Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Certificate Of Location topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues Boston Avenue package‑store certification after late map and traffic study
Summary
The certificate-of-location hearing for a proposed package store at 56 Boston Ave was continued to allow commissioners and opponents time to review a revised 750‑foot radius map and a traffic study presented the day of the hearing. Opponents said materials arrived too late; the applicant said surveys and a traffic engineer showed no protected uses or safety problems.
Get email alerts on the Certificate Of Location topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The commission continued the certificate-of-location application for a proposed package store at 56 Boston Avenue to the next regular meeting after neighbors and an attorney for an existing liquor-store owner argued the revised radius map and traffic study were not provided in sufficient time to allow meaningful review.
Corey Chase, a traffic engineer with Dynamic Traffic, told the commission his analysis using Institute of Transportation Engineers trip-generation data showed only modest change versus prior retail use: "That's approximately 53 additional trips during [the weekday evening] time. That's approximately 1 additional trip every minute during the peak hour." Chase said the projected increases fall below the professional threshold for a significant traffic impact and that, in his opinion, the change in use "would not have a significant impact on the adjacent roadway network." The applicant's representative also presented a certified radius map and a surveyor's certification that no protected uses fall within 750 feet.
Opponents urged the commission to either continue or deny the application. Councilman Alfredo Castillo said neighborhood impacts and the proximity of churches and a school weighed against approval: "This is not positive. We have enough liquor stores." The owner of a nearby liquor store submitted a written memorandum (read at the hearing) arguing the traffic report and revised map were filed too late and asking the commission to continue the hearing so the public and opponents can review the technical material. Several commissioners voted to continue the matter to allow review of the map and the newly submitted traffic materials.
Provenance: matter introduced with applicant testimony about the radius map and traffic assessment; continued by vote to permit review and potential rebuttal.

