pages: PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2020-12-14 | 5 | caused fires and water supply failures. The other point they wanted to emphasize was housing conservation. Dodi, a resident, also wanted to address the lack of information for natural disasters. She also addressed Seniors Citizens' needs and concerns in regards to mobility. President Teague closed public comments and opened board discussions. Board Member Ruiz addressed the need to differentiate the speed of movement when it comes to mobility, pedestrians and cyclists are often put together but they are very different. She understood that equity is one of the goals but she was concerned by ME-6 (congestion pricing) because it punishes those that don't have more flexible working hours. She then spoke about which projects she thought would be the most beneficial. She also thought the language needed to be fine-tuned to make it less vague. She also gave her thoughts on utilities for open spaces, safety, and noise. Board Member Cisneros thought the theme could be more specific. In ME-13 she wanted to remove the language "in areas with higher pedestrian volume", wider sidewalks should be encouraged throughout Alameda. In CC-10, she thought it should be the first and the last mile and in ME-12 it should be changed to "hovercraft". She also gave her thoughts on LU-15 and some contradictory language she saw. Board Member Rothenberg said she would provide her comments to Director Thomas and suggested adding bullets to the timeline. She gave examples of how the language could be more inclusive and thought some of the projects would be eligible for grants and other types of funding. She saw many references to accessibility that could be broadened so that it was inclusive of the diverse population. She pointed out that if codes and regulations are cited they need to be broad enough for the document to be a living document. Vice President Saheba thought there needed to be balance and prioritization of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. He saw an opportunity to look at things differently, such as demand management. He suggested that at certain times roadways could become bike only, this way using the same infrastructure and not be overburdened with the expense of multiple infrastructures. He saw that by converting the way the city does business it would start aligning with the way people think movement through the city happens. Board Member Curtis found it to be a bit "utopian" in that it addressed everything for everyone and he encouraged prioritizing items and adding a budget to items. If the goal is to take cars off the road the people of Alameda need to have credibility in the program, that the transit will be on time and get them where they need to be. He stressed the need for education as well, for residents to embrace these changes they need to know what their alternatives for transportation are. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 5 of 8 December 14, 2020 | PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf |