pages
20 rows where "date" is on date 2006-09-25
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: body, page, path
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-09-25.pdf,1 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2006-09-25 | 1 | COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES MEETING MINUTES OF September 25, 2006 Present: Berger, Bunker, Longley-Cook, Chair Cooney, Fort, and Lord-Hausman Absent/Excused: Vice-Chair Moore, Kirola Guests: Lucy Gigli, Joan Steber (Bike Alameda) MINUTES: The minutes of August 28, 2006 were approved as submitted. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: none NEW BUSINESS: 1. Bike Alameda. Guest Ms. Gigli and Steber informed the commission on Bike Alameda's campaign for an alternative Estuary crossing, as the existing tube is not bike or pedestrian user friendly. Bike Alameda is hopeful that a water shuttle/taxi between Alameda Landing and Jack London Square will be implemented and is seeking support from the commission and other interest groups. Though the commission did not disagree on the concept they did have some reservations. In general once disembarking from the water shuttle there are no other transit or disability accessible facilities on either end for the disabled. Chair Ed Cooney's opinion was that the shuttle was not relevant to the disabled. Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman was concern about accessibility on the shuttle and once one disembarks where does one go. Commissioner Charles Bunker stated that access from the dock at Jack London Village is very steep. Commissioner Toby Berger thought the shuttle is a great idea but how does a disabled person get to the shuttle. Commissioner Steve Fort thought it was important that the commission provide input now. Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman withdrew her motion to support Bike Alameda's endeavor, as she was not sure that that was within the commission's roles and responsibility. 2. Ninth Street Remodeling Project Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the commission on her attending the historical advisory meeting regarding remodeling of an existing 3-unit building on Ninth Street. Though she did not represent the commission she had spoken with the owner on making the building more ADA accessible. The owner was very open and appreciated her suggestions. | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-09-25.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-09-25.pdf,2 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2006-09-25 | 2 | Commission on Disability Issues September 25,2006 2006 Minutes Page 2 of 3 3. Press Release Chair Ed Cooney and commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman will met and discuss items for a press release on October Disability Awareness month. October is also white cane and disability employment awareness month. A Disability Awareness Month proclamation will be presented by the City Council at the council meeting of October 3rd 4. Alameda Hospital Health Fair: (Lord-Hausman) Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the commission about the October 21st, 2006 Alameda Hospital Annual Community Health Fair. The event will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the hospital. Commissioner's Adrienne Longley-Cook and Audrey will contact the director of relations for a Commission table at the event. 5. Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics Training: (Secretary) The secretary informed the commission on the City's mandatory ethics training requirements for all elected and appointed officials. Deadline for completing the training and taking the exam is January 1, 2007. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is providing training on December 11th from 10 a.m. to noon. Secretary informed the commissioners that Public Works will provide assistance to attend the ABAG training if commission members can not do the training and testing on their own. Chair Ed Cooney, commissioners Charles Bunker and Toby Berger stated that they would like to attend. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Status of Accommodation Recommendations: The secretary reviewed the public works proposed changes to the Commission's "Recommendations for ADA Policies'. Commissioner Toby Berger was not satisfied with the proposed changes and will discuss further at the October meeting. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the commission about the upcoming November 15th Alameda Youth Collaborative meeting. A time capsule commemorating the 10th year of the collaborative will be buried and the Collaborative is requesting items for inclusion int… | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-09-25.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-09-25.pdf,3 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2006-09-25 | 3 | Commission on Disability Issues September 25,2006 2006 Minutes Page 2 of 3 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, October 23, 2006 in Room 360, City Hall. Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Ed Sommerauer Associate Civil Engineer ES:lc G:\pubworks\LTMMDDD Disability Committee/2006/821min.doc | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, September 25, 2006 1. CONVENE: 7:10 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Member Mariani 3. ROLL CALL: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham, Mariani, Kohlstrand, Lynch, and McNamara. Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Supervising Planner Douglas Garrison, Debbie Potter, Development Services, Elizabeth Cook, Development Services, Contract Planner Chandler Lee. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of September 11, 2006. Member Cunningham noted that on page 2, he had requested clarification of the 45-foot-high green bean, and what it looked like. Member Cunningham noted that page 6, paragraph 2, should be changed to read, "The eave ridge line of the main roof had been incorrectly drawn, and was about three feet higher than it should have been above the grade level at that point.' Member Cunningham wished to clarify the following statement on page 7, paragraph 4: "He suggested using a skylight for natural daylight, which would reduce the cost of construction." He noted that combining that with roof modifications, which could potentially reduce the cost of construction. President Lynch noted that page 3, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, "President Lynch noted that the noticing practices were regulated by the State, and that the City may want to consider extending often extended the noticing parameters." M/S Cunningham/Ezzy Ashcraft to approve the minutes for the meeting of September 11, 2006, as amended. AYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Cook, Mariani) 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: President Lynch noted that the applicants for 8-A had been delayed, and suggested that the order of Items 8-A and 8-B be switched. Planning Board Minutes Page 1 September 25, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 2 | M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to hear Item 8-B before Item 8-A. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. Use Permit, UP06-0011 - West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and City of Alameda - Public Parking Lot at Taylor Avenue and Webster Street (DB). Applicants request approval of an amendment to Use Permit, UP05-007 to allow additional hours of operation for the existing farmers' market every Thursday from 4:00 p.m. through midnight, from May 1 through the end of September. Specific changes to the scope of the previously approved Use Permit would include additions of barbeque (outdoor cooking and food sales), children's activities, guest chef demonstrations, movies, and music presentations provided after dusk until midnight. This activity would be located in the City Public Parking Lot D and would expand into Taylor Avenue. The site is located within the CC (Community Commercial) Zoning District and is located within the boundaries of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project. (Applicant has withdrawn application.) M/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous accept the withdrawal of this application. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 7-B. GPA05-02, R05-04, MP05-02, DP05-02, TM05-02, IS05-03 -Grand Marina Village Residential Development (AT). The applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Plan, Master Plan and Vesting Tentative Map and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow the development of forty (40) new detached single family homes. Development of the residential project would involve the reconfiguration of the existing marina parking lot and improvements to the existing waterfront path and open space areas within the 8.36 acre Master Plan area. The site is located in the M2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District at the intersection of Grand Street and Fortmann Way to the south of the Oakland Estuary and recreational marina facilities, north of the Pennzoil property and City of Alameda Animal Shelter and Corporati… | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 3 | 7-C. Applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow five new buildings totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor area with a total of 268 parking spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site (CL). The site is located at 1900 - 1980 North Loop Road within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. Applicant: SRM Associates (FDP06- 0003 and DR06-0071). (Continued from the meeting of September 11, 2006. Applicant requests a continuance to the meeting of October 9, 2006.) M/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous to continue Item 7-C to the meeting of October 9, 2006. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 September 25, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 4 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-B. Applicants request a Development Plan and Major Design Review for a 39 unit, multiple-family affordable housing project, internal driveway, off-street parking, landscaping and associated improvements on an approximately 2.5 acre site (CL). An addendum to the Catellus Mixed Use Development EIR has been prepared. The site is located at 401 Willie Stargell Avenue (formerly Tinker Avenue) in the southwest corner of the former FISC Site (Tract 7179) within the M-X, Mixed Use Planned Development District. Applicants: Resources for Community Development & City of Alameda (FDP06-0004 and DR06-0080). Mr. Thomas summarized the affreport, and noted that this proposal was consistent with the General Plan, Master Plan and EIR. He noted that a subslab depressurization (SSDS) system, which would prevent gases from the benzene plume from entering the living spaces of the buildings. This would be an interim solution because the Navy is pursuing full cleanup of the benzene plume. Mr. Eric Mikiten, project architect, described and displayed the site plan, landscaping design, and architectural design of the project. He noted that the plan called for a sustainable green building. He added that 15 of the 39 units will be fully accessible, and the remainder will be adaptable units; and all site amenities will be fully accessible. The planting scheme focused on drought-tolerant and native plants, with a bioswale along the side of the parking area and other areas to collect and filter the runoff from the project. He displayed and described the materials and the design, and noted that the inspiration for the design was from the Japanese origins of Craftsman design. The color scheme was a palette of muted and sophisticated colors that were reminiscent of natural materials. The low sloping roof reflected the Japanese aesthetic as well. The clear story windows would allow more light into the units, and reduce the need for artificial lighting. President Lynch complimented the architect on the design. The public h… | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 5 | Mr. Aron Sogor, 2137 Otis, Apt 208, expressed concern about the mediation of the contaminated soils, and inquired how this project would be different from past projects in that regard. Ms. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse Manager, addressed the speakers' concerns, and noted that the cleanup of the benzene plume was the Navy's responsibility. She added that the Navy's cleanup schedule did not match with the City's building efforts, and that City staff and the developer met with the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). An interim solution would be implemented, including the SSDS, which includes a vapor barrier between the soil and the indoor spaces, a common practice to deal with radon gas. The active system vents the gases to the exterior, with no chance that the gases would be trapped within the enclosed spaces. A discussion of the remediation techniques ensued. Ms. Potter noted that following the remediation, long-term monitoring would occur. Member Ezzy Ashcraft complimented the developer on a nicely designed project. Vice President Cook liked the courtyard idea, as well as the kitchen areas that face the courtyard. She expressed concern about the fencing on one side of the pathways. Mr. Mikiten agreed with Vice President Cook's concerns, and noted that the fences and barriers were already there. He would like to open those areas up to the neighborhood areas. Ms. Potter noted that after 9/11, the Coast Guard became very focused on security, and noted that North Village has been vacated and will be auctioned off in the future. She noted that would open the site up, and added that Miller School would not longer be a school. In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara regarding parking regulation, Mr. Thomas replied the residents would register their cars to monitor whether the cars in the lot belonged to residents, and whether any residents had an unusual number of cars. In response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether there was a maintenance agreement for the landscaping, Mr. Thomas replied that a stand… | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 6 | southeast corner of the building. Member Kohlstrand noted that would be agreeable to her. Member Mariani agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and added that this was a good project. Her concerns about the plume had been answered, and she liked the concept of the courtyard. Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the transit would be adequate, Mr. Thomas noted that AC Transit service to west Alameda was not excellent, but there would be a bus stop at the development. He noted that the West End transportation programs would make a difference in providing supplemental services. Once Tinker is put in place, and the queue jumpers are operational, Tinker may become an excellent transit route. M/S Cunningham/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-33 to approve an addendum to the Catellus mixed use EIR and approve a Development Plan and Major Design Review for a 39 unit, multiple-family affordable housing project, internal driveway, off-street parking, landscaping and associated improvements on an approximately 2.5 acre site, with additional conditions to require a landscape maintenance agreement, and enhancement of the southeast corner elevation landscaping. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 6 September 25, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 7 | 8-A. DR06-0027 and V06-0006 - Applicant: Fargo Farnesi Inc. - 2427 Clement Ave. (DG). The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two-story commercial cabinet shop with a penthouse apartment on the third floor, to be used as a caretaker's unit, and a free-standing single-story wood frame structure to be used as an administrative office for the cabinet shop. The project will provide four full-size parking spaces and one ADA compliant parking space. The applicant proposes to pay parking in lieu fees pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-7.13 for any additional spaces that may be required by the City. The applicant is also applying for a Variance to the City onsite vehicle backup distance and minimum driveway and parking area perimeter landscaping requirements. The site is located at 2427 Clement Ave. within an M-2, General Industrial, (Manufacturing) District. (Continued from the meeting of September 11, 2006.) Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report. President Lynch noted that more than five speaker slips had been received. M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- 0 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Shawn Smith, project architect, noted that he and the applicant tried to be sensitive to the neighbors' needs and had met with the residents. A concern was raised about noise from the woodworking shop, and he noted that 8-inch-thick insulated concrete forms with insulated foam on the outside; its sound transfer rating would be 50, the equivalent of a movie theater. Reclaimed bricks would be used for the building façade, to give it the appearance of being an older building. The client would like to use the caretaker unit in the penthouse for his own unit, and would like a more modern look for his unit. They had discussed a one-foot side setback from the current property line, and that they would like a minimum residential driveway of 8"6". Ms. Theresa Long, 2431 Clement, noted that they had a shared driveway, and expr… | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 8 | business. In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether he had come to an agreement with his neighbors regarding the easements, Mr. Reed replied that there was 18 feet between the properties, and that 8'6" was a legal driveway; they were trying to split the difference at this time. He estimated that he was giving them 12 inches of free land, and that he did not envision ever getting a semi truck into the back. He tried to curtail the liabilities of the business by keeping his operations fenced within his property. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the City's historical perspective on easements, Ms. Mooney replied that in a potential dispute over a right of access, the City sees fencing disputes as private matters to be resolved among the parties. If they reach an agreement regarding an easement that would typically be recorded. President Lynch cautioned the Board not to condition an easement, which was a private matter between two parties. Member McNamara noted that the front part of the building would be reserved for office use, and expressed concern about the hydraulic lift parking as an alternative to fulfilling the parking requirements. She inquired whether the administrative office could be incorporated into the new building to create more room for parking. Mr. Garrison noted that one of the factors when looking at demolition was the potential historic value and concerns that the building would be too tall for the neighborhood if the office was added to the new building. Mr. Smith noted that the original design had half of a floor that was dedicated to the office space, as well as other administration functions; they had to remove that part to make the building shorter. He noted that the building was in bad shape, and that the HAB had given permission to tear the building down. He noted that the hydraulic lifts were not his first choice, but they were concerned about parking capacity. He noted that they would be open to suggestio… | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 9 | Mr. Smith noted that they would be amicable to in-lieu fees if the Board agreed. They could also modify or remove the front building, and work out a way to add two more parking spaces. Vice President Cook noted that she liked the smaller building on the street. Member Kohlstrand believed the proposed building was a good design, but seemed to be discordant with the building in the front. She inquired about the noise of the hydraulic lifts. Mr. Smith noted that the lifts were operated by an electric motor; he was unsure of the decibel rating, and estimated that it made less noise than an idling car. He noted that he could provide the noise ratings to the Board members. Member Cunningham noted that parking was always a delicate concern, and that the architectural solutions were sound. He had been concerned about the noise generated from its facility, but believed those issues had been addressed. He was pleased with the current proposal, with the exception of the hydraulic lifts. Mr. Smith requested direction on parking, and inquired whether the Board preferred a parking alternative or in lieu fees. Member Mariani noted that she was in favor of in lieu fees. President Lynch suggested that the Board provide clear guidelines to the staff, and that staff incorporate that information into a report, and continue the item until that time. Member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to encourage this kind of mixed use, and noted that it was aesthetically pleasing. She commended the architect, and supported in lieu fees for the parking. Mr. Garrison noted that staff would continue to work with the applicant, and the applicant would continue to work with his neighbor. The item would come back to the Board at the next meeting, with a resolution to the easement question and a revised recommendation on the parking situation. Staff would double-check the parking calculations, and examine the use of variances without lifts. The number of in lieu spaces would also be examined. M/S Cunningham/ Ezzy Ashcraft to continue this item… | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 10 | 8-C. Alameda Towne Centre Expansion Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DG). A public hearing to receive comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report that evaluates proposed changes and expansion of the Alameda Towne Centre (formerly South Shore Center). The project includes modifications to an earlier Planned Development Amendment proposed in 2002 / 2003. These include 49,650 square feet of floor area above the 112,000 square feet expansion proposed in 2002/2003, the construction of a new 145,000 sq. ft. Target department store, instead of the previously proposed 90,000 square feet building, construction of a new parking structure and improvements to the southeast corner of the South Shore Shopping Center. The purpose of this meeting is to receive comments on the draft EIR only. No action to approve or deny the project will occur at this meeting. The project site is zoned C-2- PD (Central Business-Specia Planned Development District). Mr. Garrison presented the staff report. President Lynch noted that more than five speaker slips had been received. M/S Cook/McNamara to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Winston Chu, 1143 Otis Drive, expressed concerns about the traffic impact of this project. He noted that there were limited entrances and exits in Alameda, and was concerned about emergency evacuation of Alameda. He noted that it would be very difficult to build more roads without exercising eminent domain. He believed the Target would draw people into the City, which would congest the entrances and exits to the City. Mr. Ashley Jones noted that the impact of a store this large would be felt by the nearby residents, and agreed with the previous speaker's comments about traffic. Ms. Reyla Graber, 178 Basinside Way, spoke in opposition to this project and read an excerpt from a newspaper article about a proposed Target in Davis. It addressed the impact on local stores by Target, as well as health care policies and economic conce… | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 11 | noise. She believed the air quality within homes should be measured as affected by 18-wheel trucks; she was concerned that the noise rating for those trucks were not included in the chart. She noted that some of the trucks would be only 20 feet away from homes. She believed the truck traffic would negatively impact the residents' quality of life. She submitted her comments to staff. Ms. Kimberly Miner, 1004 Camellia Drive, indicated she supported the project but did not speak. Mr. Terry Miner, 3214 Bayo Vista Avenue, spoke in support for this project and the EIR. He disagreed that Target is the same kind of discount store as a WalMart or K-Mart. He believed that many car trips would be generated to go to a Target off-island. Ms. Eugenie Thompson requested that the City redo the traffic study. She had been asked by some citizens to review the traffic study who wondered why a project of this magnitude could have zero impacts. She did not believe the EIR evaluated the traffic impacts of a Target as proposed by the developers. She noted that generic shopping was examined instead. She noted that Target would be a major regional draw, from three to five miles. As a civil engineer and a traffic engineer, she did not believe this EIR was reality-based. She supported controlled growth, and believed that 700,000 square feet was a very large shopping center. She would like alternative sites to be examined more closely. She noted that traffic impacted people and the quality of life, not just roads. She urged the City to do a new traffic study. Ms. Jill Reed, 2101 Shoreline Drive #146, spoke in opposition to this project. She echoed the other speakers' concerns, and did not believe the project would have no traffic impact. She did not believe a store of this size should be at that side of the Island, and that it was a long drive for people to shop. Ms. Mary Tigh, 2137 Otis Drive #223, spoke in opposition to this project, and spoke on behalf of Rich Perranan who was out of town. She read his letter into the record: "I arrived … | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 12 | Target, but they would like a smaller store, not a big box store." Ms. Patricia Gannon, 1019 Tobago Lane, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that she had sent two letters in strong opposition to this project. She believed the store was grossly out of scale for Alameda, and cited studies that when big box stores open in a city, family-owned stores go out of business, housing values decrease, and the local streets are clogged with traffic, thus degrading the quality of life. Ms. Beverly DeWolfe spoke in opposition to this project, and expressed concern about traffic congestion. She was concerned about building a garage under the store, where there would be water. She believed Target should be located on a freeway, not a shoreline. Mr. Tim Erway, 2101 Shoreline Dr #224, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that he was on the Willows Board. He was very concerned about the one-lane approaches to the vicinity of the store, and believed that the traffic would be very congested. He believed the traffic study was flawed and should be redone. Mr. Blake Brydon, Vice President, Alameda Civic Light Opera, 1033 Camino Del Valle, spoke in support of this item, as well as the EIR as submitted by the developer. He believed the issues of traffic and noise had been sufficiently addressed. He noted that Target had been an outstanding community partner in supporting the Alameda Civic Light Opera in their funding projects. Ms. Judith Kissinger, 2101 Shoreline Dr. #428, spoke in opposition to this project. She believed the EIR did not provide mitigating factors for the environmental impact that the proposed Target would have on her neighborhood. She had attended a neighborhood meeting, where the latest design was presented; she believed it was basically the same design that she felt ignored the neighbors' previous concerns, such as the blockage of views and light because of the size of the building. She was very concerned about the impact on her property value. She believed it should be redesigned, and the impact re… | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 13 | Mr. Robb Ratto, PSBA, spoke in support of this item and wished to address the impact on existing businesses. The PSBA Board of Directors unanimously approved this project, citing the Kaizen- Marsden report, who estimated that 3% of current sales may be lost to Target, but that the overall impact would be minor. He noted that some retailers near the site wanted the Target, as well as Bed, Bath & Beyond and other stores, to open up, which PSBA believed would continue to improve the numbers for those stores. Ms. Sonia Scott, 2442 Otis Dr., noted that the retail community supposed to support the residents. She did not think the types of products carried by Target would compete with the smaller businesses, and she would be happy to have a Target in Alameda. She noted that there had been safety concerns about traffic, and wondered where the store could be placed on Fruitvale to ease the traffic. She believed it was too large a store for South Shore Center. Ms. Susan Battaglia, 1351 Burbank Street, noted that her concern about traffic has continued to grow. Although Target may be a good neighbor, she did not believe it was a good fit for Alameda. She believed the traffic study was flawed and should be discarded. She believed crime would be an issue with a big box store. Mr. Red Wetherill, 28 Cove Road, spoke in opposition to this project. He agreed with Ms. Thompson's comments. He noted that he was a professional architect, and did not believe the placement of this store on an island did not make sense. Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Drive, spoke in support of this item with some concerns about the egress portion of the EIR. He made suggestions on how to improve the shopping center with a three- lane egress plan. He challenged the City to plan for traffic problems in advance of the development, and for it to admit its mistakes during the DEIR phase for the good of the community as a whole. He believed the development should be redesigned for a smaller footprint. Ms. Dorothy Reid, Willows Homeowners, 2101 Shoreline #276,… | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 14 | the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber was in favor of the EIR and smart business development She believed that while Alameda was a residential community, without retail activity, there would be no residents. She noted that there would be more on- and off-island traffic to go to stores in other cities. She noted that many people were concerned about the opening of Trader Joe's, but that it had become a good neighbor. Mr. Gail Wetzork, Chair, Economic Development Commission, 3452 Calecca Lane, spoke in support to this item and echoed the previous two speakers' comments. He noted that when this item came before the EDC, the Commissioners endorsed it unanimously. He believed the impacts could be mitigated, and he agreed with the EIR. Mr. William McAleer, 420 Kitty Hawk Rd., spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed concern about traffic. He noted that the majority of people don't walk, bicycle or carpool to Target, and estimated 900,000 trips to and 900,000 away from Target per year. He noted that the area was full of residential neighborhoods, and he did not believe it was an appropriate use for the neighborhood. Mr. Chris Kovach, 2101 Shoreline Drive, spoke in opposition to this item. He did not believe the EIR addressed the impact of expansion on the Island by Target. He was concerned about the impact of traffics on the community, and believed the congestion would be a safety hazard. Mr. Mark Linde, 2830 Central Avenue #B, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed the traffic study should be redone and noted that the delivery trucks driving down the residential streets would be a safety hazard. Mr. Bob Feinbaum, Oakland, spoke in support to this item. He believed the Target store would provide more variety of goods and services in Alameda. He believed that by improving the public transit access to the center, the traffic impacts would be mitigated. He encouraged Target to use the best design possible for this store. Ms. Susan Sperry, 2101 Shoreline #355, spoke in opposition to this item and noted that she… | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 15 | about traffic congestion to Target, and noted that there was more to quality of life than tax revenues. He believed this use would be too big, would generate too much traffic and did not fit in Alameda. Mr. Noel Folsom spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern about the traffic congestion surrounding this use, and its impacts on the residential neighborhoods. Mr. Scott Brady, 1812 Encinal Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He was very concerned about the traffic portion in the EIR, and noted that the level of service figures would be meaningless to readers without the number of vehicles per hour included in the correlation. He believed this EIR was a piecemeal document, and that it was a recipe for disaster. Mr. Andrew DuBois, 2101 Shoreline Drive #438, spoke in opposition to this item. He was concerned about the adequacy of the traffic study, and sometimes had to wait for three green lights to get across Park Street at Otis. Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke as a member of Bike Alameda. He supported Lucy Gigli's comments on the inadequacy of pedestrian and bicycle comments in the EIR, and the provisions for them. He was disappointed that this continued a trend that pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders had not been adequately accounted for and taken care of in the South Shore traffic pattern. He would be willing to accept Target as a good neighbor in the right location. He noted that many low-income families needed a store like Target in Alameda, and did not believe they should have to go to San Leandro. He noted that Target was a big supporter of community programs. He believed that it should be located in the right place, supported by a developer that is willing to pay the freight on the development, and to adequately provide for all the needs to support Target and South Shore being a good neighbor. He did not believe that standard had yet been met, and did not believe it had been met in 2003 with the EIR at that time. He believed this DEIR could be improved. Ms. Lucy Gi… | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 16 | Mr. Mike Corbitt. Alameda Towne Center, 523 South Shore Center, spoke in support to this item. He thanked the speakers for their opinions, and noted that he shared their wishes for safe and manageable traffic patterns for the project. He submitted 520 names of people who want Target at the center. Ms. Elizabeth Flanagan agreed with the other speakers who mentioned their concerns about the flawed traffic study. She would like the local schools to be included in the traffic safety with respect to safety. Ms. Mary Jacak, 1330 Caroline Street, believed the EIR was inadequate and felt very strongly that there should be no street without sidewalks on both sides. Ms. Kris Murray, 1738 Alameda Avenue, spoke in support to this item. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. President Lynch entertained Board comments on how to proceed with this item. Member Kohlstrand believed it would be appropriate to continue the discussion to the next meeting. She noted that it would be helpful to hear all the comments, and then absorb them before commenting. In response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the timeline going forward, Mr. Thomas replied that the final date of the comment period was October 12, 2006. Staff heard a number of important comments and concerns raised, and expected to receive more letters and emails. He believed the best option would be for the Board to continue its discussion to October 9, 2006. He believed it would take one to two months to prepare the final EIR. The Board must wait to take any action until the Final EIR has been in circulation for at least 15 days. He requested that staff provide the public with a timeline and milestones of goals to guide public comment. Vice President Cook requested the comments made by the Transportation Commission as soon as possible. Mr. Thomas noted that staff would provide their minutes by October 9, 2006. M/S Kohlstrand/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to continue Board discussion of this item to the meeting of October 9, 2006. AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); … | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf,17 | PlanningBoard | 2006-09-25 | 17 | a. Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there had been no meetings since her last report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. C. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Member Kohlstrand advised that there had been no meetings since her last report. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board Member Cunningham). Member Cunningham advised that there had been no meetings since his last report. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATION: Mr. Thomas advised that for October 9, 2006, a number of items had been brought to the next meeting's agenda, and Grand Marina had requested that they be moved to that agenda. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catalog Woodbresy Cathy-Woodbury,Secretdry Planning & Building Department These minutes were approved at the October 9, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 17 September 25, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );