AgdaPkt 2000-12-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7. �,/ -�16 The Appellant claims that the FEIR fails to consider that the plan to "lure" retail customers and restaurant patrons into the downtown area for extended visits beyond theater shows will increase the parking demand beyond that analyzed in the EIR. 22.The parking adequacy analysis conducted for the EIR utilizes a methodology developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) for estimating parking demand in devetopments with mixed land uses and 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. 23.As discussed on page B9 of Appendix B 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 theater during the p:eak 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, which was not supported by any empirical evidence, (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 appellanYs assertions to the parking analysis in the FEIR would in effect result in double counting parked cars. Additionally, in the event that a parking deficit were to exist, it would be mitigated by the measures recommended in the EIR (see Mitigation Measures C1a and C1b). 24.Appellant further contends that the cumulative traffic impacts of several "clogged intersections" will have a direct, adverse impact on "the entire local traffic network, as well as emergency response implications." and that the FEIR does not adequately analyze the cumulative impact of multiple-clogged arteries. 25.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 p. 61, 63). Thus, the EIR extensively analyzes cumulative traffic impacts. 26. The study intersections in the DEIR 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 5