pages: PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-08-11 | 13 | EIR. President Kohlstrand responded yes. Staff explained the EIR process as it relates to the project. Board member McNamara stated she wanted to address and reconcile the differing opinions regarding traffic. She wondered why there is such a discrepancy between what the document states and public comments that have been received. She asked if prior public comments had been responded to satisfactorily. She stated the information is quantitative, and should not be subjective. She stated she is not comfortable with the Dowling review. Staff responded that asking for opinions from different experts in the same field will sometimes yield differing opinions. President Kohlstrand asked if the study was conducted by a traffic planner not an engineer. Her concern is whether the base of the data is outdated. The traffic situation has changed in the last few years as a result of the changes in Alameda including overall revitalization. She has observed more traffic in the Otis/Park street area and can see the need to re-count traffic levels. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft would like to focus on mitigation measures and accelerate the initiation of these measures. Staff stated that mitigation measures associated with the driveway at Trader Joes were identified for cumulative growth to 2025. The city may require implementation of the mitigations earlier if traffic levels warrant. President Kohlstrand stated that some mitigations had specific language in the 10 year range, some were more open ended. Board member Lynch stated that he believed it was up to the applicant to consider accelerating the implementation of identified mitigation measures. Board member Cunningham stated that there was no question that Harsh had created a great center, and the expansion might make it a bigger place and attract even more people. He believes the discussion should focus on whether this is an appropriate project for Alameda. He stated that if the automobile lots are leaving Alameda focus should be on expanding and improving all areas that can use retail, rather than making the shopping center a mega center. The board needs to discuss whether a second garage deck is appropriate and what should the building limits be. The EIR does not look at aesthetic aspects. He believes there is a fundamental problem with staff looking for board approval of design of this new addition without public review. If he were to give an answer today, he would not approve the project because he is uncomfortable with it. He believes the Board should start with the fundamental question which would Page 13 of 21 | PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf |