Contra Costa County Seal

Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
Redevelopment Division
The Pleasant Hill BART
Station Design Charrette

   

Contra Costa County Seal CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Telephone: 925.335.1275 Fax: 925.335.1265

TO: Sheila Janssen,
Diablo Valley Commuters Alliance,
sjanssen@sfchronicle.com

FROM: Jim Kennedy, Deputy Director - Redevelopment

DATE: April 5, 2001 

RE: Pleasant Hill BART Charrette

This responds to your March 5, 2001 e-mail message. Some of these questions and issues have been asked in other forums, and the responses have been prepared. You might want to refer to these studies and/or responses that we will refer to. They are on the www.cocoplans.org website, including:

· Traffic Volume Analysis
· Focus Group Ideas/Responses
· 2/22-2/27 Summary

A) Traffic Flow Issues

1. Have the traffic flow questions been resolved?

· Please refer to the Pleasant Hill BART Charrette website (traffic volume analysis) for a full response. It includes data on 1997 traffic volumes from the EIR traffic study, the recent traffic counts (2001), and 2010 projections from the EIR. In short, the analysis suggests that the 2001 traffic volumes, with "final project counts" (the charrette project) are slightly higher than the 1997 volumes, and substantially lower than the 2010 projections.

2. How many cars will arrive at an enlarged BART parking structure between the hours of 6:00 - 8:30 a.m., and exit between 4:00-6:30 p.m.? Will two entrances be sufficient?

· The 1997 EIR Traffic Study evaluated the temporal aspects of the BART patron. The hours cited are the blocks of time when most patrons enter and exit the facility, and we have no reason to think that would not continue. With respect to the adequacy of two entrances, this is being evaluated, but the indications are they would be sufficient because BART patrons come from and depart in multiple directions, i.e., no single road or entrance is optimal for all users, therefore dispersion occurs.

3. Copies of the Fehr & Peers analysis are requested.

· See www.cocoplans.org where this data is posted.

B) BART Related Parking Issues

1. Why aren't the 581 temporary spaces being replaced?

· See "Response to 2/22-2/27 Public Input" on cocoplans.org for a full response to parking issues.

The Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan provides for the Iron Horse Corridor to be converted to a Greenspace use. In order to implement, the Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee has been evaluating measures to mitigate removal of temporary BART spaces. Multiple mitigations for temporary parking removal include enhancements to alternative modes (146 spaces), BART operations (230 spaces), relocation of Route 70 stop (40 spaces), and replacement temporary parking (250 spaces). The 250 net new BART patron spaces on the BART property are over and above mitigations previously identified by Steering Committee. Cost to develop 250 net new spaces is over $3.5 million. Additional parking for visitors to shoppers to the new projects will ensure that parking spaces are available throughout the day, including BART patrons.

BART access planning policy and County policy encourage alternative mode enhancement, not the development of more and more parking. Just as many people argue that there should be less parking, since providing parking results in more congestion. The recommended 250 spaces represents a compromise between competing interests. BART's new parking policy would allow for consideration of new paid parking facilities and public/private partnerships to construct additional parking facilities.

2. Why are the net new 250 BART patron parking spaces subject to parking charges?

· Pricing has a strong effect on demand, and encourages alternative modes. BART policy requires that existing BART dedicated parking be provided free to BART patron's only. We assume that all additional BART and project parking within the project will be priced to market rates. Revenues received may be able to help cover costs to construct, and to operate the parking facility.

3. Can another level be added to the proposed garage expansion to accommodate additional spaces?

· No technical reason precludes an additional level of parking. Structured parking spaces cost approximately $15,000/space to provide. The County Redevelopment Agency estimates it has sufficient funds to cover the costs of replacing the 1477 one-for-one replacement parking spaces and part of the cost of the 250 net new spaces.

4. What are the number/location of carpool and handicapped spaces in the new structures?

· No determinations at this level of detail have been made. Such spaces could be in the existing or new structure.

5. What will the measurements for the spaces in the new structure be?

· BART specifies a minimum width of 8.5 feet.

6. Will the existing and new BART parking structures be connected?

· Yes, the original design contemplated an expansion and the current analysis suggests it can be accomplished.

7. What company is designing the new parking garage?

· No formal design program has yet been initiated. International Parking Design, an internationally known parking design firm, has been added to the Charrette design team to assure that the Charrette concepts incorporate contemporary parking garage design concepts.

8. Can a signal system to advise BART patrons of available parking be incorporated?

· Such a facility can be considered as part of the future joint development project.

C) Monitoring Commuter Parking

1. How will BART patron spaces be monitored for poaching?

· The new expanded structure will include a managed parking control system to eliminate poaching. The existing structure, due to its funding source, cannot presently be limited to BART patrons. BART is evaluating alternative ways of eliminating their inability to control parking users. See also B-1 above.

2. Will a BART parking validation system be employed?

· Yes, see C-1 above.

D) Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee

1. What is the status of Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee's deliberations on the temporary parking replacement program?

· The next Steering Committee meeting is set for Wednesday, April 11. See response B-1 for general description of parking mitigations. Attached is the status report on mitigations for removal of the temporary spaces.

2. What will happen prior to the development of the new expanded BART parking structure.

· The various mitigations for removal of the BART temporary lots are to be implemented. See response A-1 and D-1.

3. Status of various mitigation measures?

· See response to D-1, and the attached updated status report.

4. When is the implementation for handling removal of parking, and synchronization of the replacement spaces scheduled?

· See D-1 and the attached updated status report for a schedule of temporary parking mitigations, including synchronizing removal of the lots with the Greenspace use installation when mitigations are in place. The County and BART welcome the opportunity to collaborate with DVCA in developing these plans.

5. What is the long-term impact of the BART property development on the temporary parking mitigation using on street parking?

· Only 10 of the spaces identified as a temporary parking removal mitigation are on-street spaces. These spaces are not on the BART property. The 250 net new spaces on the BART property are in addition to, not part of, the mitigation program for removing the temporary spaces.

JK:ln


Horizontal Separator Bar