pages: PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2019-02-25 | 3 | Staff Member Thomas said they can look into the issue, but that it is separate from the permit issue at hand. Board Member Teague said the use permit is for two years and can be pulled for violations. He said people should report issues to the City. Board Member Teague made a motion to confirm the approval of the permit. Board Member Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. 7-C 2019-6582 PLN19-0046 -Design Review for Alameda Marina Waterfront Park 1829 Clement Avenue. Applicant: Alameda Marina Development, LLC. The Planning Board will hold a public hearing to consider a Design Review application to construct approximately 3.5 acres of publically accessible waterfront open space, parks, landscaping and roadway and sidewalk improvements on the Alameda Marina property generally located between Clement Avenue and the Oakland Estuary and between Alameda Marina Drive and Willow Street. The environmental effects of the proposed project were considered and disclosed in the Alameda Marina Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2016102064). No further environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act for the proposed improvements. President Sullivan said she would like to handle the RFQ question first because of the public speakers in attendance for that item. Staff Member Thomas gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3862441&GUID=CF26EE05- 330D-42CD-987C-01AC5925F87B&FullText=1 Board Member Teague asked how boats would be pulled from the water to be worked on in the boatyard. Staff Member Thomas said the existing rails could be retrofitted and used by a boatyard. Board Member Teague asked if the boatyard operator would compete with the service ships. Staff Member Thomas said they could be complimentary services, the operator could say that they do not need service ships, and could be the same or separate operations. Board Member Curtis said the RFP was not written in a clear way and did not explain the scope of work necessary for an operator. He said that they would have gotten more response if it was more clear. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 3 of 11 February 25, 2019 | PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf |