Resolution 3528 - Laserfiche WebLink

• The record does not support a requirement for a parking pricing program to mitigate project impacts. Decision: Deny the appeal and affirm the Decision Document with respect to the TDM program and the decision not to impose direct pricing on parking. SECTION 35: STATE AND COUNTY'S ABILITY TO RAISE THEIR SHARE OF THE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PROGRAM Findings: • At least two-thirds of the mitigation ($31.3 million) is allocated to key projects that are either 100 percent funded or have commitments from funding agencies to pursue as a high priority. • Less than one-third of the mitigation ($15.3 million) involves projects that may require re-prioritization and/or redefinition if local/state funding shares are not available. • The Decision Document clearly states: "The[mitigation]funds are not specifically dedicated toward projects, but rather pledges to be spent for mitigation which includes a number of projects as mitigation options. The commitment is that mitigation funds will be spent for mitigation of Boeing-related impacts. "(Pg 35-36) • The Decision Document further establishes a Mitigation Committee that may shift or otherwise re-prioritize projects to reflect funding constraints, project infeasibility, or other conditions affecting the implementation of mitigation projects. • The City's Interim Traffic Mitigation Ordinance requires that an applicant contributes a "fair share" to mitigate their proportionate impacts. The Ordinance leaves the burden of finding additional funding to complete projects on the appropriate jurisdictions. • Mitigation can be imposed only to the extent impacts are attributable to a project. The possibility that other contributors may or may not be available, or meet their obligation is not a justification for imposing additional mitigation on a project. 50