pages: PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2022-04-11 | 5 | Director Thomas said that was allowed and further explained as the property owner what they could allow. Board Member Curtis wanted details on what developers made up Alameda Partners. Director Thomas answered that the two main partners were Trammell Crow Residential and Cypress Equity Investments (CEI). Vice President Ruiz asked about what units were included in the Housing Element Update. Director Thomas said that the additional units had been included in the update and discussed the 600 units that needed to be built on Site A and what had to happen in order for that to happen. Vice President Ruiz opened public comments. There were no speakers. Vice President Ruiz closed public comments and opened board discussion. Board Member Teague questioned why they were building so many townhomes on the area, he would rather see more houses there which would make the Universal Designer easier to achieve. He liked the idea of having the pedestrian/bike area. Board Member Curtis still wanted more clarification on the Alameda Partners. Vice President Ruiz reopened public comments. Stephanie Hill, Trammell Crow, discussed Trammell Crow's involvement with Alameda Point and a background on the type of development they specialize in. She discussed in detail the complexities of building at the Point. Karen Bey, resident, discussed the work that Trammell Crow was required to do at Point form Affordable Housing and community benefits. She pointed out that they had done the community benefits in Phase 1 which was very unique. She felt that the developer had done a wonderful job and they should be rewarded for the work they had done. Vice President reclosed public comments and reopened board discussion. Board Member Hom agreed that this location was ideal for an increase in density. He also acknowledged that the commitment to 25% affordable housing was very positive and that moving the building to increase the pedestrian corridor was also very positive. He was supportive of the parking decision recommended by staff and discussed ways to achieve the Universal Design Standards. Planning Board Minutes Page 5 of 9 April 11 2022 | PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf |