pages: CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2007-02-20 | 5 | inquired why traffic impacts would not be assumed when transportation access is not good. The Supervising Planner inquired whether Councilmember Gilmore was referring to the total size of the store. Councilmember Gilmore responded Target needs to generate sale numbers to make the store work; stated the Bayfair Target is a regional shopping center that would draw more consumers because of the better transportation corridor; the proposed Target has the same size retail space and worse transportation access ; inquired why a same size store would be built if retail sales would not be the same. The Supervising Planner responded the traffic study is based on the total square footage of the shopping center, including Target ; stated measurements are made by either counting cars or calculating standard trip generation factors for different types of businesses. Councilmember Matarrese stated impacts are not being debated ; questions need to be answered on whether the draft EIR has deficiencies; he does not believe the proposed Target would have no traffic impact. The Supervising Planner stated the draft EIR identifies significant traffic impacts and includes mitigation measures. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is some flexibility for when the work should be done or for adjustments to data collection methods. The Supervising Planner responded the project has been in the City's hands for two years; stated the process should have been completed a year ago under the Permit Streamlining Acti he would not recommend waiting to update the traffic study; the existing draft EIR includes some mitigation monitors. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the final EIR would describe methods used to do the additional work, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated there are unanswered questions the Contract needs to be approved to get the work done; inquired whether Ms. Risley's issue would be addressed in the final EIR. The Supervising Planner responded the piece mealing comments have been submitted and would be addressed in the final EIR. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 February 20, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf |