pages: TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2007-05-23 | 11 | Staff Khan noted that the Master Plan had not been developed yet, which would be completed at that time. Commissioner Ratto moved that the Transportation Commission recommend that the transportation portion of the project EIR is wholly inadequate, would drive residents to using automobiles, and did not deal with the reality of trying to encourage people to use alternate forms of transportation. The project EIR should be significantly rethought and rewritten. He added that all comments from staff report and all Transportation Commission comments from this discussion should be included, minus the parking issue. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Schatmeier noted that Bay Farm Island was never designed for public transportation, and noted that most of the housing was too far from transit. He noted that the Bay Farm Island development had many cul de sacs and paths. He did not disagree that this development would be contrary to Alameda's plans, but believed it seemed unfair to single out this particular project among others on Bay Farm Island. Staff Khan noted that staff would create a memo that could be brought before the Planning Board stating the Transportation Commission's concerns about this document. Chair Knox White stated that if the parking were to be restricted, it would not substantively increase usage of the bus line. Commissioner Krueger believed the number one driver of automobile usage was the availability of parking. He believed the requirement of 2.5 spaces per unit was over and above what was required by other houses in Alameda. Commissioner Ratto noted that while the business associations were trying to eliminate the parking requirement for the individual developers, because it was not up to the developers to provide parking; it was up to the City and Business Association to provide parking. He believed the needs of residential parking versus business parking were completely different. Commissioner Krueger believed the addition of 2.5 spaces per unit was counter to the City's goal of reducing automobile traffic and increasing use of alternative transportation. He believed the developer should be required to not build more parking. Staff Khan noted that the City's concern was to avoid impacts on City infrastructure when residents and guests may have to park on City streets that did not have parking. Commissioner Krueger moved that the Transportation Commission recommend that the City drop the additional guest parking requirement because the houses already met the two parking spaces per dwelling unit requirement, as it is contrary to the General Plan's goal of de- emphasizing the automobile. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-1 (Commissioner Ratto opposing). Transportation Commission May 23, 2007 Page 11 of 12 | TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf |