pages: CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2009-01-20 | 11 | Vice Mayor deHaan questioned whether Council wants to limit the flexibility of the Planning Department for a small opportunity; stated that he does not want to create four lane roads; infrastructure is built out except for the West End. Councilmember Matarrese stated that flexibility would not be limited; an exemption can be made if a project warrants a drastic measure; a worthy, high priority project would need an EIR that has defined timeframes; the problem is on the other side of the Tube. Councilmember Gilmore stated traffic is the number one complaint; adding capacity would add traffic; adding capacity should only be done for a good project; inquired whether a worthy project needing an EIR could be simultaneously processed with a GPA; further inquired whether the process would be slowed down. The Planning and Building Director responded a draft EIR would be needed in some cases to determine whether lane widening is needed. Vice Mayor deHaan stated congestion already exists when trying to make a left-hand turn onto Park Street at Otis Drive; traffic cannot move down Otis Drive; the area has parking spaces that are not used; traffic backs up two or three blocks on Otis Drive; the choke point has not encouraged people to walk, ride bikes, or take a bus to the shopping center. Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council and community have been adamant about having mitigation measures to accommodate traffic from new development; softening the policy does not give a clear picture of what Council wants to do. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the process is awkward or something that staff could live with. The Public Works Director responded the concern is having some flexibility to look at potential operational issues; stated a GPA could be done; there would be a time issue and cost to the developer; the Planning Board recommendation allows the Transportation Commission, Planning Board and City Council to hear pros and cons for providing a right-turn lane; the public would be involved in the discussion; the developer would know how to develop the project; developers may be discouraged from Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 January 20, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf |