pages: CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2014-11-18 | 14 | (14-479) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes: Councilmember Tam - 1. Stated that he understands Site A being a catalyst, but is concerned about the rest of the development proceeding; expressed concern over the allocation of housing units: Former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda. Mayor Gilmore noted the taxiway development is no longer on the table. Stated the election was about development and the direction of the City, which shows there is major opposition: Travis Wilson, Alameda. Urged approval of the staff recommendation: Michael John Torrey, Alameda. *** Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 11:02 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:11p.m. *** Mayor Gilmore stated the need for housing at Alameda Point is a topic which causes langst in the community; requested an explanation of the rationale behind housing. James Edison, Wildan Financial Services, responded there is a lot of demand for housing and people are willing to pay for it; housing developers have more money to build infrastructure to support improvements; commercial development in Alameda is a tougher sell because of constraints; financial capacity is built into the development by housing allowing for infrastructure. Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the development can lead with commercial and retail. Mr. Edison responded Alameda would have to take on a significant debt burden to pay for infrastructure with the commercial approach; staff decided to proceed in finding a developer that will pay for the infrastructure up front so the City does not have to pay. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated redevelopment projects no longer have tax increment financing; Alameda depends on private capital to finance the project; two Request for Qualifications (RFQs) were done to test the market: one for mixed-use residential and one for commercial; one of the four qualified commercial developers dropped out because of uncertainty in Alameda's market and the other two were not willing to commit to any upfront infrastructure; the residential RFQ received Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 November 18, 2014 | CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf |