restaurant Westbound) `Eastbound Bar Restaurant Foothill Transit west Coyphis Park & Rg"de N Foothill Transit west Coyphis Park & Rg"de N N A SAN BERNARDINO FWY ------------------ Ci 'Baja: j a, co Fresh The Plaza at Bank f' West Covina Amerio% 11 P/ aZa Dr. Applebee's. Restaurart: IN Foothill Tr6nslit Govins Par k (MI'll, R i d" a Proposed t West � Covina Park ' & Ride Foothlll Transit -Pffices L esID1. Elephant Bar Restaurant E IF. Wickes Furniture Glendora Square Rt. 284 Rt. 480 Rt. 498 Eastbound Rt. 498 Westbound Silver Streak u �— Rt.284 Rt. 480 Rt.498 Eastbound Westbound Silver Streak < Ili l' 41 � i West , Covina Fresh Park & Ride CONNECTIONSTO: A Silver Strea Easbound k Rt.480 Eastbound -The, Piaigi-at,- ,` Rt. 498 Essibound West Covina. o Bank of lidl' I America i �, 16 I� I Foothill Transit Offices Rt.498 Westbound Plaza Dr. I ,` • Lakes Di Rt.480Westbound`�i' saver Streak Westbound ill ty Elephant N e p 6 Appiebee's ,i ,'-, rl; Bar Restaurant Restaurant Attachment 3 FE1-1R & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM Date: May 5, 2009 To: Jeff Anderson, City of West Covina CC: Roland Cordero, Foothill Transit From: Netai Basu & Jill Liu Subject: Analysis of Improvements at Vincent Avenue & Lakes'Drive/Plaza Drive Foothill Transit Park & Ride Structure West Covina, California SM09-2131.01 This memorandum presents additional information developed to address an issue raised by the West Covina Planning Commission at the January 24 hearing on the proposed Foothill Transit Park & Ride. project (project), located at 100 S. Vincent Avenue. Among the issues raised by the Commission at the hearing was the concern that the recommended traffic mitigation measure for the identified traffic impact (in the PM peak hour only) at the intersection of Vincent Avenue & Lakes Drive/Plaza Drive would not .,improve the ability of drivers to make the southbound left -turn movement from Vincent Avenue onto eastbound Lakes Drive. This memorandum explains how, the development of the proposed project, including .the recommended traffic mitigation measures, would in fact result in improved operating conditions for the southbound left -turn movement and at the intersection as a whole: A traffic impact study was prepared for this project (Traffic Impact Analysis for the Foothill Transit Park & Ride Project [Fehr & Peers, September 2008]) according to the City's standard methodology. Extensive coordination with City staff occurred during the preparation of the traffic study, and it was accepted in November 2008. The analysis in the traffic study identified significant PM peak hour traffic impacts at one intersection (Vincent Avenue & Lakes Drive/Plaza Drive) and at the on -ramp to the eastbound San Bernardino Freeway (1-10). For each impact, the feasible mitigation measures described below were developed and accepted by City staff. The traffic study shows that, according to the thresholds of . significance used by the City, the significant impacts that were identified would be fully mitigated; that is, while the addition of project -related traffic would significantly impact these locations, implementation of the recommended physical improvements would reduce those impacts. to less -than -significant levels by increasing the capacity and improving the operation of each location. • The recommended mitigation measure at the intersection of Vincent Avenue & Lakes Drive/Plaza Drive is to widen and reconfigure the northbound approach on Vincent Avenue to add a dedicated right -turn lane, resulting in two left -turn lanes, three through lanes and one right -turn lane. Foothill Transit will acquire the right-of-way necessary to widen Vincent Avenue and deed it to the City. Given the existing intersection and street configuration and the proximity, of adjacent land uses, this appears to be the only physical improvement that is feasible. • The recommended mitigation measure at the 1-10 Freeway on -ramp is to widen northbound Vincent Avenue into the project site to provide additional storage for vehicles approaching the on- 201 Santa Monica Blvd., #500, Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 458-9916 Fax (310) 394-7663 www.fehrandpeers.com Mr. Jeff Anderson May 5, 2009 fp Page FFiIIt & Pi�F.i S TNANSPONIATION, CONSULTANTS ramp, which will widen the existing roadway there from the existing single through lane, single shared through/freeway-only lane and single freeway -only lane to two through lanes. and two freeway -only lanes. This will allow northbound through traffic to proceed with less interference from queued cars waiting to enter the freeway at this location. During the design phase of the project, it was recognized that traffic flow on Lakes . Drive could be improved by relocating the existing site driveway on Lakes Drive farther east. This is because the westbound left -turn lane on Lakes Drive at Vincent Avenue extends nearly to the existing site driveway, allowing space for only one or two cars to queue in.the two-way left -turn lane on Lakes Drive. At peak times under existing conditions, this is insufficient to accommodate the demand for left turns into the site, resulting in temporary blockages of through traffic on Lakes Drive. When this occurs, the ability of drivers to make the southbound left -turn .movement easily from Vincent Avenue onto eastbound Lakes -Drive is reduced. To address this situation, the proposed project would close the existing driveway and relocate it approximately 110 feet to the. east. This will provide queuing -space in the two-way left -turn, lane for approximately five additional cars, for a total of six to seven. Even with the addition of project -related traffic entering the site there, projected to be 63 trips in the PM peak hour or about one per minute, the greatly expanded on -street queuing space would be adequate, and the temporary blockage of eastbound traffic on Lakes Drive would be avoided. A computer traffic simulation, was prepared for this project, and statistics have been extracted to provide. information to address the concern raised by the Planning Commission. Images from the Future without Project and Future with Project scenarios are shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Transmitted with this memorandum are video files made from computer simulation runs. The simulation analyzes future PM peak hour traffic conditions without and with the development of the proposed project. The future without project conditions include existing and cumulative traffic. The future with project conditions include the recommended widening of northbound Vincent Avenue at Lakes Drive/Plaza Drive and at the approach to the 1-10 Freeway on -ramp, as well as existing, cumulative and project -related traffic. Under each scenario, the City's planned widening of. eastbound Plaza Drive at Vincent Avenue and signalization of the nearby intersection of. Plaza Drive &California Avenue are also included. Based on the results of the simulation analysis, the projected averagequeuelength for the southbound left -turn movement from Vincent Avenue onto eastbound Lakes Drive would be reduced from 325 feet to 225 feet, and the projected maximum queue length for that movement would be reduced from 575 feet to 500 feet. Average vehicle delay for the southbound movement at the intersection would be reduced by approximately 10 seconds, compared with the No Project conditions. The total number of vehicles that could be served at the intersection would increase from 4,960 to 5,090, an increase of approximately 3%. This additional intersection capacity would result from the widening of the northbound intersection approach, and from the improvement in traffic flow both eastbound onto Lakes Drive and northbound where additional on -ramp queuing space would be provided by widening Vincent Avenue into the project site. .The widening of northbound Vincent Avenue at Lakes Drive/Plaza Drive could be implemented exclusive of the proposed project. The widening of the northbound approach to the freeway on -ramp, however, can only be implemented as part of the proposed project, as the necessary right-of-way would be acquired from the project site itself. Development of the proposed project would be accompanied by implementation of both of these traffic improvements. Additional capacity would be provided for northbound traffic in the vicinity and less delay would be experienced by cars making`the southbound left - turn movement onto eastbound Lakes Drive. Together they would improve the .operation of this key intersection for project -related traffic and for all motorists as well. y � �. � "�� �,'�'� # '+i >Ja�$ < A ."� �� � �"� �' Q:- �r �"'r'»`+ ^u.•°''€ "xr ' � «*��, �h-c� , � �� m k�u �r �. tv ;, : ; ° .e a'. ' t ' � y � x7�". � ,. a " �.• '' ? � fiv �s � k. �'��7�: �z u+ >,�Pr s,} y � � '�"r u L 40h sa Ak �� R :• L Tii .. .,q., ''c ° .Y' ��,' �, s :. �§•� '"" r Sri �2,�.� :.�'�•�'� t. f .'SFl '!d _ ✓�: '>y' hcY,. i . � ^'.G�i' tMt' P ,� 1�� kwa' r .Yarf�( ,. r �'a 7 4 "`�'� i .. . •.� ,. ' ` � xk� �., y .; � . ¢ °d. „ �' �:',� � �`-�''� Z.�yv '� . 4 i �+�'.. vF'._wy R..4 r. ra. e" _," ,j. ... �+. e '.�"�� Fy',�. 5 .�. ».r ���, � """ �F':': F� •�..e '�`h.` h+"��•• g*,. i� .M y F a '�,.. � .. d. �..�', 5^„:%'. k�,... .� ,:h '• -,k y�v..�� �, `f`a'x "�' `m+ '� � �„ �'''-z �f.�z'� .Fx: �•. ,:�'t �L °.•„, } N' sk an` yx X..�' .a„ kip, ,s� ;.,� �d+fa .a^ ,�W•.+. Js' A.ti. �A .�: .x >� ,�#°i'';N �, E°.� .k ��..• •�. �f�,^ ''t, p€ L .k' .,r<'. � •� '�" 2�..� � � i$a � a'rti ,;�' 1 '' ��� � ate$ # ..x: fiver' 8 a A '. '�' % +'+aa;�a • x:.:lC txt5 "'� �q^ � � _ �"'+f`;- -'- f x" x "'ANA,°. 4 ;� s 'i ws:�x .r.,» <, mom• F E H K& PEEKS IMAGE FROM COMPUTER TRAFFIC SIMULATION - TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS PM PEAK HOUR FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT_ Moy 05. 2009 FPA ' N:CJoba^ACtive0..21D0aC2131.01 — Foothill Tronait^.Graphics�ACAD3TraffieSim—Snepshots.dwg FIGURE 1 E E ,�.> � .q+y •. ,;�,� � �` � l rf Y� � � �# i. �..�. r' s • {, ' { � fix. ��'��pn �, '�' � +��fy � ,k, ", �'� 4',s .a i !�. �� ''" t �`"- � : k�;•n �" p." � i'.• y� n �` fii'r � ,.i .'�`�. ��� � � �a�z r>r -� ,{ 3R.�yt r . n.�n �F '�'ry"''� r.}`�� �," #f�+ ,,,;�:""K�,� a� �x,t �'� s}del �K i4t � +t�x_ ry' it�,r„ � �°"" ✓'�n � +'r/,�"�';. ,p .r�=. .. "�y✓ � � K.,�a�o �., 2,v �,•,, �a: ...:..,.vt s k .,,,�� , ':"1�' a �, . ¢ a 4 } T_i',"5 4 ftj $ '1 2� '} �Y;.. .y+� 4 *1 ^3e 1 »♦ Ri FYs{.da'Y_ ^� '.�,� �.t,. � �. f� 1 `c 7 'i, ..,t r,N �K.+"'-`" t v n°q:,.xr''E ¢d="'',,�"�'.. 'tvt 'r,.wY m' " '� •-', '3' M, , ,.,t,"' �: v � ��r�`' I `x xy�' �`�.�, e' x ,� r$;.3c''T� � a�r-r s°i`e .`1* ar lt� ..�u' ��,, V� �.�`" r �, '� y� Mro •. �...aA ai�t r"- rrrL . �y'S •y .:� t � a` E 'r`r"!� �sd,ro y, ��.�. :�'F 'l•z .��, } at a?.i •,` ,.�� c 17'�^ �`��"+� k�*..�`•� w �E N. to � c y �•5' +f; �.kN� x�' � ^'� � - � i � i,,x� a 1.•~�'"i "t `j jA4 it" '%l3 I y 3 3 ti e RI it"3v. • ��FS� ,, ..e � • � ; � � w � kri s ',.,,,:. R' '+"s„�„�S �o- "S �v s (, x-. t ,u�',, rz` ra*4".ry �� s� a - �rx� �t � � .$• " q '� f i '#+` � � s:�� � °` 3<....r� :,tom s 1 `r . ;:'. ' 4 �1„ r e�' Y ��''d"': �."�y '.,e�Ms,•l��,;yxa�µy 'red � ,"s .�^ ¢ .r u , a F E H R & PEERS IMAGE FROM COMPUTER TRAFFIC SIMULATION - TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS PM PEAK �p/ HOUR FUTURE WITH PROJECT May 05, 2009 FPA N:[.Jobs'Activc7:210OaC2131.01 — Foothill TransitaGraphicsCACAD]TrofficSirttSnapohota.dcrg FIGURE 2 E E Attachment 4 Transit -Oriented Neighborhood Program In February 2003, the Executive Board of Foothill Transit approved a policy to allow Foothill Transit to encourage member cities to develop a mixed -use transit -oriented neighborhood program (TONP): • encourage the development of Park and Ride (PNR) facilities located in close proximity to freeways, transit corridors, and/or existing express routes, and major trip generators; • encourage the development of facilities that are proximate to evening/weekend uses, such as theatres, restaurants, and shopping facilities. It offers a solution for Foothill Transit and its member cities to address the issue of parking. shortages for commuters seeking to use transit services, with a resulting benefit of reduced freeway congestion, a reduction in Greenhouse Gases (GHG), and a potential increase in transit ridership. With inadequate and dwindling parking available to transit riders, this program serves a critical need, while helping mitigate traffic congestion and improving air quality in the Los Angeles area. By addressing a critical shortage of parking for commuters, the project encourages and strengthens Foothill Transit's ridership. The first phase of the project was completed in August 2006, with the opening of a facility at the Claremont TransCenter (200 W. 1st St, Claremont), which provides 477 parking spaces, with 200 available for transit.. The facility is a key component of the expansion of the Claremont Transit Village. The next phase of the program is the proposed West Covina PNR facility which will serve both express commuter and local routes. Previous Park -and -Ride Lots/Project Alternatives/Project Evolution Covina/West Covina • Early 1990 -mid1995, Eastland Shopping Center provided nearly 1,200 surface parking spaces to Foothill Transit. By mid-1995 there were only 396 spaces available for Foothill Transit's use. Also during that period, Foothill Transit explored numerous opportunities to construct PNR facilities along the.I-10 corridor in the Covina and West Covina areas. • 1996 through early 2000, Foothill Transit negotiated with numerous developers to identify locations for a transcenter in the Covina/West Covina area. This included sites near both of the Covina and West Covina civic centers. Again, for a variety of reasons, none of the proposed projects came to fruition. • Early 2000, Foothill Transit began negotiating with the City of Covina for purchase of private property at the intersection of San Bernardino Street and Citrus Avenue for a new administrative headquarters for the agency, a six -bay bus transcenter, and a parking structure with approximately 800 spaces. Due to escalating construction costs and complications involving the acquisition of the property, the final project cost exceeded the budget. • Late 2001, all remaining spaces at Westfield Eastland were no longer available. As a result, Foothill Transit leased 156 spaces near the Lakes Shopping Center Lakes Shopping Center (1230 Lakes Drive) in the City. • 2004, Foothill Transit began discussions with Faith Community Church in West Covina for PNR that would have provided nearly 1,000 parking spaces. Negotiations failed. • Working with the City,. Foothill Transit pursued (at least twice) development of a transcenter at the intersection of West Covina Parkway and Sunset Avenue. Unfortunately, once again, negotiations failed to reach agreement. • Other locations that were pursued were a vacant lot on Barranca Avenue and I-10 now commonly known as "The Curve" , K-Mart site on West Covina Parkway in West Covina, a property behind Covina City Hall, and proposed expanding the Via Verde PNR,. • March 2006, Foothill Transit purchased the Washington Mutual Bank building at 100 South Vincent Avenue in West Covina, as the site of its new administrative offices. The site includes 2.92 acres (ac) and has 197 surface parking spaces. The agency relocated its offices in June 2007. Currently, within the Foothill Transit service area, there are ten (10) existing PNR facilities, none of which are under the control of, or operated by, the agency: Two (2) are located in the eastern area of Los Angeles County for commuter service to downtown Los Angeles via the I-10 freeway: o one (1) is located at Fairplex in Pomona o The other is a surface lot at Via Verde in San Dimas. • Another PNR is located in Diamond Bar, and services travels to Downtown Los Angeles via State Route-60 (SR-60). . A small temporary PNR (100 spaces) lot is being leased from the City of Industry to provide service for commuters along the freeway to downtown Los Angeles. • The fifth PNR lot is temporarily being provided by the City of West Covina, and includes 150 spaces on the upper level of the City Hall parking structure, allocated by the City as a result of the closure of the facility at Westfield Eastland. The latter spaces may be reassigned in the immediate future by the City. • Two (2) PNR facilities accommodate commuters traveling along Interstate-210 (I-210) to downtown Pasadena: one (1) is located at Baseline in Glendora, and the second (2°d) is in San Dimas. The other three (3) PNR facilities are located in the Chino, Claremont, and Montclair. The Montclair Transit Center is also used by Omnitrans and Metrolink; which provide a link for commuters travelling from Los Angeles County to outlying cities within San Bernardino County. E-" ?- STATE CAPITOL P.O. BOX 942849 SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0057 (916) 319-2057 FAX (916) 319-2157 DISTRICT OFFICE 1520 W. CAMERON AVE. SUITE 165 WEST COVINA, CA 91790 (626) 960-4457 FAX (626) 960-1310 January 15, 2010 0 The Honorable Sherri Lane Councilmember City of West Covina P.O. Box 1440 West Covina, CA 91793 Dear Counci[member te, IV 0 ED HERNANDEZ, O.D: ASSEMBLYMEMBER, FIFTY-SEVENTH DISTRICT COMMITTEES CHAIR, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY BUDGET BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS HEALTH SUBCOMMITTEES BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES CAUCUSES DEMOCRATIC ENVIRONMENTAL LATINO It is my understanding that the West Covina City Council will consider voting on a proposal by Foothill Transit to build a parking structure on their property located at 100 South Vincent Avenue at your meeting scheduled for Tuesday, January 19. This structure would be used as a park and ride for Foothill Transit customers. I want to express my support for this project and respectfully request your full and fair consideration of Foothill Transit's proposal. Public transit is a key component to traffic reduction and improved air quality in our region. That is why I authored Assembly Bill 2009 (signed into law last legislative session) to help lower costs for public transit operators like Foothill Transit and in turn keep rates low for their customers. Park and rides facilities like the proposed project are a critical piece of any program to get more people out of their vehicles and on to public transit. Foothill Transit is utilizing $11.8 million dollars in Federal Section 5309 Discretionary funds for construction of this project. These funds were obtained from four years of transportation appropriations bills and the most recent six year surface transportation authorization bill. Congress Member Judy Chu's predecessor Hilda Solis along with House Members Grace Napolitano, Adam Schiff, David Dreier and Gary Miller provided the necessary support for Foothill Transit to receive these federal discretionary dollars. Your support and assistance in making certain our region and your city will not lose this critical funding is very much appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact my District Director Rob Charles at (626) 960-4457 with any questions you may have regarding this issue. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ED HERNANDEZ, O.D. California State Assemblymember 571h Assembly District ®,(-G�- Printed on Recycled Paper STATE CAPITOL P.O. BOX 942849 SACRAMENTO,CA 94249.0049 (916)319-2049 FAX (916) 319.2149 DISTRICT OFFICE 9420TELSTAR AVE., SUITE 103 EL MONTE, CA 91731 (626)450-6116 FAX (626)450-6117 assemblymember.eng@assemtAy.ca.gov www.assembly.ca.gov/eng January 13, 2010 Honorable Shelley Sanderson Mayor, City of West Covina P.O. Box 1440 West Covina, CA 91793 Dear Mayor SmTdorst"+, C Assrm -- blu lu re ;T 'F- Z COMMITTEES CHAIR, TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS EDUCATION HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SELECT COMMITTEES SELECT COMMITTEE ON INLAND EMPIRE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAIL TRANSPORTATION It is my understanding that the West Covina City Council will consider voting on a proposal by Foothill Transit to build a parking structure on their property located at 100 South Vincent Avenue at your meeting scheduled for Tuesday, January 19. This structure would be used as a park and ride for Foothill Transit customers. As Chair of the California State Assembly Transportation Committee, I support public transit as a key component to traffic reduction and improved air quality in our region. Park and rides are a critical piece of any program to get people out of their vehicles and on to public transit. Foothill Transit is utilizing $11.8 million dollars in Federal Section 5309 Discretionary funds for construction. These funds were obtained from four years of transportation appropriations bills and the most recent six year surface transportation authorization bill. The concerted efforts of Members of Congress and the House of Representatives have provided the necessary leadership and support for Foothill Transit to receive these federal discretionary dollars. I respectfully request that you and your colleagues on the Council approve this much needed project. Your support and assistance in making certain our region and your city will not lose this critical funding is very much appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact my District Director Daisy Ma at 626 450 6116 with any questions you may have regarding this issue. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, MIKE ENG Assemblymem er, 491" Assembly District ME: ma •'- Printed on Recycled Paper Board'of Directors President, Michael Miller First VP, Drexel Smith VP, Economic Development Bob Preston VP, Public Events & Marketing Mary Ramos VP, Membership Promotions Khan Kayum VP, Government & Legislation Audrey Lynberg VP, Chamber Service & Development Cindy Wheeler Chief Financial Officer Secretary, David Reyno Directors Mario Del Fante Forest Tennant Yulanda Davis Quarrie 0 The Chamber of Commerce Of West Covina 811 South Sunset Avenue West Covina, CA 91790 January 13, 2010 Mayor and City Council City of West Covina 1444 West Covina Parkway PO Box 1440 West Covina, CA 91793 Dear Mayor and City Council: Subject: Foothill Transit Transportation Center TEL: (626) 338-8496 FAX: (626) 960-0511 coc@westcovinachomber.com www.westcovinochomber.com JAN 13 2010 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF WEST COVINA The West Covina Chamber of Commerce has reviewed the current revised proposal from Foothill Transit to construct a park & ride facility along Vincent Avenue between their existing building the and freeway. The West Covina Chamber of Commerce strongly supports this revised project and is in favor of their zoning application. In our review the Chamber considered the following: Traffic Mitigation: The revised designed re-routes bus access via West Covina Parkway, east bound to Glendora Avenue around to Lakes Drive. The re-routing will reduce impacts at the Vincent Ave/Lakes Drive intersection and also provides added visibility for retail business's along Glendora Ave and the Lakes Complex. This re-routing combined with improvements to Vincent Avenue and the east bound freeway access will improve the overall traffic flow in the area. Traffic studies confirm this design will be an improvement for the area. We understand there will be traffic signal modifications to facilitate this plan and minimize the impacts on adjoining businesses. Ambassadors 2. Visual Impacts: Modern design and construction technology allows for the proposed building to have a look and feel of something other than a parking garage and the City Kathy Clark has a great opportunity to have the structure be a gateway for the City, a location to acknowledge service groups, signage for the adjacent Lakes Entertainment center or an Joel Constance artistic presentation. Adjacent properties will not be any more visually isolated than they Gilbert Gonzales are now. Tyra Mason 3. Community Benefits: The program will provide a near -term benefit of $21 million dollars Mary Ramos of design and construction work starting this year. That stimulus will be a positive impact for the community. The long term benefit is a availability of the park and ride Carlos Ramirez facility benefitting local residences. Patricia Salazar This is the most practical use of private business property. For this and the above reasons Laura Santos the West Covina Chamber of Commerce recommends your approval of this project. Sandra Taylor Sincerely, Daniel Yang Michael Miller President Promoting commerce in West Covina since 1916...