pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf, 5
This data as json
| body | date | page | text | path |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2006-10-04 | 5 | Page 5 David Brandt further clarified the more fundamental legal problem which is, we would have to amend our EDC application and unfortunately, the Navy will argue that there's no more legal authority over a no cost EDC so we would be essentially be giving up our no cost EDC. Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese would like more information and analysis about whether we are legally able to hold the Navy to the existing no-cost EDC agreement. Member Daysog expressed the importance of involving the public so that the $108 million isn't spent on projects that veer so far away from the community resource reuse plan and the public amenities that have already been contemplated. Ms. Potter addressed Member Daysog's concern by noting that the negotiated price of $108.5 million was based on a proforma that provided fiscal neutrality, provided for the sports complex, provided for the open space, provided for 25% affordable housing, so all of the goals that has been identified over the years were taken into account and provided for with that land purchase price. Granted that tax increment was pledged to the project that was part of it too, but it provided in all of the transit, the shuttle, the ecopath is all of the things that have been talked about over the last several years, were all accounted for in the proforma that had the $108.5 million dollar land purchase price. Member deHaan asked about the process used at other closed military bases, including Mare Island and the Presidio. David Brandt explained that the Presidio was conveyed under a trust but that federal legislation is needed for that. Mr. Brandt said that we could approach our delegation to ask if that's feasible. The first speaker on this item, Pam Telschow, expressed how glad she was that the ARRA was going back to consider every option and that they are not just going to jump into looking for a new Master Developer. Chair Johnson expressed her opinion that she felt it was a remote possibility that another developer would just step right in where APCP left off. The second speaker, Helen Sause, also echoed Ms. Telschow's concerns and the direction of the Board, urging them to select and find those developers that have very deep experiences in commercial, light industrial retail, and other forms of development. She also suggested that the selection process involve the community. Chair Johnson wanted the public to have a full understanding that although the Development Services Dept. has received numerous inquiries, those inquiries may not be viable. The third speaker, Elizabeth Krase, recommended we find a master developer that would keep keeps more of the historic buildings. Member Matarrese commented that he is heartened by the attendance of tonight's meeting and that it's very important that we also look at the strength of our controls on the planning and our city restrictions on development. He further stated that the comments from the speakers are valuable and would like to see them translated into where we go forward. Member Daysog commented that it's absolutely vital for the City of Alameda through the ARRA to continue to be a leader in converting the base and to not allow the Navy to be in the drivers seat through a public action process. There was further discussion about the caretaking of the property and requesting that the Navy return to those responsibilities. Debbie Potter summarized the direction from the Board and other issues to explore: researching the legality and shear logistics of the numbers to see if we can revert back to a no-cost EDC; the | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf |