pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2011-03-02 | 4 | The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained the main reason why staff did not propose any additional waivers or fees. The project team does not yet have enough information on potential impacts, or what LBNL is proposing, especially in terms of how much money is brought to the table for infrastructure. There is also no developer on board yet that could advise on the financial side of the deal. The project team is concerned about giving away too much too soon because there are still transportation infrastructure burdened out at Alameda Point. Member Johnson discussed not proposing anything specific, but suggested indicating a catalog of other incentives the ARRA is open and willing to discuss with LBNL. Member deHaan commented that owning an electric company is extremely powerful. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services informed the Board that the Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager has discussed the proposal with the Public Utilities Board. There are mitigateable risks and concerns about load and usage; AMP has to be careful not to offer discounts on rates that might spike usage. Staff can be more responsive and can start addressing and negotiating terms if/when the ARRA is short listed. Member Johnson commented that there is a risk if a long-term contract for power is given, and the user goes away, making a comparison to when the Navy closed the base. Fortunately for the City of Alameda, because of the long-term power contract it had with the Navy, the City had excess power, which was sold, back to the grid during the power crisis. Member Johnson stated that the LBNL scenario should not be viewed as risk, but as an opportunity. Chair Gilmore requested a full report from the AMP General Manager on the electric issue. The Acting City Manager stated that a report would be presented at the next ARRA meeting on March 2. Member Johnson motioned to direct staff to prepare and put forth an RFQ for a Developer for the LBNL project. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 4. ORAL REPORTS (11-015) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative - Highlights of January 6, 2011 Alameda Point RAB Meeting. Member deHaan reported that the RAB discussed Building 5 and 5A (Site OU-2C), a 1.5M square feet complex, to make a determination to bring the site to remediation level. The site was the center and hub of industrial operation, there was lots of activity causing a major impact to the environment, including radiation concerns. The Navy has four proposals: 1) take no action, 2) cement the pipes, 3) tear the building down, and 4) dig and haul. Member deHaan commented that he is impressed with the dedication of the RAB members and the community, they have depth of knowledge which they lend as community support and have come up with good recommendations. The RAB also discussed the conveyance status and the redevelopment planning status. Member deHaan stated that the Deputy City Manager - Development Services presented the Going Forward process to the RAB and it was well received. Member deHaan stated that he will not be able to attend the February 3 RAB meeting due to a scheduling conflict. Member Johnson also reminded staff and the public not to forget the commitment of the Navy during the remediation process. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff would ask the Board for policy direction on the OU-2C site in coming months. Speaker: Gretchen Lipow 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf |