pages: PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-02-22 | 3 | the various houses of worship throughout the city. Also, he noted that the housing providers were not included. They should be included to ensure a smooth transition, by helping them they help the tenants. He thought the short-term actions had been great in helping businesses. He agreed that they need to evaluate the slow streets and reconfiguration of Park and Webster Street. Overall he thought the plan was amazing and that trying things out is the best way to see if it works. 7-B 2021-664 Adoption of Amended and Restated Objective Design Review Standards. The revised Objective Design Review Standards (Objective Standards) consist of a checklist of architectural and site design standards that apply to residential development projects. Adoption of the revised Objective Standards is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the common-sense exception that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and Section 15183, projects consistent with a community plan, general plan or zoning. Allen Tai, City Planner, introduced the item, and Heather Coleman, Urban Planning Consultant, and David Sablan, Planner III, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4795898&GUID=431C9BF9- FF27-4002-8B78-971861EC1108&FullText=1. President Teague opened the board clarifying questions. Board Member Rothenberg asked if they thought they fulfilled the last statement "obtained stakeholder input regarding good design vs. containing cost" and how they fulfilled it. She also suggested providing a red line copy and a clean copy in the future. Staff Member Tai apologized for not providing a red line copy. He continued by saying this had been a very difficult process. He felt that the draft they had presented hit on the most important design principles and was a good faith effort from the staff as well as Board Member Ruiz and Vice President Saheba. Board Member Rothenberg asked if this document could have been written in a less prescriptive manner. Staff Member Tai said absolutely and added that the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) had submitted letters asking for more specificity. He said after reading their letters they decided against adding too many prescriptive requirements. Board Member Ruiz asked about item 2B - limitation on blank walls - she asked for clarification on the requirements, she thought it was a bit confusing. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 3 of 12 February 22, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf |