Recommendation to Receive the 6-Month Status Update on the Enterprise District Development Approach (July 2016 to December 2016). (Base Reuse 819099)
Motion carries unanimously so five d. Angela. How about. Good evening. Members of the council and mayor and vice mayor. I'm Angela hawk about i've lived here for seven years now and I'm here talking about five D because it is a commercial development at site. That is meant to be the site, a business. Park. And maybe I'm a little late to the party, but I don't believe California should be building any business. Parks anymore unless they incorporate. Housing. And I don't necessarily understand what putting it on the consent the agenda means, but we need all the housing we can get. And I just wanted this opportunity to bring it to your attention that this is an opportunity to leverage commercial development for affordable housing. And I believe that the Council did prioritize housing at their last Friday meeting. And I think this is an opportunity to do a new direction for not just Alameda, but for the state as a whole. We should not be building business parks without housing, especially without affordable housing. Thank you very. Much. Thank you. All right. So on five D do we have a staff member that wants to speak to that? We speak to it because. Jennifer Isaac So and if you could share in regards to point our obligation to the Navy and what the deal is and we punch in house jobs. I'm sorry. Sure. Jeremy Mayer, Council members. Jennifer Bass, Refuse Director. So I want to just zoom out a little bit because the area that the the point of the staff report is just one part of a much larger mixed use development. I made a point. There are about 1400 housing units that are been zoned for Alameda Point in general. This area is an area that is focused on jobs. The when the base closed, the city of alameda lost about 18,000 jobs, which actually kind of created an imbalance really between jobs and housing in the city of Alameda. And there is always been and really kind of the underpinnings of the no cost conveyance agreement with the Navy was to replenish those jobs, to try to essentially mitigate those impacts that the Navy caused when it left and we lost all those jobs. And so the bottom line is the agreement that we have with the Navy is to focus on a mixed use community with a real focus on replenishing the jobs that were lost or trying to bring back some of the jobs that were lost at the time that the Navy closed. And that was called an economic development conveyance. And the city has that agreement. And that was one of the kind of conditions of the city getting the land for free from the Navy was to make sure that it gave a lot of attention to trying to replace the jobs lost during the during the closure of the base . I do want to say is that it is we do plan for a mix of uses you know 1400 housing units right now. Zero of those units have been built and we're working really hard to get units built. But, you know, they're this is a 20 to 30 year plan, but there's 1400 housing units planned for the larger Alameda point. And then quite a bit of making sure that we have some land available and zoned for commercial development as well. Does that answer. The record also in regards to the no cost conveyance? If we build more than 1400 homes, then we must pay 50,000 per unit. That's built in addition, is that. That is correct. 50,000 of that 50,000 per unit inflated over time according to an index. So from the time that we. But yes, we'd have to pay 50,000 to the Navy essentially for for land for the for the land that the Navy transferred. And we also built all of the general plan currently zones that property 1425 but we would have to redo that. We'd have to pay that additional amount. Thank you, vice council member matter. And I think this explains this quite well. The whole point of reuse of both military bases was to replace the jobs that were being lost and to recognize. And that's where the 1400 unions recognize the need for jobs, housing balance. And our target has always been jobs that are well-paid and jobs to replace those that left when the Navy left. And we also keep in mind and there's a dynamic here that when those jobs left, the houses didn't leave with them. So we're playing catch up. But we also have to catch up with the additional need. And I think. Recognizing this is the enterprise zone, also recognizing that there are some contaminated areas within site B that are unsuitable for housing. I think that this plan, which is developed over the last 17 years, is a solid plan and I move that we approve item five D. Mind if I say something? Thank you. Thank you for your explanation. Miss it. And I. I think I probably speak for everyone on the council to say that housing and a lot of affordable housing is a very high priority that came out of our priority setting workshop the other day. But Councilmember Matariki is right that when way back when I was on the planning board and we did the zoning and the entitlements, there's a reason why certain uses are slated for certain areas and we have designated the cleanest areas around me 2.4 where housing will go. And with that, I'll just say there is some pretty exciting conversations taking place that aren't quite ready to be introduced to the public, but for how some very well needed housing can be can be provided. But when it comes to affordable housing, well, just talking about the Enterprise District, we will hear an item later on the agenda about the economic development, the updated strategic plan update. And one of the concerns that was raised and it concerns me is that the city is now acting as its own developer for this enterprise zone. So we're doing request for proposals. RFP is trying to find folks, industries, you know, acceptable kinds of clean tech light industry to come out. But yet we also require of our developers that they pay a very steep price per acre because they have to help to replace that aging infrastructure, everything water, sewer, telephone, electrical, you name it. And that's providing an impediment to the business interests when it comes to funding affordable housing. And yet another item we'll hear tonight is an update on our legislative agenda at both the state and federal level. We've got to beat the Bushes and find funding sources for the affordable housing that we very much need to build. So it's not that we're putting one interest above the other, but we are operating off of a plan that is going to help the city remain economically viable to get this base redeveloped so that it allows us to do the many things we want to and need to do. Thank you, though, for raising that. Any other councilmember comments? There's a motion on second. All those in favor. I am curious. Unanimously. Thank you. Five G and. Member matters, he has to recuse himself because he lives within a certain area. Oh, and. Vice mayor also.