Loading...
2004-10-06 ARRA PacketAGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda City Hall Council Chamber, Room 390 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 1. ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR None. Wednesday, October 6, 2004 Meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. City Hall will open at 5:15 p.m. 3. PRESENTATION 3 -A. Presentation /update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning. 4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS None. 5. ORAL REPORTS 5 -A. Oral report from APAC. 5 -B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. 5 -C. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.) 7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY ARRA Agenda — October 6, 2004 Page 2 8. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: 8 -A. Property: Negotiating parties: Under negotiation: Alameda Naval Air Station ARRA, Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners Price and Terms Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. 9. ADJOURNMENT This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15. The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 3, 2004. Notes: • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary, Irma Frankel at 749 -5800 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. ■ Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print. • Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request. ctober 6, 2004 Report on Navy Conveyance Process Update on Land Planning Activities Status of Project Budget Overview of September ARRAI avy Meetings ecutive Group Meeting and General ARR al 0 O c4 0 0 4 c.) c„ .. ci, 4-4 c.) 0 .2 ct '4( ECU 4 al G4 U a� N .4. <1.) o - cA 4 U <1.) ct 7.1 ciz3 CD � N N Q c '" 0 4`t . 3 5) ''ziu err.' 74,7: h o cu as . U , ' 0 c � U c .c) t 0 C cc: Tii ct g4 c'ci .4.-) I-zd ct ,< c4 ci, -ci cu CA 4 �' . 4 O ct 0 a) .� .� 4� •`2 0 0 4■1 C.) .h.■.) a r2 PC) P4 (: C.) c Model for the Base Case 14 Run the Rcono Include Revised Assumptions for Values Generated by Navy Present Conveyance Strategy to Navy Decision Makers 14 Mutual Agreement on the Strategy by Both Parties It Present Initial Conveyance Strategy: November 2004 Agreement on Conveyance Strategy: March 2005 a Next ARRA/Navy October 13, 2004 November 4, 2004 , ----, ,.., ot40.44.-iwato$,,,,A, logosoimato 011110041111 .. . . . Key Ln.-----i -.- I ----q---p Pl a::,..::...ml,......,..i.,...,, ng Activities higigketelT,Ogli hh'hh- hrh.--------- --h.. 'h. ,h.„..:,„,.,„...... „:„..„:„.h..,,,.................„. hh_. Weekly Meeting w/ROMA and Technical Consultants ▪ Geotechnical and Infrastructure avy Historic Preservation Staff • December 2, 2004 — Mastic Senior Center Summary from Community Workshop #1 NM al ■ MI lir -7.111) WAY ASV 3I' 1.2 IR= 3291 7.'.6'7 L, i 1 " .w._�,,t-*�t:i "tip :`�;•. W. T144N IR-16 lu Project Boundary M Contributing Historic Buildings .+.1 MI Public Space C Contributing Historic Buildings (to be removed) I 1 Right of Way I I "IR" Sites 1---1 Residential l''&2j Contractual Constraints Commercial / Industrial with Residential Potential Commercial ! Industrial 33 BASE CASE Alameda Point Prepays for the Alameda Reese and Redevelopment Authority by ROMA. Design Croup sEpT[MIiFR 30. 2004 " REPORT TO THE ARRA TO: The ARRA Board, City Staff FROM: The Alameda Point Advisory Committee DATE: September 15, 2004 RE: First Community Forum on Land Use on August 28, 2004 I. RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT Based on the oral reports from the small workgroups and the notes of APAC members who participated in the small group workshops, the following themes emerged which the APAC strongly recommends should be incorporated in the alternative plans to be developed for the next meeting • Alameda Point must blend in seamlessly with the rest of the city. Alameda Point must be connected with the remainder of the city by tree lined streets which should reflect the street grid and "feel" of the main island. The majority of participants want to see neighborhoods with varied housing types and uses in keeping with the rest of the city. Nearly every group cited the former drive -in site and certain elements of Bayport, especially the soundwalls, as what they did not want to see in future residential development. • Historic preservation should not be a controlling factor in development. Most groups expressed the desire that certain significant or representative buildings be preserved (e.g. 0 Club, tower building, Big Whites) but that other large and institutional buildings, especially some, if not all, of the hangars should be cleared to provide for new development and open space. • All groups wanted to see a better mix of commercial and residential use... This principle was emphatically expressed by all groups. The idea of being able "to walk to the store" as one can on the main island is important to all participants. • Housing for all income levels, including townhouses, condominiums and rental units should be a goal in any plan considered. • Transportation alternatives including light rail, tram, better bus lines and ferry service must be developed to better connect the entire island and the island to the mainland and reduce automobile traffic. • Re- examine Measure A as it relates to Alameda Point. A clear majority of those attending were of the opinion that measure A should not remain a constraint on development at Alameda Point. An alternative plan showing development possibilities without the constraint of Measure A is essential to understand the potential for achieving the land use objectives stated above and to facilitate the types of transportation the groups believed are essential II. RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO LOGISTICS FOR THE NEXT FORUM The general consensus among the APAC members is that the August 28, 2004 meeting was extremely well received by those who attended. A wealth of information was well organized and effectively presented. The attendance, while reasonably good in terms of sheer numbers, was disappointing in that the majority of those in attendance were members of the community who are civically active and normally attend such meetings. To make this series of forums effective, we must devise ways to attract more of the community. Toward that end, the APAC makes the following recommendations • Hold the next forums in different locations throughout Alameda including one on Harbor Bay. In order to reach the greatest number of community members, APAC was of the opinion that this is a show that should be taken on the road. Considerations in choosing a meeting facility should include the availability of breakout rooms for the small group workshops and the availability of sufficient parking. • Hold the next event on a weeknight to determine whether that time will generate higher attendance. • For future meetings at the Point signage is needed directing people to the location • Set schedule for all remaining events so that entire schedule can be advertised in advance and people can put the dates on the calendars and plan accordingly. • Despite the holidays, we believe that to maintain momentum and credibility, the next event should be scheduled for November, perhaps November 17 (Wednesday evening) or November 20`h (Saturday). • More and varied publicity beginning further in advance. Recommendations include the Electric Flash, Alameda Magazine, presentations by APAC to various civic groups. REPORT FROM SMALL WORKGROL P ALAMEDA POINT ENGAGEMENT FORUM AUGUST 28, 2004 Participating: Elizabeth Johnson (City of Alameda), Andrine Smith, (APAC), Eve Boch, Jeffrey Schram, Troy, Irene and Jim Sweeney 1. Historic Preservation. There was unanimity that historic preservation should not be a defining factor in land use and development at the Alameda Point. Everyone felt that certain key buildings should be preserved such, as the "Big Whites ", but that if effective adaptive reuse could not be found for others such as BOQ, shops and hangars, they should be dispensed with. Even if adaptive re -use, such as manufacturing or education, could be could be found for some of the hangars, the hangar that blocks the view to the lagoon /bay through the civic corridor /parade ground should be removed. 2. Clean -up. This group was also unanimous that the city should "push back" as far as clean -up is concerned and require the Navy to do maximum clean -up. Any phased development should be planned so as not to preempt full clean -up of adjoining parcels. 3. Transportation. This group as was as concerned with inter - island transportation and connecting Alameda Point with the rest of the island as it was with regional transit. Although the need for a fly -over or some other direction connection of the tube to I880 emphasized by one group member, most of the discussion centered around more and better bus lines, light rail or trams to connect Alameda Point to the rest of the island and provide efficient transportation by other than automobile. This group was also interested in clustering businesses on Alameda Point to better facilitate transportation. 4. Integration with the rest of Alameda. A matter of great importance to the members of this group was that Alameda Point blend into and look like the rest of the city, with tree lined streets running from the Point into the rest of town and varied neighborhoods. Bayport and the development at the former drive -in movie location were both cited as what this group did not want neighborhoods at Alameda Point to look like. The sound wall around Bayport was particularly offensive to this group. 5. Measure A. This group believed that Measure A should be re- examined as it relates to Alameda Point .The group felt that lifting the restrictions of Measure A might allow for more creative and varied residential development and help facilitate the type of intra- island transportation the group was interested in. 6. Waterfront vision. There was not a lot of discussion about this. Aspect of development. One person offered Sausalito as model for waterfront development and as a destination/retail model. FIRST DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT COMMUNITY MEETING DISCUSSION AROUND THE FOUR QUESTIONS Question 1 — Are there places and neighborhoods elsewhere in Alameda or in other cities that should serve as models for Alameda point? i Agreed that we did not want Bayport or the housing at the old drive in area. Specifically the density, sound wall. They liked the neighborhood centers, including the full -range of essential services. Looking to continue the small -town quality, diversity and integration. Tree lined streets (like Central) was very important. Seaplane lagoon should be a destination, and therefore a lively place to visit. Specifically, restaurants, cultural, retail, events, open space. Good transportation. r There was some concern about schools and retaining the same size as in the rest of Alameda. - The plan should provide cultural facilities and library. The plan should allow for a diversity in housing (size, cost, single family vs condos /townhouses). Question 2 — In order for the community to achieve the goals of the Reuse Plan, Alameda Point has to be a financially feasible, mixed use plan. Should the mix of residential and non- residential uses in the Base Case be changed? Yes, it should change. There should be more residential. The proposed plan is too segregated and choppy. Uses are segregated. Question 3 — What are the most important historic qualities or assets that you think need to be preserved or enhanced? We agreed that is was not necessary to preserve all 86 buildings. We should focus on a representative sample and retain those buildings that are truly significant (eg 0 Club, City 1 -fall west, Big whites). Why do we need all the hangars, especially at the Seaplane Lagoon. There could be adaptive reuse, and an example was hostel, Bed and Breakfast, visitor serving Extend the live /work concept to some buildings at Alameda point. Question 4 — Traffic into and out of Alameda is limited by the tubes and bridges. What transportation improvements or land use strategies should be considered either to provide for alternatives to automobiles or to reduce traffic generated by Alameda Point development? • The transportation and circulation plan for the Point must be integrated with the existing street plan. Retain the grid. As the city expands, there needs to be consideration for ways to better connect the larger city. Eg streetcar, light rail Development fees should be assessed to fund the transportation. > Utilize transportation management systems and incentives to reduce the dominance of the auto. • We discussed the various cross estuary options, and after some level setting as to the challenges of each, most people liked the BART proposal. MEASURE A The restrictions and limitations with Measure A came up several times. It occurred at least once with each question. The reaction was mixed. From "why do we need it" to "let's first work within the constraints. FIRST DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT COMMUNITY MEETING REVIEW OF WORKSHOP GROUP DISCUSSION August 28, 2004 ATTENDING - Leader: Walter Rask, ROMA; Lee Perez and Joan Konrad APAC; Neal , Marilyn Ashcraft, Georgia Madden, Daniel Hoye, Michael Dugan, Jack Sheppard (Who have we missed ?) REVIEW OF COMMENTS • REFLECT EXISTING ALAMEDA - The scale, configuration and density of development of Alameda Point should reflect that which exists in the rest of Alameda. • CONNECT TO EXISTING ALAMEDA - It is more important to develop corridors connecting Alameda Point to the rest of Alameda. • DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRAINT DRIVEN - The type of development should not be driven by the constraints of the site, but by the desired goals of the community. • ALAMEDA POINT AS A REGIONAL PROJECT, NOT JUST A NEW ALAMEDA DEVELOPMENT — Is Alameda Point to be an Alameda cul -de -sac community? Alameda Point has many regional implications and responsibilities — traffic, inter- dependent commerce and recreation, among the more prominent. Is it to be a tourist draw, a draw for residents of adjacent communities? Solutions need to address the true nature of the development. • LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS - The development should reflect the form represented in the Community Reuse Plan consisting of transit oriented neighborhoods with neighborhood centers designed with convenient walking distances to destinations such as schools, shopping, parks and public transit for most residents. • NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS - Small neighborhood schools should be within walking distance of most homes preferably located in the neighborhood center. • RESIDENTIAL /COMMERCIAL BALANCE - There must be sufficient residential development to support successful retail at the neighborhood cores. And there should be a balance between residential and commercial jobs to reduce rush hour traffic. • RELATIONSHIP OF ALAMEDA POINT TO WEBSTER STREET AND MARINA VILLAGE -- Retail within the Point should address local convenience shipping (a la the original intent of Alameda's Stations) not a major shopping center. Webster Street (and Catellus' retail center) needs to be the focus of the "shopping district ". • INTEGRATE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES WITH THE WATERFRONT -- The marina should be a natural extension of the shore uses. "Court" and "field" recreation areas do not require and often suffer from waterside locations. Use the valuable waterside land to anchor more core activities such as town centers, work/live/ even a school on the tideland area. Courts and field recreation is more appropriate when integrated into residential green spaces (as would the golf course). • MODIFY MEASURE A — To allow transit oriented development, provide a range of housing choice for a diverse population, create walkable distances to destinations, provide more usable public open space, reduce the impact of new development on transportation corridors, Measure A should be modified at Alameda Point. Residential over retail should be encouraged. • GREATER DENSITY/ NO INCREASE IN NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS - Though greater density would be permitted without Measure A, the number of housing units should be limited by the environmental impacts increased population would have on planned transportation systems. More and higher quality open space /walking paths /gathering spaces would supplant meaningless minimal required side yards. • RELOCATE SPORTS FACILITIES - The land designated on the plans along the estuary and at the southeast end of the property for soccer fields and baseball diamonds, neither of which benefit from a water orientation, should be relocated to allow for water oriented uses instead. Influence of prevailing wind should be considered. • SOUND WALLS - Sound walls are detrimental to community cohesiveness and should not be permitted. Other solutions to traffic impacts must be found. • WIND — The wind coming off the bay in the afternoon has to be considered when preserving views and especially when designing open spaces around the lagoon. • IMPACT OF THE WILDLIFE REFUGE — The extent of the building restrictions and required approvals of the Wildlife Refuge on construction in the lands between the Refuge and Main Street should be determined. The refuge is one of the most prominent and valuable locations in the east bay. Renegotiations should be sought to open up the waters edge perimeter of the current refuge to human use year round. The refuge impact areas should be restrained entirely within the refuge area. • HISTORIC PRESERVATION - The Naval Air Station, though a major influence in Alameda, was not a part of the experience of most Alamedans because access to it was highly restricted. For this reason and because Alameda Point should be developed as a human scale, livable community, the historic commemoration of the base should be limited to a few important structures. Few if any of the structures are architecturally significant. A flavor of the building displaying a "flavor' of the times is important. Encouraging the creative reuse of portions /entire buildings should be encouraged but not be mandatory (a primary encouragement could be economic incentives.) Important structures could be the main entrance structure, the control tower, the headquarters building and the entrance greens and parade ground. Perhaps some sort of memorial such as an arch representing the form of a hanger and an outline of its foot print represented as a sunken plaza would be sufficient to recall the huge hanger structures • HISTORY OF THE AREA - There is much of historical interest here that might be memorialized - the railroad along the estuary, the old light house at the entrance to the estuary (presently Quinn's Light House Restaurant), the ferry terminal at the end of Central Avenue, the oil refinery, the borax plant, perhaps representation of the marshland in the form of water features, the Oak woodlands, some Indian activity representation, certainly the China Clippers and the seaplane lagoon. Reviewed by Joan Konrad, Michael Dugan, Marilyn Ashcraft APAC/ROMA ALAMEDA POINT LAND USE PUBLIC OUTREACH MEETING - August 28,2004 SUMMARY OF SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION PARTICIPATING: Helen Sause, Ginger Roberts, Steven Proud and four others 1. Development Potential: They discussed creating a unique draw for Alameda Point. The group also expressed concern about the millions of square feet of uses that will be required to fully utilize the large buildings currently planned to be retained. One suggestion concerned consideration of extending the waterfront theme with a lagoon system (like Bay Farm Island) through the new neighborhoods. During discussion some concerns included the potential for "clean up" challenges, the substantial expense of the construction and maintenance of such a system. Another suggestion was the idea of trying to attract a University or a school of higher learning. The group felt that although this had been explored in the early planning days it should be re-visited because it serves many purposes including employment, using some of the existing buildings; students are more likely to use public transit and bicycles, and the attractiveness of the campus environment, etc. Another suggestion was to try to attract a large commercial business which functions well in a campus like environment, e.g. Microsoft and this type of use could help with the jobs / housing balance. 2. Historic preservation: Those present expressed the feeling that the Naval Air station did not significantly contribute to the Island's history, it had been off limits for most people and to preserve the huge buildings seemed out of keeping with the desire to create a vibrant new neighborhood on the former Base. Preservation was felt to best be limited to areas like the 3big whites2 and perhaps saving the "Pan Am" hanger with perhaps locating the museum in it. It was clear that the hangers should not be a significant feature of the new plan. The hanger located in the great green sward from the lagoon to the estuary was particularly an inhibition to creating what could become a wonderful "main street". One attendee expressed concern that some memorial to the Todd Shipyard should be considered. 3. Integration with the rest of Alameda: This was a high priority and the ideas of integrating the street patterns and having neighborhood shopping was endorsed. 4. Transportation and Measure A: the group felt that transportation was a huge issue and that Measure A should be revisited because this constraint affected the type of housing that could be built. It was also believed to be important to that there be varied housing types comparable to the rest of the Island where there is housing for all incomes and rentals and condos are interspersed in among single family homes. There was some discussion about the increased opportunities to have various transportation systems if denser housing is grouped around transit hubs, as well as the likelihood of attracting neighborhood serving retail in such areas. The clean up for areas with apartment buildings and condos is also significantly less. The group felt that Measure A should possibly remain intact for 301d Alameda2.