My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
4B Presentation 2016 0718
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2016
>
Packet 2016 0718
>
4B Presentation 2016 0718
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2016 3:49:36 PM
Creation date
7/15/2016 3:49:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Staff Report
Document Date (6)
7/18/2016
Retention
PERM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
Minutes No. 83-22 -4-December 8 , l 983 <br />Mrs. Audrey Albers, 2037 Marina Court, San Leandro, and a member of the <br />Mulford Gardens Improvement As~oc., asked the basis for having the hearing <br />on both the Draft EIR and project at the same time. Secretary Vitz replied <br />that this was cons-istent with the California Environmental Quality Act which <br />encourages public hearings on Draft EIRs. He pointed out that the Draft EIR <br />could have ·been the subject of a separate hearing but the EIR and project, <br />in this case, are very closely related and to distinguish between the two <br />would be difficult. Mrs. Albers said the homeowners organizations had not <br />been consulted in the· preparation of the Draft EIR and she felt i nsuffi ci ent <br />time was ·being allowed fo·r review of the project. The Secretary explained that <br />the 30 day comment period would extend through December 22 and that Planning <br />Commi'ssion acti.on would not occur until January with City Council action not <br />unti 1 early February •. <br />Mr. John Lane, 1574 Graff Avenue ·and owner of property on the south side of <br />Lewel 1 ing Blvd. easterly of the subject property-, asked about the effect of <br />increased traffic and street widening on access to property on the south side <br />of Lewelling. He said he had·~o objection to the project or use as such, but <br />was concerned only that the present turning problems on Lewelling not be made <br />worse •. He noted that he had asked to have parking removed in front of his own <br />property because it was hazardous to people entering and leavirig the site. He <br />also questioned whether the underpass under the Nimttz Freeway on Lewelling <br />Blvd. was of sufficient width to accommodate the traffic. <br />Mr. Dan Arellano, Traffic Engineer, responded by pointing out that the widened <br />Lewelling Blvd. was proposed to have a two way left turn lane in the center to <br />allow safe left turns into and out of the properties on both the north and south <br />sides of Lew.e 11 -ing Blvd, east o.f Tropi ~ Court.. He said the Ni niitz Free1vay <br />overpass is wide snough for four lanes, two in each direction, and that should <br />be sufficient since no turning lane is needed in that area. Secretary Vitz <br />expla-ined t .hat starting near the east side of Mr. Lane's property, Lewelling <br />Blvd. is in .the unihcorporated porti-0n of Alameda County and coor~ination with <br />the County is necessary for .any street work in that area. · <br />Marjorie Burke, 974 Trojan Avenue, asked what impact the traffic from the pro- <br />ject would have on the existing traffic situation on Fargo Avenue.· She pointed <br />out that .there is a large apartment complex, elementary school, and church <br />and senior center on Fargo near Washington Avenue and increased traffic could <br />adversely affect those uses. She also said she hoped that the uses proposed <br />for the shopping complex would be a benefit or service to the surrounding <br />community. · <br />Mrs. Joanne Mattoon, 3810 MCJnterey Blvd., said this same development firm had <br />been the developer of the K-Mart site at Floresta Blvd. and Washington Avenue. <br />She explained that, although her homeowners organization had opposed a K-Mart <br />store on the site, the developer had been cooperative during the approval <br />and construction proces~ and in responding to the concerns of the neighborhood. <br />She did say she felt the San Leandro community did not need any more discount <br />or fast food type businesses and urged that they not be included in this project. <br />65
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.