pages: PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-05-10 | 5 | to be very clear. She was concerned about making a lane transit only during certain times. Then for policy #24, she felt that Bay Farm was overlooked on the issue of sea-level rise, and for open spaces, she said that Neighborhood Park was missing from the map. She also wanted the Bay Area Water Trail mentioned for people who want to enjoy the waterways. Director Thomas thanked her for her notes. Board Member Curtis brought up parking concerns for seniors and families with small children that still heavily relied on driving their cars and couldn't rely on public transit for their needs. He did feel that the second draft was a big improvement and was proud of the work that had gone into it. Commissioner Randy Rentschler referred to the map showing where most of the traffic collisions happened (at traffic lights) and discussed how roundabouts would be beneficial both for safety and money-wise. He also urged for simple policies that didn't put a burden on the Public Works Department. Director Thomas said that the city staff agreed 100% and thanked Gail Payne, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, for really encouraging and researching roundabouts. He added that people would be seeing roundabouts more in the next 20 years in Alameda. Commissioner Rentschler also addressed the "Idaho Stop" that allowed cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign. He felt that this created friction between people and suggested that stop signs should say that cyclists were allowed to do that. Chair Samantha Soules believed this plan was a shift in what had been done and was very ambitious. The goals were difficult but achievable and she was happy to see the connections between land use and mobility. She also discussed the importance of how this plan took into account all the different needs when it came to transportation and had to offer choices. She added that they should now focus on safety and evacuation needs. President Teague told staff this was an amazing document and there was so much good in it. He was very proud to have their names on it. On pages 23-26 he addressed how he wanted to keep the Planning Code out of the General Plan since it would create too much cost to ever change or adjust it. He added that with low-density anything less than 21 units per acre was not acceptable, but that should be in the Planning Code and not in the General Plan. On page 29 for LU-2 the "Complete Neighbors" that went into F: The Multi- Family Shared Housing and how non-traditional housing was discussed and how it was limited to medium density, he was not in favor of that and it should be available to any districts that involved residents. He wanted it to be clearer that they supported all types of non-traditional housing, all different types of structures. He was unclear if LU:15 or LU:2 were where they would call out that they needed to optimize their land for housing. He gave examples of ways to use the land for the best effect. For LU-10, which discussed Alameda's two main streets, he felt that Alameda Point was being overlooked. He said it was a shame that they say they only had two main streets when they were spending all these resources to build a community at Alameda Point, he really wanted to see Alameda Point designated as a main street or something like that. On page 44, which discussed Historic Preservation, he felt that they had done a terrible job on protecting their architecture resources that weren't monuments and wanted to see something like the Mills Approved PB & TC Joint Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11 May 10, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf |