pages: CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 12 | whether leasing or purchasing the land; the work being done now on the EIR and zoning will make the property more valuable when the City goes to market; time and entitlement risk will be off of the table; doing the EIR and zoning first was part of the City's strategy; most cities have raw land and do an RFP to figure out what to build, which is a beauty pageant; then developers sharpen their pencils to provide real numbers and cities are stuck because the community feels things were promised in the RFP process; the City is not being vague and is clear about the general uses; staff wanted to present a modest approach which recognizes the City cannot predict where markets will be in 15 or even 10 years; the document creates many different envelopes and scopes to allow the City to respond to market signals and proceed with projects which will financially benefit Alameda. President Burton stated one concern is how infrastructure will reach sites; the City Manager has indicated the City will finance and install trunk lines and developers will pay for individual super pad infrastructure; inquired whether a mechanism would require developers to contribute a fair share of trunk lines costs so that the City could recoup at least some of the costs. The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the mechanism will happen in many different ways, such as through lease payments or land sale costs; businesses will have to pay for backbone infrastructure maintenance going forward; the State does not currently have Infrastructure Financing Districts (IFDs); community benefit districts options were discussed in the MIP; the Governor vetoed IFDs for this year; however, the Governor is likely to sign something next year; Alameda and Concord attempted to get some type of financial mechanism together to deal with the infrastructure at both bases; staff is reaching out to other cities with similar issues and is hopeful some financing mechanism will be approved next year. Mayor Gilmore inquired whether staff is analyzing how much of the backbone infrastructure each parcel will have to pay as part of the MIP. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated developers would be responsible for building infrastructure related to their site and would also pay a prorated share of the site wide infrastructure; every parcel will captures its burden; not requiring a developer to pay a fair share would be a Council decision; if a site does not pay its fair share, another site down the road would have to pick up the cost; the amounts would be built into fees; staff is drafting an RFP for Alameda Point fees to capture the pro rata share of larger, site wide infrastructure, including some of the larger parks. Councilmember Daysog stated the strategy is a means to implement the Alameda Point vision, which could be a funky, eclectic place for professionals, bohemians and new businesses, similar to the Planning Board presentation by SOM; that he is okay with focusing on retail, while not excluding other things; he is also oaky with commercial, industrial and housing being fourth because things are going to occur close together; Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 12 Planning Board September 25, 2013 | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |