pages: CityCouncil/2021-05-18.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-05-18 | 10 | The Assistant Community Development Director responded nothing prevents the City from extending the boundary; stated staff strategically omitted the southern parcels due to the high desirability of waterfront parcels; staff wanted to prevent people from cherry- picking and selecting the parcels without landlocked areas being developed; the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Enterprise District did not include the southern parcels for the reason mentioned; staff wanted to ensure the landlocked parcels received the attention deserved before the desired waterfront parcels are added. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to exclude the southern area from the State Lands process in order to put the City in the driver's seat. The Assistant Community Development Director stated the decision lies with Council; staff is recommending Council decide whether to go through the surplus process; if Council wishes to include the parcels, the City would not necessarily be in the driver's seat; if Council decides the parcels are exempt, due to already going through a surplus process on a federal level, then the City is more in the driver's seat. Councilmember Daysog stated the area should be exempt; Council is being asked to include or to exempt; expressed support for exemption. The Assistant Community Development Director stated the approach makes sense; however, staff is not seeking approval for the southern area; the Enterprise District area stops further north; if Council decides to move forward with the exemption, Council may decide to include the southern parcels. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the matter not being included on the agenda; requested clarification from the City Attorney about parcels not included in the proposed matter. The City Attorney stated the area discussed is not presented in the staff report; recommended Council only give very brief direction for the matter to return for future discussion. The Community Development Director stated the parcels have not been included for Council discussion; staff intends to bring future parcels before Council for potential surplus or exemption. Councilmember Knox White stated the Enterprise District has not be on an agenda in quite a while; different staff presented last time; Council should have a conversation about how to move forward in closed session first, then open session to follow; his recollection includes Council having unresolved questions at the time; noted some of the upcoming issues have been presented by Councilmember Daysog's inquiries. Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the first resolution be clarified; inquired whether Council is being asked to declare that the properties exempt from the Surplus Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 May 18, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-05-18.pdf |