pages: CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf, 16
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2006-11-21 | 16 | the concept of Clement Avenue extension has been around for 45 years; Clement Avenue extension was clearly in place when Mr. Wang bought the property; she has had it with the resistance to implement the Clement Avenue extension; the neighborhood and future West End project need the Clement Avenue extension in order to get traffic to the bridges on the East End; the process is backwards. the Planning and Building Department has not reviewed the project, which is the normal processi the project should be under the Planning and Building Department, not Development Services the City can ask developers for concessions the NWSP is not approved yet. Jean Sweeney, NWSP Committee Member, outlined the history of street closures for Alaska Packers; stated history should not be repeated; a road needs to be in place before the development is considered traffic would be generated and Buena Vista residents would come forward if the road is not in place. Jay Ingram, Alameda, submitted a letter from Rosemary McNally and a copy of his comments; stated the process is backwards; urged the Council/Commission not to approve the ENA and to slow down and get the community involved with plans viewed by the Planning and Building Department, Planning Board and other commissions. Valerie Ruma, Alameda, submitted comments; urged the Council/Commission not to approve the ENA because the Concept Plan should comply with the NWSP, which has not been approved; stated an ENA is a tentative agreement to a certain schedule to proceed ; inquired how a schedule could be agreed upon when there is no concrete idea of what is being planned further stated the Conceptual Plan is nothing more than a creative meandering urged keeping the community involved and not approving the ENA; stated the plan should go through the regular process and be submitted to the Planning and Building Department. David Kirwin, Alameda, submitted comments; stated rolling into an ENA without public and community involvement is of concern; that he does not understand the necessity of an ENA; questioned who else the City could negotiate with other than the applicant; stated requests for public concessions and money are concerning AUSD has a right to some property; the application to the State Lands Commission for the [property swap could proceed without an ENA ; negotiations could go forward; a formal agreement is not needed to allow communication to continue. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated there might appear to be two approaches : 1) going step-by-step ironing out inconsistencies with the NWSP, school land issues, and dealing with Clement Avenue Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 4 Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf |