pages: CityCouncil/2017-03-21.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2017-03-21 | 7 | Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the plan would go back to the Planning Board or if Council is giving direction tonight. The Redevelopment Project Manager responded the Planning Board already approved the plan and recommended Council approval. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the Planning Board had an opportunity to weigh-in on the mix of scenarios. The Base Reuse Director responded the Planning Board was involved in the planning, but not the Request for Qualifications (RFQ); the Council is the property owner and makes the ultimate decision on how to proceed. Councilmember Oddie stated there are significant planning implications; he hopes the Planning Board could have input on the RFQ. The Base Reuse Director stated staff contemplates following the same Site A RFQ process; developers would have to demonstrate the ability to develop a plan that the Planning Board and the community would like; Council would then have an indication of what the community desires before entering into a long term contract with a developer. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Base Reuse Director stated the 277 units in Scenario 4 is the number of units needed to pay for infrastructure and have units left over for north of Midway; there are hundreds of scenarios; 277 units was used to provide a comparison. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is the advantage of having a higher net residual value per unit. The Base Reuse Director responded the infrastructure cost and different product types have different value; single family homes have lower construction costs but use more land, whereas apartments or high-density townhomes may have lower per-unit residual land values, leaving land which can be used for other uses; having a higher net residual value pays for as much infrastructure or amenities as possible; however, having too much left over land is not good; there needs to be a balance. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the plan is not just looking at bottom line; there are intangible objectives such as the need to provide housing at different price points. The Base Reuse Director stated staff tried to illustrate scenarios to help confront some of the tradeoffs; infrastructure is crucial but land use types are important; everything goes to the bottom line in terms of what is affordable; balancing all the different policy objectives is a tough job for staff and Council. Thanked everyone involved; stated the plan has had ample input from the community through online surveys, workshops, and meetings; urged approval of the ordinance: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC). Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 21, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-03-21.pdf |