pages: PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-04-26 | 13 | President Teague said he could support a plan that where deciding early would not be a permanent decision. Before the design stage have developers issue a statement of what they plan to do and then as part of the Design Review Approval they must make the binding commitment. He would support something like this over the 30-98.6A clause. He also gave his thoughts on the grant program, maintenance fund, and the authorization of expenses. Board Member Curtis wanted to be clear on how the ordinance is now, the developer was on the hook for paying the funds or doing the art themselves. He also liked the point about flexibility. He was concerned that the more inflexible it was in regards to what developers had to do early the more it would cost the developer to change the plans. He saw their job was to make things easier for developers while also protecting the citizens of Alameda. Vice President Saheba noted the Del Monte project and how the City's process had been flexible to accommodate all the changes to that project over time. He believes the amendments should maintain flexibility. Director Thomas said that does happen a lot with projects. His question was if a developer changes their mind in the building permit process, would it need to go back to the Planning Board to approve that change or could it just go back to the Art Commission. Staff Member Butler interjected that it would go to the Director. Director Thomas asked did the Planning Board want that authority or are they comfortable letting the Art Commission make the final decision. Vice President Saheba noted that that would be similar to past projects where developer initiated changes required that they had to come back to the Planning Board. Staff Member Butler said for those examples it would be part of the Conditions of Approval that it would have to come back because the PAC (Public Art Commission) wouldn't know about that. Director Thomas said they would have to handle it on a case-by-case basis as with all other projects. Board Member Curtis wanted to about the Right of Appeal. Director Thomas broke down the different scenarios and why they would need to be handled differently. Staff Member Butler added that currently if the developers don't agree with PAC they can appeal to the City Council. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 13 of 18 April 26, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf |