pages: TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2007-01-31 | 6 | Chair Knox White noted that on page 22, he was reluctant to reduce the parking requirements in the City. He noted that the language "if sufficient off-street parking is provided" indicated that on one hand, the City planned to reduce that need, and on the other hand, a plan was being put together that requires additional parking capacity. He noted that while "sufficient" was not defined there, but that it could be worded, "off-street provided as called out in the parking plan." Staff Khan suggested referencing the General Plan, since the parking plan will probably modify the General Plan. Chair Knox White agreed. Chair Knox White made several additional comments: that under "Sidewalks" under Commercial Street, wished to add the language "can be narrower than residential corridor, an exception for designated corridors like the Cross Alameda Trail.' the language under "Regional Arterial" read, "Three to four lanes as determined by capacity needs and modal constraints' or "modal priority maps. On page 38, "Island Arterial Overlays" (Bicycle, School Zone and Recreation), read, " .ideal for bicycle network, bike lanes, wind safety network, connectivity are provided, provide intersection amenities pedestrian comfort and access are highest priorities in conjunction with other street functions, appropriate lighting and suggested route signs, prioritize amenities against lane width and on-street parking." He believed that the language under the pedestrian aspect should appear under the bicycle aspects as well. on page 40, "Number of Lanes" (Island Arterial), it should read, "two to three lanes," removing "typical, but may have four lanes." under "Island Collector," the grid under Number of Lanes did not agree with the text, which read "two to three lanes"; the grid read "no more than two lanes." He was agreeable with either one. On page 44, under "Local Street Overlays" (Bicycles), read, "Local streets will likely not require bicycle treatments"; he believed that the bike overlay and the determination of the bike plan should decided whether or not there were bicycle treatments. under "Recommendations for the City of Alameda Implementation Plan," there did not appear to be an actual recommendation. He inquired whether DKS had a recommendation for an implementation plan that they believed would be a good fit for Alameda. Mr. Spencer noted that they tried to create a unique presentation for Alameda, and that an individual implementation plan must be created to work for the City. on all of the maps, particularly the bike map, the Clement Extension was drawn incorrectly; it was drawn to indicate that it connected directly into Eagle. He noted that it should connect further up into Atlantic. He would like to add the connection of the bike path through the Beltline. Chair Knox White suggested adding a path connection between the end of Portola and Ninth Street. This may be possible in the future. Commissioner Krueger would like to see a dedicated right of way off the Island, and believed the Clement Extension and Fernside acted as alternate routes to the other bridges. | TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf |