pages: PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-02-22 | 6 | could be revisited either as a condition or have the issue continued. She suggested that a paragraph about sustainability features should be added to the Objective Design features since they are metric and measurable. Vice President Saheba described the types of buildings he sees in a city and how the objective standards can establish a baseline. Not to make future work challenging but to ensure a certain quality of work. He saw these standards as a good way to establish a streamline but if everything doesn't fit into these standards it shouldn't be seen as a challenge to move that project forward. Board Member Ruiz echoed what Vice President Saheba said, the goal of these objective standards was not to be a "holy grail" that solves all the design problems but just to establish a baseline. She said given the state mandate it was very difficult to do the standards in a checklist form and that is why it needed to be more prescriptive. She agreed with AAPS's comment that a public notice requirement will still be given and should be addressed in this document. Board Member Cisneros said she was not fully comfortable with the TDA map, she felt that it was almost all of Alameda and kept it frozen in a 1940s style. She was not supportive of expanding it further. She believed the main objective was to support Affordable Housing developments in the community and suggested an amendment for Affordable Housing. Board Member Curtis said from his perspective what was important was adequate design, durable design, and something that was cost-effective. These three things would accomplish the point of having the Objective Design Standards. He also suggested a way to appeal if your development does not meet all the listed requirements. President Teague discussed the requirements for SB-35 and Bonus Density and gave examples of how they could waive requirements. He had expected to see more polish and removal (requirements that increase cost) but there were things added that he was surprised by but understood. He thought that expanding the TDA map to include all of Webster Street and Park Street made sense to maintain the fabric of those areas. He did want to change the roof-mounted equipment item, and he gave a suggestion for wording for better clarity. He said with SB-35 they didn't need to add anything for Affordable Housing Projects. Staff Member Tai clarified that an amendment was not needed and further explained ministerial review and that the staff would be adding information clarifying the process. President Teague asked if anyone wanted to extend the TDA map. Board Member Hom said he was not supportive of amending it now but that the staff should take some time to look at it. It could be a future amendment after some analysis from the staff. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 6 of 12 February 22, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf |