pages: CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf, 15
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2014-11-18 | 15 | nine responses; not having new infrastructure is a major liability; major infrastructure issues make it difficult to retain existing businesses and attract new commercial development. Councilmember Tam inquired whether existing leases can pay for infrastructure, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the negative; stated the current leases at Alameda Point are market industrial rents at $0.40 per square foot, which does not support the infrastructure need. John McManus, Cushman and Wakefield, stated when parcels are sold, there is a minimum price per acre the City needs to achieve to pay the per-acre fair share; infrastructure expenses would be an unfair burden for the existing tenants and Alameda would lose the tenants. The City Manager concurred with Mr. McManus; stated Alameda Point would no longer be market competitive; if the burden of new infrastructure is added and tenants are asked to make improvements, they would leave; the current infrastructure is degrading and needs to be replaced; the only way is to begin selling parcels at a rate that supports new infrastructure. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she met with both teams and has received emails suggesting to delay the vote; it is a tough decision, but stalling is not the answer; there will be opportunity for public input if the ENA is approved this evening; the public deserves to be informed about the project by more than campaign slogans; the proposal addresses traffic concerns raised in the election; Council has heard that priorities should be creating jobs and that residents want parks and open space; she is concerned about doing what is right for the citizens of Alameda; she is prepared to approve entering into the ENA. Councilmember Daysog stated that he was on the governing board that voted for the Community Reuse Plan of 1996; he supports moving forward with Alameda Point; the West End cannot continue to languish; there is argument to allow council elects to have substantive input and another argument not to undo the substantial work of the current Council; the ENA did not happen over only the past 18 months; there are lessons that can be drawn from SunCal; Alameda Point has a way to go and Council needs to be involved during the coming months; the ENA protects all parties but must also be explicit, whatever other boards do has to be at the direction of the City Council; there has to be language that involves the developer; there needs to be more discussion about retail development in terms of economics; there also needs to be language that protects Alameda against situations like Mammoth Lakes and Half Moon Bay where the developer sued the city; that he is ready to move forward but would like further discussion. Councilmember Tam stated the Half Moon Bay and Mammoth Lakes visions were explicitly considered when Council looked at the ENA with SunCal; it is important to respect and honor the process and move forward; that she inherited the ENA with Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 November 18, 2014 | CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf |