pages: CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2022-01-18 | 10 | The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the implication is not speculative; staff is in regular communications with the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) that must approve the City's Housing Element; staff has held discussions with the State about what would happen in certain situations; staff feels confident about the consequences. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there have been appraisals for the project parcels. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded there is an appraisal for the overall site once developed; the appraisals are done for the State Lands Commission (SLC); the SLC is looking for the value of the entire development, once developed; the SLC requires the value of the land being received be equal in value to what is being traded; in the current instance, there is equal value per acre; the State is receiving 7.2 acres; the land is not City- owned, the land is State land; the SLC feels the State is receiving more than it is giving from a value perspective; an appraisal has not been conducted for the value of the 6.4 acres versus the value of the Tim Lewis Communities property. Bill White, Shute, Mihaly, Weinberger LLP, stated an appraisal has been done for the entire site; the purpose of the appraisal is to calculate the value of the lands that are coming into the Trust and lands coming out of the Trust; due to the project being a Master Plan development project, the only real way to perform an appraisal is to value the entire site as a whole; the appraisal gets the highest and best use to figure out the maximum economic value of the property. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is an assumption that each acre holds the same value. Mr. White responded in the affirmative; stated the assumption is made for Master Plan development projects; there have been a number of large Trust exchanges with Master Plan projects; there is no other viable way to perform the appraisal; if the process is not be followed, there is risk of drastically under-valuing the lands coming to the City; it is difficult to value open space by itself; the value of the open space is the value that it contributes to the Master Plan project; the Master Plan project would not be possible without the open space amenity; the value is considered unitary. In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the way the deal is structured, the costs to maintain the parklands, or State-owned lands, developed by the developer, will be covered through an annual assessment district; the property owners will pay into the assessment district; there would be no cost to the City to pay for maintenance; the practice is standard and was previously done for the Marina Shores Park. Stated that she is disappointed that the water park elements of the original plan have been eliminated; expressed support for the Tidelands Exchange; stated the area has been land- locked for years and development will allow public access to the water: Karen Miller, Alameda. Expressed support for the Encinal Terminal project; urged Council approve the project; stated the number one concern for local businesses is local, affordable housing for employees; many aspiring Alameda businesses question whether there is local affordable housing for staff; discussed the site's public access and housing; stated the project will reduce the need to up- Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 18, 2022 10 | CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf |