Blogging Bayport Alameda

September 23, 2014

In demand management

Filed under: Alameda, Development, Northern Waterfront, Transportation — Lauren Do @ 6:03 am

As I mentioned in the comment section yesterday, the Transportation Demand Management plan for the Del Monte project is available for comment and the Transportation Commission is going to get a crack at it on Wednesday night after the Planning Board naturally.   Since the PB is bogged down with lots of other stuff regarding the Del Monte project, the TC is an excellent place to get solid comments from the board about the viability of the TDM.

One thing I will note is that while the project itself will be providing enough parking for the units itself, enough to have — from the staff report —

every household in a one bedroom or studio unit owns one car (126 cars), every household in a three bedroom unit owns two cars (40 cars), and about half the households in the two bedroom units own one car (81 cars) and the other half own two cars (162 cars), there will be a need for 409 parking spaces for the 308 units. The project is providing 415 spaces.

The project, because it will be forced to make infrastructure improvements to Buena Vista and Clement, will also be introducing 80 new parking spaces into the neighborhood.  While — as noted by Planning Board president David Burton — these are not to be counted toward the parking requirements for the project, it is additional supply that is up for grabs, even for the existing residents of the neighborhood.

See here:

Screen Shot 2014-09-22 at 6.00.15 PM

 

See all the orange, those are new spaces that do not currently exist.

So, technically, if you were to proportion all the new spaces to Del Monte — since the existing residents don’t want the Del Monte residents encroaching into “their” street parking spaces —  then there is a total of 495 parking spaces for 308 units.   Plus an additional 45 spaces for the commercial/retail that could be open in the evenings if the retail/commercial is not using the spaces.

There TDM also calls for a bunch of stuff to happen before any Certificates of Occupancy are issued for the Del Monte units.   Including the development of the “Northern Waterfront Transportation Management Association” which will technically be the “bank” for all future Northern Waterfront developments to hold and allocate the funding for whatever TDM programs have been implemented.   Participation for all new Northern Waterfront developments is mandatory.

A shuttle to Bart will be one of the first things that happen, it will either be rolled up with the existing Estuary Crossing Shuttle, not a bad thing because currently it runs largely on grants and things  and having a dedicated funding source will ensure that it will continue.  The more demand in a small area (Del Monte + Wind River + Marina Village) might allow for shorter headways between shuttle trips which will make it more convenient for folks.

All residents get an AC Transit pass to use whether the want it or not.  So there is always the option for residents to choose the super reliable AC Transit option.  I like AC Transit, that was not a flippant remark.

Additionally there will be car share vehicles on site.  Personally I think that this will be one of the biggest considerations if residents decide to give up a vehicle.  Sometimes you can get away with just using one vehicle and working out a schedule to make it work in a family.  But there are some times when you absolutely need that second vehicle for some reason or the other, having the option of a second car on site that you don’t have to pay maintenance and insurance for is a huge plus.

So far, the Del Monte project has done everything right in terms of providing options for people to use alternate forms of transportation for commuting.  Because let’s face it, it’s commuting that most people getting cranky about.  The TDM is a pretty short and fast read.  The Del Monte project is not doing anything revolutionary, in fact it uses “best practices” for TDMs that have been around forever.

Advertisements

17 Comments

  1. It actually sounds like parking won’t really be an issue and that people around that neighborhood may be using some of those spots on the street but since the only houses are around Little John Park they will have to walk a block or two, which I would assume many already do.

    Comment by Joseph — September 23, 2014 @ 8:44 am

  2. I like AC Transit, too, but so far there is no commitment from AC Transit to accommodate this project. The AC Transit rep swooshed out the door last night before she could be asked any questions.

    Not doing anything revolutionary? But, Lauren, the staff report says: “The project sets a new standard for Alameda projects:” Each unit will have universal access, so disabled residents can live in any unit. But how will the disabled parking work? [Disabled spaces are wider than regular spaces, plus aisle adjacent]. Will the handicapped spaces be sold with the units? Oh, wait I think Federal law doesn’t permit that…

    Comment by vigi — September 23, 2014 @ 9:19 am

  3. 2. good one Joseph. I’m backing off the idea this will be an architectural monster, or at least that the clear story in the middle will be in our faces, and I’ve never really had a problem with parking plan and in fact look forward to it perhaps being an example of new paradigm, but the cumulative impact on crossings with the four projects on North side plus the Point still gives me some pause. Even if we’ve crunched our numbers , like Mayor Gilmore says, there is nothing we can do when 880 backs up. Brooklyn Basin project is coming on line. It may take a while, but… http://www.oaklandmagazine.com/Oakland-Magazine/September-2014/Brooklyn-Basin-Changes-Waterfront/ If you check out the computer graphic of the project you can identify the existing warehouses at 5th Ave right in the center in line with the marina in the foreground. The giant plate shop where 100 steel boats are fabricated, looks dwarfed. One reason architecture at Del Monte is tame compared to what.

    Comment by MI — September 23, 2014 @ 9:20 am

  4. But how will the disabled parking work? [Disabled spaces are wider than regular spaces, plus aisle adjacent]. Will the handicapped spaces be sold with the units?

    Good question, I don’t think parking allocation has yet been decided. I believe that they have yet to decide if the spots should be leased vs. sold. Leased would probably be a better option so that residents can choose to opt out down the line if they so choose. I imagine that when spots are assigned, they will give priority to disabled residents, but it’s worth bringing up with the TC or Planning Staff so it can be incorporated into the TDM or planning documents.

    Comment by Lauren Do — September 23, 2014 @ 9:45 am

  5. Biggest thing that snuck under the radar last night is the density bonus. 415 parking spaces for 308 units and all the analysis that went with that. I loved that Andrew had the nerve to put that picture of one car parked on top of another in the parking slide. Ballsy. With the density bonus, they can build 414 units and the parking stays the same, right? That is a big change on the ratios.
    I actually think there is too much parking for the transit options to be extremely successful. The proximity of all those empty Wind River parking spaces, especially for night and weekend parking, is just too tempting. I’m guessing the city will end up begging Wind River not to allow resident parking on their property, hell, they could sell passes for $25/month and undercut the on site parking program and the transit attempts.
    I’m sure the developer is not looking forward to setting up and operating a parking authority agency. There are a lot of details to work out on that. Who runs it? Who owns the parking spaces and how does the developer make money off of it, etc. It should be leased, not sold.
    Sounds like the land acquisition for the Wind River parcel to build that section of Clement is a formality. Hopefully the Pennzoil property gets acquired soon. I still want to hear how that is expected to go.

    Comment by BMac — September 23, 2014 @ 10:17 am

  6. Just to clarify BMac’s comment, the application of the density bonus raised the over all project units to 414, but 31 of the 55 affordable housing units promised by the developer will be built off site. That off site building will have its own parking standards. So it’s still 415 parking units for 308 units for the Del Monte building itself.

    Comment by Lauren Do — September 23, 2014 @ 10:32 am

  7. Thanks for the clarification. So… 308 units in the building, ok. I think only 18 of the 24 moderate income units will be incorporated within the building, leaving a total of 37 to be done Shinsei Gardens style on one or both of the adjoining pads. Lets say they put all 37 on one of the two remaining pads, bringing us to 345. That leaves a potential of 69 units to be squeezed in somewhere else, presumably on the one remaining pad? That’s gonna be tough to pull off.

    Comment by BMac — September 23, 2014 @ 11:14 am

  8. Lauren – I’d like to clarify your comment on the affordable housing to make sure a bad rumor doesn’t get started. All 55 affordable housing units will be built in the Del Monte site – all of them. What you are referring to is the idea that not all 55 of the units are planned to be in the existing warehouse building itself. The developers plan is to put 16 of the units in the warehouse, 37 of the units will be built in a separate structure(s) at the corner of Buena Vista and Sherman (still on the site, just a separate piece of property) and then there are a few floater units that will be in one of three places – in the warehouse, with the other 37 units, or a third piece of the development planned for the corner of Sherman and Clement.

    Comment by david burton — September 23, 2014 @ 11:17 am

  9. Thanks David, I realized after I wrote it that “off site” might have been perceived as somewhere else far far away, but I meant off site as “not in the Del Monte building itself.”

    Comment by Lauren Do — September 23, 2014 @ 11:28 am

  10. So what is keeping the residents who will live there from opting out of a purchase or lease of a parking space? They can just ‘park for free’ within the existing neighborhood and walk to their units.

    Comment by frank M — September 23, 2014 @ 1:37 pm

  11. Nothing. Except for the fact that if parking is as difficult as neighbors say it is, there is the pain in the ass factor. You can choose to lease a parking spot that is yours alone for $x per day or you can opt to circle the block endlessly until you find a “free” parking spot. It’s the same decision making process that people make when they go to any parking limited area. Pay for a spot or pay in time/gas/frustration to find a “free” spot.

    Comment by Lauren Do — September 23, 2014 @ 1:47 pm

  12. Also, if “everyone” chooses not to pay for parking and just parks in the neighborhood, the price of the on site parking spaces come down until it is more attractive than circling the neighborhood for street parking. In addition, the neighborhood can request permit parking to keep them out if they aren’t residents. Its not rocket science.

    Comment by BMac — September 23, 2014 @ 3:51 pm

  13. the permit concept had some neighbors undies in a bunch even though THEY would get the permits (free) and it would give THEM priority. Somebody was screaming about how awful to need a permit to park in their own neighborhood! Really, and what about when somebody has a party?!… and get off my lawn!

    here’s a good one. I almost called cops on a car which had been in front of my house for two solid weeks, but I saw the guy getting in to it one day. So I say, “Hey dude, WTF?” Turns out he was flying out of Oakland and wanted a safe place to park which was a cheap cab ride from the airport. He was from Oakland.

    8. yeah, “off sight” had me going.

    Comment by MI — September 23, 2014 @ 4:10 pm

  14. Actually, when I lived in SF permit parking was like $60 per year and only allowed non permit parking for 2 hours during certain times, usually from 6am-7pm. I am sure it is a lot more now. It is a way of controlling neighborhood parking, but it shouldn’t be for free as it should pay for the salaries of the people administrating it plus more parking enforcement people.

    Permit parking is usually for certain neighborhood so this project would include say everyone living in the area from Lincoln to Atlantic and Grand to Webster. If you lived in that area you would have a sticker which said A, and the next part of the City would have stickers which said B, and so on. I had many parking tickets in SF.

    When I lived in a condo building by Lake Merritt in Oakland we only had 1 assigned space and I met an older person who didn’t drive and she rented out her space for $50 per month…it was so much better then circling around blocks looking for parking. Given an opportunity most people would probably lease or buy their space.

    Comment by Joseph — September 23, 2014 @ 5:13 pm

  15. Joseph ,
    San Francisco is a cancer , no one can afford the rent but the techie from google and the like , there is never any parking space. This is why they are leaving , corporation and residents ….
    What is sad they ” The City ” is bringing San Francisco problem in a City which did not have parking problem ,
    MI
    I cut no deal with peoples parking for long period of time , after 72 hours I call the Police , they tag the car then tow it away , couples days later cost , $250 towing plus $50 storage fee a day . Sir you seen my car ? what car ?? ….

    Comment by joel rambaud — September 23, 2014 @ 9:18 pm

  16. 15. we don’t have a parking problem but we have a site line problem. The City should remove parking on all four corners for a decent distance at every intersection. Then we might have a parking problem.

    Our neighbors with a drive way AND two car garage and more on street parking than anybody because they are the corner house, had our son’s car tagged after 48 hours. We moved it and then I moved my truck there. Two can play at this passive aggressive game. They have a child care share and like for people to be able to dump and run right at their front door. They even knew whose car it was. They also rent which doesn’t make them second class citizens or anything, but the rest of us who have lived here a while are a little more neighborly. If a car were left in front of my house today I would call after five days or so, and if I knew whose car it was I would simply knock on their door.

    Comment by MI — September 23, 2014 @ 11:01 pm

  17. #15, Frank, actually companies are moving to SF with a lot of new jobs and parking has always been tight. Rent or buying property there has never been cheap and there has always been people moving out of SF to other places. Where do you think people came from who live in Pleasanton, Antioch, Walnut Creek, ect. Most moved from SF or another area of the Bay Area. I moved from SF because I wanted something different, I was tired of living in SF. We could have bought a fixer upper or condo in SF but we wanted a house and new construction.

    Comment by Joseph — September 24, 2014 @ 10:02 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.