pages: CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2007-01-02 | 12 | along the way are dependent upon the particular tenants and how the tenants use the building Mervyns' design would be known as the project progresses and would need to go through design review. Councilmember deHaan stated the whole picture needs to be reviewed and understood; the matter should be sent back to the Planning Board; a precedent is being set when a timeline cannot be met; the developer has known the tenants for over two years. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: louncilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember deHaan - 1. Counci lmember Matarrese stated that he shares some of Councilmember deHaan's concerns; he would like the Planning Board and staff to go back and formalize the conditions of the project and do a measurement; the conditions are misaligned because of an administrative call ; the administrative call is going back to the Planning Board; the Planning Board should make sure nothing else is buried that would cause further misalignment each phase and building would have design review. The Planning and Building Director stated a spreadsheet is almost complete which shows if and when the condition has been met. Councilmember Matarrese inquired when the results would go to the Planning Board, to which the Planning and Building Director responded if not the coming meeting, the next. Vice Mayor Tam stated the Design Review did not need to go to the Planning Board and could have been approved at the staff level; staff decided to bring the matter to the Planning Board because to heighten community input; inquired whether every building Design Review would go to the Planning Board. The Planning and Building Director responded in the negative; stated high public interest projects would go to the Planning Board; staff approves Design Review everyday. Vice Mayor Tam stated she underscores Councilmember Matarrese' issue of trying to make sure there is some reconciliation between what staff approves at the administrative level and the conditions that the Planning Board sets forth. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she shares Councilmember deHaan's concern about setting a precedent and potentially doing an end run around the Planning Board; however, the Applicant came before the Planning Board on two separate occasions; it is not the Applicant's Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 January 2, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf |