pages
3 rows where "date" is on date 2006-11-01 and page = 2
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date (date)
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf,2 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2006-11-01 | 2 | Page 2 accompanied by a $20,000 non-refundable filing fee. The responses received will be evaluated and brought back to the ARRA should we receive responses with a recommendation to enter into a 45-day negotiation period. There was one speaker slip, Andrew Slifka, long-time Alameda resident and also a representative of the Carpenter's Union in Alameda County, and speaking on behalf of the Construction Building Trades Council of Alameda County. Mr. Slifka addressed concerns and disappointment with the Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) withdrawal from the project since they had a Project Labor Agreement with APCP. He urged the Board to look at the same requirements for any developer that should come forward, because Project Labor agreements bring value to the community, well-paying jobs with benefits, careers and local work opportunities. Member Daysog asked if specific questions regarding the financing of the project were outlined in the RFQ. He commented on the financing/business model associated with revitalizing the Catellus project and how it was distinct from the business model that was employed for the rest of Alameda Point. He also discussed incorporating a different business model. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, responded that developers will be asked who their source of capital is and for a deposit of "earnest money" in the amount or $1 million before a developer is selected. This information will be provided to the Board. Member Daysog asked if the potential developers understood the amount of property open for redevelopment. Ms. Potter responded that the $108 million purchase price is based on Phases 1 and Phases 2, which is essentially everything but the Wildlife Refuge and the area south of Atlantic Ave. and north of the 26-acre park, plus the golf course. David Brandt also clarified that we were careful to let the developers know that the PDC wasn't an entitlement. Member Matarrese asked whether a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) was presented to the bidders as part of the package that A… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-11-01.pdf,2 | CityCouncil | 2006-11-01 | 2 | The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. * Mayor Johnson left the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Councilmember Daysog stated that he trusts staff to work within a band of reasonableness; 83 units works out to 17 units per acre; noted Bayport has only 11 units per acre. Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not previously support the rezoning because he wanted to do further research; R-2 is the best zone to do and the proper choice; concurred with Councilmember Daysog's comments that 83 units is quite dense. Councilmember Daysog stated the project is not as dense as the old drive-in property. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Bayport is zoned R-1, to which the Supervising Planner responded the site is zoned MX. Councilmember deHaan stated the roads at the old drive-in site caused a lot of concern. The Supervising Planner noted any development would require other discretionary review and approval such as the subdivision, site plan, and design review. Adjournment There being no further business, Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 2 November 1, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-11-01.pdf |
GolfCommission/2006-11-01.pdf,2 | GolfCommission | 2006-11-01 | 2 | prepared for the Special Joint meeting with the City Council. Commissioner Wood and the General Manager will work together on arranging the presentation. It was suggested that a priority list of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP's) for the Golf Complex be compiled for information and discussion at the Special Joint Meeting. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT The Special Meeting was adjourned at 5:30 PM. The agenda for the special meeting was posted 24 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act. Page 2 of 2 | GolfCommission/2006-11-01.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]) );