{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-11-23", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2020\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Alan Teague convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m.\nThis meeting was via Zoom.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Ron Curtis led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cisneros, Ruiz, Saheba, and Teague.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nKeith Wiseson wanted to address the landscaping for the Cross Alameda Trail and when\nit would be completed. He said it looked overrun with weeds.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2020-8481\n2021 Planning Board Regular Meeting Schedule\nAttachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4697560&GUID=2D1C0706-\n10A7-43DA-90A8-54213A80AE52.\nBoard Member Curtis made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar be approved\nas submitted and Board Member Ruiz seconded. A roll call vote was taken and the\nmotion was approved 7-0.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2020-8511\nPLN19-0448 - Development Plan, Density Bonus, and Tentative Map - 2607 - 2619 Santa\nClara Avenue & 1514 - 1518 Broadway - Applicant: Branagh Land Inc. Public Hearing to\nconsider Development Plan, Density Bonus, and Tentative Map applications to allow\nconstruction of nine in-fill townhome dwellings within an existing residential development,\nand to subdivide the existing 1.29-acre property into twelve (12) lots. The property is\nlocated within the R-5-PD, General Residential-Planned Development zoning district and\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 15\nNovember 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-11-23", "page": 2, "text": "partly within the R-4-PD, Neighborhood Residential-Planned Development zoning district.\nThe project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)\npursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, In-fill Development.\nHenry Dong, Planner III, introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4697565&GUID=7EF1181B-\nC2B5-42BF-91A9-2F40AF1F1DB1&FullText=1.\nStefan Schnitzler, the applicant, gave a presentation.\nBoard Member Xiomara Cisneros asked about Mr. Schnitzler's response to a public\ncomment he had received.\nMr. Schnitzler said they had received a comment from one of the existing residents in\nBuilding 3. Her primary concern was the height of the parking structure.\nMike Branaugh, the applicant, said they had spoken with the resident and had explained\nmore about the design.\nPresident Teague opened the board's clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Hanson Hom asked if there had been a Shade Study done and wanted to\nknow if they would typically require a Shade Study for a project like this.\nMr. Schnitzler said they had not done a Shade Study.\nStaff Member Dong explained when they would require a Shade Study.\nBoard Member Hom asked how much qualifying open space met the zoning standard and\nwanted to know if staff analyzed that. He wanted clarification on the private open space\nthat doesn't meet the requirements.\nStaff Member Dong said it was primarily the common open space that would meet the\nrequirements. He then explained about private open space requirements and why this\nproject can't make that requirement.\nBoard Member Hom asked about the care and maintenance responsibility for the parking\nlot under the HOA.\nMr. Schnitzler answered that the 9 units would bear the brunt of the maintenance of the\ncommon area on lot 12 that's accessible to the other residents of the existing project. He\nalso explained what would happen when the units sold.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 15\nNovember 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-11-23", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Hom asked for clarification on the design of the parking garage.\nMr. Schnitzler described the garage.\nBoard Member Hom wanted to make sure that the furthest unit complies with fire access\nstandards.\nStaff Member Dong answered yes the Fire Department had reviewed the plan.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, said after the last\nmeeting the first thing they did was meet with the Fire Department to discuss the layout.\nVice President Asheshh Saheba wanted to disclose that he had met with the applicants\nthe week before who gave him more insight on the project. He had a follow-up question\non the ADA space and wanted to know if that was required by code.\nMr, Schnitzler said when they pulled the garages from the single-family home that\ntriggered the need for an ADA space.\nVice President Saheba wanted to know if there would be natural light in the parking\nstructure.\nMr. Schnitzler said they are open to ideas and can address that at the Design Review.\nBoard Member Cisneros wanted the applicant to speak to the resident's privacy concerns.\nMr. Schnitzler said they assured the resident that the likelihood of light pollution from the\ntownhomes would be low and that the parking structure would not block her view. Also,\nshe would prefer that no windows on the parking structure facing her unit.\nBoard Member Cisneros asked staff to speak to what transportation services were being\noffered since they were asking to waive parking requirements.\nDirector Thomas explained the Easy Pass program and what benefits homeowners would\nreceive with the TMA.\nBoard Member Teresa Ruiz asked about waivers on the private open space and asked if\nthey were also asking for waivers for the existing parcels as well.\nMr. Schnitzler explained why they were asking for the waivers and who would have access\nto the common open space.\nBoard Member Ruiz wanted to make sure that if these parcels are sold that they would\nstill have access to the common open space.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 15\nNovember 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-11-23", "page": 4, "text": "Director Thomas said in residential districts you can have residential garages right on the\nproperty line provided the walls meet the fire code. He also explained all the codes they\nfollowed in planning for the parking garage.\nBoard Member Curtis wanted to know how the parking structure works and how long it\nwould take to get cars out.\nMr. Schnitzler answered there is a dedicated platform for each resident and each owner\nwill have a key fob that will bring the car down. He then explained how long it should take\nto get a car out.\nBoard Member Curtis wanted to know if the driveway was still the main source for egress\nand ingress.\nMr.Schnitzler said yes it was and talked about how they were demarcating pedestrians\nand vehicle areas.\nPresident Teague asked about the existing development agreement and wanted to have\na condition that terminates it so there is no confusion.\nDirector Thomas said from the staff's perspective that was a great idea.\nPresident Teague asked about how trash removal was going to be done.\nMr. Schnitzler explained how trash bins would be collected.\nPresident Teague asked how waiving the minimum lot size and width preclude the project\nfrom being developed at the density being requested.\nMr. Schnitzler said they wouldn't be able to proceed.\nPresident Teague asked staff how long before a first final map approval.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 15\nNovember 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-11-23", "page": 5, "text": "Director Thomas said it was about 6 months after the tentative map and explained the\nprocess.\nPresident Teague asked if the landscape maintenance agreement was part of the HOA\nand if it would be paid for by the HOA\nMr. Schnitzler said it was just for the common open space, landscaping for lot 12, and\nwould be paid for by the HOA.\nPresident Teague asked about the TDM and why it was only being offered to the\ntownhomes.\nDirector Thomas said usually it's only for HOAs or businesses that sign up.\nPresident Teague asked about parking requirements and the existing units.\nDirector Thomas said they do not typically ask existing units to have the new parking\nrequirements.\nBoard Member Hom asked about the difference in setbacks in different units.\nMr. Schnitzler explained what influenced that design choice.\nBoard Member Ruiz pointed out that it looked like they were excluding the common\nopened space between the new townhomes and to the other residents.\nMr. Schnitzler said they would not enforce it.\nBoard Member Curtis asked about subdividing the units and portioning costs, his concern\nbeing what keeps the adjacent units inline in terms of maintenance.\nMr. Schnitzler felt that for this project to work each building needs to be on its lot to\nsubsidize the cost. The adjacent buildings will maintain the maintenance they have now.\nPresident Teague opened the public comments.\nAneesa Dominguez, a resident, is very concerned by the proposed \"vending machine\"\nstyle of a parking garage. She believed the style doesn't fit the neighborhood and is\nworried about the amount of traffic it would cause. She also would like to see some\ncommon open space for the existing units.\nPresident Teague closed the public comments and opened the board discussion.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 15\nNovember 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-11-23", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Hom had some issues with this project including all the waivers that were\nrequested. He believed if this project was approved the design review would be very\nimportant. He wanted to see an analysis of privacy issues, shading impact, and getting\nsome views from the existing homes to the project. He struggled with all the exceptions\nbut understood the zoning and the right of the applicant to receive the Density Bonus.\nVice President Saheba agreed with Board Member Hom that with how this project is\nsituated within the site it will have a higher sensitivity around the design review.\nBoard Member Cisneros liked the updated design from 4 single-family homes to 9\ntownhomes, she believed it was much improved. She agreed the design review would be\nvery important and liked the idea of doing frosted windows and making the common space\nopen for the existing residents.\nBoard Member Ruiz also believed this was an improved project. She agreed with her\nfellow board members on the open space. For the design review, she wanted the applicant\nto consider introducing an upper floor open space. For the universal accessibility waiver,\nshe was not ready to address that and wanted to table that item. She believed there was\nnot enough information for the board to make a decision.\nDirector Thomas said they could make the findings for this concession at the design review\nbut it would still be under the Density Bonus Law.\nBoard Member Curtis was very proud of the redesign but was disappointed at the egress\nand ingress on the driveway coming from Broadway and felt it wasn't safe for pedestrians\nand made it difficult for emergencies. He said due to these issues he was unable to support\nthis project at this time.\nBoard Member Rothenberg did think this was an improved project subject to the\ncomments and conditions that had been suggested. She agreed the development of the\narchitecture and the landscaping could be better developed using 3-D imaging such as a\nmodel. The architecture should match the neighborhood. Subject to the conditions that\nare recommended she could support this project.\nPresident Teague wanted to see the change in terms of clarifying the final map as well as\nthe building permit timing. Also, on page 15 the landscape maintenance being part of the\nCC&R and paid for by the HOA. He wanted to know if the board could defer the agreement\non the concession.\nCelena Chen, City Attorney, explained what the developer is entitled to under the State\nDensity Bonus Law. She felt that the city should grant the concession and not defer the\ndecision for later.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 15\nNovember 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-11-23", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Hom added that though he would support the motion he wanted the\napplicant to think about the design, he thought it needed to fit with the neighborhood more.\nPresident Teague added that when the applicant came before the board for design review\nthe packet had to be complete.\nBoard Member Ruiz made a motion to approve the Density Bonus application with\nthese conditions. Change Condition 6 to add timing for the building permits, remove\nthe restriction \"southeast corner\" in Condition 14 to allow the existing residents\naccess to all the common open space, add wording in Condition 15 to allow the cost\nof the maintenance to be on the HOA and to direct the applicant to terminate the\nexisting development agreement. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion,\na roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 with Board Member Curtis\nvoting against.\nBoard Member Ruiz made a motion to recommend to the City Council to approve\nthe tentative map. Board Member Cisneros seconded the motion and a roll call vote\nwas taken and the motion passed 6-1 with Board Member Curtis voting against.\n7-B 2020-8512\nPLN19-0237 - Use Permit, Parking Waiver, and Design Review - 1929 Webster Street\n-\nApplicant: Daniel Cukierman. Public hearing to consider a Use Permit and Parking Waiver\nto allow the operation of a tavern with outdoor seating and extended hours until 12:00 AM,\nbut without off-street parking, on an approximately 8,081 square-foot parcel at 1929\nWebster Street adjacent to the Cross Alameda Trail. Additionally, the Planning Board will\nconduct a study session on the Design Review for a proposed 6,210 square foot\ncommercial building. The site is located within the C-C, Community Commercial Zoning\nDistrict. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act\n(CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, In-fill Development.\nDavid Sablan, Planner III, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4697566&GUID=B26D1E8E-\nEC22-463C-AF43-3DE617F395BE&FullText=1.\nDaniel Cukierman, the applicant, gave a presentation talking about the project, his\nbackground work, and his vision for the project.\nErik Waterman, the applicant, gave a walkthrough of the proposed project.\nStaff Member Tai clarified the staff recommendation.\nPresident Teague opened the board's clarifying questions.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 15\nNovember 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-11-23", "page": 8, "text": "Board Member Hom asked what level of occupancy are you expecting for this restaurant\nand how would they accommodate the parking.\nMr. Cukierman said they would be encouraging biking, walking, and rideshares. They\nchose this location because of the bike path, and there is a bus stop nearby.\nBoard Member Hom asked the applicant if they had considered an incentive program.\nMr. Cukierman answered they had not and that people tend to not drive anyway since they\nwould be drinking. He said it could be a possibility when they first open to get people used\nto not wanting to drive to the location.\nBoard Member Hom asked if they had looked into shared parking with nearby locations.\nMr. Cukierman said they had not.\nVice President Saheba asked how they generated the number of bike spaces they were\nproviding.\nMr. Cukierman said they had a TDM analysis done by a third party and that was the\nnumber they reported.\nVice President Saheba asked since they called this a \"green project\" what sustainability\nfeatures would they be proposing for this project.\nMr. Cukierman said they would be using reclaimed wood but that most of the green details\nwould come with engineering and next steps.\nMr. Waterman added that they would want to make this project as efficient as possible.\nThey would push the green features as much as possible, they had just not gotten to that\ndevelopment of the project yet.\nVice President Saheba asked if the connections to the Cross Alameda Trail had been\napproved yet.\nStaff Member Sablan answered that specifics hadn't been approved but that Public Works\nis a part of the Design Review and it's not going to be a problem.\nBoard Member Cisneros asked for clarification on granting a variance.\nPresident Teague explained the criteria for granting a variance.\nDirector Thomas added by explaining the ways to reduce parking requirements.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 15\nNovember 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-11-23", "page": 9, "text": "Board Member Cisneros asked if they had considered having a designated Uber or Lyft\ndrop off space.\nMr. Cukierman said they had considered that but did not think there was enough space\nfor it, but it could work.\nBoard Member Cisneros asked if there would be noise outside.\nMr. Cukierman said the idea would be to have speakers outside but at a low level, people\nwouldn't have to yell over each other.\nBoard Member Cisneros asked if the extended hours were needed.\nMr. Cukierman said they had put a lot of thought and research into the hours. It is their\nbusiness hours but also later hours allow people to trickle out instead of forcing people to\nleave all at once.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about the hours of operation and wanted clarification since she\nhad seen both Midnight and 2 am listed.\nStaff Member Sablan said the staff report was wrong and Mr. Cukierman clarified that the\nrequested hours of operation was to go to 2 am.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about deliveries and if they would start at 7 am.\nMr. Cukierman said that deliveries would start at normal business hours and that most\ndeliveries would arrive between 10 am and 4 pm.\nBoard Member Ruiz wanted elaboration on where the service vehicles would be making\ntheir deliveries due to the size of the space.\nMr. Cukierman and Mr. Waterman pointed out the service area on the site plan and\nassured the board the trail would not be blocked.\nBoard Member Ruiz urged the applicant to evaluate the current curb cut and to make the\ntrail area as nice and welcoming as possible.\nBoard Member Curtis wanted the applicant to be aware of noise levels and a Senior Living\nhome being close by.\nMr. Cukierman assured the board of their track record of being considerate of neighbors,\nthey want to add value to the area and not be a nuisance.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 15\nNovember 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-11-23", "page": 10, "text": "Board Member Curtis asked the applicant if they thought their business would be a\nsuccess with the lack of parking, between 10 pm and 2 am.\nMr. Cukierman answered they are not dependent on those hours. He further explained\nhow this restaurant would succeed.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about the comments made by the manager of The\nRoadway Inn saying patrons had been parking in his lot.\nMr. Cukierman said he would work with The Roadway Inn and try and make sure his\ncustomers don't park in their lot. It is out of their control but they would post signage.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked the staff about the final design review and if they should\nleave it to the Planning Director instead of having the board see it again.\nAllen Tai, City Planner, answered of course the board can see the design again but the\nstaff feels confident that the applicant will have everything for the staff to approve the\ndesign review.\nDirector Thomas added it was completely the board's decision.\nPresident Teague asked the applicant when they would have their final design ready for\nreview.\nMr. Waterman said he hopes to have something in the next two months.\nPresident Teague asked about the variances, the Administrative Variance did not cover a\nreduction in parking.\nDirector Thomas said they would do a Planning Board Variance and could be done at the\nsame time as the design review.\nPresident Teague wanted to make sure no delays affected the project.\nMr. Cukierman added that the project was conditional on getting the parking reductions.\nDirector Thomas felt strongly the timeline would work.\nBoard Member Hom asked the staff if 2 am had been a standard closing time for bars and\nrestaurants and suggested adding a condition to review hours of operation down the road.\nDirector Thomas said there are other bars and restaurants in Alameda open that late and\nbelieved that if it was managed well it would work. This is why the noise ordinance is\nreferenced in the Use Permit, it can be modified if necessary.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 15\nNovember 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-11-23", "page": 11, "text": "President Teague asked the applicant if it were possible to close the second-floor outdoor\narea earlier.\nMr. Cukierman explained the challenges and why that would not work.\nPresident Teague opened up public comments.\nKeith Wiseman, a resident, was very concerned about the noise and did not see the issue\nclosing at 10 pm and mentioned other popular restaurants and bars that close at 10 pm.\nHe was also concerned with delivery trucks and buses causing a bottleneck situation on\nWebster St and felt that there had to be parking made available.\nJanet Sow, a resident, had concerns about safety and parking. She felt strongly that there\nshould be parking for the patrons and felt that that corner was very busy. She also pointed\nout other senior citizens' housing that would be affected by the noise.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and opened board discussions.\nBoard Member Hom felt fine about the noise and 2 am closing time with the condition that\nit be brought back for review if there are issues. He also felt that there was an insufficient\ndesign detail for him to feel confident delegating the design review to the staff.\nVice President Saheba would like to see this project come back for design review and\nsuggested to refine the trellis and extend it out toward Webster St. He also pushed for as\nmany sustainable features as they could do.\nBoard Member Cisneros is happy that WABA (West Alameda Business Association) is in\nsupport of this project, and she also supports this project. She did strongly feel that the\napplicant should have a rideshare drop off space.\nBoard Member Ruiz believes the use permit is appropriate for this site but she does have\nconcerns about the 2 am closing time. She agrees with the staff's last-minute assessment,\nshe could not approve parking reduction but could support a variance when it comes in.\nShe also agreed that the design should come before the board for design review.\nBoard Member Curtis agreed the design should come before the board for design review\nand that after a year the noise level should be evaluated and brought back for review. For\nthe hours of operation, it depends on the demands and if the extended time is needed that\nis up to the proprietor. He believed this was a good project and supported it.\nBoard Member Rothenberg agreed with the general comments and conditions that had\nbeen noted and with the urgency that the parking variance coming back at the December\nmeeting. She also wanted the board to do the design review and second Vice President\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 11 of 15\nNovember 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-11-23", "page": 12, "text": "Saheba's call for 'green' aspects in the design. She also suggested incorporating some\npublic art with the project. She fully supported the project.\nPresident Teague would be fully in support of a parking variance and agreed the hours of\noperations be reviewed in one year. He also wanted to see the design review coming back\nto the board.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the use permit but not with the\nparking exception. The design review would be coming back to the planning board\nfor review with the understanding that it would be coming back with the application\nfor the variance. The hours of operation would be allowed for 2 am with the\ncondition that the noise issue would be reviewed in a year. The applicant is\nencouraged to review the curb cuts for a possible drop off space. Board Member\nCurtis seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken, the motion passed 7-0.\n7-C 2020-8513\nPLN19-0601 - Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration & Mitigation Monitoring and\nReporting Program and Use Permit - Alameda Municipal Power Solar Facility - Doolittle\nLandfill site (Doolittle Drive and Harbor Bay Parkway) - Applicant: Alameda Municipal\nPower. Public hearing to consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration &\nMitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Use Permit to allow the construction\nand operation of a 2.0-megawatt photovoltaic solar facility on an 11-acre portion of the\n33.2-acre Doolittle Landfill site located northwest of the intersection of Doolittle Drive and\nHarbor Bay Parkway. The property is zoned M-2, General Industrial Zoning, and is\ndesignated as Parks and Public Open Space in the General Plan. An Initial\nStudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program\nhave been prepared to analyze the environmental effects of the project in compliance with\nthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).\nStaff Member Dong gave an overview of this project, staff report and attachments can be\nfound at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4697567&GUID=0E85FF7C-\nF717-43E8-823D-544B19DF6C2D&FullText=1\nAlan Harbottle, a Senior Energy Analyst for Alameda Municipal Power, gave a brief talk\nabout the project.\nPresident Teague opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Hom asked what public noticing had been done.\nStaff Member Dong said they did the standard 300-foot noticing requirement.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 12 of 15\nNovember 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-11-23", "page": 13, "text": "Board Member Hom asked about the recommendation in the study to add some plants for\nscreening but he did not see that in the conditions of approval.\nMr. Harbottle said that it was not possible to plant trees in the landfill but where there are\nexisting trees they could add more.\nBoard Member Hom wanted to know if anyone had looked into if the glare would affect\nresidents at the subdivision next to the yacht club.\nMr. Harbottle said the panels would be tilted and no glare would affect them.\nVice President Saheba wanted to know if a section on the plans where the grading looked\nsteep would be re-graded.\nMr. Harbottle said there are no major plans for regrading at this point.\nBoard Member Cisneros asked about what would happen after 2045 and if they are\nplanning on maintaining the solar panels.\nMr. Harbottle said they have not contemplated continuing past the 25 years, and are\nplanning for an open space at the end of this project.\nBoard Member Cisneros asked if the sea-level rise was a concern.\nMr. Harbottle said that was not a concern for this area.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about additional equipment and its location to feed the power\nback into the grid.\nMr. Harbottle explained where the equipment would go.\nPresident Curtis asked how they were dealing with the landfill sinking and differential\nsettlement.\nMr. Harbottle explained what the plans were and how the Structural Engineer was working\nwith these issues.\nPresident Teague asked if a temporary snow fence had been considered to block the\nglare.\nMr. Harbottle said no they had not.\nPresident Teague wanted to know if the letters from the Environment Hazardous Waste\ngroup and Cal Trans had been addressed.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 13 of 15\nNovember 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-11-23", "page": 14, "text": "Staff Member Hong said yes.\nThere were no public comments.\nPresident Teague opened the board discussion.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the Adoption of a Mitigated Negative\nDeclaration & Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Board Member Curtis\nseconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken. The motion passed 7-0.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the Use Permit for a solar farm\nfacility with the condition to provide supplemental vegetation to provide visual\nscreening to reduce glare at the OP1 viewpoint. Board Member Rothenberg\nseconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken. The motion passed 7-0.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2020-8501\nDraft Meeting Minutes - August 17, 2020\nBoard Member Ruiz felt that her questions on page 5 had been oversimplified and wanted\nthat reflected in the minutes.\nBoard Member Curtis made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Board\nMember Hom seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken. The motion\npassed 6-0, Board Member Cisneros sustained.\n8-B 2020-8502\nDraft Meeting Minutes - September 14, 2020\nBoard Member Curtis wanted the wording changed on the last paragraph of page 6.\nBoard Member Rothenberg made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected.\nBoard Member Ruiz seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken. The motion\npassed 6-0, Board Member Cisneros sustained.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2020-8503\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nNo board members wanted to pull any items.\n9-B 2020-8504\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 14 of 15\nNovember 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-11-23", "page": 15, "text": "Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai said that the December 14th meeting would be another General Plan\nWorkshop, the theme would be \"Mobility\". They would also bring back the variance for the\nWebster Street project.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nPresident Teague asked his fellow board members if they liked the random order of being\nasked for their questions and discussion.\nBoard Member Curtis said yes and others agreed.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked the staff if Alameda is doing reviews of surplus land, Assembly\nBill - 1486.\nStaff Member Tai said that a different department handles the city's real estate. Staff can\nprovide further information offline.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Curtis adjourned the meeting at 10:48 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 15 of 15\nNovember 23, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf"}