pages: PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-07-12 | 12 | to the Fair Housing Act to exclude certain people. He liked the inclusion of the transit- oriented mixed-use housing on the two Main Streets. He discussed densities and gave the idea of putting minimum densities in as a guidepost and not mentioning maximum densities. He also suggested striking the term "Mount Trashmore" from the General Plan. He didn't agree with the comments that ignored the objective reality of the density increases they would have to meet and he rejected the claim that putting densities into the General Plan would encourage demolition of existing buildings. Leora Feeney appreciated standardizing the name for the Alameda Wildlife Reserve in the General Plan and choosing a name for it. She requested to consider not using the term Alameda Point Nature Reserve but to use Alameda Wildlife Reserve. She explained that the reason for this was because the tag Alameda Wildlife Refuge had been in existence in Alameda with the Fish and Wildlife Service and others for 27 years. She discussed all the materials, banners, and documents that had this name. She had gone over the revised General Plan and had seen five or six ways the property had been referred to. She hoped they would support calling it officially the Alameda Wildlife Reserve. Chris Aria, Chair of the Harbor Bay Club Members Committee, discussed how their goal was to preserve the location as a recreational space. He discussed how in the first draft of the General Plan the land use element had the Harbor Bay designated as medium density residential and now in the update, it was designated as Community Mixed-Use and he was curious about what motivated this change. He wanted to know more about what was the Planning Board's goal for the Harbor Bay Club's land. He represented over 100 club members and these were their concerns. He said he would be following up with an email and wanted to make sure the club members had their concerns addressed. Chris Buckley, from the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society, discussed a letter that they had sent the night before and thanked Director Thomas for addressing some of those questions. He also thanked the staff and the board for incorporating many of the comments AAPS had previously submitted into the General Plan revision. Responding to Director Thomas's game plan, there seemed to be a disconnect between where the Housing Element was going and where the rest of the General Plan was going. He advised that after the General Plan was together, get the Housing Element together before sending anything to the City Council. He went over other recommendations that were in the letter. Keeping the text that was proposed for deletion in section 1.3, he thought that text was very relevant for preserving the architectural character of existing historic neighborhoods. For residential densities, he thought the Housing Element should come up with those numbers. He believed they should be careful about upzoning since it was difficult to down zone afterward. For section 9 he recommended keeping those provisions in. Carmen Reid thanked everyone for their work on the revised General Plan. She commented on the lot sizes. She believed it was important to retain 5,000 square feet minimum lot sizes in the low-density residential land use neighborhoods. She believed that decreasing the size would encourage lot splits and would architecturally disrupt neighborhoods. She wanted the board to be mindful of the quality of life for the residents and how decreasing lot sizes would negatively affect neighborhoods. She also believed that any board member who owned a property larger than 5,000 square feet who would benefit financially from a lot split should consider recusing themselves from weighing in Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 12 of 18 July 12, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf |