Another pretty full City Council agenda including a bunch of lawsuits on the Closed Session agenda. I’ll point out that there’s already a lawsuit from Boatworks which is best summed up with this tweet:
Remember how I said way back when that some other dude met the smarmy definition of awful developer? I take that back. The Boatworks folks may be the worst at this point. Typically I would place the blame on the shoulders of the City for being waffle-y and the perennial NIMBYs for popping up to oppose the opening of an envelope, but in this case Boatworks is just terrible.
Also on the agenda are those pocket parks on the East End where the space reserved by the City for public access to the open water appears to be still too small (18ft as opposed to the Planning Board recommended 35 ft) because the City doesn’t want to penalize people who illegally constructed docks on property that doesn’t belong to them. Okkkkkaaayyyyyy…
A big agenda item is regarding the approach to the development of the Main Street Neighborhood at Alameda Point. This is distinct from all the other plans that have come before the Planning Board and City Council because this is the area around the big whites and APC, but also contains the site that APC will be relocated to in a newly built project closer to the school, shopping, and transportation to leverage important tax credits.
Here, from the staff report, is why this phasing discussion is important:
One overarching consideration in the disposition of land at Alameda Point is the limit on the number of residential units allowed by the City’s General Plan (1,425 units), which provides an important context for any of the City Council’s future disposition decisions regarding housing and mixed-use development at Alameda Point. Within this context, the Collaborating Partners and MidPen have been working closely with City staff to develop a feasible financial plan for constructing their proposed future campus and its required infrastructure. The financial plan evaluated traditional sources of funds for affordable housing, such as Tax Credits, and estimated that MidPen could finance new building construction from these sources, but not the significant site preparation and backbone infrastructure required by Alameda Point. As a result, it was determined that there was a need for new market rate housing development to pay for and build these infrastructure needs. The total infrastructure contribution needed for the entire 33-acre south of Midway area, including the Collaborating Partners’ site and the adjacent site required for new market rate housing, is estimated at $37 million for utility and street improvements and fair-share contributions of site-wide obligations and $16.5 million for on-site improvements (i.e. grading, demolition) for a total of $53 million.
Additionally, the Collaborating Partners, in conjunction with MidPen, have determined that they will need around 267 units to satisfy their space and funding needs, which is 67 additional very-low income units over and above the existing 200 units. This was determined based on occupancy requirements and the need to create more one- and two bedroom units in-lieu of too many three- and four-bedroom units to better serve the residents. The number of total bedrooms in the existing 200 units will be the same number of bedrooms in the 267 units. It is assumed that these additional units will help the City meet the low and very-low income affordable housing obligations for any market rate housing built to finance the Collaborating Partners’ infrastructure and for any new housing development elsewhere in the Main Street Neighborhood, as the existing 200 units do not count towards satisfying the 25 percent affordable housing requirement (9 percent moderate and 16 percent low and very-low income) for Alameda Point.
A preliminary feasibility analysis prepared by the City’s financial consultant, Willdan Financial Services, determined that approximately 200-235 market rate and moderate income units would be needed to pay for the infrastructure costs for the entire South of Midway property, assuming that the majority of the new additional Collaborating Partners’ units (approximately 44 units) count towards the low- and very-low affordable housing requirements for the new market rate development.
The TL;dr: the non profit organizations that are supporting this effort can afford to scrape enough funding together to pay for the physical building to move existing and new residents into, but they can’t afford the base infrastructure costs so market rate housing will need to be built and the onus will be on that developer to subsidize the infrastructure costs.
The number of units required to be built to just help pay for the infrastructure for the, let’s call it new-APC for shorthand, will be 200 – 235 units. Approximately half a Bayport project if you need a frame of reference. Once those units are built and including the Site A housing numbers there will only 125 remaining units available to be built in all of Alameda Point from that 1425 unit pot. In this scenario it looks like the Big Whites will be largely left alone for now which is a good and a bad thing. The good: it will still be all historic-y and affordable. The bad: there probably won’t be a lot of improvements made in the area because essentially no money for improvements.
There’s a Gateway district setback zoning modification agenda item, which, snooze. But it was precipitated by all the drama around the container building that was proposed for that gateway corner at Park and Blanding. Because containers = bad. But parking lot = classy.
Finally there is a ton of Council Referrals that keep getting pushed and pushed because this City Council can’t seem to make it through a whole agenda in one sitting. These three are funny because they’ve been on the agenda since June/July:
I wonder if Tony Daysog will still be on the City Council when his Council Referrals actually make it to the discussion part.