pages: PlanningBoard/2011-01-24.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2011-01-24 | 4 | ARRA at their March 2, 2011 meeting. Based upon the 15 years of planning efforts that have been completed to date, the General Plan Amendment that was approved in 2003, and the most recent direction provided by the Alameda community during the going-forward process, staff will present for public discussion three or four alternative development concepts and potentially a preferred development concept for initial public review and discussion in April. By July, staff would like to transmit the revised development concept and alternatives to the City's and Navy's environmental consultants in order to commence the environmental review process. The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) is the process that the Navy must do prior to the conveyance of the land and the City of Alameda must do the California Environmental Act process before adopting a final plan. He reported that there is a lot of agreement about certain pieces of the plan but still major differences of opinion regarding some of the critical issues such as the amount of development at Alameda Point, the traffic it will produce, and how the traffic will be handled and there are different ways to address these issues in alternative scenarios. He stressed that it is very important that over the next few years the City needs to try and build community consensus around a single plan. A lot of public meetings and public education will be necessary. The project pro forma will be made public so that members of community will be able to see the cost of items they are requesting such as keeping historic buildings. The process is going to need to have trade-offs and there are things that have to be dealt with such as the sea level change, the infrastructure, and recreational services. He reported that the Alameda community is in full agreement that the Alameda Point plan should be a sustainable plan. The Alameda community is not in full agreement on what a "sustainable plan" must include or exclude, but all seem to agree that: The plan must prepare for sea level rise. Adaptive reuse of existing building is an excellent sustainability strategy, but not all agree that all buildings should be saved, especially if a building is not financially feasible to retain, or removal of the building makes room for a beneficial, job generating use. Shifting travel modes from automobiles to transit and other alternatives is an excellent strategy for sustainability, but there is disagreement on whether it can be done effectively. Mixed-use development is a sustainable land use pattern, but there is disagreement on how much housing is necessary in the mix to be "truly sustainable". Solar farms, wind turbines, and other forms of on-site energy generation are all strongly supported, provided that there is not an impact on endangered species. He stated that the City believes that the best approach is to try and entitle the property itself and then go out for a master developer or the City may also decide to do the project in phases. The concern is that the City will not have the money to complete the process to entitlement, at which time the City could look at having a master developer but at least the process will be further along than it is now and there will be less risk for the developer. He APPROVED MEETING MINUTES 4 OF 8 PLANNING BOARD 1/24/2011 | PlanningBoard/2011-01-24.pdf |