pages: PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-05-12 | 8 | She described the background of their efforts, and urged the Planning Board to deny this application. Mr. Dave Needle, CLASS, 2981 Northwood Drive, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that as a resident, he would be negatively affected by this proposed project, and urged denial of the General Plan Amendment. He noted that the adherence to the noise abatement procedures by the pilots would be put in jeopardy by the proposed project. Mr. Ron Lappa spoke in opposition to this project. He believed the applicant's choice of naming the proposed project Village VI was an attempt to convey that it was part of the existing Harbor Bay Isle community, thereby inferring that this project was a natural extension of the current five villages. He noted that it was not, and that Harbor Bay Isle had built other non-Harbor Bay projects, and never attempted to dub them a village. He was very concerned about the traffic and noise impacts, and did not believe this project was a good fit for this site. Ms. Janet Kirk, Islandia/CLASS, 3332 Solomon Lane, spoke in opposition to this project. She was very concerned that the traffic from the proposed development would come into her neighborhood. Mr. Peter Aschwanden, 62 Vista Road, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that he had a business in the business park. Mr. Jim Henthorne, 3163 Fiji Lane, spoke in opposition to this project. He did not believe this would be a compatible use with the business park, and urged the Board to deny the applicant's request. He would like Harbor Bay Associates to bring more businesses into the park, and leave the residential uses in a more appropriate area. Ms. Dianne Emery, 3411 Catalina Avenue, spoke in opposition to this project. She read a letter written by her neighbor Betty Crowhurst, which referred to Measure H, into the record: "Planning Board members, ladies and gentlemen: It's not their fault. It we who are at fault. We continue to invite families into Alameda, even though our schools are on the brink of bankruptcy. We are facing a parcel tax, even school closures, according to the proponents of Measure H. It is not good planning to generate more crowded classrooms when we can't afford the ones we already have. Since I live on the street that is scheduled to receive all the new traffic, I have strong objection to the plan for the so-called Village VI on that account, also. Apparently, the traffic congestion was measured at Mecartney and Island. The real bottleneck is at Island and Doolittle. It is very congested during commute hours. In the event of an earthquake, we would never be able to get past that horrendous intersection. Adding more traffic reduces still further our chances of escaping a disaster. Page 8 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf |