pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2008-09-10 | 3 | gives priority to the buses and encourages increased ridership. Mr Keliher added that all questions will be answered between the concept plan submittal and master plan submittal, and that the transportation solution is a driving factor. Member Gilmore requested a meeting before the City Council which is focused on transportation issues be part of SunCal's presentation schedule. Mr. Keliher affirmed her request. Member Gilmore further discussed that the two plans are not Measure A compliant, and asked what SunCal's plan was if the citizens were to reject their proposals. Mr Keliher responded by saying that they have no magic Measure A plan that could be financed, and there is no third alternative, they would have to start over. Member Gilmore appreciated his honesty on the matter. Member Matarrese addressed the transportation issue regarding commercial traffic - truck routes, etc., and asked whether there was going to be a recommendation from the Transportation Commission. Ms. Potter explained that the plan is to route the Development Concept to all the boards and commissions for review and comment. Member Gilmore requested that the school year commute traffic also be addressed. Member Matarrese requested to see a commercial and industrial component of the plan, to be examined with the same depth, what might be envisioned, and what are some of the plans to bring the commercial and businesses in. He further discussed that Alameda does not have a large commercial tax base. Economically, the tax burden is spread and residential tax payers are shouldering the main load and maybe are at capacity. He would like to know the best mix of commercial and how we might attract commercial business. Vice Chair Tam discussed the importance of their role (as the ARRA Board) for the long-term in guiding and approving a Development Plan that future councils and the community can adaptively react to, manage, and govern under different challenges; as this plan will manifest beyond the time that they're on this Board. She stated it is important to focus on the vision and the core principles incorporated in the General plan, as they will all be pertinent 15 years later. Chair Johnson thanked Pat and SunCal for doing a good job of working with the community and being forthright with them. It's a difficult challenge and she appreciates all their efforts. Member deHaan asked about the Fed-to-fed transfer to the VA of some of the property. Mr. Keliher replied that SunCal has to assume the potential impacts of the VA hospital whether it happens or not, stating that it devalues the other phases. They would work hand-in-hand with the VA, making certain that the infrastructure and traffic impacts are taken in consideration. For example, a VA Hospital is a 24/7 facilities hospital, it doesn't operate just during peak hours, so when the traffic element is applied, it's another challenge. Member Matarrese requested dollar figures attached to any reports on the this issues, stating that if the plan is for a Fed-to-Fed transfer, then that cost should be shaved-off the $108M price for the impacts caused by the remaining federal land. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative. - RAB Comment Letter Regarding Installation Remediation Site 1 Member Matarrese wasn't able to attend last meeting, but received communication, a letter, from Co-chair, George Humphreys, regarding the Site 1 remediation plan and Record of Decision (ROD) which raised a lot of questions. The ARRA board took the position that they would not accept uncharacterized landfill from Site 1, which was supposed to be scooped and removed | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf |