pages: PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-05-14 | 9 | parking areas rather than public streets, which was a concern for her. She noted that the guaranteed ride home was only for businesses with more than 100 employees, which may not be the majority of the businesses on this site. She was concerned that the pieces were there, but there were no guarantees that they would be provided, or that they would be effective. Board member Mariani agreed that the transportation piece was very important, but that people could not be forced to use them. She supported the use of incentives. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft commended the Transportation Commission for their work in creating a very comprehensive report. She expressed concern about the water shuttle service, and she would like a stronger commitment to the water taxi, as well as stronger language. She noted this was a waterfront-oriented project, and believed there should be better alternatives to get bikes from Alameda to Oakland rather than riding through the Tube. She strongly believed that public transportation should be subsidized, and that the dollars should be found to do that. She noted that she would continue to work toward a stronger commitment to the water taxi. Vice President Cook shared the concerns about the transportation plan, and noted that she was underwhelmed by it. She shared Board member Kohlstrand's concerns. Under "Duties and Deliverables," the report never discussed evaluating the landside requirements for successful operations of a water taxi, which should include links to other public transportation. She expressed general concern about the funding for the transportation plan, and noted that it did not seem to be particularly well funded. She requested further clarification on the developer role, and any funding contingencies if it failed. She noted that some of the evaluation points were somewhat confusing. Board member Mariani would like further clarification of the $425,000, which only seemed to be available at full development. Board member Cunningham would like more information on how the dollar amounts were arrived at, and noted that 300 homes were referred to, while there were only 225 homes. He asked whether that would affect the dollar amounts. He noted that with respect to the onsite amenities, one goal was to reduce traffic trips. He suggested adding daycare centers to accompany the residential and business uses. He would like more information about the water shuttle. Page 17 referenced the ride share program, which he would like more information on. Mr. Thomas described the background of the TDM program as it developed from the Alameda transportation strategy, where each project in the West End must contribute money on an annual basis to transportation. He believed this was the best TDM program seen by the City so far, but that future TDM programs could be better. Mr. Thomas noted that the City Council included the five-year evaluation late in their deliberations of the development agreement. After five years of TDM operations, an evaluation of the TDM program would take place. If the project is doing very well Planning Board Minutes Page 9 May 14, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-05-14.pdf |