pages: PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2010-05-24 | 3 | Council in 2009. Board Member Lynch asked if the City was involved in the financing process and who monitors these developments to insure the required number of units are being sold at rates that meet affordable housing requirements. Staff stated that the review and monitoring of affordable units would be done by the City of Alameda Housing Authority. Board Member Kohlstrand and Board member Cook commended Warmington Homes on the quality of the model homes. Although Board member Cook felt that the site [plan should have been brought back for Planning Board review in light of the request for fewer affordable units. Board Member Kohlstrand motioned, seconded by Board member Cunningham, to amend the Master Plan. Motion passes 5-1, with Board member Cook voting no. 9-A CONTINUED from May 10, 2010 -- Entitlement Application for Proposed Alameda Point Project Jennifer Ott, Deputy City Manager, presented an update on the project. Board Member Kohlstrand motioned, seconded by Board Member Lynch to reopen the public comment period. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Sweeney, Alameda resident, is opposed to the project for the lack of feasible financing concepts, transportation issues, and conflict with zoning plans. He also stated environmental impact report is inadequate. Mrs. Sweeney, Alameda resident, is opposed to the project because she is concerned it is in an area that is seismically unstable and will not be able to withstand significant earthquakes. Ms. Decker, Alameda resident, is in favor of a transit-oriented development with good pedestrian access. She favors concentrated density to make transit alternatives feasible. Mr. Krueger, Alameda resident, favors the current proposal and the density bonus option in particular. He added his support for transit-oriented development. Staff clarified that SunCal prefers the Density Bonus alternative and that the EIR would analyze this alternative against other proposals. Staff added that the scope of the EIR has not been negotiated at this time. Board member Cunningham suggested that the alternative analysis evaluate in simple terms the physical layout and benefit analysis of the higher density and other alternatives in order to build consensus amongst the community. Planning Board Page 3 of 8 Approved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010 | PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf |