pages: TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2007-03-28 | 7 | Mr. Knopf noted that their intent was to have enough bike racks to meet demand. He noted that their intent was to serve their obligations to Bike Alameda as much as possible, including the water shuttle. Chair Knox White noted that with respect to page 8, he was concerned that about the TMA should state that at the end of the day, the Alameda City Council would have ultimate say; the TMA was a mitigation plan rather than an amenity plan for the site. He wanted to clarify where the TMA fit into the larger picture. Mr. Knopf noted that they could not make any financial changes over a certain dollar threshold without Council approval. Chair Knox White requested clarity with respect to the possibility of the TDM not working. He believed there should be provisions for the possibility of City Council being able to say that changes should be made as part of the working budget. Staff Khan suggested that could occur in the annual report that goes to City Council. Chair Knox White would like the TMA to be directly answerable to the City Council, for definitive accountability. Mr. Knopf noted that presentation of an annual report to City Council had been negotiated with Council. Their intent was to run the best possible TDM program, ground shuttle and water shuttle, as they do in Mission Bay and Emeryville. Chair Knox White asked for an explanation of the difference between the provisions regarding the success of the project and the internal rate of return (IRR). Ms. Bradish noted that (iii) was the result of comments from a particular Councilmember stating that if a lot of money is made on the project, the City wants some of it back. The IRR was a rate of return on the land. The 18% is a benchmark for City participation in land profits. The other two criteria came out of concerns expressed by other Councilmembers that if the project was building out very quickly, and therefore there were more cars on the road than anticipated, there was a need to do more TDM; (ii) and (iii) came out of that discussion. A discussion of funding details ensued. Chair Knox White was believed that the trip counts would not ever happen. He did not want to recommend to City Council how they would be paid for, and he would like to remove that sentence so City Council made that decision. Staff Khan agreed with Chair Knox White's comments, and that the referenced sentence on page 12 should come out. Chair Knox White suggested the following language: "City Council has the option to request the collection of peak hour traffic count data to validate the survey." Page 7 of 11 | TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf |