pages: HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard | 2021-03-04 | 9 | Staff Member Tai introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4809154&GUID=65037058- 882D-4986-B8AA-AE540DAF17B5&FullText=1. Chair Saxby opened the board's clarifying questions and comments. Chair Saxby was intrigued by Option 3 because when they do give Certificates of Approval they do touch on Design Review. He also believed that redefining demolition makes sense because the current definition of demolition was too complicated for people to understand. Staff Member Tai clarified that once they made their decision, the importance of the word demolition might not be as significant. He gave examples of what he meant if the board chose Option 3. Chair Saxby wanted to know more about what would trigger a project coming before the board. Staff Member Tai said that was up to the board, for Design Review the staff was the default party. He explained how the Design Review worked now with the Planning Board but this board could change the criteria of what would come before them. He said that the staff's vision was not to change the current process, they would want the majority of mostly single-family Design Reviews to remain at the staff level. Board Member Sanchez explained how he understood how Option 3 would work and what would lead an applicant to have a Design Review with this board. They would be changing the process if an applicant didn't trigger (due to the demolition) a Design Review and the board could still request a Design Review if there was an appeal. Staff Member Tai said that was correct, that would only be the subset of properties that were pre-1942 and on the Historical Study List. Board Member Sanchez clarified the difference between Option 2 and Option 3. Staff Member Tai also gave examples of each option and how the process would work. Board Member Sanchez said he was not opposed to Option 3 at all. He believed having the trigger be major alterations rather than value was clearer. Staff Member Tai continued his presentation, where he discussed the Historical Studies List. Chair Saxby continued the board's questions and comments. Historical Advisory Board Approved Minutes 9 March 4, 2021 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf |