pages: PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-05-22 | 11 | require rider ship to be feasible, and she would like to see further study of the density required to support transit rider ship. Member Kohlstrand noted that it was very important to make the transportation mitigation measures actually work in Alameda, which relate to Vice President Cook's point about density. She expressed concern about the level of parking being provided. She noted that shared parking was not discussed in the document, and did not believe there should be the assumption that everyone would use their own cars which required a separate parking place for each car. Mr. Thomas noted that transportation funding is becoming increasingly linked to land use, and that the City must be careful and thoughtful in that regard. He understood that the Board would like more specifics about the TDM program and what density or other methods would be needed to make it successful; also, the parking strategy must be identified in terms of standards, shared parking and other factors such as density that would make transit successful. He noted that the issue of splitting out the residential use was a significant part of the land use proposal. He noted that staff would be meeting with the Transportation Commission regarding the TDM program. Vice President Cook stated that she would like to see a greater density alternative in the EIR so the City could evaluate potential benefits on transit from a different mix of residential, office and retail uses. She wanted to ensure enough analysis would be done to create the proper mix of use, and create the type of neighborhood where it was not necessary to drive. She believed people would trade some density to create a mix that would allow people to get out of their cars. She believed a good EIR was an analytic tool that enabled the City to make wise policy choices, and she would like the informational document to be as broad and robust as possible. Mr. Thomas understood that the Board wishes to see a higher density alternative to evaluate whether such an alternative would reduce environmental impacts related to transit, transportation and open space. Member Ezzy Ashcraft understood that the Tinker Avenue extension was a major component of the traffic flow, and inquired how realistic that extension was in terms of a timeframe. Mr. Thomas replied that the traffic section states that the Tinker extension is an important connection to move traffic in and around the site, however it is a mitigation that requires land acquisition from another agency that is somewhat out of the City's control. Mr. Thomas stated that the EIR assumed all background growth in Alameda, full buildout of the Housing Element, the General Plan, as well as Oakland's projections for their buildout in 2025. The full Alameda Landing project plus full buildout of Alameda Point in 2025 were included in the traffic projections. In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the financial impact of the retail development on Alameda Point, Mr. Thomas replied that there was an extensive list of retail studies done over the past few years, which can be provided to the Planning Board. He added that those studies provided the information used by staff, and noted that the Planning Board Minutes Page 11 May 22, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-05-22.pdf |