Comments on: Alamedans.com City Council Questionnaire Part 2 http://alamedans.com/?p=866 All Alameda, All the Time! Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:02:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: David Kirwin http://alamedans.com/?p=866&cpage=1#comment-25 David Kirwin Thu, 04 Sep 2008 07:23:20 +0000 http://alamedans.com/?p=866#comment-25 Candidates should be required to define what they mean when they use the word “sustainable” I don’t understand hoe promoting and building higher density in Alameda can in any way be more sustainable. Tracy – Have you read the “transportation element” you are supporting? Have you looked at the EIR on it? Check this out it is right there on the website: This Draft EIR clearly states (pg 192) that if this TE is approved then the “Cumulative Traffic Impacts” will be “Cumulatively Considerable” and “Significant and Unavoidable”. Together this is the worst rating the EIR process can give. See page 50 for the definition of these ratings. The EIR also points out 9 or 10 major intersections at our tubes and bridges that will also be negatively impacted to a degree considered "Significant and Unavoidable." This is exactly what we want to avoid on our island. People get frustrated, irate and angry in heavily restricted traffic flows. It makes people stressed, erratic and more dangerous. This is what we want to avoid getting in Alameda as a by-product of over development. John Knox White say’s it should be understood and accepted as a by-product of development. That is the crux of the opposing views, do we want debilitating traffic for our residents or not? At the last meeting with Sun Cal’s presentation for Alameda Point it was simplified as clearly as urban vs suburban. Which side are you on Tracy, which side are you on? I hear on the grapevine, you are proud of getting an endorsement from Don Perata. From the news surrounding the June primaries - he gives them to everyone – or are you more interested in the funds he can channel from developers to campaign funds? Candidates should be required to define what they mean when they use the word “sustainable” I don’t understand hoe promoting and building higher density in Alameda can in any way be more sustainable.

Tracy – Have you read the “transportation element” you are supporting? Have you looked at the EIR on it? Check this out it is right there on the website:

This Draft EIR clearly states (pg 192) that if this TE is approved then the “Cumulative Traffic Impacts” will be “Cumulatively Considerable” and “Significant and Unavoidable”. Together this is the worst rating the EIR process can give. See page 50 for the definition of these ratings. The EIR also points out 9 or 10 major intersections at our tubes and bridges that will also be negatively impacted to a degree considered “Significant and Unavoidable.” This is exactly what we want to avoid on our island. People get frustrated, irate and angry in heavily restricted traffic flows. It makes people stressed, erratic and more dangerous. This is what we want to avoid getting in Alameda as a by-product of over development. John Knox White say’s it should be understood and accepted as a by-product of development. That is the crux of the opposing views, do we want debilitating traffic for our residents or not? At the last meeting with Sun Cal’s presentation for Alameda Point it was simplified as clearly as urban vs suburban.

Which side are you on Tracy, which side are you on? I hear on the grapevine, you are proud of getting an endorsement from Don Perata. From the news surrounding the June primaries – he gives them to everyone – or are you more interested in the funds he can channel from developers to campaign funds?

]]>