AgdaPkt 2000-11-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

increase the parking demand beyond that analyzed in the EIR. ~.S"" The parking adequacy analysis conducted for the EIR utilizes a methodology developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) for estimating parking demand in developments with mixed land uses, described in ULI's publication entitled Shared Parking (1990). The ULI's research is based on mixed-use activities and accounts for patrons visiting more than one establishment on a single visit to the mixed-use development. As discussed on page 89 of Appendix 8 to the FEIR, using the Shared Parking methodologies. the theater parking demand is conservatively estimated at 100 percent capacity during the peak evening hour of 8:00 p.m. While this level of demand may be appropriate for a theater of two or three screens, the parking effect of a theater with 20 screens is likely to be substantially less because the availability of multiple start times for the same film allows patrons to choose different showings consequently reducing the occupancy levels at each showing. As shown on Table B7 of the FEIR. even assuming 100 percent capacity of the theaters during the peak evening hour, there would still be a parking surplus of 544 spaces during the weekday and a 366-space surplus during the weekend. The appellant's contention (50% of the patrons overlap for one and one-half shows) is based on the assumption that the parking analysis did not consider patrons visiting multiple establishments when patronizing a mixed-use development. In fact, the ULI research is based on patrons visiting multiple establishments when patronizing a mixed-use development. Applying the appellant's assertions to the parking analysis in the FEIR would in effect result in double counting parked cars. Additionally, it should be noted that any parking deficits would be mitigated by the measures recommended in the EIR (see Mitigation Measures C1a and C1b). Contention of Inadequate Traffic Analysis The appellant contends that the cumulative traffic impacts are not adequately analyzed in the EIR on the grounds that the EIR fails adequately to study the impact of the project on the entire local traffic network, including emergency response implications, and instead only identifies each individual significant adverse traffic impact. In fact, however, the DEIR analyzes cumulative traffic impacts throughout the entire 32 page traffic section (pages 60- 92). Both baseline and cumulative conditions (through 2020) are analyzed with project trips added in order to determine the impacts of the proposed development (DEIR pp. 61, 63). Thus, the EIR extensively analyzes cumulative traffic impacts. The study intersections in the EIR were identified through discussions with City Staff and by the responses to the Notice of Preparation. Figure 21 of the DEIR reviews the study intersections. The local intersections adjacent to the project site were chosen for analysis because they could be directly impacted by the proposed development. Next, the road corridors (Jefferson Avenue, Middlefield Road, and Broadway) were identified for detailed intersection analyses because they provide direct access between the project site and the regional road system. Select intersections on Veterans Boulevard (provides direct freeway access) and EI Camino Real (provides sub-regional access) were identified for analysis to quantify the character of traffic on these facilities. Last, regional roads in the area such as US 101, Woodside Road, and EI Camino Real were evaluated to address regional traffic concerns raised by the City/County Association of Governments for San Mateo County (C/CAG). 4 .-"-~T--.~T-" ,