pages: PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-02-22 | 7 | Board Member Curtis made a motion to approve the motion as written and Vice President Saheba seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. 7-C 2021-666 PLN21-0009 - Zoning Text Amendments - Citywide - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public Hearing to Consider Recommending City Council Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 30 (Development Regulations) to Streamline Residential Open Space Requirements and Remove Utility Requirements for Multiple Houses (Condominiums). The proposed zoning text amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with certainty that the proposed text amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment, and 15183, projects consistent with a community plan, General Plan or zoning. 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=4795899&GUID=1F996EDF- 2CD-4F86-9079-E5D3A488CF87&FullText=1 President Teague opened the board's clarifying questions. Board Member Hom asked if the city has a park dedication in lieu requirement. Staff Member Tia said that the City of Alameda does not have a Parkland Dedication Ordinance, but they did have a Development Impact Fees. He then gave an example using Jean Sweeney Park. He then clarified that this is just offering another option if the project wants to give funds to improvement at a neighborhood park that could be done in lieu of the open space. Board Member Hom clarified it couldn't be combined for a double benefit and it's on top of the in-lieu fee. Staff Member Tai said that was correct, developers could not mix the two together. Onsite open space is onsite open space, this is just an opportunity where if there is a park across the street from the project they can give money to that. Board Member Rothenberg wanted to know about the merit of eliminating the utility metering requirement. Staff Member Tai said when this requirement was passed in 1975 there was some concern about multifamily housing. The staff felt that this was now unnecessary. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 7 of 12 February 22, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf |