pages: PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-04-23 | 4 | Ms. Susan Decker appreciated the efforts made by the City and Harsch to make the center more pedestrian-oriented. She believed that adding north-south walkways would help, but did not believe it was the best solution. She suggested the use of raised crosswalks in the parking lot to calm speeding traffic. Mr. Michael Krueger reiterated Ms. Decker's comments, and did not see the north-south sidewalks as a substitute for the east-west sidewalk at all. He noted that he had many photos of pedestrians already walking in the middle of the roadway; he noted that it was already unsafe and a liability issue. He did not believe the east-west roadway was necessary when the north-south roadways were already available, and did not believe that inconvenience was a sufficient reason to add the east-west roadway at the expense of safety. Mr. Jon Spangler spoke on behalf of Pedestrian-Friendly Alameda, and noted that the tertiary treatment of pedestrians at South Shore has long concerned him. He believed that equivalent access for pedestrians was a reasonable request, and noted that four-foot sidewalks were too narrow. He added that there were no separations of sidewalks from the traffic lanes. A six-foot sidewalk on both sides of the roadway would be feasible by removing parking spaces. He did not believe it would be acceptable to reroute pedestrians to Otis Drive. He suggested making the sidewalks wider, and making vehicle lanes 10 feet wide, and that rumble strips be added to slow traffic down. He agreed with the suggestion for raised sidewalks. He added that the use permit was granted four years ago, following detailed questioning by the Planning Board, and added that Target was not included in these plans. He urged the developer to follow up on the plans in the right way. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham regarding continuing pedestrian access from Otis into the body of the parking lot, Mr. Kyte replied that the proposed walks proposed in 2004 addressed the connections through the adjacent properties to Otis, and that they were sensitive to that. He acknowledged that the signage could be better. In response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham regarding the history of pedestrian safety and accidents, Mr. Michael Corbitt, Harsch Investments, replied that there were no history of accidents specifically on that road. In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding Ms. Reid's suggestion of split sidewalks, Mr. Corbitt replied that they had examined that possibility. He noted that there were 23 driveways in that area, and that the idea of putting a solid sidewalk on that side, and short-stopping all the drive lanes would reduce the parking in a critical portion of the shopping center. Also, trying to transplant parking from the new to the old Safeway lot in terms of expecting people to use it was a concern because of the demand for parking in front of the Safeway store. He noted that it was a parking requirement in the anchor leases that a certain parking ratio be maintained. He did not believe that was viable as the alternative on the north side, and noted that textured pavement and raised table sidewalks through the driveways, as well as rumble strips, would be feasible. Planning Board Minutes Page 4 April 23, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf |