pages: TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2006-12-13 | 5 | discussing the candidate streets and the primary concerns for each street, such as speed, access, function, design features, land use and other elements explained in the report. This information was compiled into a matrix table, which Mr. Spencer displayed on the overhead screen. He described the methodology for creating the report and the maps. He noted that the pedestrian access layer was removed, as all streets have pedestrian access and are integrated in the grid system. Mr. Spencer indicated that there are two key recommendations: 1) implementation policy to recommend design standards, and 2) prioritization and decision-making framework to address stakeholder concerns and conflict resolution. Chair Knox White noted that one step recommended an implementation process for creating design standards, and inquired whether it was intended to accomplish that before or after the EIR process. Staff Khan believed it would be more beneficial if it was part of the GPA, and that staff recommended it be accomplished before that. Staff was in the RFP process for the consultant, and hoped that by the end of January, a consultant would be found for the GPA analysis. If the Multimodal Circulation Subcommittee could meet within the next month and provide some recommendations, he hoped staff could return in January to discuss the implementation policies. Public Comment Jim Strehlow inquired whether the map depicted existing or proposed streets, because the Clement Avenue went all the way through. Mr. Spencer replied that it depicted proposed streets. Mr. Strehlow inquired whether the street segments would be published in a PDF file so the public could comment on the classifications. Mr. Spencer replied that would be possible, although they were currently unreadable; a new PDF version would be posted on the TMP website on the City's website. A higher resolution version would be posted for readability. Commissioner Krueger noted that a PDF file would have more flexibility for the user to zoom in on a segment of the map. Closed Public Comment Commissioner Krueger noted that Alameda had very mixed land uses, and inquired whether some cities had a mixed use classification, or whether the predominant use in a given area was used. Mr. Spencer replied that most cities had mixed use land uses, and that most cities have not undertaken this on a citywide basis; rather a more focused scope was used, within a neighborhood or street corridor-type basis, which can change from block to block. Commissioner Ratto noticed that on the land use map, part of Park Street was designated as a school and recreational area, which he noted was not correct. Mr. Spencer noted that was because of Island High, which would be moving. Commissioner Ratto added that Park Street was still not a school zone. He noted that it was a Commercial zone, and inquired why it was labeled that way. Staff Khan noted that the way the Transportation Commission looked at the zones, there was a two-block radius around the school. Mr. Spencer noted that the zones were layered on top of the other, and that the classification on top was the most visible. 5 | TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf |