pages: PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 5 | Ms. McNamara did not believe the costs of removing the rails were included in the estimates. Ms. Hawkins detailed the costs contained in the estimate. President Cunningham inquired about the aspirations of the trail, and whether the text allowed for modifications or improvements. Ms. Hawkins replied that it was a corridor that would connect residential with commercial, and that surrounding businesses may wish to contribute to it because of their proximity to the trail. President Cunningham inquired whether the bike path would be adopted in a landscape strip, and whether that would be a general policy. He referenced the section by Starbucks. Ms. Hawkins replied that was the most difficult section in the whole alignment. In trying to accommodate that option, along with the pedestrians, the landscaping was sacrificed. If that area is not used for the bus rapid transit corridor, it would not be sacrificed. She noted that would not be a typical policy. M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to reopen the public hearing. The public hearing was reopened. Ms. Arbuckle indicated the train museum in Sacramento was given most of the rails from the tracks; one set of rails was retained along the south side. Mr. Spangler noted that the Marina waterfront access on the Estuary was very important to many people. He noted that the concerns were: toxic pollution from industrial uses, such as shipyards, the ownership issues, and the security for all the boat owners, particularly those who reside on liveaboards. He noted that Pacific was a Class 1 route, which was signed, and with no extra line or striping on the pavement; stop signs were placed on every block to maintain pedestrian safety and Planning Board Minutes Page 5 April 25,2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |