pages: PlanningBoard/2007-04-18.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-04-18 | 8 | airport. She noted that the document had a comprehensive noise analysis. She inquired whether any comments by the Alameda Airport Commission or the Port had been received. Mr. Thomas replied that those comments had not been received yet, but would not be surprised if they did submit comments. Member Kohlstrand believed the level of service numbers in the documents should be scrutinized further. She expressed concern about the traffic levels at Island Drive and Doolittle, which often backed up at Lincoln School as a result of people trying to go to the school so that traffic could not pass through the intersection. She suggested that that intersection be examined more thoroughly. She was very concerned about circulation, and understood the residents' concerns about Catalina Drive. She was concerned about creating a residential community with limited access to the rest of the Island, and that had to interact with the business park. She would like those limitations to be addressed in the EIR. Vice President Cook agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and would submit many of her comments in writing. Her concerns had to do with safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. She would like to see those concerns addressed in a staff report if they were not appropriate for the environmental document. She was concerned about traffic signals and noise, and believed there were different ways that noise was perceived and studied. She had questions about the Land Use section regarding the recreational goals for open space, and wanted to be sure it met the General Plan requirements for parklands. Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that common sense should be exercised in examining this document, and noted that the developer was proposing a private enclave that would be cut off from other residential units. She was concerned that isolated, fragmented neighborhoods would result from this layout. She noted that the stated objective of home ownership did not also mention the purchase price range for these homes, and did not know whether they would be entry-level, affordable or market-level homes. She noted that the business park still had a notable vacancy rate, and was concerned that if the acreage were to be eliminated to build homes, it would stifle the enlivening of the business park. She was surprised to see windows that did not open included in the document. Member Cunningham noted that the fiscal analysis should be examined carefully, and believed there should be more in-depth analysis to validate the reasons why this project was being considered. He believed that the low-density residential and private school options should also be considered, so that the highest and best use of this land could be identified. He believed the criteria should be identified more clearly. Member McNamara was interested in hearing how a mechanical ventilation system would create quality of life in a residential neighborhood, and could not imagine not being able to open the windows at home. She also was concerned about compatibility with an industrial park, and she had hoped to hear from the two child care centers regarding the impacts construction would have on their operation. Planning Board Minutes Page 8 April 18, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-04-18.pdf |