pages: PlanningBoard/2011-02-28.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2011-02-28 | 4 | entire infrastructure. The City knows these costs and can list them, also the cost for sports facilities, and amenities. The revenue and expenditures for the project need to balance and the largest amount of revenue comes from residential land sales. Board member Wallis warned that it could be difficult to explain the current revenue/expenditures and the projected long term revenue/expenditures. He suggested consolidating the information into scenarios. He mentioned that he was surprise to learn that approximately 32,000 people worked at Alameda NAS during its boom and wonders how different the traffic would be with a new development on the site compared to when the Navy was there. Vice President Autorino suggested that you begin with a base that defines items as discretionary and nondiscretionary such as here are things that you have to do regardless of the cost. Need to educate the public of the magnitude of the cost and not over analyze it just get those items that need to be done off the table and concentrate on the issues that are controversial. Mr. Thomas agreed stating that you start with a base-line pro forma with a built in number of housing units to get the project to balance. It may just be a project that works without all of the amenities that the community has said over the years they want and it may be that the cost for those amenities is additional housing. The community needs to understand the trade-offs to agree on a Master Plan for Alameda Point. Board member Zuppan feels that it is important to make the information easy to understand for the public. She suggested there be 2-4 scenarios stating that any more than that makes it too confusing for everyone. You need to figure out what really matters and get a consensus on those choices and focus on those. The project needs to look at the impact the project will have in the area over the next 20-25 years and probably over that amount of time what the community wants will have changed. Board member Lynch stated that the Treasure Island project in San Francisco would be a good example of the process needed and taken to bring a project to entitlement as it is almost completed. The project can act as a tangible object that residents can look to for information. Mr. Thomas stated that City staff has been watching the progress of the Treasure Island and Hunter's Point projects. Board member Kohlstrand stated that mixed use needs to include housing and by putting the uses closer together it reduces the cost of the infrastructure and lessens the need for cars thus reducing the green house gases. She feels that this issue needs to be kept in the discussion and is key to the design of the project. Mr. Thomas stated that financial sustainability, city-wide transportation sustainability, environmental sustainability and community sustainability (jobs, affordable housing) are universally supported in the community. He stated that it would be helpful to grade each scenario on how they rank on the sustainability issues. APPROVED MEETING MINUTES 4 OF 6 PLANNING BOARD 2/28/2011 | PlanningBoard/2011-02-28.pdf |