pages: PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-05-10 | 4 | Director Thomas said they had given a lot of time and effort to that project. He discussed how long that project had been discussed, first brought up 10 years ago, and while he did not see it happening during his time with the City of Alameda, he believed it was important to get the ball rolling on it. He discussed where they were with planning and how they had been working with Oakland and Chinatown to get people excited about this project. Commissioner Yuen agreed it wasn't a pipe dream and it was a necessity for the city. She then asked if there was anything that didn't make it into the General Plan that he wished had. Director Thomas said honestly there wasn't. He gave credit to the city staff, Amie MacPhee, Candice Miller, Sheffield, and the consultant team. He also thanked the community members of Alameda for their input and their goal is to write the best General Plan they could. Board Member Hanson Hom found the plan very readable and well laid out. He commented on the truck routes and wondered how the proposed bike routes and pedestrian access would affect those truck routes. He said he didn't see much attention on Senior mobility options and wanted to hear more about that. He was also interested in hearing more about Park Policies, he wanted to know if they had discussed having a dedicated park fund like the Quimby Act. He asked about Fire Services and that Alameda might need a ladder truck. He agreed there should be a cross-reference table at the beginning and to have in the Implementation Section the more granular plans with a timeline of the plans. Director Thomas said they were still working on the Transportation Element Appendix, which would have the truck routes on it. He also discussed park dedication and while they don't have a Quimby Act requirement they did have a significant Open Space Development Impact Fee. Commissioner Kohlstrand agreed with everyone that the second draft was a big improvement. She had questions about the Land Use Designation for Neighborhood Mixed-Use and gave examples of some around the city that had been labeled residential and was curious as to why that was. Director Thomas said that was a great question and that they needed to go back and take a look at the Neighborhood Mixed-Use qualifications on the map. The intent was to maintain the zones wherever they existed. He then explained how the zoning in some areas still allowed for commercial use and a wide variety of mixed uses. Commissioner Kohlstrand also asked about business and employment and pointed out there were no services in certain business parks. Then she asked about Land Use Policy #31 and wondered why the High Street Bridge had been let out. Director Thomas discussed what the intent was for the business park, they would like to see more food and restaurant uses. For policy #31 they would need to go back and take a look at that and he would also need to check on why the High Street Bridge was left out. Commissioner Kohlstrand pointed out conflicting information about accidents per year. She also discussed policy #15, the congestion at the tubes, and that the language needed Approved PB & TC Joint Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11 May 10, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf |