pages: PlanningBoard/2018-02-12.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2018-02-12 | 5 | Board Member Curtis said all the amenities and improvements would take a large amount of money and that approving a plan that can generate enough money would be needed for viability. Board Member Cavanaugh said something needs to be done with the property to bring it up to today's standards. He said his primary concern is traffic. President Mitchell said he would like to address how the new traffic signals across the Park St. bridge would affect the traffic numbers in the report. He said the subcommittee did a lot of work to get the plan to this point. Staff Member Thomas pointed out the traffic tables that would address the cumulative impacts of traffic. 7-C 2018-5197 Revisions to Approved Design for Block 8 at Alameda Point Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3334517&GUID=8405DC29 B8A-48BA-BBA3-309EDEFFFDF9&FullText= Neil Saxby, Eden Housing, explained the financing plan and how they need to prepare to move forward with construction on their own timeline and not be strictly tied to the broader Site A development progress. Board Member Köster asked if they were planning to build this project ahead of Site A. Staff Member Thomas said they are working on parallel tracks to ensure the affordable housing could go forward on its own if Site A falters. Board Member Sullivan said it was hard to see the differences between the two plans. She noted that the entrance changed, the Juliet balconies were removed, and that the design was simplified. Board Member Köster asked if they would consider putting some of the features back in the design if more funding became available. Mr. Saxby said they are not often in that position. There was no public comment. Board Member Teague said he would normally want more information about the savings from the changes. He said the project was too important and he would not support pulling the project for review. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 5 of 7 February 12, 2018 | PlanningBoard/2018-02-12.pdf |