pages: PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-08-25 | 7 | Chair Knox White added that the City Council has already accepted the idea of reducing trips instead of accommodating them, but that the EIR did not address that option at all. He believed that while flexibility was good, cities should be able to identify their priorities. He noted that Mariner Square Drive was listed as a four-lane road, even though it was supposed to be reduced when it came to the Transportation Commission. He cautioned against the unintended consequences of mitigation. He expressed concern about the ability of residents on Fernside to get out of their driveways because the platoon of cars released from traffic lights travel down the street at intervals that do not break. He suggested that the City become more aware of those types of consequences. He would like the FEIR to discuss the length of the LOS-D at intersections. Chair Knox White noted that Eighth Street has more traffic under the Project than under the No Project use of Eighth Street, even though the project was meant to decrease its use. Under the Environmentally Superior Alternative, he suggested removing EIR policies 1, 2 and 6. He would like further clarification of the purpose of 500 pages of turn diagrams, which he believed puts off the average citizen. He added that there was a lot of technical data that would have been useful but was not included in the document. Chair Knox White echoed Board member Cunningham's comment regarding the price of gas, and believed the City was moving in the right direction regarding a mode shift; he added that the City would have the appropriate infrastructure and the accompanying planning process in place for the time when that shift occurs. Commissioner Krueger requested that the technical appendices be separated into another document. He emphasized that it should be available, but believed that it would be more convenient and less intimidating for the residents if it were contained in a separate document. President Kohlstrand believed that the direction of the Transportation Element was very positive, and that it tried to reflect the values of the residents of Alameda. She did not believe Alameda wanted to have seven-lane intersections such as those found in Pleasanton or Livermore, and did not believe they enhanced the pedestrian atmosphere of those cities. She believed that everyone was a potential pedestrian, and that they should be respected. She believed the essence of the plan did not appear in the document, such as the goal of restricting the future amount of roadway capacity. President Kohlstrand believed the thresholds of significance will be very critical, and that the City was in the awkward position of analyzing the Transportation Element using old significance criteria. She believed it was a goal worth pursuing, and that there was public support for changing the focus of transportation within the City. She believed the design standards for the streets and pedestrian improvements were also critical. She believed it was very important for the public to have an opportunity to provide input into that process. She believed it was important for runoff and drainage to be improved, and for them to be more friendly to people who live and work in those areas. Board member Ezzy-Ashcraft noted that she had supported green landscaping ordinances to accompany the green building ordinances. She noted that staff had stated that the time was not yet right for that, and that the positive aspect was that the Board would be able to work with Planning staff to incorporate these recommendations into a future green landscaping ordinance to meet legal requirements. She added that it was more economical as well. Page 7 of 9 | PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf |