pages: CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 7 | much other developments charge for transit have been reviewed. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the City could require surcharges for the development to mitigate the problems that will occur within the rest of the City due to of the development. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the assumption is that the project has to be able to support the cost of any required annual operating subsidy, even if users outside of the City use it. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired if there has been a sensitivity break point analysis between the total cost and the total number of units needed to make the transit robust and feasible not just for Alameda Point, but for the rest of the island, so that the number of car trips is reduced through the tube; gave Vallejo, Mare Island and Lennar as examples where there have been issues of delays; stated there is no way to bring decent transit out to Mare Island, so some units pay $9,000 a year in assessments; inquired if there has there been some sort of breaking point between all competing issues being balanced. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded it is complicated because everything is interrelated; isolating transportation is hard and depends on what is being proposed from a land use standpoint; kinds of densities and values determine what the project can support; an analysis has not been done. The Planning Services Manager stated the short answer is no, there is not a magic number or a break point because a smaller project generates less annual assessment to run transportation; however, if things do not work out with a smaller project, there is less risk because the smaller project generates less traffic and if the transportation program cannot be funded because of some unforeseen problem, the project would cause traffic impacts than a much larger project; with a larger project and more units, a lot more traffic is generated, but there is also a lot more money generated by additional units; the transportation strategy for Alameda Point has to be a transportation strategy for the rest of the Island; the problem is if the pro forma is overly optimistic and ten years from now all these units have been built and transportation money runs out, there would be a very serious transportation problem. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the other fundamental issue is that transportation systems are just not that good; realistically, the City cannot assume that that people will use the transit system. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated traffic is outbound in the morning and inbound in the evening; residential is being looked at for the funding stream, instead of light industrial and commercial, which should be looked at for funding. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 6 Community Improvement Commission July 7, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |