pages: CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf, 21
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-06-01 | 21 | The City Attorney stated Planning Board action is required to approve a General Plan amendment or rezoning; action cannot be taken until an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is completed; the application does not have to go to the Planning Board; however, going to the Planning Board affords another opportunity for community comment and Planning Board input. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he understands that the Planning Board has not been provided with all the information; the Planning Board does not understand the total scope of the project; that he questions the need to go back to the Planning Board; too much information is missing. The Planning Services Manager stated the matter is Council's call since there is no legal requirement for the application to go to the Planning Board. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated circling the matter back to the Planning Board may not have any value; that she does not feel there is enough financial information; she does not want to impose the issue on the Planning Board until financial information comes back in a more coherent form. The Planning Services Manager stated the intention would not be to bring all the economics back to the Planning Board; the Planning Board would be focusing on planning issues. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated recommendations on land use and transportation plans would be valuable. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the Planning Board has some of the same questions regarding financial assurances. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the project might be starting out to big and maybe the EIR should be smaller; housing units and commercial square footage could be increased if the EIR shows that more capacity would be doable. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the Planning Board was looking to Council for guidance; that she thinks the process is backwards. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she does not have a strong opinion either way; the advantage would be to provide an opportunity for public input. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated study after study has been done on transportation issues; today's traffic mitigations discussions are the same as three years ago but the project has increased three fold. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 10 Community Improvement Commission June 1, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf |