PC 052511 - Laserfiche WebLink

turned the floor over to Colin Burgett, traffic generation expert, to discuss the parameters used. Colin Burgett of Nelson Nygaard, a transportation planning consulting firm, stated that his firm has worked quite a bit with BART on different TOD planning efforts and for this particular project, because it was very fast-tracked, one component of their scope was to identify a level of development that would fit within el already assumes and then make some assumptions for how that traffic generation would change based on different mixes and matches with all the different development scenarios that have been identified. Mr. Burgett stated that the traffic assumption for the BART site that was included in the General Plan model, based on a placeholder assumption of what might be reasonable at that time for the site, is that there would be a little under 300,000 square feet of office space, a 200-room hotel, and about 1,500 square feet of retail. He noted that at that time, the traffic model did not assume a trip reduction for being next to a BART station, so these are raw numbers based on standard traffic generation in the suburbs. He stated that there are 600 trips in the peak with that level of development, but when the 20-percent trip reduction credit is applied, which is also applied to the Hacienda sites, each of those numbers can increase by 20 percent and wind up with about 340,000 to 350,000 square feet of office and a 240-room hotel; and if the hotel is taken out of the mix, there would be 430,000 square feet of office. He also presented the numbers if there was a decision in the future to consider a 40-percent trip reduction credit next to transit. Mr. Burgett stated that a lot of research on how many trips can be eliminated by being next to a large transit station continues to evolve. He noted that by the time this development comes back with a developer and a plan, there might be some new data suggesting that being this close to the BART station, the higher end of the range might be appropriate. He further noted that this level of development is not based on any assumptions that this is what is allowed for the site or exceeding this would specifically create impacts, but that these trips are already in the model. Mr. Burgett stated that the main benefit of the station not being an end of the line station would be that the parking structure will not fill up so easily, so more Pleasanton residents will have more access to the garage a little later in the morning. He added that the other benefit to these numbers might be less peaked, for example, if the parking garage is not filling up between 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., i.e., if 1,200 cars arrive between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. with a few cars arriving later, these numbers can go up even further, simply replacing trips that are not arriving during the peak hours. Mr. Williams stated that if the BART extension were to take place, he foresees that as development occurs, the area will become more pedestrian, and there will be other opportunities for people who live to the east of Pleasanton and who will want to get on BART to not have to drive to this station. He noted that the idea of shared or multi-use parking allows for that evolution to occur. He added that from a planning point of view, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 25, 2011 Page 10 of 21