pages: CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-01-05 | 3 | 4 in Exhibit F of the initiative lists very general public benefits, including on site and off site traffic and transit improvements; SunCal is stating that streets within the development itself should not be included; however, the language does not conclude that [streets within the development are excluded]; subdivision streets, as well as soft costs, are included based on the language in the initiative. Councilmember L. Tam stated the election report refers to the development of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan; inquired how the TDM plan that SunCal developed was incorporated in the City's analysis and model. The Public Works Director responded staff used what is in the initiative, which does not include a specific TDM program; stated staff worked with consultants to develop a TDM program that makes sense for the type of mixed use development proposed; staff could have done modeling if the initiative spelled out the TDM program; staff is concerned that the caps may not have sufficient funds for public benefits and on going maintenance of public infrastructure. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding SunCal's estimate of the TDM program, the Public Works Director stated there is nothing in the initiative. Mayor Johnson stated TDM program costs could create a large discrepancy between the City and SunCal. The Interim City Manager stated soft costs are not a made up delta; soft costs include architecture, engineering, contingency and other costs that are not hardscape; capital projects include all costs, not just hardscape. Mayor Johnson stated the public would expect an extensive TDM program, which would be very costly; a lot of resources would have to be dedicated to a TDM program to make it work. The Public Works Director stated the initiative lists bus rapid transit that would travel to BART; staff came up with a per mile cost; identifying costs for cue jump lanes is difficult without knowing the location of lanes. The Interim City Manager stated nearly a dozen other cities were surveyed to check calculations; the City used a methodology that made sense and was not made up. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the 2% cap would limit existing parcel taxes or prevent new parcel taxes. The Interim City Manager stated the 2% cap does not indicate what portion would fund the infrastructure or operational shortfall; the 2% cap includes existing taxes for the hospital, school and sewer that total under 0.2%; whether a future parcel tax would go above the 2% depends on the development phase. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 3 Board of Education January 5, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf |