pages: CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf, 16
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2012-02-07 | 16 | Alameda, questioned the impacts of developing housing at Alameda Point. The Planning Services Manager stated staff is working with the Planning Board on Citywide Housing Element amendments; staff is looking at the Citywide land supply for the City's regional housing needs determination; Alameda Point would not be used for this round of the Housing Element, but would be used for the next round; staff would be coordinating rezoning efforts with the Housing Element discussion starting on March 12th The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the City has a fiscal neutrality policy, which requires no adverse impacts on the City's General Fund. The City Manager stated base development would have to be much more oriented to jobs and economic development rather than residential development. Councilmember Johnson moved approval of having staff proceed as recommended. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the unanimous voice vote - 5. (12-061) Presentation on Proposed Disposition and Development Strategy for Alameda Point. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor Gilmore inquired whether staff would anticipate going out with a bond based upon current lease revenue or whether the City would enter into more leases to increase revenue, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded current leases. Mayor Gilmore inquired whether revenue would pay for maintenance also, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point continued the presentation. The City Manager stated staff would like to have Council's nod to go forward with further development of Option 4; having the land already entitled would provide the maximum land value when the City presents the land to a developer; the con to Option 4 would be substantial upfront costs; two groups would be affected by continuing to go down the traditional route; one being a community that would have conflicting desires regarding housing versus commercial versus retail; the other being a developer who would make a proposal based on an anticipated set of entitlements that would meet investment needs; the City would end up as both the regulator for land use purposes and the mediator; the City might as well be involved directly in calibrating issues; $4 million to $5 million would be spent in staff time negotiating with a developer; Option 4 would allow the City to make the maximum amount on the sale of the land while holding onto the Special Meeting Alameda City Council 2 February 7, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf |