pages: TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2007-03-28 | 6 | Commissioner Krueger noted that on page 9, in the budget section, there was a discussion of the water shuttle. He recalled discussing whether the water shuttle should be funded as an amenity, rather than as a TDM item. Mr. Knopf responded that the water shuttle was mandated by the DDA between the City and the developer as part of the TDM program. Commissioner Krueger referenced page 10, Section 4.1 (Annual Report), and added that on page 15, the only parking management options listed were division of specially assigned, optimally located spaces reserved for carpools and ride share vehicles. He was concerned that that was a short list considering the language on page 10 seemed to rule out anything not explicitly mentioned. Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he would not vote for anything that prohibited City Council from doing anything, unless it was specifically stated in the DDA. Mr. Knopf noted the language was so boldly worded was to have clarity, and added that if it is approved by the Planning Board, it could still be overruled by the City Council. He described the procedures going forward if that were to occur. He was inclined to remove the optional section at the end, which he did not believe accomplished anything. He noted that the development agreement for the Alameda Landing project specifically stated that there would not be any financial penalties to property owners, tenants or the operation of the program for failure to meet any numerical thresholds or criteria, except for the 15% as specifically stated. He understood the Commissioners' reaction to the language, and noted that it was important for the language to be clear. He suggested that the Transportation Commission approach City Council about additional language in the TDM. Margo Bradish, Counsel for ProLogis on the project, noted that the development agreement contained very specific language that was approved by City Council, which provided funding for monitoring equipment that was recommended by Public Works staff. The DDA also contained specific language regarding the Year 5 15% adjustment. She noted that the language in the development agreement was very clear in saying that other than the 15% adjustment, there are no consequences to the project, financially or otherwise, if it does not meet any goals. She noted that was intended to give certainty to the developer with respect to their financial obligations. She noted that the cashout can be encouraged, but not mandated. Commissioner Krueger noted that his specific concern was with respect to the cashout. He did not have any problems with the statement made by Ms. Bradish. However, he noted that if the money was used to provide the money for the parking cashout, that seemed like a TDM measure. Chair Knox White suggested removing the language, and did not believe it needed to be in the policy. He added that the policy would not override the plan. Commissioner Krueger agreed with staff with respect to page 3 regarding the bike racks. He suggested clarifying that language that there would be enough to meet demand. Page 6 of 11 | TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf |