pages: PlanningBoard/2017-01-09.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2017-01-09 | 3 | Staff Member Thomas explained how the inclusionary 15% is applied to the base project and the state density bonus gets applied outside of that number. Board Member Sullivan asked why they have a 14 story building if the height limits are 60 feet. Mr. O'Hara said there are buildings in Alameda higher than 60 feet. He said they feel this is an opportunity for an iconic structure for Alameda. He said the site does not really have any neighbors. Board Member Curtis said he likes the preferred plan, but he said walking down the street would feel like walking next to a wall. Board Member Mitchell asked what more extra Alameda is getting out of the project given that the city owns a significant portion of the land. Staff Member Thomas said the General Plan said that it would be better to own six acres along the perimeter than to own them in the middle of the site. He said there is more open space in this plan than they normally would be able to require. He said some urban design consultants told him that they were a little worried there might be too much open space in the plan. Board Member Mitchell said he was hoping to see some more concrete concessions in exchange for the land swap, perhaps in numbers of affordable units. He asked what the solar energy plans were for the project. Mr. O'Hara said they have a lot of roof space without obstruction that would be suitable for solar. He said they have not prescribed any specific requirements for solar at this point. He said they also have the opportunity to harvest wind, rainwater, and greywater at the site. Board Member Sullivan asked if the city would be on the hook for maintenance of the bulkhead after completing the land swap for the perimeter. Staff Member Thomas said the only way staff would recommend the swap is if the bulkhead is fixed up and maintenance is paid for in perpetuity by the project. Board Member Zuppan asked if the city would be compensated in the land swap if the acreage is not equal. Staff Member Thomas explained that they would not be able to move forward with an uneven swap because the state will have to approve the transaction. Approved Minutes Page 3 of 7 Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2017 | PlanningBoard/2017-01-09.pdf |