pages: PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-04-23 | 11 | The applicant noted that with respect to deliveries during early morning hours, there were physical limitations for deliveries; a full truck was the safest way to deliver fuel, and most drivers would not leave the site it they could not drop off the entire load because of the remaining vapors in the truck. They would need some flexibility for that reason, and he discussed the technical aspects of the fuel delivery process, which he noted was relatively quiet. Board member McNamara noted that the concern was regarding conflict with traffic and respecting the neighbors' noise concerns. Mr. Gold noted that it was important that the Planning Board and the residents felt comfortable, and invited them to talk with other cities who have the Safeway fueling stations. Acting President Cunningham inquired whether a year-long monitoring process would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Gold replied that they would be willing to do so, and to discuss other items of concern at that time. He noted that they wished to be good neighbors, and added that they had a good reputation for doing the right thing with respect to their operations. Board member Kohlstrand stated that she would like to remove the shopping cart restrictions between Trader Joe's and Safeway, and noted that they were often abandoned on the sidewalks. Mr. Kyte replied that the perimeter may have been too narrow, and added that they had many shopping carts scattered all over the center. Board member Kohlstrand shared the same concerns as her fellow Board members, and believed the lighting plan would be respectful of the neighbors across the lagoon. She believed that there were too many gas pumps on the site, and suggested reducing it by two or four. She was not comfortable with a continuous curb cut adjacent to the shopping center, and that it should be narrowed down with the same kind of circulation on the shopping center side as on Otis, while providing a safer environment for pedestrians. She noted that the truck traffic should be accommodated from the westernmost driveway as well. She was not comfortable on the proposal as shown because of its size, and believed it was too big for the site. She believed the architectural design was very positive, and liked the proposed treatment; she believed the landscape plan was reasonable. In response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham question regarding the Category Five earthquake design criteria, Mr. Gold replied that California had seismic zones one through four, and there were higher zone levels that engineers use as a multiplied to determine the force of an earthquake. He noted that this site was in Zone 4- A, and that magnitude of earthquake would be approximately 7.4. He noted that when the Loma Prieta earthquake hit in 1989, none of the tanks were damaged. He noted that the tanks were structurally secure sitting either above or below ground, and added that the piping was flexible. He noted that they had never had any problems with the underground storage systems because of earthquake activity. Acting President Cunningham inquired about monitoring in Condition 8, Mr. Gold replied that the purpose of the condition was to monitor traffic flow at the project driveway at the Planning Board Minutes Page 11 April 23, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf |