RESIDENTIAL PARKING DEMAND STUDY FOR THE ......Lofts Live Work total units 22 12 34 39 2 6 4 3 14 8 10 16 2 172 total units 111,117 total unit s.f. 177 total units 123,322 total unit

RESIDENTIAL PARKING DEMAND STUDY

FOR THE

MONTEREY STATION TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

MARCH 2012

PREPARED BY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................................................................. 1

TRANSIT ACCESS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4

CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................................... 5

STUDY PURPOSE.............................................................................................................................................................................. 7

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT ...................................................................................................................................................... 7

2. RESEARCH ON PARKING DEMAND ........................................................................................................... 8

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PARKING DEMAND RESEARCH ....................................................................... 8

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PARKING DEMAND RESEARCH ........................................................................................... 12

DOWNTOWN POMONA PARKING DEMAND RESEARCH ........................................................................................... 14

4. RECOMMENDED PROJECT PARKING RATIO .......................................................................................... 16

EVALUATION OF OVERALL PROJECT PARKING RATIO ................................................................................................. 16

EVALUATION OF HOUR-BY-HOUR PARKING DEMAND FOR LIVE/WORK UNITS .............................................. 17

5. PARKING GEOMETRICS AND DESIGN ..................................................................................................... 21

5. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................... 22

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: PARKING COUNTS

APPENDIX B: SHARED PARKING SUMMARY TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 – PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................................................................................... 2

FIGURE 2 – PROJECT SITE PLAN ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

FIGURE 3 – COMPARISON OF TOD PARKING DEMAND RESEARCH ............................................................................ 16

FIGURE 4 – HOUR-BY-HOUR ACCUMULATION—RETAIL SCENARIO........................................................................... 19

FIGURE 5 – HOUR-BY-HOUR ACCUMULATION—RESTAURANT SCENARIO ............................................................. 19

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 PROPOSED UNIT MIX ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

TABLE 2 PROPOSED PARKING SUPPLY........................................................................................................................................ 4

TABLE 3 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................... 5

TABLE 4 CITY CODE REQUIRED PARKING SUPPLY .................................................................................................................. 6

TABLE 5 UC TRANSPORTATION CENTER TOD PARKING DEMAND STUDY RESULTS ........................................... 10

TABLE 6 SJSU/VTA TOD PARKING DEMAND STUDY RESULTS ....................................................................................... 12

TABLE 7 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA URBAN INFILL PARKING DEMAND STUDY RESULTS ..................................... 14

TABLE 8 PROPOSED PARKING PROVISION BY UNIT TYPE ............................................................................................... 17

Residential Parking Demand Study

Monterey Station Transit Oriented Development, Pomona, CA

March 2012

1

1. INTRODUCTION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Location & Proposed Unit Mix

The Monterey Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) project is a proposed residential development

to be located in Downtown Pomona, California. The project site is located immediately north of the

Metrolink railroad tracks, and is bounded by Monterey Avenue to the north, Gibbs Street to the east, and

Garey Avenue to the west. The project site is located immediately to the east of the Downtown Pomona

Amtrak/Metrolink train station and bus transit center across Garey Avenue, and is two blocks north of the

core area of Pomona’s Downtown, where Western University of Health Sciences is located. Figure 1

illustrates the location of the project in relation to the Downtown Pomona Transit Center, as well as three

municipally owned Vehicle Parking District (VPD) lots. Figure 2 presents the site plan for the project.

The project, as proposed, would be developed as a market-rate rental community which would include a

mix of studios, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, loft, and live/work rental units constructed in two separate

buildings as detailed in Table 1. In total, 222 units (64%) would be studio or one-bedroom apartments.

TABLE 1

PROPOSED UNIT MIX

Unit Type No. of Units

Building 1 172

Studio 34

1 bed/1 bath 75

2 bed/1 bath 13

2 bed/2 bath 22

Lofts 10

Live/Work 18

Building 2 177

Studio 24

1 bed/1 bath 89

2 bed/1 bath 15

2 bed/2 bath 20

Lofts 9

Live/Work 20

Total 349

Source: Monterey Station, LLC, 2012

BIKE STORAGE

BUILDING #1BUILDING #2

G-101

PARKING PROVIDED

Total 455

SITE STATISTICS

PARCEL #3

C C

C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

TECHNICALSITE PLAN

Monterey Ave.

Gare

y A

venue

Locust S

treet

Commercial Street

Gibbs S

treet

CCCCCC

CCCCCCCCCCCCC

BIKE STORAGE

Open - On Site Spaces

Standard (9'-6" x 18') 198

Compact (8'-0" x 16') 98

Handicapped (9' x 18') 8

Handicapped Van (9' x 18') 2

Covered - On Site Spaces

Standard (9'-6" x 18') 106

Compact (8'-0" x 16') 36

On Street Spaces (Gibbs St.)

Standard (10'-0" x 25') 7

Total Open 306

Total Covered 142

Bicycle Stalls

24Covered Stalls

Uncovered Stalls

Total

22

46

BIK

E S

TO

RA

GE

0' 10' 20' 40' 80'

DATE: JANUARY 26TH 2012

BIKE STORAGE

CC

C C

C C

CC

SQUARE FOOTAGE MATRIX

Building 1

Studio B

Studio A

Live Work A

Live Work B

Unit 1B

Unit 1A

Unit 1C

Unit 2A

Unit 2D

Unit 2C

Unit 2B

Loft A

Corner Unit

380 s.f.

641 s.f.

966 s.f.

648 s.f.

618 s.f.

641 s.f.

880 s.f.

967 s.f.

946 s.f.

921 s.f.

512 s.f.

1079 s.f.

407 s.f.

unit s.f. 1st flr 2nd flr 3rd flr 4th flr

3

16

2

5

4

-

-

2

1

-

-

2

5

40 units

3

-

-

17

4

1

2

4

2

-

-

2

7

42 units

13

-

-

17

4

1

2

4

-

2

-

2

-

45 units

3

-

-

-

22

-

2

4

-

2

10

2

-

45 units

Total s.f.

8360 s.f.

10256 s.f.

1932 s.f.

24687 s.f.

20706 s.f.

1266 s.f.

5280 s.f.

13496 s.f.

2802 s.f.

3616 s.f.

5120 s.f.

8712 s.f.

4884 s.f.

Building 2

Live Work A

Live Work B

Unit 1B

Unit 1A

Unit 1C

Unit 2A

Unit 2D

Unit 2C

Unit 2B

Loft

Corner Unit

641 s.f.

966 s.f.

648 s.f.

618 s.f.

641 s.f.

880 s.f.

967 s.f.

946 s.f.

921 s.f.

512 s.f.

1079 s.f.

unit s.f. 1st flr 2nd flr 3rd flr 4th flr

18

2

7

4

-

-

2

1

-

-

2

41 units

-

-

20

4

2

2

4

2

-

-

2

42 units

-

-

20

4

2

2

4

-

2

-

2

47 units

-

-

2

24

-

2

4

-

2

9

2

47 units

Total s.f.

11538 s.f.

1932 s.f.

31752 s.f.

22248 s.f.

2564 s.f.

5280 s.f.

13538 s.f.

2838 s.f.

3684 s.f.

4608 s.f.

8632 s.f.

Studios

1 bed/1 bath

2 bed/1 bath

2 bed/2 bath

Lofts

Live Work

total units

22

12

34

39

2

6

4

3

14

8

10

16

2

172 total units

111,117 total unit s.f.

177 total units

123,322 total unit s.f.

Studios

1 bed/1 bath

2 bed/1 bath

2 bed/2 bath

Lofts

Live Work

Studio B

Studio A 380 s.f.

407 s.f.

-

5

-

6

10

1

2

-

4560 s.f.

4884 s.f.

total units

18

2

49

36

4

6

14

3

4

9

8

12

12

Site Totals:

Building 2

Building 1

177 123,322

unitssquare footage

172 111,117

234,439349

C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

mkennedy

Text Box

Figure 2 - Site Plan



March 2012

4

Proposed Parking Supply

The project, as currently proposed, would provide a total of 455 vehicular surface parking spaces

(including 448 off-street spaces, and 7 new on-street spaces), as detailed in Table 2. Most of the stalls

would be provided in the southern half of the parcel, but parking would also be provided fronting the

new site access aligned with Locust Street. A limited number of parallel parking stalls would also be

provided along the project’s eastern frontage where a new access point aligned with Gibbs Street would

be constructed. Based on this parking supply, a total of 1.30 spaces per dwelling unit will be provided.

TABLE 2

PROPOSED PARKING SUPPLY

Parking Stall Type No. of Stalls

Open – On Site Spaces 306

Standard (9’-6” x 18’) 198

Compact (8’-0” x 16’) 98

Handicapped (14’ x 18’ inclusive of

striped ADA pathway) 8

Handicapped Van (9’ x 18’) 2

Covered – On Site Spaces 142

Standard (9’-6” x 18’) 106

Compact (8’-0” x 16’) 36

On-Street Spaces (Gibbs St) 7

Total 455

Source: Monterey Station, LLC, 2012

In addition, 46 bicycle parking stalls would be provided (24 covered, 22 uncovered).

TRANSIT ACCESS

The project site is located directly to the east of the Amtrak/Metrolink Downtown Pomona transit station,

across Garey Avenue. This station is served by the Riverside Line of the Metrolink commuter rail, which

runs from Downtown Riverside to Downtown Los Angeles. A total of six trains running westbound (five

a.m. departures, one p.m. departure) and six trains running eastbound (six p.m. departures) serve the

station.

Amtrak provides limited service to the Downtown Pomona transit station. There are three departures

weekly on the Texas Eagle route, with service through Texas to Chicago, and three departures weekly on

the Sunset Limited route through the southwest to New Orleans. Both routes begin at Los Angeles Union

Station.



March 2012

5

The station is also served by bus transit from two agencies: Foothill Transit, serving the San Gabriel Valley,

and Omnitrans, serving San Bernardino County. Table 3 details the transit lines that serve the station. In

addition to Metrolink, a total of ten bus transit lines serve the station, with peak hour headways from 10

to 60 minutes. Foothill Transit’s Silver Streak line provides the most frequent service, operating 24-hours

a day between Downtown Los Angeles and Montclair.

TABLE 3

EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE

Provider Route Service Area Service

Type

Hours of

Operation

Approximate

Peak Hour

Headway

Metrolink Riverside Line Downtown Riverside –

Downtown Los Angeles

COMMUTER

RAIL 5:15 A.M. - 7:20 P.M.

6 trains daily EB

& WB

Foothill Transit 195 Pomona TransCenter –

Devry Institute via Reservoir LOCAL 5:35 A.M. - 7:25 P.M. 1 hr

Foothill Transit 197 Pomona - Claremont - Montclair

via Fairplex & Arrow Hwy LOCAL 5:35 A.M. - 9:00 P.M. 30 min

Foothill Transit 286 Pomona - Diamond Bar - Brea

Mall LOCAL 7:30 AM. - 8:20 P.M. 60 min

Foothill Transit 291 La Verne - South Pomona

via Garey Ave LOCAL 4:30 AM. - 10:30 P.M. 15 min


Claremont TransCenter LOCAL 5:45 A.M. - 4:30 P.M. 30 min

Foothill Transit 480 Montclair - Pomona –

West Covina via Mission Blvd LOCAL 5:00 A.M. - 1:10 A.M. 30 min

Foothill Transit 482 Pomona - Rowland Heights -

Puente Hills Mall LOCAL 4:00 A.M. - 12:50 A.M. 30 min


Claremont LOCAL 6:30 A.M. - 3:50 P.M. 10-30 min

Foothill Transit Silver Streak Los Angeles –

Montclair EXPRESS 24-hours 10 min

Omnitrans 61 Fontana - Ontario –

Pomona LOCAL 4:20 A.M. - 11:10 P.M. 15 min

Source: Metrolink, Foothill Transit, Omnitrans, 2012

CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS

The City of Pomona’s Zoning Code stipulates the minimum number off street parking spaces required to

serve land uses in the City. As indicated in Table 4, for multi-family residential land uses, the Code

requires a minimum of one space per bachelor (studio) unit, 1.5 spaces per one-bedroom unit, and two

spaces per two-bedroom unit. Additionally, one guest parking space must be provided for every four

dwelling units.



March 2012

6

The Zoning Code does not stipulate the required parking ratio for loft units and live/work units. Based on

the proposed size of the loft and live/work units, a determination was made whether the units were most

appropriate to analyze as one-bedroom units or two-bedroom units. The proposed loft units would be

approximately 512 square feet (SF), and so have been analyzed as one-bedroom units (which range in size

from approximately 618 to 648 SF). One live/work unit type, as proposed, would be 641 SF, and the other

live/work unit type would be 966 SF. The smaller live/work unit has been analyzed as a one-bedroom

unit, and the larger live/work unit has been analyzed as a two-bedroom unit for the purposes of this

analysis.

Based on this approach, 58 bachelor (studio) units, 217 one-bedroom units, and 74 two-bedroom units

have been analyzed to determine required parking per the Zoning Code.

TABLE 4

CITY CODE REQUIRED PARKING SUPPLY

Unit Type City Code

Parking Ratio

Proposed

Units

Code Required

Parking Supply

Bachelor (Studio) 1 per unit 58 58

One-Bedroom 1.5 per unit 217 326

Two Bedroom 2 per unit 74 148

Subtotal 349 532

Guest 0.25 per unit N/A 88

Total 349 620

Source: Fehr & Peers , 2012 Per City of Pomona Zoning Code Sec 503-H

Per the Zoning Code, 532 spaces would be required for resident parking, and an additional 88 guest

spaces would be required, for a total of 620 spaces, a ratio of approximately 1.78 spaces per unit. As

proposed, the project is providing 448 spaces in off-street surface parking lots, and an additional 7 new

on-street spaces. Counting the off-street spaces only, the ratio would be approximately 1.28 spaces per

dwelling unit, approximately 28% less than is required by City Code. Including the 7 new off street spaces,

would mean a ratio of 1.30 spaces per unit, just under 27% under City Code. However, the Zoning Code

applies to the City of Pomona in its entirety, which is a mixture of suburban and urban development

patterns; thus the Zoning Code’s requirements may not be well suited for the project, given its location

across the street from a multi-modal transit center, and being in walking distance to Downtown Pomona,

and its employment, retail, and entertainment destinations, and Western University of Health Sciences.

Research detailed in subsequent chapters shows that TODs and projects located in walkable downtowns,

typically have peak parking demand ratios well below the minimum off-street spaces required by most

suburban zoning codes.

TODs and projects in downtowns often attract young single people and older couples whose children

have left home. For example in Downtown Pomona, Western University of Health Sciences is located a

few blocks from the project site, so it is anticipated that a portion of the future residents of the project

would be Western University students who would walk to their classes. In these types of projects, given

their market demographics, the need for larger units with higher parking requirements is reduced. This



March 2012

7

leads to increased demand for one-bedroom units (occupied by one person) and more use of two-

bedroom units by a single person who uses the second bedroom as a study, home office, weekend

bedroom for a child in custody, or a guest bedroom for an occasional visitor. All of the above factors

influence the size of units (with more small units being built), the density of habitation (with more single

people occupying a one- or two-bedroom unit) and therefore, the amount of parking needed to serve the

new demographic.

STUDY PURPOSE

Given the unique qualities of this TOD project, the purpose of this report is to determine an appropriate

parking ratio for the project as an alternative to the strict application of the Zoning Code, which is more

applicable to projects with more suburban development patterns. Empirical data from research on

parking demand at TODs and in downtown areas are used to verify the appropriateness of the proposed

parking supply to meet expected demand. This report also evaluates the City’s parking design standards,

and evaluates whether the parking layout for the project, as currently proposed, is adequate..

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

This report is divided into five chapters, including this introduction. Chapter 2 details recent research on

residential parking demand at TODs, as well as details the results of parking demand studies conducted in

Southern California, including in Downtown Pomona. Chapter 3 evaluates the proposed parking ratio for

the project based on the research documented in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 evaluates the parking layout for

the project, and Chapter 5 summarizes the report.



March 2012

8

2. RESEARCH ON PARKING DEMAND

This chapter summarizes research on parking demand at residential TOD’s primarily in California, as well

as research on residential projects located in downtown settings throughout Southern California,

including a study conducted for this report at a development in Downtown Pomona.

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PARKING DEMAND RESEARCH

Research on parking demand at TODs and urban infill residential developments is a growing body of

research, as consensus builds in the planning community that suburban oriented off-street parking codes

are not particularly applicable to residential projects located in walkable downtowns, and/or adjacent to

transit stations. This chapter details the findings of two recent studies that evaluated multiple residential

TODs.

University of California Transportation Center Study (2009)

Background

This study was led by UC Berkeley professor Robert Cervero. It evaluated parking demand at 31 different

TOD sites, located in the East Bay Area of Northern California (Fremont, Pleasant Hill, San Leandro, Union

City, and Walnut Creek) or the Metro Portland area of Oregon (Portland, Gresham, Hillsboro, and

Beaverton). These regions were chosen to correspond to an earlier study of reduced vehicle trip

generation rates at TOD sites in the same areas. All housing projects included in the study were within

two-thirds of a mile of a transit station, and were all for-rent apartment projects. The unit breakdown

(studios, versus one or two bedroom units, etc.) or the number of occupied units was not provided. The

number of off-street parking spaces was provided for the analyzed sites was provided by transit station

rather than broken down by individual development, so are not included in Table 5. For the Northern

California Sites, an average of 1.61 spaces per dwelling unit were provided, and for the Portland area sites,

an average of 1.45 spaces per dwelling unit were provided.

The Northern California TOD sites analyzed are located within a half mile of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)

stations, so have more frequent rail transit service than Downtown Pomona, though the Monterey Station

project site is located closer to the transit center than many of the analyzed sites. Bus service levels at the

analysis sites are similar or less than the levels of service provided at Downtown Pomona. The Portland

area TOD sites are located adjacent to MAX light rail stations so have more frequent rail service than

Downtown Pomona, but have more limited bus service compared with Downtown Pomona.

The study collected residential parking demand data during nighttime periods when residential parking is

at its peak during non-summer months when schools were in session.

Results

Peak parking demand was calculated for each project site by dividing the maximum number of vehicles

parked by the total dwelling units in the development. As shown in Table 5, the peak parking demand



March 2012

9

ratio ranged from 0.53 spaces per dwelling unit to 1.69 spaces per dwelling unit for the data set, but 24

out of 31 TOD developments had a peak parking demand ratio of less than 1.3 spaces per dwelling unit.

The study discussed in particular the Freemont sites, which were the only sites with parking demand ratios

greater than 1.40 per dwelling unit. The study noted that the area around the Freemont sites with high

parking demand ratios is very auto-oriented, with limited pedestrian connectivity, wide and high-volume

arterials, and limited mixture of uses. Pedestrian access to the BART station is also limited, with over a

mile walk due to limited pedestrian connectivity (though the developments themselves are located within

a ½ mile). In contrast, the Monterey Station project, is located across the street from the transit center,

and adjacent to a walkable, mixed use downtown with much better pedestrian connectivity than the

Freemont sites with high parking demand ratios. The Beaverton sites, which are the only other sites with

parking demand ratios greater than 1.3, have a similar urban form to Fremont, and have no retail uses

within walking distance, which are reasons the study suggests that the parking demand ratios are higher

compared with other Portland area sites, and stand in contrast to the urban form and retail proximity of

the Monterey Station project site.

The study calculated a weighted average across all TOD project sites, as well as by geographic area. The

total weighted average peak parking demand ratio was 1.15 parking spaces per dwelling unit, with an

average of 1.20 spaces per dwelling unit for the California developments, and 1.07 parking spaces per

dwelling unit for the Oregon developments.

Best-fitting multiple regression equations were used to investigate which variables had the most influence

on project parking demand. The two most significant factors identified were walking distance between the

site and the station and the size of the parking supply. When the distance between a site and a station

increased, the parking demand increased. When the number of parking spaces per dwelling unit

increased, the parking demand increased. This finding is relevant to the Monterey Station project, as it is

located across the street from the transit center (as opposed to several of the sites analyzed in the study),

and seeks to provide parking at a ratio appropriate for a TOD (rather than providing too much parking

supply that would induce demand). While the study sites have more frequent rail transit service than

Downtown Pomona, which would suggest a slightly higher parking demand ratio for the Monterey Station

project site, but the level of bus service is the same or less than Downtown Pomona, suggesting a similar

parking ratio.



March 2012

10

TABLE 5

UC TRANSPORTATION CENTER TOD PARKING DEMAND STUDY RESULTS

ID Site Location Dwelling Units Peak Parking

Demand

Ratio (occupied

space/DU)

Weighted

Average Ratio

C1 Fremont 60 89 1.48

1.20

C2 Fremont 442 747 1.69

C3 Fremont 336 495 1.47

C4 Freemont 323 468 1.45

C5 Pleasant Hill 147 181 1.23

C6 Fremont 211 267 1.27

C7 Fremont 453 611 1.35

C8 San Leandro 145 155 1.07

C9 Union City 208 235 1.13

C10 Fremont 432 532 1.23

C11 Union City 282 314 1.11

C12 Walnut Creek 360 393 1.09





C17 Portland 36 42 1.17

1.07

C18 Portland 51 45 0.88

C19 Portland 51 33 0.65

C20 Portland 62 49 0.79

C21 Beaverton 207 283 1.37

C22 Gresham 90 90 1.00

C23 Beaverton 264 326 1.23

C24 Beaverton 711 940 1.32

C25 Beaverton 216 241 1.12

C26 Portland 57 30 0.53

C27 Beaverton 252 263 1.04

C28 Beaverton 144 130 0.90

C29 Portland 144 118 0.82

C30 Beaverton 396 356 0.90

C31 Hillsboro 264 200 0.76

Source: Are TODs Over-Parked?, University of California Transportation Center, 2008



March 2012

11

San José State University/Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Study (2010)

Background

This study was led by Eduardo Serafin, PE, AICP, an adjunct lecturer at San José State University (SJSU),

and Robert Swierk, AICP, a senior transportation planner at Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

(VTA). It evaluated parking demand at 12 different TOD sites in the San Jose area, including TODs located

near VTA light rail stations and Caltrain commuter rail stations. Some of the studied TODs were

condominium communities, while others offered rental apartments. Sites were selected that met the

following criteria:

- Within one half-mile of a transit station

- Minimum occupancy of 85%

- Older than one year

- Do not charge for parking

- Sites with parking for the exclusive use of residents

- Sites with more than 80 units or 100 parking spaces

- Sites with exclusively residential parking supplies

- Sites with parking that can be easily survey for data collection (i.e. no individual garages)

Sites are located within a ½ mile of Caltrain and/or VTA Light Rail stations, so have more frequent rail

transit service than Downtown Pomona, though the Monterey Station project site is located closer to the

transit center than many of the analyzed sites. Bus service levels at the analysis sites generally less than

the levels of service provided at Downtown Pomona. As discussed above, the greater frequency of rail

service compared with Downtown Pomona would suggest a higher parking ratio would be appropriate for

the Monterey Station project, but the level of bus service available in Downtown Pomona, compared with

the analyzed sites, would suggest a parking ratio equivalent to the analyzed sites. Many of the analyzed

sites are located farther from the transit station, which suggests that the proximity of the Project Site to

the transit station would mean a lower parking demand ratio would be expected.

As with the University of California Study, parking demand counts were conducted during nighttime

periods when residential parking is at its peak. The study did not detail the unit mix provided at each site.

Results

Peak parking demand was calculated for each project site by dividing the maximum number of vehicles

parked by the total dwelling units in the development. As shown in Table 6, the peak parking demand

ratio ranged from 0.84 spaces per dwelling unit to 1.54 spaces per dwelling unit between the surveyed

locations. Of the sites with parking demand ratios greater than 1.30, most were located in areas with less

pedestrian connectivity, larger blocks, and less mixture of uses as the Monterey Station project site. Sites



March 2012

12

14 and 16 are located within an area of San Jose that is more comparable to Downtown Pomona.

However, Site 14 provides significantly more parking supply than any of the other surveyed sites,

consistent with research literature that suggests providing too much parking can actual stimulate parking

demand. For this reason, the Monterey Station project proposes a parking supply more appropriate for

projects located adjacent to transit stations.

The study calculated a weighted average peak parking demand ratio of 1.25 occupied spaces per dwelling

unit across all TOD sites. The researchers had access to occupancy data within the studied development

sites, and found a weighted average peak parking demand ratio of 1.31 occupied spaces per occupied

dwelling unit.

TABLE 6

SJSU/VTA TOD PARKING DEMAND STUDY RESULTS

ID Site Location Dwelling

Units

%

Occupied

Parking

Supply

Peak

Parking

Demand

Ratio

(occupied

space/DU)

Weighted

Average Ratio

(per Total Units)

S1 Mountain View 294 98% 438 365 1.27

1.25

S2 Santa Clara 306 96% 568 439 1.49

S4 Santa Clara 924 90% 1,654 1282 1.54

S5 San Jose 2760 95% 4,605 3409 1.30

S6 Sunnyvale 186 98% 317 262 1.44

S11 San Jose 93 100% 122 99 1.06

S13 San Jose 210 95% 373 271 1.36

S14 San Jose 104 96% 240 148 1.48

S16 San Jose 115 98% 186 132 1.17

S18 San Jose 176 99% 338 241 1.39

S20 San Jose 250 97% 387 287 1.19

S21 San Jose 383 100% 523 320 0.84

Source: A Parking Utilization Survey of Transit-Oriented Development Residential Properties in Santa Clara County, SJSU,

VTA, 2010

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PARKING DEMAND RESEARCH

In addition to reviewing the recent study literature on TOD parking demand, Fehr & Peers has evaluated

residential parking demand data at twelve for-sale or rental residential developments throughout

Southern California, which provide empirical data on the usage of parking in residential developments

comparable to the Monterey Station project. Each of the surveyed sites were located in urban areas that

are well served by transit, including light rail in Long Beach and San Diego, and high-quality bus service in

Los Angeles, Santa Monica and Marina del Rey. Additionally, like the project site, all of the survey

locations are located in close walking distance to shops, restaurants, and other services. All of the

developments were nearly 100% occupied at the time of the survey. Compared with the project site, the

Long Beach and San Diego sites that were analyzed have more frequent rail transit service in proximity to

the surveyed site, and similar levels of bus service. The Los Angeles and Santa Monica sites have more



March 2012

13

extensive and frequent bus service, but no rail service. The Marina dey Rey site has no rail service, and

more limited bus service compared with Downtown Pomona. All of the analyzed sites provide parking

free of charge to residents, and have parking exclusively used by residents. Sites SC-3 and SC-4 below

provide additional spaces shared between residential guest parking and visitor parking for the on-site

retail.

Methodology

The selected Southern California survey sites were visited late at night, to document the peak period for

residential parking demand. The peak number of parked vehicles were counted at each site, and used to

calculate parking demand ratios per dwelling unit.

Results

Parking demand was calculated by dividing the observed maximum number of parked vehicles by the

number of dwelling units in the development. As shown in Table 7, peak parking demand ratios ranged

from 0.66 occupied spaces per dwelling unit to 1.52 occupied spaces per dwelling unit. Eight of the

twelve surveyed sites had parking demand ratios of less than 1.30. Consistent with the methodology

documented in the University of California and San José State University studies, a weighted average of

1.11 occupied spaces per dwelling unit was calculated across all of the surveyed Southern California

residential developments. Site SC-2, located in Downtown Long Beach, includes three bedroom

apartments in the unit mix, which is the reason why the parking demand ratio exceeds 1.30. Site SC-6 has

over 50% two-bedroom units, which is the reason why the parking demand ratio exceeds 1.30. Site SC-7

only provides two-bedroom units, which is the reason why the parking demand ratio exceeds 1.30. The

particular unit mix is not available for Site SC-10. However, it is a mixture of apartments and

condominiums, and condos tend to exhibit higher parking demand patterns. Additionally, it is located on

Via Marina, within Marina del Rey, so has very little accessible transit service.



March 2012

14

TABLE 7

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA URBAN INFILL PARKING DEMAND STUDY RESULTS

ID Site Location

Total

Dwelling

Units

%

Occupied

% Studio/

One-

Bedroom

Parking

Supply

Peak

Parking

Demand

Ratio

(occupied

space/DU)

Weighted

Average

Ratio

SC-1 Los Angeles 214 100% N/A N/A 268 1.25

1.11

SC-2 Long Beach 538 100% N/A N/A 818 1.52

SC-3 Long Beach 142 97% 61% 212/397* 174 1.26

SC-4 Long Beach 142 100% 61% 212/397* 168 1.18

SC-5 Long Beach 160 100% N/A 248 148 0.93

SC-6 Long Beach 220 98% 48% 529 294 1.36

SC-7 Santa Monica 88 100% 0% 192 126 1.43

SC-8 Santa Monica 532 94% 62% 700 455 0.91

SC-9 Marina del Rey 224 94% 65% 332 256 1.22

SC-10 Marina del Rey 168 100% N/A 351 237 1.42

SC-11 San Diego 387 98% 92% 387 251 0.66

SC-12 San Diego 192 98% 86% 241 145 0.77

Notes: [a] N/A – Data not available

[b] 212 spaces are provided for resident parking. An additional 185 spaces are shared between residential guest parking

and visitor parking for the on-site retail in this mixed-use development.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012. Sites SC- 1 to SC-3 based on survey data collected in 2008, remaining sites based on survey data

collected in 2001

DOWNTOWN POMONA PARKING DEMAND RESEARCH

Because each downtown area has a unique set of characteristics (walkability, adjacency to transit, mixture

of land uses), an effort to locate a comparable residential property to study in Downtown Pomona was

conducted. The Helix, a residential development located at 519 East 3rd Street in Downtown Pomona was

selected for evaluation. This 100 unit rental apartment project is located approximately five blocks from

the Monterey Station project site. The Helix has 24 studios, 24 one-bedroom units, and 52 two-bedroom

units (48% of units are studios and one-bedroom units). In contrast, the Monterey Station project, as

proposed, would be 64% studios and one-bedroom units. If lofts or live/work units were counted, the

percentage of two-bedroom units in the Monterey Station project would be even lower. Typically, units

with more bedrooms are more likely to have additional residents who may have cars. Therefore, the unit

make up for the project is such that lower parking demand might be expected.

The Helix is located adjacent to Western University of Health Sciences and within close walking distance of

the restaurants and shops of Downtown Pomona, similar to the proposed Monterey Station project.

Parking for the Helix is provided in a 90-space surface parking lot on the southern half of the block. Some

Helix residents also park on-street, with a total of 28 hang tags have been distributed to residents that



March 2012

15

enable them to park on Downtown streets overnight. The apartments of The Helix are predominantly, but

not exclusively, leased by Western University students. At the time of the study, 93 units were leased by

students, and 7 unites were leased by others. The development is nearly 100% occupied. The applicant

anticipates that the project will lease a sizable portion of the units to Western University students.

Methodology

Weekday nighttime parking demand counts were collected in February, 2012 at The Helix. Because some

Helix residents receive hangtags to park on city streets, vehicles parked on the blocks adjacent to the

Helix were also included in the parking demand counts. All vehicles on adjacent blocks were included in

the count, whether or not they had a Helix hangtag. The peak parking demand (including the surface lot,

and blocks adjacent to The Helix) was 117 parked vehicles. The count sheet for the survey at The Helix

can be found in Appendix A.

Results

The peak parking demand ratio for The Helix was calculated by dividing the observed maximum number

of parked vehicles by the number of dwelling units in the development. The peak parking demand ratio

was 1.17 occupied spaces per dwelling unit.



March 2012

16

4. RECOMMENDED PROJECT PARKING RATIO

EVALUATION OF OVERALL PROJECT PARKING RATIO

Based on the range of parking ratios detailed in research on TODs and the average empirical parking

demand found at residential developments in Southern California, a reduction to the required parking

ratios found in the Pomona City Code would be appropriate given the nature of the Monterey Station

TOD development.

Figure 3 summarizes average ratios derived from the UC and SJSU/VTA study, Fehr & Peers’ Southern

California parking demand studies, the recent study Fehr & Peers conducted in Downtown Pomona at The

Helix, and the parking supply ratio of 1.30 spaces per dwelling unit proposed for the Monterey Station

TOD project.

Figure 3 – Comparison of TOD Parking Demand Research

Based on the review of available research, including the new study conducted in Downtown Pomona, the

parking ratio of 1.30 spaces per dwelling unit proposed for the Monterey Station TOD project is an

appropriate parking supply to meet parking demand, given the project’s adjacency to transit, and

proximity to Downtown Pomona. As shown in Table 8, this total parking supply ratio of 1.30 spaces per

dwelling unit can be met by providing one space per studio and one-bedroom unit, and two spaces per

two-bedroom unit. The remaining spaces could be for guest parking (just shy of 0.10 spaces per unit).



March 2012

17

However, it is anticipated that parking for the project would not be reserved, and would be open to

residents and guests on a first come first served basis.

TABLE 8

PROPOSED PARKING PROVISION BY UNIT TYPE

Unit Type Proposed

Parking Ratio

Proposed

Units

Proposed

Parking Supply [a]

Bachelor (Studio) 1 per unit 58 58

One-Bedroom 1 per unit 217 217

Two Bedroom 2 per unit 74 148

Subtotal 349 423

Guest 0.09 per unit N/A 32

Total 349 455

Note: [a] Proposed parking supply includes 7 new on-street parking spaces

Source: Fehr & Peers , 2012

EVALUATION OF HOUR-BY-HOUR PARKING DEMAND FOR LIVE/WORK UNITS

While most of the units are for-rent apartments, 38 of the units are proposed to be live/work units. The

use of live/work units can vary depending upon its resident. Often, live/work units will be rented by

freelance professionals, such as graphic designers, artists, accountants, etc., who may live in the unit, but

also conduct business, typically with few or no employees, and only occasional client visitors, so will

exhibit parking demand patterns not unlike residential units where a resident does not work outside the

home. However, live/work units could be rented by residents who would operate other businesses that

might require more employees, or could attract customers to the project site with greater frequency than

residents with the types of businesses described above.

Assumptions have been developed for the expected business uses of the live/work units for the purpose

of analyzing the project’s potential for traffic impacts, and for potential inclusion in conditions of approval

set forth by the City of Pomona. These assumptions include:

• A maximum of 50% of live/work units could be used for business activities, which would be

approximately 12,829 SF of non-business uses (50% of the planned square footage of live/work

units)

• 1/3 of the non-residential floor area could be used for food/drink/retail type uses (4,234 SF)

• 2/3 of non-residential floor area would be dedicated to professional/artisan type uses (8,595)

• A maximum of two employees would be permitted for each live/work unit



March 2012

18

These assumptions have been used to assess the level of parking demand associated with the live/work

units. Because the live/work units would generate parking demand not already accounted for in the

residential parking demand (which should be fully accommodated with the proposed parking supply of

1.30 spaces per dwelling unit), a supplemental analysis has been conducted using the Shared Parking

Model, developed as a companion to Shared Parking, 2nd

Edition, (Urban Land Institute [ULI], 2005), a

study of parking demand in mixed-use developments. Differing land uses will often experience their peak

parking demand at different times of day. For example, an office typically experiences its peak parking

demand during the day, and a restaurant will typically experience its peak parking demand in the evening.

Shared Parking, based on empirical research, documented typical usage patterns and peak parking

demand ratios for a variety of land uses typically found in mixed use developments.

To quantify the potential parking demand from the live/work units, two shared parking analyses have

been conducted, one which analyzes the 4,234 SF of food/drink/retail as retail, and the other which

analyzes it as restaurant. For both analyses, a 20% reduction in parking demand has been assumed for a

non-auto mode adjustment, as a portion customers and employees of the businesses operated out of the

live/work units would walk from Downtown or would take transit. A 25% internal reduction has been

applied to the employee portion of parking demand for office, retail, and restaurant uses, assuming that

that portion of employees would be residents of the units. For both analyses, the residential parking

demand ratio of 1.30 spaces per dwelling unit has been assumed.

Even with the reductions detailed above, the shared parking analysis is quite conservative, as the base

parking demand ratios for retail, restaurant, and office, developed in Shared Parking, are for more typical

applications of those types of businesses (e.g. a standalone restaurant). The space available in live/work

units is sufficiently small that a sit-down restaurant (which is the biggest generator of parking demand), is

unlikely to be a business that is developed within the live/work units. However, the shared parking

analysis is used as a theoretical upper bound for parking demand.

The peak parking demand for the analysis assuming retail use was 458 spaces (10 spaces more than the

proposed 448 space off-street supply, but only 3 spaces more than the proposed total supply of 455

spaces including the 7 new on-street spaces), suggesting that parking demand for the retail/office uses of

the live/work units, could essentially be fully accommodated in the off-street parking supply, because the

peak for those uses would typically occur during daytime hours when most apartment residents would be

at work. Figure 4 details the estimated hour-by-hour parking accumulation for this scenario.

The peak parking demand for the analysis assuming restaurant use was 513 spaces (65 spaces more than

the proposed 448 space off-street parking supply, but 58 spaces more than the proposed total supply of

455 spaces including the 7 new on-street spaces). Based on this analysis, it would be expected that there

would be some customer parking demand that would need to be satisfied on streets adjacent to the

project site. However, as described above, the restaurant analysis is very conservative. As detailed in

Figure 5, the estimated hour-by-hour parking accumulation for this scenario would only exceed supply in

the evening hours, assuming the food uses within the live/work units had a sit-down dinner. If the uses

are more limited (e.g. coffeeshop, lunch café), the demand would be unlikely to exceed supply. Detailed

shared parking tables are provided in Appendix B.



March 2012

19

Figure 4 – Hour-by-Hour Accumulation—Retail Scenario

Figure 5 – Hour-by-Hour Accumulation—Restaurant Scenario

448 Off-Street Spaces

448 Off-Street Spaces



March 2012

20

Evaluation of Available Off-Site Parking Supply

To determine the availability of area parking to accommodate any potential spillover from the business

portions of the live/work units, the Downtown Pomona Parking Plan (Fehr & Peers, 2008), prepared for the

City of Pomona Vehicle Parking District, and Redevelopment Agency was reviewed. Blocks within close

walking distance to the east, west, and south, (the area bounded by Monterey Avenue to the north, 3rd

Street to the south, Main Street to the west, and Palomares Street to the east) have approximately 500 on-

street parking spaces available, including the block where the project would be located. There is

additional on-street parking supply north of the project site, but those blocks were not surveyed in the

Downtown Pomona Parking Plan, so the on-street parking supply located in convenient walking distance

to the project site would be well over 500 spaces. At the time of the study, the daytime peak parking

occupancy was around 52% on these blocks. The study determined that daytime midday was the overall

peak for parking demand in Downtown Pomona, when local businesses and Western University are at

their peak for activity levels.

Additionally, the Vehicle Parking District operates several parking lots in a short walking distance to the

project site. Lots 4-1 and 4-2 are just north of the site, and Lot 2-1 is just south of the site. Those lots

have approximately 384 spaces. At the time of the study, combined parking occupancy for those lots was

only 23%.

Given the level of available parking supply adjacent to the project, the estimated range of spillover

parking from the live/work units should be easily accommodated.



March 2012

21

5. PARKING GEOMETRICS AND DESIGN

The Pomona Code stipulates parking stall and aisle dimensions for off-street parking facilities. As Table 7

indicates, the Code requires parking spaces to be 10 feet by 20 feet in garages and carports, 9.5 feet by 18

feet in open parking lots, and 10 feet by 25 feet for parking stalls parallel to drive aisles. Compact stalls

(allowed by the Code for up to 25% of the parking spaces in excess of 10 spaces provided), are to be 8

feet by 16 feet. The Code requires that drive aisles range from 16 feet to 25 feet, depending on the angle

of the parking stalls and whether the aisle is one-way or two-way.

The project complies with the City Code required dimensions as detailed above for its uncovered standard

and compact parking stalls, and the Project would provide 25 foot drive aisles, meeting Code

requirements.

The project, as currently designed, would provide covered stalls of the same size (9.5 feet by 18 feet for

standard, and 8 feet by 16 feet for compact stalls) as the Code required dimensions for open lots, but

would not meet the Code requirements for garage/covered parking spaces. However, the proposed

overhang for the covered spaces would be cantilevered over parked vehicles, and would only be

supported by a post at the front of the stall. Thus, there would be no potential obstructions on the sides

of parking spaces that would make maneuvering into and out of them difficult. Therefore, the City Code

dimensions for stalls in open parking lots should be adequate for both the covered and uncovered stalls

as proposed for the project.

The project would provide approximately 30% of total stalls as compact stalls, exceeding the maximum of

25% as stipulated in the Code. There is no strict rule of thumb for a reasonable number of compact

parking stalls in parking lots. Area jurisdictions, such as the City of Los Angeles allow a greater

percentage of compact stalls in parking lots (City of Los Angeles allows up to 40% of a parking lot to be

striped with compact stalls). Thus, while the project would not meet the Code requirement, it would still

provide an acceptable number of standard stalls.

Based on this review of the project site plan, the parking layout appears to be adequate, meeting many,

but not all City Code requirements.



March 2012

22

5. SUMMARY

The purpose of this report was to determine the appropriate parking ratio for the Monterey Station

residential development in Pomona. As discussed in Chapter 2, empirical evidence suggests that parking

demand at TOD sites, and in other urban residential developments in Southern California, would be less

than the 1.30 space per dwelling unit parking supply as proposed for the project, meaning that the project

would provide adequate parking to accommodate demand from its residential units. Chapter 3 provided

a shared parking analysis of parking demand for the business components of live/work units. Parking

demand would vary based on the type of uses in each unit. However, demand from retail and office uses

could be accommodated with the proposed parking supply. In the unlikely event that some live/work

units would have restaurant uses that would operate in the evenings, the proposed parking supply would

be insufficient to accommodate all of the demand. On-street parking would be needed to accommodate

the demand of some customers and employees. Chapter 4 analyzed the parking stall and aisle

geometrics required in the Code, and found the proposed parking layout for the project adequate,

although it would not fully meet Code requirements.



March 2012

23

REFERENCES

A Parking Utilization Survey of Transit-Oriented Development Residential Properties in Santa

Clara County, SJSU/VTA, November 2010

Are TODs Over-Parked?, UCTC, 2009

Shared Parking, Second Edition, Urban Land Institute, 2005.

Zoning Code, City of Pomona, February 2012.

APPENDIX A

PARKING COUNTS

Location: Parking Study Day: Thursday

City: Pomona Date: 2/9/2012

With Helix Tag Without Helix Tag �� With Helix Tag No Tag Combined

Spaces 4 94 9:00 PM 104 6 110

9:00 PM 81 1 0 82 10:00 PM 112 4 116

10:00 PM 85 1 0 86 11:00 PM 112 5 117

11:00 PM 85 1 0 86

Palomares St (West Side)

With Helix Tag Without Helix Tag �� 24 Minute Parking Regular

Spaces 2 2 14 Spaces 2

9:00 PM 6 2 0 0 8 9:00 PM 0

10:00 PM 9 1 0 0 10 10:00 PM 0

11:00 PM 8 2 0 0 10 11:00 PM 0

With Helix Tag Without Helix Tag With Helix Tag Without Helix Tag

Spaces 14 Spaces 9

9:00 PM 1 0 1 9:00 PM 4 1 5

10:00 PM 1 0 1 10:00 PM 5 1 6

11:00 PM 0 0 0 11:00 PM 5 1 6

With Helix Tag Without Helix Tag

Spaces 18

9:00 PM 12 2 14

10:00 PM 12 1 13

11:00 PM 14 1 15

18

90

TOTALS

3rd St (South Side)TOTALS

9

TIMELinden St (West Side)

TOTALS

TIME TOTALS TIME

14

3rd St (North Side)

10

TOTALS TIME

TIMEMain Lot

TIMEPalomares St (East Side)

APPENDIX B

SHARED PARKING SUMMARY TABLES

Table A1 3/30/2012

Monterey Station TOD Shared Parking Analysis

Retail Assumption

SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY

PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD: 10 PM, WEEKEND

Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend

Non- Non- Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated

Base Mode Captive Project Base Mode Captive Project Adj Adj Parking Adj Adj Parking

Land Use Quantity Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit 10 PM December Demand 10 PM December Demand

Community Shopping Center (<400 ksf) 4,234 sf GLA 2.90 0.80 1.00 2.32 /ksf GLA 3.20 0.80 1.00 2.56 /ksf GLA 0.30 1.00 3 0.35 1.00 4

Employee 0.70 0.80 0.75 0.42 /ksf GLA 0.80 0.80 0.75 0.48 /ksf GLA 0.40 1.00 1 0.45 1.00 1

Residential, Rental, Shared Spaces 349 units 1.21 1.00 1.00 1.21 /unit 1.21 1.00 1.00 1.21 /unit 1.00 1.00 422 1.00 1.00 422

Reserved sp/unit 0 1.00 1.00 0 /unit 0 1.00 1.00 0 /unit 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0

Guest 349 units 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.09 /unit 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.09 /unit 1.00 1.00 31 1.00 1.00 31

Office <25 ksf 8,595 sf GLA 0.30 0.80 1.00 0.24 /ksf GLA 0.03 0.80 1.00 0.02 /unit 0.00 1.00 0 0.00 1.00 0

Employee 3.50 0.80 0.50 1.40 /ksf GLA 0.35 0.80 0.50 0.14 /unit 0.01 1.00 0 0.00 1.00 0

ULI base data have been modified from default values. Employee 1 Employee 1

Customer 3 Customer 4

Resident 422 Resident 422

Guest 31 Guest 31

Total 457 Total 458

Project Data

Table A1 3/30/2012

Monterey Station TOD Shared Parking Analysis

Restaurant Assumption

SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY

PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD: 10 PM, WEEKEND

Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend

Non- Non- Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated

Base Mode Captive Project Base Mode Captive Project Adj Adj Parking Adj Adj Parking

Land Use Quantity Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit 10 PM December Demand 10 PM December Demand

Fine/Casual Dining Restaurant 4,234 sf GLA 15.25 0.80 1.00 12.20 /ksf GLA 17.00 0.80 1.00 13.60 /ksf GLA 0.95 1.00 49 0.90 1.00 52

Employee 2.75 0.80 0.75 1.65 /ksf GLA 3.00 0.80 0.75 1.80 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 7 1.00 1.00 8

Residential, Rental, Shared Spaces 349 units 1.21 1.00 1.00 1.21 /unit 1.21 1.00 1.00 1.21 /unit 1.00 1.00 422 1.00 1.00 422

Reserved sp/unit 0 1.00 1.00 0 /unit 0 1.00 1.00 0 /unit 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0

Guest 349 units 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.09 /unit 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.09 /unit 1.00 1.00 31 1.00 1.00 31

Office <25 ksf 8,595 sf GLA 0.30 0.80 1.00 0.24 /ksf GLA 0.03 0.80 1.00 0.02 /unit 0.00 1.00 0 0.00 1.00 0

Employee 3.50 0.80 0.50 1.40 /ksf GLA 0.35 0.80 0.50 0.14 /unit 0.01 1.00 0 0.00 1.00 0

ULI base data have been modified from default values. Employee 7 Employee 8

Customer 49 Customer 52

Resident 422 Resident 422

Guest 31 Guest 31

Total 509 Total 513

Project Data

Documents

RESIDENTIAL PARKING DEMAND STUDY FOR THE ......Lofts Live Work total units 22 12 34 39 2 6 4 3 14 8 10 16 2 172 total units 111,117 total unit s.f. 177 total units 123,322 total unit