pages: PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-11-13 | 9 | Amendment and a major design review must be submitted. She believed that unless those steps had been followed, the building permits for buildings 400 and 500 may not be pulled. She noted that the staff report suggested that because permits had already been mistakenly issued for buildings 700 and 800, that there should be no complaints about more permits being issued for construction in phases that have already been specifically disapproved by the Planning Board. President Lynch gave documents to Ms. Risley for her review regarding her assertions; he noted that if the documents were incorrect, she would be able to communicate that directly to City staff. Mr. Kite noted that Ms. Risley's commented regarded Item 8-A, and wished to respond. He noted that their counsel was unable to attend this meeting, but that she submitted a letter which reinforced staff's position on why there was authority in place to approve building 300, as well as 400 and 500 under the Alameda Municipal Code. Ms. Melinda Reising, Park Street, expressed concern about traffic and did not believe the Environmental Impact Report addressed those concerns in terms of how the traffic on Park Street would be impacted. She was concerned that Park Street would become an off ramp once Target opened. Ms. Jill Reed noted that she lived at the Willows, and was concerned that the plans seemed to be piecemeal and scattered about the site. She believed there should be one EIR that addressed all the modifications. She would like to know the height of the Target store, and was concerned about traffic impacts on the side streets such as Franciscan Street. She did not believe that street should be a main artery out of the shopping center. She echoed the previous concerns voiced by the other speakers. Mr. Michael Krueger noted that as a Transportation Commissioner, he wished to call the Planning Board to the Commission's recommendations that had not been included in the original packet. He noted that the mitigation on the left-turning bicyclists was addressed by relocating the bike path. He was pleased to see that the issue of widening the sidewalk on Park Street had been addressed. He noted that the issue on the transit mitigations was partially addressed by configuring the intersection to allow for a better turn for the buses. During the TC discussion, they discussed working with AC Transit to explore a more optimum route for the buses through the center, particularly with the potential addition of Target and a parking garage, which could add a lot of traffic congestion. He was pleased to see the addition of a sidewalk on one side of Whitehall Place, but was concerned about pedestrian accommodation and would like to see sidewalks on both sides if possible. The TC also passed a recommendation that every internal roadway should have a continuous sidewalk on at least one side. He strongly disagreed with the assessment that there was no treatment needed for the full east-west sidewalk along where the banks are located. He suggested that the parking ratio may be adjusted if parking spaces needed to be removed in order to get more pedestrian accommodations. Ms. Alice Cleaveland, 2101 Shoreline Drive, echoed Mr. Krueger's comments about the narrow sidewalks on one side of the road. She was very concerned about the large trucks that drive through that area. She described a pedestrian-car near-miss that she had witnessed due to the lack of a sidewalk, as well as teenage pedestrians walking in the middle of the streets. Planning Board Minutes Page 9 November 13, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf |