pages: PlanningBoard/2016-10-10.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2016-10-10 | 5 | people exempt themselves from certain items. He said we should be actively participating in regional discussions on sea level rise mitigation and work to have a permanent seat in any bodies working on the issue. He said SN22 should mention 50 years of sea level rise instead of referencing a specific height. He offered several other organizational suggestions. He said the City Council encouraged the League of Cities to adopt Vision Zero and that this would be an opportunity to adopt it as a policy of the City in our General Plan. Board Member Curtis said we should avoid bringing the document back too many times. Staff Member Thomas said he would like to bring the item back in November with all the changes. Board Member Zuppan made a motion to continue the item to the November 14, 2016 meeting. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. 7-E 2016-3446 Draft City of Alameda Response to Plan Bay Area 2040 "Preferred Development Scenario". Staff Member Thomas gave the staff report. The staff report and attachments can be found at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2848686&GUID=69CB3614 E8DB-4428-B2BB-194B865832E7 Board Member Zuppan said that the numbers in the letter to do not match up. Board Member Köster said Alameda has done its part by increasing ferry ridership and MTC needs to respond to that with increased funding for ferry services. He said we set up our own unofficial car sharing and have shown resilience that is not being acknowledged. Board Member Zuppan said showing more data with population and available land will show real disparities in the allocations. Board Member Sullivan said they do not seem to be taking into account public safety in the event of an emergency. President Knox White said the comments about access to BART stations are not the most compelling. He said the 64% of units being outside of PDAs was the strongest point. He said that if that is their approach, then Piedmont's 1% allocation is way off. He said reminding them that we have been way out front trying to solve these transportation issues would be worthwhile. Board Member Burton said it is important for us to do our fair share but we need realistic targets and the transportation dollars to support it. 7-A 2016-3442 Approved Minutes Page 5 of 10 Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2016 | PlanningBoard/2016-10-10.pdf |