pages: CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2014-04-15 | 12 | distraction and poison the process. Councilmember Tam stated Lawrence Berkeley National Labs (LBNL) is a good example; the renderings did not poison the discussion or prevent the Council from ascertaining the viability of the project. The City Manager stated the LBNL project is a different case with a known end-user with financial backing from the State, University of California, and Department of Energy who knew the exact project specifications; the finance issue was off the table; the end- users of the Alameda Point development are still unknown. Mayor Gilmore concurred with the City Manager; stated the community was not weighing in on what the LBNL project would look like, moreso the community wanted LBNL to come to Alameda; the Alameda Point project has a mix of uses and tenants; LBNL was a specific end user. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to give the public an opportunity to possibilities; requested that current photos and drawings be submitted to see if projects have stood the test of time. Councilmember Chen stated that he likes the aggressive, compact timeline and selection process involving community members; inquired whether the RFQ is a standard industry procedure, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Chen stated the required $150,000 down payment is low; inquired whether the amount can be increased. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the down payment can be increased; stated the developers would have to pay planning fees in addition to the down payment. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how staff determined the down payment amount and what would be planning fee costs. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded that increasing the down payment to $250,000 would be okay; the down payment is to defray staff time, legal costs, and transaction costs; a $30,000 to $40,000 deposit for planning fees is required and could be replenished; staff wants investment in design. The City Manager suggested increasing the deposit for Site A to $250,000; stated the developer would have six months of control on a huge, single property which will be a great deal of cost; for Site B, the deposit amount should depend on the size of proposal. Councilmember Chen inquired how the mixed-use areas of Site A will be divided. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council April 15, 2014 | CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf |