pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf, 2
This data as json
| body | date | page | text | path |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2006-02-01 | 2 | Page 2 As described in the plan, the PDC does not represent the FINAL development plan for Alameda Point. It is a planning study with the basic message that to get through an entitlement process and a planning process, and to actually see implementation will require some tough compromises and decisions that have not yet been made. The PDC clarifies that when the important decisions are made, all the necessary information will be available to the public and to ARRA. Important issues are emphasized in the Next Steps chapter. The plan for the redevelopment of Alameda Point will continue to evolve as we move through the entitlement process. Member Daysog thanked staff for the memo provided by Darin Smith of Economic Planning Systems (EPS) detailing the assumptions. He requested further sources, methodologies and assumptions regarding information in Table 3 and in Table 4 - property taxes, assumptions in terms of housing values, industrial and commercial, property transfer taxes. Member Daysog explained that this information would be helpful for future generations of Alamedans to track the fiscal health of this project. There were several speakers on this item: Birgitt Evans - represents the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS). Thanked staff and Andrew Thomas for the PDC. Discussed concerns with removal of two seaplane lagoon hangars (Bldgs. 11 & 12). Recommended construction of height-limited buildings to preserve vista for future generations. Elizabeth Krase, AAPS - thanked Andrew Thomas. Discussed concerns regarding the timetable for the Preservation and Adaptive Reuse Studies, and the potential loss of the BOQ, Big Whites, etc. Joan Konrad - discussed importance of examining Measure A non-compliant alternative plan for Alameda Point redevelopment and safe and easy walking distance to destinations - schools, work and shopping. Diane Lichtenstein - concerns about the constraints of Measure A. Reiterated that the PDC is only a draft and wanted to emphasize the flexibility of the plans. Helen Sause - commended Staff and the City on the PDC, stating that the public input has been valuable. Discussed priority to see the development without restrictions of Measure A. Urged ARRA to keep flexibility in development of the PDC and keep the alternative plan that would permit AP to be developed in accordance with good planning principles. Chair Johnson closed the public comment portion of this item. Chair and Boardmembers thanked Andrew Thomas and the staff for the PDC. Member Gilmore was particularly pleased with staff's response to public input and the Board's comments about the Next Steps chapter. She emphasized that what's outlined in the Next Steps chapter gets accomplished, yet not to tie ourselves down to a specific timeline, particularly since we don't yet have the property. Chair Johnson agreed, stating that it was surprising how many residents don't | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf |