pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf, 2
This data as json
| body | date | page | text | path |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2005-12-07 | 2 | Changes were made in the Introduction, Land Use and the Next Steps chapters emphasizing that it is the City's goal to have a sustainable environmentally sensitive development at Alameda Point. The Next Steps chapter outlines the key issues that are still going to require additional study, particularly the compromises and trade-offs. There is more description about how the non-Measure A alternative will be evaluated in the EIR process; and further exploration of maintaining historical preservation, as well as financial possibilities surrounding the historic buildings. Also included are the next steps to implementing the Transportation Strategy. Two appendices, the Transportation Strategy (Appendix A) and the Financial Feasibility and Fiscal Neutrality (Appendix E), were also revised. Member Gilmore allowed the several speakers to make their statements prior to the Board making their comments. The speakers discussed various PDC-related topics, including Historic Preservation concerns regarding the Big Whites and the Hangars; requests for additional buildings identified for Historic Preservation be placed on the HAB agenda/study list for February, and to request and Historic Preservation Master Plan and an Adaptive Reuse Study to be done soon, or as part of the Navy's Section 106 process. Also discussed concerns about the Seaplane Lagoon development encroachments and non-measure A alternatives. Consideration of Building 3 for the Neptune Beach Amusement Museum was discussed. Alameda School Board representative thanked staff and the ARRA board for including the issues of school facilities in the PDC. Alternatives in Action representative discussed issues regarding the early termination of their lease and the ARRA's request of them for removal of a portable building. Member Daysog asked what were the major changes to Appendix E (Financial Feasibility and Fiscal Neutrality). Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, explained that there was clarity added to the language and that the financial feasibility study done for the first phase will be replicated for subsequent phases. There will be a better understanding of the financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality questions once we are clear on the development programs. Member Daysog further discussed his concern regarding the Measure A and non-Measure A options, and Phase I revenue generation. Mr. Proud explained that projections made in the document have a built-in fiscal mitigation payment which will come directly from project proceeds to offset public expenditures and public revenues that we collect. Member Daysog requested more detail and clarity on the property taxes for use on a range of services; he also requested a better understanding on the fiscal mitigation payment and operational issues. Member deHaan addressed issues in the body of the PDC and, with the consensus of the other board members, requested several action items to be completed by staff: 1. Expand the paragraph in the Next Steps chapter to elaborate on the Historic Preservation - what the Navy is doing concurrent with us on their studies. 2. Provide more clarity on the commercial development plan for the 336,000 sq. ft. of retail and identify the commercial endeavors being pursued. 3. Provide separate analysis (off-agenda) on the HazMat clean-up, scenario of costs between single family vs. multi family, etc. for financial feasibility. 4. Regarding the timeline and series of studies to be completed on the Historic 2 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf |