pages: PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2009-01-26 | 6 | provided a list so that citizens can find out first hand the test results. He would like to see a "Best Management" approach be used during construction with respect to noise and dust. He believes that design and aesthesis are key to the project and would like to see the public access change to be more inviting. Also mentioned was that the General Plan conformance calls for park use and medium density development and the developer should not be allowed to step away from that goal. Jean Sweeney Estuary Park Action Committee (EPAC) member spoke against the project. She objects to the density of the project. She would like to find out who she should get in touch with in the City of Alameda to write a Grant to try and get funding for the Estuary Park project. Jim Sweeney Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) member spoke against the project and agrees with the previously voiced concerns. He urges the City of Alameda to be as thorough as possible with the investigation of the contamination and make the developer follow through with the clean up. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Board member Cook commended the public for their interest in the project. She is concerned with the circulation of the site and would like alternatives looked at that would conform better with the grid that Alameda has possibly extending Oak Street and Elm Street down to the estuary and have Blanding Avenue go through the site. The extensions would help spread the traffic and give the residents of the City a visual and physical access to the water. She stated that the site plan is very constricting and not keeping with the neighborhood. She expressed her concern about the integrity of the sea wall and the toxicity levels of the estuary water. She agrees that there is a need for a park in the civic core of Alameda. She sees a need to look into the impact of the lights at the football field down the street from the project. She commented that it is going to be difficult to analyze the impact the project will have on traffic due to the fact that it is so bad in the area already. She is concerned with the affect of the Park Street Bridge noise on the future residents. She stated that she would like to take a tour of the existing buildings and the site area. Board member McNamara stated that she shares the concerns that the citizens and Board member Cook have voiced. She would like to see more waterfront access and open space on the site. She requested staff to address the status of the contamination on the site. Staff responded that there would need to be a complete understanding on what the former conditions of the property are. It has been mentioned that the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) has an approved clean up plan for the site and it is substantially complete although it has not been forwarded to staff. Staff will need to go back and investigate what DTSC and the Water Quality Board have done and then go forward to complete what needs to be done such as performing soil and ground water Page 6 of 9 | PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf |