pages: CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2006-10-17 | 10 | Councilmember Daysog stated that 17 units are better than the applicant's proposed 26 units; the question is whether 17 units are desirable. The Supervising Planner stated a commitment has been made in the Housing Element to get a certain number of affordable housing units in the MU-5 area. Councilmember Matarrese stated the commitment is not to put all of the units on the parcel. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the owner reviewed other development opportunities. Mr. Harper responded a proposal was submitted for work/live stated the General Plan dictates what can be done. Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be the value to sell to the City. Mr. Harper responded the land becomes more valuable closer to the Estuary the City wants half of the applicant's property and also wants the most valuable half; a tremendous commitment would be required and is one that the City should have undertaken long ago. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether cleanup evaluations have been performed. Mr. Harper responded the cleanup is almost complete. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the cleanup is almost complete even though the buildings have not been removed. Mr. Harper responded surveys have been done; stated cleanup has been underway for a long time; the land is not that contaminated; the applicant intends to clean up to full standards. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether determinations have been made on the park portion, to which Mr. Harper responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan stated cleanup considerations would need to be addressed if the City purchased the property. Mr. Harper stated the applicant would perform the cleanup if the City wants to buy the property. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 60 [foot] setbacks are part Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 October 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf |