pages: CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2012-05-08 | 7 | Mayor Gilmore stated developing smaller amounts makes sense; inquired whether the most feasible project is 220 homes on 20 acres, to which Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative. Mayor Gilmore stated that she understands the need for a master infrastructure plan; inquired why a Request for Proposal (RFP) cannot be done for the [20 acre] site. The City Manager stated one developer controls Alameda Landing; the advantage of the proposed direction is the diversity of developers. Mayor Gilmore stated that she does not object to having diverse developers; questioned why the City has to go into debt to do so; stated if an RFP were done for the [20 acre] pad, the funds generated could be used to bootstrap the next project. Councilmember Tam stated Mayor Gilmore's suggestion shifts the risks and costs. The City Manager noted entitlement risk would not be eliminated under said scenario. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point noted both entitlement and CEQA would not be done; putting the 20 acres on the market without having the CEQA work done for the rest of the Base would be difficult; infrastructure needs would not be known. Mayor Gilmore stated the money that would have been used for the bond could be used to pay infrastructure. Councilmember Johnson inquired when the City would generate revenue from going through the proposed process. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated some reimbursement is assumed in each phase of the project. Councilmember Johnson stated the City has tried with a Master Developer twice; the Catellus Alameda Landing project has changed with the market; a 20 year plan cannot predict all changes in the market. Councilmember deHaan stated Harbor Bay Business Park has gone through cycles; waiting for the market would put the City behind the curve; outlined the potential to lose out on opportunities, previous proposals and leasing history. Mayor Gilmore stated that she is questioning how to move forward and whether or not to go into debt. Councilmember deHaan stated going forward incrementally would put the City behind the curve. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 7 May 8, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf |