pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2008-11-18 | 3 | Alameda Point. Mr. Ridgway explained that they have looked at the issue of relocation of the ferry terminal to the estuary or to sea plane lagoon, but have not looked at dredging or fueling stations; and have not reached that level of detail at this point. Another request from the Board was to provide examples of transit alternatives. Fehr & Peers provided a handout with information which cites several examples. Studies included comparative analysis of transit uses among specific cities in the bay area. They are diligent in citing statistics and research conducted nationally to reduce the number of auto trips. Regarding funds for island wide transportation solutions, Mr. Ridgway stated that operating and capital cost are being borne by the Alameda Point project. In response to the request to have an analysis of how many vehicle trips this plan will create, Mr. Ridgway said that a detailed phasing plan will be included in the Dec. 19 draft master plan. Member Matarrese reiterated that the PDC and concept plan didn't address the issue of goods and services moving on and off Alameda Point - truck routes, etc. for commercial and retail. He stressed that this is a critical component that needs to be addressed. For Peter Calthorpe addressed the next category of issues regarding adaptive reuse and light industrial questions, and questions regarding examples of other transit oriented development. Mr. Calthorpe gave a presentation of several examples of comparable mixed use developments, housing over retail, live-work - in other bay area cities including Oakland, Richmond, Daly City, San Mateo, and San Jose. Alameda Point has a unique component to offer which attracts entities to the various mixed-use elements, that Alameda Point has the ability to have a large company "campus". Vice Chair Tam asked Mr. Calthorpe to comment on creating that buffer between the different types of uses so there are no inherent conflicts that city councils have to deal with. Mr. Calthorpe explained that, until you get to real industrial uses, you don't have to buffer. The beauty of that mix, the services, parks and shops are double duty - if you put a store in a typically residential neighborhood, it won't be used - but if you put it in mixed use - it's used throughout the day, a better viability and keeps folks out of their cars. We're all focused on transit mode. Member deHaan asked about adaptive reuse and light industry, and the compatibility of this? Mr. Calthorpe stated that the parcels for commercial development are not best used as light industrial, rather as low-rise office, and some historic reuse that can be industrial; explaining that when you invest this much in public infrastructure, the parks and transit - you don't want to dedicate land to light industrial - it would be underutilization for light industrial. Member Matarrese wanted to discuss the potential reuse of hangars. Phil Tagami, of California Capital Group, continued the presentation by discussing adaptive reuse of the historical district structures. He discussed the tax credits and identified the protected historic districts. His focus is on 23 of 86 buildings identified, including the flight tower and the dive building. In total, he was asked to study 1.3M sq. ft. of space, as well as preserving and protecting the open space that is part of that. One of the tests of being able to restore the buildings is to give equal attention, respect to the buildings, and early involvement is key - having the opportunity to transition and put the site into reuse NOW would protect from further decay, create use and activity, and generate more revenue. There is a demand for certain activities and good transitional uses; now is the opportunity to have the time to become intimate with these buildings and begin process of next phase. Member deHaan stated that the Navy had an inventory of the historical buildings and had desires and needs for specific ones. He asked how far we are in that process and does it relate to the 23 of 86 buildings. Mr. Tagami stated that they are 1/3 of the way done and there is a lot of due diligence that needs to be exercised. He further explained that the Navy hasn't fully processed | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf |