HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Attachment 3 - CHS Parkin Analysis1617 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 272-9597
www.chsconsulting.net
Technical Memorandum
Date: June 15, 2021
To: Pratyush Bhatia, City of Dublin
From: Magnus Barber, CHS Consulting
Charles Felder AICP, CHS Consulting
Re: Bridge Housing Golden Gate BART Project – Parking Study Methodology Memorandum
This technical memorandum presents the assumptions, methodology, and analysis used to determine whether
the proposed parking ratio for the Bridge Housing Golden Gate BART Project (“proposed project”) at Golden
Gate Drive and Hammerhead Drive in Dublin, California can be supported. This memorandum is being
submitted by CHS Consulting to the City of Dublin’s Planning Department as part of the transportation study
being performed for the proposed project.
Executive Summary
In order to assess the feasibility of the proposed project’s parking supply to adequately meet parking demand,
CHS reviewed City off-street parking requirements and compared the supply required by code to an analysis of
the proposed project’s likely parking demand. The analysis was conducted based on industry standard parking
demand data gathered from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual (5th
Edition), parking data provided by Bridge Housing for similarly sited affordable housing developments, and the
GreenTRIP Connect Dashboard (GreenTRIP) parking analysis tool.1,2 Based on these parking demand analyses, the
proposed project’s parking supply of 245 spaces would be expected to exceed the proposed project’s parking
demand, and would not result in a parking deficit.
1.0 Project Understanding
The proposed project site is located along the west side of Golden Gate Drive, directly west of the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART parking garage and directly north of Interstate 580 (I-580) and the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. The proposed project site, currently an undeveloped vacant lot, is bounded by
residential uses to the north and industrial/commercial uses to the west.
The proposed project, which would proceed in two phases, would develop 300 affordable residential units (66
studio units, 82 1-bedroom units, 76 2-bedroom units, and 76 3-bedroom units), 2,200 square feet of retail and
amenity space for a café use, and 245 on-site parking spaces, including four building employee parking spaces
and two retail employee parking spaces. The 66 studio units would be permanent supportive housing (PSH) for
recently homeless tenants who would not own cars and would not receive on-site parking spaces. The proposed
project would also provide 166 on-site bicycle parking spaces, as well as three on-street guest parking spaces.
1 “Parking Generation, 5th Edition”, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2019.
2 The GreenTRIP Connect Dashboard is accessible at: https://www.transformca.org/greentrip/connect
92
Attachment 3
Bridge Housing Golden Gate BART Development | Parking Analysis
CHS Consulting Group
Page 2 of 11
2.0 City of Dublin Parking Requirements
Based on the proposed project’s affordable housing program of at least 20 percent low-income units or 11
percent very low-income units within a half-mile of an accessible major transit stop (the West Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station), the proposed project would meet the California Density Bonus Law requirements to qualify for a
reduced parking ratio of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit. The proposed project would therefore be required to
provide 150 spaces for the residential use. The proposed project would also be required to provide one parking
space for every 100 square feet of café space accessible to customers, and one parking space for every 300
square feet of the café’s back-of-house uses. With 60 percent of the café space accessible to customers, and 40
percent dedicated to back-of-house uses, results in a requirement of 16 spaces.3,4 However, since the café would
most likely serve residents, visitors, and people commuting by BART (on foot, parking at BART or elsewhere), this
requirement likely far exceeds actual demand. Either way, the requirement would be 166 spaces, which the
proposed project currently exceeds by 79 parking spaces.5
Had it not qualified for the Density Bonus Law’s reduced parking ratio provision, the proposed project’s location
within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan would have required a parking supply ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per
dwelling unit (450 parking spaces), and with up to 15 percent of the required residential parking provision
permitted for guests (between 0 and 68 parking spaces).6 In addition, the (at most) 16 spaces for the café as
outline above. The proposed project would therefore have been required to provide between 466 and 526
parking spaces. With a proposed parking ratio of 0.82 spaces per dwelling unit, the proposed project’s 245 on-
site parking spaces (not including three on-street guest parking spaces) would not have met the City’s
requirement of at least 466 parking spaces, and would have resulted in a 213-parking space deficiency according
to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
Considering the project without the 66 PSH units, whose tenants will not own vehicles, results in a supply of 245
spaces for 234 units, for a parking ratio of 1.05. Applying the parking requirement of 1.5 spaces/unit to the 234
units, in combination with the café parking requirement of 16 spaces, results in a requirement of 367 parking
spaces, which would suggest a shortfall of 122 spaces.
3.0 Reduced Parking Ratio Analysis
In order to assess whether the proposed project could feasibly function with a reduced parking supply of 245
on-site spaces, CHS first conducted a parking demand analysis using the ITE Parking Generation Manual (5th
Edition) to estimate the parking demand for the proposed project. Because the proposed project’s 66 PSH units
would be reserved for tenants without vehicles and would therefore not receive corresponding parking spaces,
CHS assumed a baseline of 234 dwelling units and 2,200 square feet of retail use for the ITE analysis.7 For the
purpose of conservative comparative analysis, CHS then reviewed parking supply and occupancy data from
3 “Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations”, Dublin Municipal Code, City of Dublin. Accessible online at:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Dublin/html/Dublin08/Dublin0876.html
4 (1,3200 square feet / 100) + (880 square feet / 300) = 16 parking spaces
5 California Government Code (Sections 65915-65918) details the California Density Bonus Law, and is accessible online at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=65915
6 “Downtown Dublin Specific Plan”, City of Dublin (July 2020). Accessible online at:
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7859/Amended_DDSP_Dec_2020?bidId
7 300 dwelling units – 66 PSH units = 234 dwelling units
93
Bridge Housing Golden Gate BART Development | Parking Analysis
CHS Consulting Group
Page 3 of 11
existing Bridge Housing sites with similar characteristics (multistory, transit-oriented developments with 100
percent affordable housing programs). Five peer sites with similar program characteristics were selected.
For additional comparative analysis, CHS employed GreenTRIP to estimate the proposed project’s anticipated
parking demand based on similarly-sited Bay Area affordable housing projects and assess the ability of
transportation demand management (TDM) strategies to reduce parking demand at the project site. Similar to
the ITE analysis, CHS assumed a baseline of 234 dwelling units for the GreenTRIP analysis. GreenTRIP’s Bay Area-
focused parking database is compiled and operated by TransForm through funding from the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) and the U.S. Department of housing and Urban Development (HUD).
GreenTRIP provides parking occupancy data for Bay Area residential sites through an integrated assessment of
local land uses, transportation and mobility contexts, low-income housing variables, and household travel
survey and census data to estimate actual parking for affordable TOD housing projects in specific contexts.
TransForm collects and incorporates current parking information to the GreenTRIP database on an on-going
basis.
3.1 ITE Parking Demand Analysis
Utilizing the ITE Parking Generation Manual, CHS selected ITE’s Land Use Code 223 (Affordable Housing) for a
general urban/suburban setting location within a half-mile of transit to assess the proposed project’s residential
parking demand. This land use exhibited a range in parking demand from 0.32 to 1.66 parking spaces per
dwelling unit, with an average demand of 0.99 parking spaces per dwelling unit. While the proposed project
would develop 300 dwelling units, 66 PSH units (41 Phase 1 units and 25 Phase 2 units, respectively) would be
reserved for recently homeless tenants who would not have vehicles and would not receive a corresponding
parking space. Therefore, the ITE analysis was conducted for the 234 dwelling units that would receive parking
spaces. Employing the average demand rate of 0.99 parking spaces per dwelling unit, the proposed project
would have a residential parking demand of 232 parking spaces during the typical weekday peak overnight
period (10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.).8 Note that the ITE’s data reflects parking demand from all types of users at the
project – residents, employees, visitors, and deliveries. While the PSH unit tenants would not own vehicles, they
might still receive visits from guests with vehicles. Estimating this demand with any degree of precision is
challenging because the ITE parking generation rates include all types of parking demand including visitors.
However, the proposed parking supply exceeds the calculated demand by more than 5%, which should be
adequate to accommodate visitors to PSH tenants.
CHS selected ITE’s Land Use Code 936 (Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window) for a
general/suburban setting to assess the proposed project’s café use parking demand. This land use exhibited a
range in parking demand from 3.49 to 19.31 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, with an average demand of
10.49 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. Employing the average demand rate of 10.49 parking spaces per
1,000 square feet, the proposed project would have a café parking demand of 23 parking spaces during the
typical weekday peak period (7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.).
Based on the ITE estimation of an average parking demand of 0.99 parking spaces per dwelling unit, the
proposed provision of 245 parking spaces would exceed the peak residential demand of 232 parking spaces
during the typical weekday peak overnight period by 13 parking spaces. It is noted that the peak periods of
residential parking demand (10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.) and café parking demand (7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.) would not
8 234 dwelling units x 0.99 parking spaces per unit = 232 parking spaces
94
Bridge Housing Golden Gate BART Development | Parking Analysis
CHS Consulting Group
Page 4 of 11
coincide, and that the peak café parking demand of 23 spaces would be expected to be met due to the daily
departure of residents. It is further noted that ITE estimate for 23 café spaces would exceed the City parking
requirement (16 spaces), and would be anticipated to exceed the likely demand for the café use, as the café
would be expected to serve building residents, residential visitors, employees, and customers purchasing food
and drinks prior to commuting on BART. See Appendix A for complete ITE parking rate data.
While the ITE analysis shows that the proposed project’s reduced parking ratio would meet the proposed
project’s estimated parking demand, it is noted that ITE’s parking demand tool draws from nationwide parking
data. CHS therefore conducted further analysis for the proposed residential use utilizing parking data from
existing Bridge Housing peer sites and GreenTRIP, as these resources provide a more accurate assessment of
current Bay Area parking conditions at affordable housing developments in similar local land use contexts.
3.2 Peer Site Parking Data Review
CHS conducted a review of parking supply and demand rates at Bridge Housing peer sites to better understand
actual parking demand rates for similarly sited affordable housing developments (see Appendix B for complete
peer site parking data). Bridge Housing provided parking supply and demand data from 18 developments in the
Bay Area, from which CHS selected five peer sites based on the following criteria:
100 percent of dwelling units are affordable;
Developments are multistory;
Developments are transit-oriented; and
Developments’ on-site parking ratios are at or below the proposed project’s parking ratio of
0.82 spaces per dwelling unit
The peer sites include:
La Vereda
The La Vereda Apartments is a senior affordable housing development located at 1400 San Leandro Boulevard in
San Leandro, California, directly across the street from the San Leandro BART Station. Dwelling unit affordability
ranges between zero to 50 percent of the area median income (AMI). The development includes 85 dwelling
units and 37 on-site parking spaces, resulting in a parking ratio of 0.44 spaces per dwelling unit. Per building
staff, seven (19 percent) of the 37 parking spaces are typically available during the peak overnight period. Table
1 (on Page 6) presents parking supply and occupancy data for each peer affordable housing site during the peak
overnight period.
Mabuhay Court
Mabuhay Court Apartments is a senior affordable housing development located at 270 East Empire Street in San
Jose, California, approximately 0.38 miles east of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA)
Japantown/Ayer light rail station. Dwelling unit affordability ranges between zero to 50 percent AMI. The
development includes 96 dwelling units and 79 on-site parking spaces, resulting in a parking ratio of 0.82 spaces
per dwelling unit. 16 units do not have vehicles and associated parking spaces. Per building staff, 16 (20 percent)
of the 79 parking spaces are typically available during the peak overnight period.
Mandela Gateway Apartments
95
Bridge Housing Golden Gate BART Development | Parking Analysis
CHS Consulting Group
Page 5 of 11
Mandela Gateway Apartments is a family affordable housing development located at 1350-1400 7th Street in
Oakland, California, approximately 140 feet northeast of the BART West Oakland Station. Dwelling unit
affordability ranges between 30 to 60 percent AMI. The development includes 168 dwelling units and 135 on-
site parking spaces, resulting in a parking ratio of 0.8 spaces per dwelling unit. Per building staff, all 135 parking
spaces are typically occupied during the peak overnight period.
St. Joseph’s Apartments
St. Joseph’s Apartments is a senior affordable housing development located at 2647 International Boulevard in
Oakland, California, approximately 0.5 miles northwest of BART’s Fruitvale station. Dwelling unit affordability
ranges from less than 30 percent to 49 percent AMI. The development includes 82 dwelling units and 53 on-site
parking spaces, resulting in a parking ratio of 0.65 spaces per dwelling unit. Per building staff, 28 (53 percent) of
the 53 parking spaces are typically available during the peak overnight period.
Celadon at 9th & Broadway
Celadon at 9th & Broadway Apartments is a family mixed affordable housing development located at 929 9th
Avenue in San Diego, California, approximately 0.1 miles west of San Diego Trolley’s City College Station.9
Dwelling unit affordability ranges from 30 to 60 percent AMI. The development includes 250 dwelling units and
116 on-site parking spaces (includes 18 parking spaces reserved for building staff, but does not include
additional 13 motorcycle spaces), resulting in a parking ratio of 0.46 spaces per dwelling unit. Per building staff,
16 (14 percent) of the 116 parking spaces are typically available during the peak overnight period.
Table 1: Peer Site Parking Supply vs Peak1 Parking Demand
Peer Site Units Spaces Spaces per
Unit
Occupied
Spaces
Demand per
Unit
Free Spaces
Total %
La Vereda 85 37 0.44 30 0.35 7 19%
Mabuhay Court 96 79 0.82 63 0.66 16 20%
Mandela Gateway 168 135 0.80 135 0.80 0 0%
St. Joseph's 82 53 0.65 25 0.30 28 53%
Celadon 250 116 0.46 100 0.40 16 14%
1. The peak period for residential parking is typically overnight between 12:00 and 5:00 a.m.
Source: Bridge Housing (2021).
Table 1 shows the parking supply rates at the peer sites range between 0.44 and 0.82 spaces per dwelling unit,
while the parking demand ranges between 0.3 and 0.8 spaces dwelling per unit. As a result, between zero and
53 percent of on-site parking spaces are typically available during the overnight peak period, with at least 14
percent of spaces available at four of the five the peer sites. This indicates that despite the reduced parking
ratios, the parking at the peer sites is generally over-supplied.
To further assess whether the proposed project would generate a parking demand rate similar to the peer sites,
CHS analyzed parking supply and occupancy data at Bridge Housing’s non-transit-oriented development (TOD)
buildings in more suburban contexts. These developments include:
9 San Diego Trolley is a light rail system subsidiary of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS).
96
Bridge Housing Golden Gate BART Development | Parking Analysis
CHS Consulting Group
Page 6 of 11
Alta Torre
The Alta Torre Apartments is a mixed affordable housing development located at 3895 Fabian Way in Palo Alto,
California. The development includes 56 dwelling units and 45 on-site parking spaces, resulting in a parking ratio
of 0.8 spaces per dwelling unit. Per building staff, 17 (38 percent) of the 56 parking spaces are typically available
during the peak overnight period. Table 2 (on Page 7) presents parking supply and occupancy data for each
non-TOD site during the peak overnight period.
Pickleweed
The Pickleweed Apartments is a family affordable housing development located at 651 Miller Avenue in Mill
Valley, California. The development includes 32 dwelling units and 31 on-site parking spaces, resulting in a
parking ratio of 0.97 spaces per dwelling unit. Per building staff, 100 percent of the on-site parking spaces are
typically occupied during the peak overnight period.
Ironhorse at Central Station
The Ironhorse at Central Station is a family affordable housing development located at 1801 14th Street in
Oakland, California. The development includes 99 dwelling units and 101 on-site parking spaces, resulting in a
parking ratio of 1.04 spaces per dwelling unit. Per building staff, six (six percent) of the 103 parking spaces are
typically available during the peak overnight period.
Table 2: Non-TOD Site Parking Supply vs Peak1 Parking Demand
Non-TOD Sites Units Spaces Spaces
per Unit
Occupied
Spaces
Demand
per Unit
Free Spaces
Total %
Alta Torre 56 45 0.80 28 0.50 17 38%
Pickleweed 32 31 0.97 31 0.97 0 0%
Ironhorse at Central Station 99 103 1.04 97 0.98 6 6%
1. The peak period for residential parking is typically overnight between 12:00 and 5:00 a.m.
Source: Bridge Housing (2021).
As presented in Table 2, the parking supply ratios at the non-TOD sites range between 0.5 and 1.04 spaces per
dwelling unit, while the parking demand ranges between 0.5 and 0.98 spaces per dwelling unit. This shows that
the parking supply ratios and demand rates at the non-TOD sites are typically higher than the range of parking
supply ratios (0.44 to 0.82 spaces per dwelling unit) and demand rates (0.3 to 0.8 spaces per dwelling unit) at the
peer sites (see Table 1 on Page 6).
Assuming a similar peak parking demand within the range of rates reported by the peer sites in Table 1 (Page 5),
and further considering that the proposed project’s 66 PSH units will not receive parking spaces, the proposed
project would be expected to generate a peak parking demand below its proposed parking ratio of 0.82 spaces
per dwelling unit, with a potential surplus of up to 53 percent of on-site spaces (130 spaces). Therefore, the
proposed project’s supply of 245 on-site spaces would be expected to meet the peak overnight parking demand
and the City’s requirement for 16 café parking spaces, and would not result in a parking deficiency.
3.3 GreenTRIP Connect Analysis
CHS used GreenTRIP to further assess the proposed project’s likely parking demand based on parking data
gathered from similar Bay Area developments located in similar land use contexts, and to assess the ability of
various TDM strategies to reduce the proposed project’s parking demand. The GreenTRIP Connect tool pulls its
97
Bridge Housing Golden Gate BART Development | Parking Analysis
CHS Consulting Group
Page 7 of 11
parking data from the multifamily residential developments included in the GreenTRIP Parking Database,
narrowing the range of projects to the developments most similar to the proposed project’s location, proximity
to transit, and affordable housing program.10
Because the proposed project’s 66 PSH units would be for tenants who would not own vehicles or receive
corresponding parking spaces, CHS performed the GreenTRIP parking demand analysis assuming 234 dwelling
units. A parking supply of 245 spaces for 234 dwelling units would result in a ratio of 1.05 parking spaces per
unit.11 As presented in Figure 1 (Page 8), the 234-dwelling unit GreenTRIP analysis shows the parking demand
would be 1.07 spaces per dwelling unit (246 spaces) without TDM measures, slightly above the parking supply
ratio of 1.05 spaces per dwelling unit. The proposed project’s parking demand could be further reduced to 0.96
spaces per dwelling unit (224 spaces) with the application of TDM measures such as the provision of transit pass
subsidies, car share membership subsidies, and bike share membership subsidies to each residential unit on an
annual basis.12 It is noted that the GreenTRIP parking demand estimate does not consider additional TDM
measures which may be included in the proposed project and which would further reduce the anticipated
parking demand.
Figure 1: GreenTRIP Parking Demand Analysis – 234 Units
10 The GreenTRIP Parking Database is accessible online at: https://www.transformca.org/greentrip/parking-database
11 234 dwelling units / 245 parking spaces = 1.05 parking spaces per dwelling unit
12 234 parking spaces x 0.96 parking spaces per unit = 224 parking spaces
98
Bridge Housing Golden Gate BART Development | Parking Analysis
CHS Consulting Group
Page 8 of 11
Source: GreenTRIP Connect Dashboard (2021).
The conclusions of the GreenTRIP analysis for the proposed project’s residential parking demand are consistent
with the ITE parking demand analysis and the parking demand data gathered from Bridge Housing’s peer sites,
with the proposed project’s parking supply of 245 spaces exceeding the peak overnight parking demand of 224
spaces. As noted above, the period of peak café parking demand (7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.) would not coincide with
the overnight peak period of residential parking demand (10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.), and the proposed project’s
parking supply of 245 spaces would be expected to conveniently accommodate the peak period of demand for
each respective use.
4.0 Conclusions
Due to the proposed project’s affordable housing program and its location within a half-mile the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, the proposed project would meet the California Density Bonus Law
requirements for a reduced parking ratio of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit (150 spaces). The café space would by
required to provide up to 16 spaces, for a combined requirement of 166 spaces. The proposed project would
provide 245 parking spaces, exceeding the requirement by 79 spaces.
Based on an analysis of ITE parking demand data, additional Bridge Housing affordable housing developments
in similar land use contexts, and GreenTRIP data for similar Bay Area affordable housing TOD projects, the
proposed project’s reduced parking supply of 245 spaces appears appropriate and likely to meet or exceed
parking demand, given the proposed project’s characteristics and siting adjacent to the West Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station. The ITE parking demand analysis shows the proposed project’s 245 parking spaces would likely be
over-supplied by at least 13 spaces during the period of peak parking demand, with a peak residential overnight
demand of 232 spaces, and a peak café parking demand of 23 spaces between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. The
period of peak café parking demand would not coincide with the overnight peak period of residential parking
demand, and the proposed project’s parking supply would be expected to meet the peak period of demand for
both the residential and café uses.
A review of peer site parking demand data shows that the proposed project’s 245 parking spaces would likely be
over-supplied, with a potential parking surplus of up to 53 percent (130 spaces) during the peak overnight
period. Similarly, the GreenTRIP analysis also demonstrates that given the proposed project’s siting, affordable
housing program, and proximity to transit, the proposed project’s peak overnight parking demand is estimated
to be 224 spaces, which would be accommodated by the proposed supply of 245 parking spaces.
99
Bridge Housing Golden Gate BART Development | Parking Analysis
CHS Consulting Group
Page 9 of 11
APPENDIX A
Affordable Housing Parking Rates, Parking Generation Manual,
5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers
100
4/23/2021 https://iteparkgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=223&ivlabel=UNITS223&timeperiod=OAFME&x=245&edition=416&locationCode=General U…
https://iteparkgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=223&ivlabel=UNITS223&timeperiod=OAFME&x=245&edition=416&locationCode=General Urban/Suburb…1/1
Affordable Housing - Income Limits
(223)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs:Dwelling Units
On a:Weekday (Monday - Friday)
Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban
Peak Period of Parking Demand:10:00 p.m. - 5:00 a.m.
Number of Studies:29
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units:159
Peak Period Parking Demand per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)
95% Confidence
Interval
33rd / 85th
PercentileRange of Rates
0.99 0.27 (27%)0.89 - 1.09/1.330.850.32 - 1.66
Data Plot and Equation
P = Parked VehiclesX = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Average RateFitted Curve
Fitted Curve Equation: P = 1.13(X) - 21.94 R²= 0.91
Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers
0 200 400 600 8000
200
400
600
800
1,000
245
243
255
101
6/9/2021 https://iteparkgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=936&ivlabel=QFQAF&timeperiod=OAFME&x=2200&edition=416&locationCode=General Urb…
https://iteparkgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=936&ivlabel=QFQAF&timeperiod=OAFME&x=2200&edition=416&locationCode=General Urban/Suburban…1/1
Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window
(936)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs:1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
On a:Weekday (Monday - Friday)
Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban
Peak Period of Parking Demand:7:00 - 8:00 a.m.
Number of Studies:11
Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA:1.8
Peak Period Parking Demand per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Average Rate
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)
95% Confidence
Interval
33rd / 85th
PercentileRange of Rates
10.49 4.96 (47%)***/17.208.443.49 - 19.31
Data Plot and Equation
P = Parked VehiclesX = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Study Site Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: ***R²= ***
Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers
0 1 2 3 40
5
10
15
20
25
30
102
Bridge Housing Golden Gate BART Development | Parking Analysis
CHS Consulting Group
Page 10 of 11
APPENDIX B
Bridge Housing Peer Site Parking Data
103
Bridges Housing - Affordable Housing Parking Data
TOD Property Name County Unit Count
Community
Served AMI Property Address City
Total
Number of
parking
spaces:
# of spaces
used
# of spaces
not used
# of
residents on
a waiting list
(if
applicable)
Comments?Parking
Ratio Resident Mgr Email Property
Supervisor 0 BDRM 1 BDRM 2 BDRM 3 BDRM 4 BDRM Total Bedrooms
Chronically
Ill & Special
Needs or
Formerly
Homeless
Parking
Ratio Per
Bedroom
TOD Almaden Lake Apartments Santa Clara 144 Family 30-50%978 Almaden Lake Dr San Jose 154 154 0 0 One parking given to each apartment 1.07
AlmadenLake@bridgehousi
ng.com Radhika Mahajan 24 54 66 330 0.47
TOD La Vereda Alameda 85 Senior 0-30%; 31-50%
1400 San Leandro
Boulevard San Leandro 37 30 7 10 0.44
LaVereda@bridgehousing.c
om Becky Olivera 77 8 93 0.40
TOD Mabuhay Court Santa Clara 96 Senior <30%; 30-50%270 E. Empire Street San Jose 79 63 16 N/A 16 units do not have a car 0.82
MabuhayCourt@bridgehousi
ng.com Radhika Mahajan 20 60 16 112 0.71
TOD Mandela Gateway Apartments Alameda 168 Family 30-60%1350-1400 7th Street Oakland 135 135 0 N/A 0.80 mandelagat@jsco.net Jennifer Wood
36 78 42 10 358 0.38
TOD Marea Alta Alameda 115 Family
<30%; 40-49%; 50-
79%
1400 San Leandro
Boulevard San Leandro 111 91 20 N/A 0.97
MareaAlta@bridgehousing.c
om Becky Olivera 8 48 23 36 210 0.53
TOD Montevista Apartments Santa Clara 306 Family
50%; 60%; 80%;
Market Rate 1001 South Main Street Milpitas 677 492 120 N/A 306 garages and 306 parking spots, 65 visitor spots 2.21
Montevista@bridgehousing.
com Kevin OConnell 72 165 69 609 1.11
TOD Mural Apartments Alameda 90 Family
<30%; 40-49%; 50-
79%3838 Turquoise Way Oakland 90 87 3 8 5 spaces for staff 1.00 Mural@bridgehousing.com Gisselle Najlis
2 22 29 37 193 0.47
TOD Richmond City Center Apartments Contra Costa 64 Family 30-50%1000 Macdonald Richmond 86 73 13
People on
waitlist are for
2nd stall
request only.
of the 86 spaces:
3 desiganted for commercial
2 used for Solar Gate (cage)
4 ADA
4 are marked as "Do not assign" because of configuation
issues
1.34 RCCA@bridgehousing.com Wesley Finney
16 27 20 130 0.66
TOD St. Joseph's Apartments Alameda 82 Senior <30%; 40-49%2647 International Blvd. Oakland 53 25 28 N/A parking isn't tracked at this site, but will be beginning in 2021 0.65
StJosephs@bridgehousing.c
om Kevin OConnell 33 51 84 30 0.63
TOD Strobridge Court Alameda 96 Mixed 40-50%21000 Wilbeam Castro Valley 129 98 10 N/A 21 visitor parking spots 1.34
StrobridgeCourt@bridgehou
sing.com Kevin OConnell 54 14 81 2 333 0.39
TOD The Rivermark Yolo 70 Family
<30%; 40-49%; 50-
79%; 80-120%959 Bridge St West
Sacramento 61 59 2 12 0.87
TheRivermark@bridgehousi
ng.com Becky Olivera 9 36 25 156 0.39
TOD Trestle Glen San Mateo 119 Family
<30%; 40-49%; 50-
79%; 80-120%370 & 398 F Street Colma 131 128 3 N/A
We have a total of 4 handicapped spaces. One of the
handicap spaces is for the daycare but by law anyone
with a handicap placard can use that spot so it gets
pretty confusing sometimes.
1.10 TrestleGlen@bridgehousing.
com Renata Wundram 28 44 47 257 0.51
TOD Celadon at 9th & Broadway San Diego 250 Family Mixed 30-60%929 9th Avenue San Diego 116 100 16 11
Note: Celadon also has 13 motorcycle spaces and 18 spaces saved
for staff, vendors, and Service Providers. The 18 is included in the
116 but the 13 is not.
0.46 Celadon@bridgehousing.com Maiesha Anthony 174 76 250 76 0.40
Alta Torre Santa Clara 56 Mixed 3895 Fabian Way Palo Alto 45 28 17 0 17 units do not have a car 0.80
AltaTorre@bridgehousing.co
m Radhika Mahajan 56 56 0.50
Pickleweed Marin 32 Family 651 Miller Avenue Mill Valley 31 31 0 N/A
15 guest - residents park their 2nd & 3rd vehicles in the
guest parking spaces/2 handicap/2 city parking 0.97 Pickleweed@bridgehousing.
com Becky Olivera 8 16 8 64 0.48
Ironhorse at Central Station Alameda 99 Family 1801 14th Street Oakland 103 97 6 n/a
I'm not including handicap spaces in the availability numbers
for any of my sites.1.04 Ironhorse@bridgehousing.c
om Kevin OConnell 23 19 57 232 0.42
104
Bridge Housing Golden Gate BART Development | Parking Analysis
CHS Consulting Group
Page 11 of 11
APPENDIX C
GreenTRIP Connect Parking Demand Analysis
105
6/9/2021 GreenTRIP Connect
https://connect.greentrip.org/map-tool.php?addr=West+Dublin+BART 1/4
Connect project report
Bridges Housing Golden Gate
BART Project
URL: Generate link
Prepared by: CHS Consulting Group
Project status: Not speci ed
Additional project info:
GreenTRIP Connect (Connect.GreenTRIP.org) is a free,
online tool that models traf c and greenhouse gas
impacts of a residential project in California. Based on
the project's location, unit count, unit mix, rent, parking
supply, and traf c reduction strategies, this project will
result in:
3,945 fewer miles driven every day compared
to the Alameda County average.
55% fewer GHG impacts every day compared
to the Alameda County average.
15% less parking use every day compared to
the Alameda County average.
$1,048 in transportation savings for future
residents.
Parking when compared to Municipal
requirements:
Saving $5,300,000 in parking construction
cost if built with 1.05 instead of the
municipal requirement of 1 .5 spaces/unit.
Saving 11,934 sq.ft. in parking spaces which
could be allocated to 16 housing units of
747 sq.ft.
500 ft ReportMap
Bus Carshare Bus rapid transit
Subway, metro Rail Tram, streetcar, light rail
Cable car, funicular Ferry
Transit Markers
106
6/9/2021 GreenTRIP Connect
https://connect.greentrip.org/map-tool.php?addr=West+Dublin+BART 2/4
Project characteristics
Building: 234 units
Parking proposed: 245 spaces
Density: 64.86 units/acre
Parking ratio: 1.05 spaces/unit
GreenTRIP
certification
ready?
Yes
See requirements
Comparison snapshot
showing: per unit, per day Driving
miles/day
Greenhouse
gases
kg CO2/day
Parking spaces
predicted use
if built in an average location* in:
Alameda County 30.71 16.03 1.13
if built on selected parcel 25.83 13.48 1.07
with affordable housing 18.22 9.51 1.05
with GreenTRIP strategies 13.85 7.23 0.96
Your project 13.85 7.23 0.96
$1,048 Resident savings from
selected GreenTRIP
strategies per
year/household
$5,300,000 Saved on parking
compared to municipal
parking requirement of
1 .5 spaces/unit, or 3 5 1
spaces total.
55%
Less driving
16.86
Fewer miles per year
55%
Less climate impact
8.8
Fewer CO2 per year
15%
Less parking used
0.17
Fewer parking spaces
used
Total driving and climate impacts compared to Alameda County average.
Connect project report (page 2)
GreenTRIP Connect dashboard for your project
Note: Certifications are currently only offered in the San Francisco Bay Area (defined by the boundaries of MTC).
*All “average location” buildings are given 1.2 spaces per unit. (This ratio is the lower end of the Institute for Transportation
Engineers guidance for parking in multiunit buildings.) To learn more about the Connect tool methodology please click here.
107
6/9/2021 GreenTRIP Connect
https://connect.greentrip.org/map-tool.php?addr=West+Dublin+BART 3/4
Units Avg. sq. ft.Avg. rent ($/mo)
14 Studio 470 $2,062
117 1 BR 660 $2,062
89 2 BR 850 $2,650
14 3+ BR 1,100 $2,650
234 Total 747 $2,321
Spaces Construction cost per space Maintenance cost per space ($/mo)
0 Surface ----
245 Garage/structure $50,000 $175
0 Underground garage ----
0 Lifts ----
0 Tandem ----
166 Bike $$
245 Total
Household value per year
Resident transit passes
One per unit $75
Car sharing memberships
One per unit $60
Bike sharing memberships
One per unit $88
$1,048
Unbundled parking
GreenTRIP strategies
$0 per month for residents or for public use
Average cost of owning and operating a vehicle $8,698/yr
according to AAA
Affordable housing
133 Very low-income (BMR 31-50% AMI)
98 Low-income (BMR 51-80%)
Connect project report (page 3)
Building
Total acres: 3.61
Dwelling units per acre: 64.86
Bedrooms per acre: 97.28
Parking
Used spaces per dwelling unit: 1.05
Used spaces per bedroom: 0.64
Charge for parking per month: none
108
6/9/2021 GreenTRIP Connect
https://connect.greentrip.org/map-tool.php?addr=West+Dublin+BART 4/4
Transit within a 1/4 mile:
Bay Area Rapid Transit
dublin/pleasanton - daly city
Wheels (Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority)
rapid, route 3, route 503, route 53
Transit within a 1/2 mile:
Bay Area Rapid Transit
dublin/pleasanton - daly city
Wheels (Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority)
rapid, route 10, route 3, route 503, route 53, route 70x/70xv
Connect project report (page 4)
Nearby transportation
NOTE: This report does not imply that this project has received a GreenTRIP Certi cation.
For more resources related to traf c reduction strategies, smart growth, and parking, please visit our additional resources page.
To explain terms or see tool tip text, go to the glossary.
109