pages: PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2012-02-13 | 10 | that were for the Northern Waterfront EIR in order to handle capacity seems to become mitigations for this plan as well. He would like to know that this plan is triggering those needs in and of itself, or the proportion of the project costs seem to be geared towards the very large development numbers generated by the Northern Waterfront and what is being proposed on Park Street. In addition, the mitigation acknowledges that the project costs sharing whether it's TDM or whichever is not just coming out of just the North Park Street Project. Lastly, the Green House Gas Mitigations section, the transportation Mitigation 3 doesn't seem to reduce vehicle miles traveled. He continued to note under IVK-7 it's important for the City to apply a minimum number of bicycle parking spots per building for the mitigation rather than propose 1 bicycle space for every new business that has 10 car spaces. Board member Zuppan stated that she appreciated that the cumulative impact was being taken into account, especially Caltrans work on I-880. Board member Burton stated that he wanted to comment on the North Park Street Draft Code's transportation and the bicycle sections. He felt there were issues of bicycle assess and accommodating bicycles in the zone and staff has not addressed this aspect in the code. When referring to the Waterfront District pages 35-36, the street section is illustrated, but bicycle lanes are not shown. Also, the code does not mention the Alameda Bicycle Plan and Guidelines. He goes on to state that the pedestrian and bicycle facilities only have two lines in the parking section and parking requirements. He felt the pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be in the very beginning and should be much more expansive. Referring to the Architectural design standards and guidelines, he was encouraged by the form-based code and he felt the code should only regulate the building and circulation patterns that encourage pedestrian scale development. Regarding the Green Buildings Guidelines section of the North Park Street Code Environmental Impact Report, he was surprised that there was no reference in the section of the code to other city requirements such as CalGreen, Bay Landscaping Guidelines, Build It Green Guidelines, and the Zero Waste ordinance. Mr. Thomas stated that staff would look at the code and come back to the Board in April with the revisions. He pointed out that Board member Knox White made important comments to the environmental impact report's traffic section and he would like the Board to look at the Green House Gas section of the report because the traffic and green house gas analyses are closely linked. He explained that staff has tried to put a finer analysis on the alternatives chapter and there are two areas in the environmental impact report where staff found significant unavoidable impacts: (1) an increase in automobile traffic and (2) an increase in green house gases due to automobile traffic. He went on to say that in the alternatives chapter, staff found ways to make the North Park Street Code more sustainable and create less of an environmental impact. Staff also looked at the pros and cons of trying to push the code further on with some of the green initiatives and they analyzed what that would mean relative to other districts in Alameda. In response to Board member Burton's comments, Mr. Thomas explained that the design review has guidelines meaning they are not code so the developer should try to match their project to the scale of the neighboring house and staff is looking at the last 40 pages of the North Park Street Code as architectural guidelines. Also, staff is determining whether the guidelines should be adopted as code or Approved Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 15 February 13, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf |