pages
5 rows where body = "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority" and "date" is on date 2008-11-18
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf,1 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2008-11-18 | 1 | APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Tuesday, November 18, 2008 The meeting convened at 9:43 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding. 2-B 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Beverly Johnson Boardmember Doug deHaan Boardmember Frank Matarrese Boardmember Marie Gilmore Vice Chair Lena Tam 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2-A. Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point Extending the Term for 12 Months and Adding $147,500 to the Budget. 2-B. Approve a One-year Lease with Two One-Year Options with Makani Power for a Portion of Hangar 12. Member deHaan motioned approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Member Matarrese, and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS This portion of the meeting is a continuation of the Regular ARRA Meeting of 11/5, which was recessed by Chair Johnson. On 11/5, all Board members agreed that Item 3-A (SunCal's Development Concept) and the balance of the 11/5 agenda be continued at the Special ARRA Meeting scheduled on November 18, 2008. 3-A. Alameda Point Update - Review and Comment on SunCal's Development Concept (Continued from the November 5, 2008 Regular Meeting) Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, provided an overview regarding the purpose of presenting SunCal's Development Concept, which was to solicit feedback and comments from the ARRA to move forward with the draft Master Plan, which is due Dec. 19th Chair Johnson called the public speakers first. Michael Krueger reiterated a point that if any board member cannot support the plan for whatever reason, now is the appropriate time to discuss and raise objections, and what changes need to be made. Arthur Lipow discussed his concerns about the impact of the bankruptcies of SunCal Companies to the Alameda Point project. Susan Decker discussed her continued support of the Plan. The Board reminded the public that the list of q… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf,2 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2008-11-18 | 2 | Member Gilmore stated that a key issue revolves around the feasibility of implementation and the traffic solutions - how to move people on and off the island. She discussed this as being a big part of her comfort level with regard to whether the plan can be executed. She wants to see real life examples of the solutions in place and working, and does not want Alameda to be the experiment. Member Matarrese had two transportation-related points: how we are addressing commute in the tube into China Town, and truck routes, how are we moving goods? Matthew Ridgway, consultant from Fehr & Peers, addressed the transportation issues. He stated that traffic congestion is expected to be worse, regardless of Alameda Point redevelopment, as moving traffic to/from Alameda Point is secondary next to the traffic moving through the tube and the 880 corridor. One of the questions was whether the option of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) was out. Mr. Ridgway responded 'no', but is reserving the right of way to bus transit alignment. He further discussed that the project is developer funded and funding will be sought from AC Transit and other funding sources. Another question was regarding buy-in of other stakeholders. Mr. Ridgway explained that they are working with AC Transit for funding issues and Caltrans on Broadway/Jackson improvements, but there is a much larger group of stake holders, and they are not assuming things outside of Alameda's purview. The Board had requested a matrix be created. Mr. Ridgway prepared a draft which highlights major differences between the three plans, the APCP plan, the WRT plan, and the current SunCal plan. One of the major differences they realized was having an onsite school, which was carried forward to the current AP transportation strategy. A rapid bus element was not definitive in other plans, but in the current AP transportation strategy, it is definitive to fund a rapid bus transit system, also proposing to fund construction and operating costs for an additional BRT line across the whole island … | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf,3 | 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,… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2008-11-18 | 4 | the application for the historic district. Clear policies and a well-thought-of redevelopment effort requires patience, due diligence, and there will be verbal sparring - a challenge and constraint that they are ready to engage in. Mr. Tagami discussed a similar situation with the Fox Theatre in Oakland - there were more reasons why you can't renovate the building versus why you can - and there's a shorter time horizon here at Alameda Point, so they are willing to explore adaptive reuse prior to transfer and are ready to take that risk. Member Matarrese asked whether Mr. Tagami has had discussions with the City regarding transitional use prior to transfer and whether we are pursuing this. Member Matarrese stated that this option was a way to get us closest to the plan without losing the assets out there, as there is copper mining, vandalism, and no funds to secure property. Mr. Tagami said that he has expressed this desire and that SunCal has beginnings of communication with the City. It is an ongoing process, but they want to mind their role, focus on due diligence and underwriting, but said that when the time is appropriate, they would be prepared to engage in that dialogue. Member Matarrese asked if the appropriate time is now and if they are prepared to engage in that dialogue now. Member Matarrese expressed to the Board that they consider giving direction to move this issue as a priority. Vice Chair Tam discussed that the heavy capital makes the council and the board reluctant to make investments for property we don't own. Mr. Tagami explained that they often go at risk and are not asking the city to go at risk. They evaluate current increment expense, have a good track record of delivering value, all of which requires a team approach. They will expend the time, energy and money. Chair Johnson asked if DSD wants to move forward with interim adaptive reuse. Debbie Potter explained that the key components to the partnership and business deal is the leasing program and at what point to transition that leasing p… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf,5 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2008-11-18 | 5 | Vice Chair Tam expressed that the key to a successful project is flexibility in reacting to the changing economic conditions. In the next decade there is some expectation that the sustained downturn in economy will require job creation, and looking at the potential for self sustaining for energy level for the entire island, maybe there are some partnerships with AP&T, such as a solar farm, or other type of renewable energy source. Vice Chair Tam supports the plan, as it reflects and captures sentiment that we've been hearing throughout the community and public workshops. Chair Johnson stated that there needs to be discussion about the phasing of public amenities at some other appropriate point. FM - reiterate some comments from last time including that the plan needs work on environmental issues such as the working waterfront, which showers noise upwind. He expressed that it's an odd place to put a neighborhood. He also mentioned not wanting to see plans that have sidewalk dining because it's freezing cold near the waterfront - and no water play in park. He cited that there are plenty of lessons in town to learn from, discussing the Bay Street, Emeryville situation where there is residential over retail and the problems that come from that type of development. Member Matarrese stated examples are all around that we should consider, and would like the same level of detail in the final plan that has been given to residential, given to commercial and light industrial. Member dehaan asked SunCal about a survey that they were conducting with Alameda residents. Mr. Keliher clarified that the survey is preliminary and is sponsored by SunCal and not the City. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative. - Highlights of October 2 Alameda Point RAB Meeting. (Continued from the November 5, 2008 Regular Meeting) Member Matarrese provided a brief presentation. He discussed highlights from the ARRA meeting of Sept. 10th The BCT gave an update and of the fiscal year an… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );