pages: CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2014-12-02 | 10 | Introduction of Ordinance Adopting the Del Monte Warehouse Master Plan and Density Bonus. Introduced; and 3) Introduction of Ordinance Adopting the Del Monte Development Agreement. Introduced. The City Planner gave a Power Point presentation. Mike O'Hara, Jim Meek and Paula Krugmeier representing Tim Lewis Communities gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is not convinced the traffic plan is accurate; Table 16-1 adds retail and office; the overall impacts go down because the retail profile changes from 160,000 square feet of retail to 25,000 to 30,000 square feet; the proper unit of analysis should not include retail; Table 16-2 evaluates cumulative impacts in conjunction with other projects; given the changes being contemplated on the multi- family housing overlay, the analysis is inadequate; that he is concerned what happens if the project does not meet certain traffic targets; the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan does not specify penalties; the City and the community would like the Del Monte building restored and reused; the plan should rest on solid policy analyses and recommendations. The City Planner stated the environmental document has consistently stated there are transportation impacts from the reuse of the Del Monte building that need to be mitigated; the question becomes what is going to be done about the impacts; the City can do nothing, which causes another set of issues, or the City can continue to build housing and mitigate the traffic issues in the best possible way; the Del Monte project has been evaluated by an outside consultant hired by the City; the transportation program is very progressive; the City believes the program will work; other cities have used the same program to obtain significant reductions in traffic. Councilmember Daysog stated the biggest deficiency with the Del Monte project TDM Plan is that it does not adequately provide any penalties for failing to meet certain benchmarks. Mayor Gilmore stated setting a goal and penalty is hard if the baseline is not known; once a baseline is established, adjustments can be made. Councilmember Daysog stated the City should create a transportation plan that identifies the penalties or mitigations, which is not in the proposed plan. Councilmember Chen left the dais at 10:03 p.m. and returned at 10:05 p.m. In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Daysog stated one example is if the development group does not meet expectations, the $300 annual fee residents pay toward traffic mitigation could be increased; solutions cannot be made Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 December 2, 2014 | CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf |