pages: PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-10-25 | 3 | Zac Bowling was very happy with the General Plan as it exists now. However, he disagreed with some of AAPS's suggestions on language changes and the Alameda Citizens Task Force (ACT) request to change the langue around Article 26. He fully supported the staff's recommendation to approve the General Plan and send it to the City Council. William Smith, a resident, appreciated how the General Plan addressed equity in housing needs. He gave his thoughts on what was making affordable housing difficult in some areas. He also gave his thought on SB-9 and how Alameda should address those needs. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, discussed a letter they had sent and commented on LU-15B. He thought a clause should have been deleted and called that to staff's attention. He also called out some typos and errors and questioned the use of the word "native" for tree removal. He discussed better wording for the tree removal section. Betsy Mathieson, a resident, thanked Director Thomas for explaining the differences between the General Plan and the Housing Element. She thought having a spotlight on housing growth areas was premature. Vice President Ruiz closed public comment and opened board discussion. Board Member Curtis said this plan showed great work and was well laid out. He suggested changing or toning down the language about Article 26 on the Spotlight on page 49. He thought as it was written now it distracted from the plan. Board Member Hom agreed that this was an excellent document. He was very impressed with the public review period that took place during the pandemic. He agreed with the minor amendment from AAPS to remove the word "native" in regards to tree preservation. Other than that he was fine with how the document currently stood. Board Member Rothenberg concurred with her fellow board members and also agreed with Board Member Hom about the comments from AAPS about the trees. She also suggested that staff consider Board Member Curtis's comment about the Spotlight on page 49 and Board Member Cisneros's comment about the Spotlight on page 50. These were only suggestions and she was ready to support the plan in its current draft. Board Member Cisneros thanked the public for their comments and participation. She discussed the Spotlight on page 50 and that she was tying it to closing to the Housing Element and was fine with keeping it as it was. She was also amenable to editing the Spotlight on page 49 but that it needed to be factual. She then discussed the use of the word "character" as one of the four themes. She considered it a provocative word with a certain connotation to it and could be used against some of the other goals. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 3 of 8 October 25, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf |