Laserfiche WebLink
20 <br /> <br />the DTPP, and then the results from the MXD Model were used to adjust the number to <br />trips to reflect that some trips would be taken by transit or walking and that some trips <br />would fully take place within the DTPP area. <br /> <br />Although the project is primarily residential, it benefits from proximity to the mix of uses <br />in the area, and it is expected that the project will generate fewer auto trips as estimated <br />by the MXD model. The project was estimated to generate 117 net new AM peak hour <br />trips and 139 net new PM peak hour trips. Recalculating the trip generation rates today, <br />based on the current land use mix in the DTPP, from the MXD model would be <br />expected to further lower the number of trips generated. By adjusting the trip generation <br />rates with the MXD factors from the DTPP EIR, the analysis is more conservative than if <br />the rates were updated. <br /> <br />To further support that this approach was conservative, a trip generation study for a <br />nearby residential development (Re: 299 Franklin Street Apartments Trip Generation <br />Study, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., August 5, 2016) showed that the <br />actual trips generated by the site were 36% lower than the MXD model predicted in the <br />AM peak hour and 62% lower in the PM peak hour. <br /> <br />The applicant also provided updated MXD trip reduction estimates using updated ACS <br />data and ABAG projections (See March 20, 2017 Hexagon letter.). The results were <br />16.2% and 21.9% reductions in the AM and PM peak hour ITE trip generation rates, <br />respectively. By comparison, the DTPP EIR estimated a 12.3% and 19.1% reduction in <br />the AM and PM peak hour trip generation rates. As expected, the updated reduction <br />rates are greater than those used in the DTPP EIR, making the DTPP EIR analysis <br />more conservative than if updated rates were used. Had these updated rates been <br />used, the analysis would have assumed fewer project trips. <br /> <br />(e) Appellant’s Contention: The actual project trip distribution and assignment <br />patterns assumed by the DTPP EIR and by the traffic study are inaccurate. <br />(Appeal, pp. 14-15.) <br /> <br />City Response: Trip distribution patterns for the DTPP EIR were estimated using <br />a citywide travel demand forecasting model, supplemented by existing traffic patterns, <br />anticipated roadway network characteristics, and surrounding land use patterns. <br />Cumulative conditions were also estimated using the citywide traffic model. The model <br />took into account pending projects in Redwood City as well as future growth in the <br />region, and was consistent with the analysis for the General Plan EIR as well as <br />transportation analyses for other projects that were currently under consideration <br />(including the Stanford in Redwood City Precise Plan). Since this analysis was <br />completed, there have not been any zoning amendments within the City that would alter <br />these results. <br /> <br />The DTPP EIR analyzed the growth approved for the DTPP with assumptions about <br />where specific projects would go, their size, and their land use. Since approval of the <br />DTPP and DTPP EIR, substantive changes have not been made to how much <br />8.A. - Page 20