pages: PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 6 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board required by law would be provided, or if more would be provided. She inquired about Mr. Adams' definition of "eco-friendly." She recalled Mr. Proud's comments about landfill on the flood plain, and whether that would be eco-friendly. Mr. Thomas noted that the actual affordable housing breakdown would be provided at the next workshop. Mr. Adams noted that much work must still be done in terms of defining the standards that will be put in place for green building and eco-friendly design. He noted that this piece of land was being recycled, and that they were exploring the idea of transit-oriented development. Their goal was to create a development that would depend on transportation means other than the automobile. He noted that the standards for building materials and energy use were still being developed. Ms. Eve Bach inquired whether there was an assumed reduced income expectation on the affordable housing, and whether that amount to a double accounting. Mr. Rask replied that it was shown as a cost because the revenues do not cover the cost of building the unit. He noted that they were being sold for less than what they cost. Ms. Bach inquired about the estimated acreage and cost of parking would be, and whether the supporting studies would be available online. Mr. Adams, ROMA, replied that there was a vast amount of information, and noted that requests for backup information could be made at his email address. He noted that the project required parking for the viability of each land use was used in the analysis. Each unit had its own parking, whether in garages or parking structures. A community member inquired whether institutional controls and land use restrictions would be attached to Phase I. He found it difficult to believe that the impact to the school district was not included. Mr. Peter Russell replied that Alameda's Marsh Crust Ordinance already applied to all of Alameda Point. There may be additional institutional controls is specific areas, and there may be no residential planned for other areas. There may also be prohibition against digging below a certain depth. He added that the need for another school will be analyzed, and that millions of dollars of school impact fees were included. A community member inquired whether the income from the affordable housing was included in the assumptions. A community member whether it would be possible for individuals to buy lots. Mr. Adams replied that it was managed by a master developer because of the very large infrastructure cost, approximating $100 million; it was not the kind of project that would lend itself to individual lot sales. Planning Board Minutes Page 6 March 3, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |