pages: CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf, 24
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2007-01-02 | 24 | would be maintained by the developer and whether the MSD would be paid for by the project and would not be a burden of the City or residents, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan stated a commitment has been made to reutilize some of the buildings even if Clif Bar is not a tenant. inquired whether there is a market for the buildings. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded that Clif Bar is the identified tenant for the adaptive reuse; Catellus could continue the demolition of the warehouses if Clif Bar went away and there were not a replacement tenant ; currently, Catellus is not going in said direction but is looking at preserving more warehouses. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see some ensurance if the project performs better than expected; a trigger point needs to be established for getting additional funding if $425,000 is not enough; he would like to see some type of trigger point that shows an evaluation would be done against the agreed upon criteria after a defined period of time that allows additional money to be allocated up to a certain percentage for the TDM Program if the project is performing better than the Performa. The Supervising Planner stated the commercial development agreement could be brought back to Council in two weeks with Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated it is important for the motion to have as much specificity tonight for the purpose of having the ordinance adopted in two weeks. Mr. Marshall inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese was making a connection between the project being more successful than anticipated and some additional burden on the TDM Program or whether the thoughts were independent. Councilmember Matarrese stated the connection is that there will be more traffic if the project is wildly successful. Mr. Marshall stated the challenging aspect is how to measure the TDM Program; a cap was established to understand the financial impact to the developer; an escalator is in the drafted document which is not insignificant : the developer seems to be hit twice with a percentage increase and an escalatori suggested that the escalator be deferred until the adjustment is made; additional language would need to be added to the underwriting to explain the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 January 2, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf |