pages: CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf, 16
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-05-18 | 16 | Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the ENA inferred the PDC baseline and allowed looking at modifying Measure A. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the ENA has been amended twice; the ENA was amended the first time in order to provide some time for shifting milestones; the ENA was amended the second time to allow for a ballot initiative and dealt with adding an investor and allowing a one year extension. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what were the key items in the ballot initiative. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the ballot initiative consisted of a Charter amendment, a specific plan, a General Plan amendment, a zoning amendment, and a development agreement; stated the ballot initiative included almost all entitlements with the exception of the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated focus should be on what is wanted: job creation costs, work force housing, 25% affordable housing, recreational amenities, public facilities and all infrastructure associated with the commercial development; the EIR process is supposed to help look at the spectrum of alternatives and to understand impacts associated with traffic; not realizing that there would be significant upfront costs for amenities would be naive; the project has to be fiscally neutral; facilities would need to generate sufficient revenues to pay for infrastructure; that she is not hearing what is the balance; inquired whether there is a process to resolve the issues, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded currently, staff is in the process. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she would like to scope the full spectrum of alternatives, understand impacts associated with each alternative, and see whether impacts associated with alternatives could be mitigated; the City has a master developer as a partner until July 20th; the plan should not be referred to as a master developer's plan but should be the City's plan; the plan should be developed accordingly. Speakers: John Knox White, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Helen Sauce, HOMES; Jean Sweeney, Alameda (provided handout); Susan Decker, Alameda; Michael Krueger, Alameda; Nancy Hird, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society; Kent Lewandowski, Sierra Club; Christopher Seiwald, Alameda; Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Lois Pryor, Renewed Hope; Darcy Morrison, Alameda; Joe Mallon, Alameda; William Smith, Alameda; Janet Davis, Alameda; Jay Ingram, Alameda; Andreas Cluver, Alameda County Building Trades Council; Alan Tubbs, Naval Air Museum; and Ashley Jones, Alameda. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community 4 Improvement Commission May 18, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf |