pages: PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-09-27 | 4 | Board Member Hom made a motion to adopt the ordinance as prepared by staff with the following amendments. Clarify that the Use Permit for exceeding parking would be an Administrative Use Permit, that staff would clarify the sections on the encroachments of trees and stackers, clarify the ordinance would only apply to new and retrofitted parking areas/lots, clarify the floor area be based on what staff's understanding was, clarify that ADUs were not subject to any parking requirements or bicycle parking requirements and that lighting design review could be an Administrative Design Review. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion, and a roll call vote was taken. The motion passed 6-0. 7-B 2021-1270 Amendment to the City Council Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and Streets - Citywide - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing to review and comment on the City Council-initiated revisions to the Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities, and Streets. CEQA Determination: The proposed amendment is not a project under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and Public Resources Code Section 21065. No further environmental review is needed Staff Member Tai introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5124721&GUID=B507AE6D- 5707-4D08-9460-7394C5713807&FullText=1. President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions. Board Member Rothenberg asked how names of deceased people had been gathered and how had the 3-year policy been agreed on. She also asked about renters' options and the costs of renaming streets. Staff Member Tai stated that the 3-year had been in the policy for a long time. He then explained the issues between owners vs. renters and what work would be needed to go into verifying people. Vice President Ruiz wanted to know if once this was adopted by the City Council would it be part of the Municipal Code. She also wanted to know if there would be an application fee for renaming a street. She also questioned how to shorten the process to make it more efficient and accessible overall. Staff Member Tai answered no this was an Outside Policy. He said a fee had been discussed, they would need to research to see what administrative costs there were to the city. He then discussed the criteria needed and what the thinking was behind the outlined process. Board Member Curtis discussed the unintended consequences of renaming a street, it could really impact residents of that street. He wanted consideration for renaming a street to first be to the residents of the street in question. He gave his thoughts on the 3-year policy. Board Member Hom asked if the 500 signatures needed had to be property owners. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 4 of 10 September 27, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf |