pages: PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf, 17
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-07-12 | 17 | https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5015994&GUID=174D0132- 9553-4E86-A703-5637C6E8FF46&FullText=1. No board member wished to pull any item for review. 9-B 2021-1106 Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation Department Projects Staff Member Tai announced that at the Monday, July 26 meeting they would have a full agenda and bring back the 1435 Webster which was the Study Session from today. There would also be a minor planned development amendment to a small setback issue for a building under construction at the Harbor Bay Business Park. The staff would also bring forward an architectural design review approval for the medical respite center at McKay Ave, a draft of the Vision Zero Action Plan, and another General Plan update. He also updated the board that Board Member Ruiz's question about 53 Killybegs had been addressed so she had withdrawn her request for a Design Review. Director Thomas gave an update that at the July 6th City Council meeting they decided to appeal the RHNA numbers on a 3-2 vote. The appeal was submitted on Friday, July 9th. President Teague asked about the other 4 items. Director Thomas said they did not do anything. They debated a bunch of aspects on it and decided not to do anything with the resolution. He explained the next actions for the staff and said they should hear back about the appeal in November. Board Member Hom wanted to know about the rationale for the appeal. Director Thomas explained that between Article 26, sea-level rise, transportation, and seismic safety the council believed that it had a strong argument for appeal. The staff had also introduced the issue of the Navy Cap as an argument. They wanted the region to know about the Cap to get help for it. He explained more about the appeal process and what they had asked for. The staff would be working on two paths, one if the appeal was accepted and the other if it is rejected. Board Member Rothenberg asked about the Encinal Terminals Action that had been bundled with the other items. She thought it would be unfortunate if that languished because the developer needs direction one way or another. Director Thomas said staff agreed and had made it clear to the council that they would still be bringing projects forward regardless of the appeal. President Teague asked what was the current state of the Encinal Terminals. Director Thomas explained they had an approved 2017 Master Plan with no Tidelands Exchange and then they also have the Planning Board recommendation for the Tidelands Exchange Master Plan. They also have the Resolution from the Planning Board recommending to the council to approve the Tidelands Exchange. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 17 of 18 July 12, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf |