pages: CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-10-05 | 13 | The Planning Services Manager responded staff is trying to create a better connection for pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars; stated a new, full-scaled road would not be created because there is no room. Councilmember Tam stated when the City was working with Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP), the environmental insurance was cost prohibitive and made the project financially infeasible; inquired at what stage would environmental liability insurance be required; stated that she could not find said requirement in the Settlement Agreement; inquired how assurances would be provided. The Planning Services Manager responded initially, assurances would come from DTSC; stated assurances would be required before housing units are built; the City would not be entering into the chain of title. Councilmember Tam stated significant public contributions would exist even though the City would not be in the chain of title. The City Attorney stated the trigger is property ownership; the City would not need to provide environmental liability insurance. Councilmember Tam stated the City would not be required because the burden of liability would be with the property owner; inquired which street requires a General Plan Amendment for a right-hand turn lane, to which the Planning Services Manager responded the Clement Avenue and Oak Street intersection. Mayor Johnson stated ensuring that the waterfront park area is accessible to the public is important. * Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:06 p.m. and returned at 9:08 p.m. Proponents (In favor of staff recommendation): Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning Board; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Richard Hausman, Alameda; and Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association. Opponents (Not in favor of staff recommendation): Dorothy Freeman, Estuary Park Action Committee (EPAC); Joseph Woodard, EPAC; and Rebecca Redfield, EPAC. Councilmember Tam inquired why efforts to obtain Proposition 84 funds were not successful. The Planning Services Manager responded the Trust for Public Land evaluates the probability of success; stated the maximum amount the City could ask for was $5 million; funds would need to be used to purchase the land and build and finish the park; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 October 5, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf |