2009-01-20 6-C Submittal..
,..r'... ..,...w......1r... n.s ... ..............~. ., .:hf: : \'~. ... ..~..-r,..:.~ ..... .... ., h.t,........t5 . y.. .. .~~.r2ri:.ih.: n~:.:h:....: .~:~ri....:~r~~~r. .:. ..n...
...
:-.h::...s..:... ~-~.. ~~r.. .~.......... .. ~ c r . .........:..k :_~..:~N~~r.w r.. r...r.. .. .:J, u..:::i.:. :.... :_: .r.rr.................::Y.: r..:.:.:n .....~...... n.......~~~..t
x
1/ J,:Pa a ..~.
s
~~~~~12012409A La~a~We~isi er -~~Sta~f~re "ort~~~for~~Tuesdays meet~n ~~~~~~~~ V ~~
...~~m:vrmrrrx~.worrMM:.~.~w.,~.....rn-~w~•ra,r~..~.~~~...~ ~~»r,-tt~m.~,w~~~..~~Nv~~......,.~:m.r-,..w 9 n
........ .%:r+W'MWfCk4H:w....:..y.y!.m.~»-;~~:~.~`+^M"M+'CW 1N:TkWmYt. ... ~~~~.-n~+`i,r.YN.~ti.W+i .!..+1.... w.Mr...M:
~~ .... .... ....... .w: w:i.u w:^.. .f.`YNtN~tii'^'!.. w.M'~ ~W+~M'MriV'A.!.
..y, '~NM.Y.....u ~~II'N ....,,,t. ~. v.y.k
From: John Knox White <jknoxwhite@gmail.com>
To: Debra Kurita <dkurita@ci.alameda.ca.us~, Naclerio Matthew <mnaclerio@ci....
CC: Johnson Beverly <bjohnson@ci.alameda.ca.us~, <ddehaan@ci.alameda.ca.us~
Date: 1/1712009 5:45 PM
Subject: Staff report for Tuesdays meeting
Debra, Matt and Cathy,
am writing to express my disappointment with the staff report for
Tuesday night's hearing on the Transportation Master Plan.
After over four years of work on the Transportation Master Plan by
the TC, I cannot understand how the TC's recommendation is found
nowhere in the six-page staff report report, nor is any discussion on
the substantively different recommendations between the Planning
Board and Transportation Commision on policy 4.4.2 ~a-g}. This is
especially surprising given the number of public meetings and hours
of discussion on the issue of whether to include exemptions for road
widening or not at the TC and over half a dawn other commissions.
Two different make-ups of the TC, including nine different members,
unanimously approved the TC recommendation on multiple occasions. The
Planning Board spent less than 30 minutes discussing the issue and
could not come to a unanimous recommendation.
As the city council tasked the Transportation Commision with
developing recommendations on updating the General Plan's
Transportation Element, it is perplexing that our recommendation was
left out of the entire staff report.
have been a strong advocate for including all positions on this
issue in the past, It has been no secret that the TC and some staff
have held different opinions on the issues surrounding policy 4.4.2
~a-g}, and I would expect that staff would present their ideas and
differences alongside the TC's recommendation, Excluding the TC's
recommendation from the staff report disregards the many hundreds of
hours of work that Transportation Commission members spent developing
the recommendation for the council.
I hope #hat Tuesday night's presentation will correct this oversight
and present the TC's recommended TMPITE to the council along with the
Planning Board's commentslrecommendation.
Respectfully,
John Knox White
Chair, Alameda Transportation Commission
Visit www.alamedans.com far Alameda news and opinion
Re: Agenda Item #6-C
~-24-49
,r~~.
r
~ ~~,~~ ~a ~s x
..~ .:. !
Po
bike information
bike community
bike advocacy
bike events
Alameda City Council
City Hall
263 Santa Clara Ave
Alameda, CA 94501
Box 2732 Alameda, CA 94501 (510)595-4690www.bikealameda.ora
January 16, 2009
Re: Item 6-C Transportation Element General Plan Amendment
Dear members of the city council,
I am writing to encourage you to approve the Transportation Master Plan as it was drafted. The Transportation
Commission and members of the public have worked hard in getting a document that will protect the Alameda
that we love from bad transportation decisions, In fact, the TMP proposed brings the General Plan more in line
with what Alamedans seem to want.
In the staff report for Item 6-C, on page 4 of 6 are recommendations by the Planning board to change 4.4.2.f. The
addition of: " 2. An acceptable level of service can be maintained for bicyclists, pedestrians, and
transit, " is very ambiguous, since acceptable is not defined in the document and can be changed with each
project. To be consistent with the intent of the rest of the document, a clearer statement like " level of service for
bicyclists, pedestrians and transit is not degraded".
I strongly urge you to keep this document clear that no further degradation bicycling and walking will happen as a
condition of development in Alameda. As members of the council, you've expressed the same frustration with
EIRs and proposed changes in the past that asked for wider roads and four lane highways and sound walls that we
just don't want and that degrade the biking and walking streets. Please accept the TMP with language that NG
CHANGES to streets should be made that degrade the very modes of transportation that we are constantly trying
to improve.
Alameda isnot athorough-fare and Alamedans don't want Alameda to become one.
Through public and private efforts Alamedans are striving to reduce our footprint and with that increase biking
and walking. Our General Plan needs to become aligned with that idea,
Respectfully,
Lucy Gigli
President, BikeAlalneda