{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, December 2, 2009 - 6:30 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and\nChair Johnson - 5.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):\nProperty:\nAlameda Point\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and SunCal\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nThe ARRA Board provided instruction to the Real Property Negotiator.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:50\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nItura Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)\nAND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- - -DECEMBER 2, 2009- - - 7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 8:09 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent\n:\nCouncilmembers\n/\nBoard\nMembers\n/\nCommissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(09-494 CC/09-54 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and\nCIC Meeting held on November 17, 2009. Approved.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the Minutes.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam made a correction to page 1.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried\nby unanimous voice vote - 5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(09-55 CIC) Update on Alameda Landing\nThe Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nChair Johnson inquired whether the second amendment to the\nDisposition and Development Agreement (DDA) has been adopted, to\nwhich the Economic Development Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether the Commission has an $8\nmillion obligation to Catellus because they bought the [Stargell]\nright-of-way.\nThe Economic Development Director responded that is correct if\nCatellus does not move forward with the project; the amount would\nbe slightly less because a small retail parcel was included.\nCommissioner Matarrese requested a table with all of the details;\nstated the Commission is spending money that Catellus is obligated\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n1\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 2, "text": "to reimburse; a ledger should be prepared showing the balance of\nthe reimbursements on both sides; $2 million was spent on the\nhospital that burned down; all future updates should show the\nbalance on both sides.\nThe Economic Development Director continued the presentation.\nChair Johnson inquired what Catellus is supposed to be doing now.\nThe Economic Development Director responded Catellus is supposed to\nbe moving forward with the project; stated milestones provide\noutside deadlines i new design review is needed for the alternative\nfirst phase; continued the presentation.\nChair Johnson requested information on the number of people\nemployed for the Stargell project.\nCommissioner Tam stated $3 million was borrowed from the Sewer Fund\nbecause Catellus was not able to provide the match for the STIP;\ninquired how the amount would be repaid.\nThe Economic Development Director responded lease revenues from the\nFleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) budget stated a minimum of\n$90,000 has to be repaid each year; however, the plan is to repay\nthe full amount in five years.\nCommissioner Tam stated that she was asking about the Sewer Fund\nbecause letters have been received about rat infestations at\nAlameda Point; there have been sewer overflow issues; that she is\nconcerned about repayment in the event a major repair is needed.\nThe Economic Development Director stated lease revenues from ARRA\ncover Alameda Point; funds are separate.\nThe Interim Executive Director stated there are questions about\nwhether the rat infestation is the ARRA portion of the sewer or\nsomewhere else; the matter could be addressed later; the loan was\ndone because staff felt it was important to protect STIP funding.\nthe Public Works Director would address the Sewer Fund at a later\ntime.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the CIC has to repay the Sewer Fund;\ninquired whether CIC funds are vulnerable to State taking, to which\nthe Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated FISC funds would be used first.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether repaying the loan would\nhelp keep the funds from the State, to which the Interim Executive\nDirector responded it is the opposite; the State cannot take debt.\nThe Economic Development Director stated the payment to the State\nis from tax increment money, which is not being used to repay the\nSewer Fund.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the loan should be repaid if the line\ngets crossed at some point and the debt is not worth carrying.\nThe Economic Development Director stated the State structured the\nstatutes so that agencies with debt are not obligated to make\npayment however, the General Fund can make the payments; agencies\nare shut down until payments are made.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the issue could be addressed in an\nOff Agenda Report.\nCommissioner Tam inquired whether the entire redevelopment agency\nis shut down [ in the event of non-payment]\nThe Economic Development Director responded the States shuts down\nagencies administratively stated only up to 75% of the previous\nyear administration costs can be spent; bonds and new projects are\nnot allowed; limited housing can be done continued the\npresentation.\nChair Johnson inquired whether the whole hospital structure is\ngone, to which the Economic Development Director responded not\ncompletely.\nChair Johnson inquired whether removing the building after the fire\nwas more costly, to which the Economic Development Director\nresponded Catellus bids show demolishing the building before the\nfire would have been less expensive.\nChair Johnson inquired whether an investigation was conducted\nregarding whether the Fire Department let the building burn and if\nso, what were the results.\nThe Interim Executive Director responded that she would find out\nand provide information.\nCommissioner deHaan stated a report was supposed to come back.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n3\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 4, "text": "Chair Johnson stated the fire ended up costing a lot of money.\nThe Economic Development Director stated costs escalated when the\nmaterial burned because hazardous material mixed with non-hazardous\nmaterial.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the costs of fighting the fire\nand monitoring the site are included in the $2.2 million, to which\nthe Economic Development responded the cost is the contract cost\nand does not include Fire Department costs.\nCommissioner deHaan questioned whether including the costs of\nfighting the fire would be appropriate; stated that he believes so\nbecause Catellus was tasked with demolishing the building and\nneglect caused it to end up being burned various loans have been\nprovided; inquired whether all loans have payback agreements.\nThe Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated there are promissory notes.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired about the duration of loans and\nwhether loans have interest, to which the Economic Development\nDirector responded the sewer loan has interest; stated that she\ndoes not believe the loan from the ARRA to the CIC has interest but\nthe loan is to be paid back from the first developer proceeds.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the ledger has two sides; Catellus\nputting up $8 million is commendable; the other side of the ledger\nhas $5. 2 million; the delta is closing the last update in March\nindicated there has been no activity for six months; nine months\nlater there has been no activity, except City activity; inquired\nwhat oversight the City has to hold the developer's feet to the\nfire.\nChair Johnson stated the question goes back to what the developer\nis supposed to be doing now.\nThe Economic Development Director responded the developer is\nsupposed to be facilitating a first phase prior to the outside\ndeadline of 2012.\nChair Johnson inquired whether specific things are required.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether there is not a take down\nrequirement.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n4\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 5, "text": "The Economic Development Director responded in the negative stated\nthe developer does not have to take down any property until after\nthe 2012 period; pre-conditions to taking down property, including\nplans and engineering, have to be done to facilitate the transfer\nof the property and start of construction; by 2012, all of those\nthings need to be done or the developer needs to inform the\nCommission that they will not be moving forward with a project.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether all the things that need to\nbe done to take down the property need to be done by 2012 and\nwhether there is a list of the items, to which the Economic\nDevelopment Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nentitlement actions have to be in place; the developer is coming\nback with a schedule and wants to work towards having construction\nstart within the next 18 months to two years; to do so, plans would\nhave to be submitted by January or February of next year.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether the developer would meet\nthe schedule, to which the Economic Development Director stated the\ndeveloper is working very hard with a key tenant to come forward\nwith a project.\nIn response to Chair Johnson's inquiry about what would be\npresented to the Planning Board in January or February, the\nEconomic Development Director stated a new design review permit\nwould be needed.\nChair Johnson stated demolition and backbone have to be done by\n2012; inquired whether the developer would be in default if they\nare not ready to go by December 2012.\nThe Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated take down is not required for a couple of years after.\nChair Johnson inquired whether anything between now and 2012 would\ncause the developer to be in default, to which the Economic\nDevelopment Director responded in the negative.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the developer is land banking because of\nthe market.\nThe Economic Development Director stated consideration was given\nbecause Catellus provided money for [Stargell] right-of-way\nacquisition; being ready for construction will take 18 to 24\nmonths old infrastructure needs to be ripped out and new\ninfrastructure needs to be installed.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n5\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Matarrese stated that he appreciates the investment of\n$8 million for the right-of-way, which is also for Alameda Point,\nnot just Alameda Landing something got done; the College got a\nlaboratory; 2012 is not far away; that he wants to hear what is\nbeing done to meet the deadline; the City should be thinking about\na Plan B if things are not on track and the milestone is not met.\nThe Economic Development Director stated alternative strategies\ninclude interim leasing in two warehouses.\nIn response to Chair Johnson's inquiry about interim leasing, the\nEconomic Development Director stated the minimum lease time would\nneed to be three years to cover rewiring costs.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated negotiations could be done if the\nprospect is that the [2012] deadline might not be met; that he\nwants to hear from Catellus about what is occurring.\nChair Johnson stated the interim leasing improvements could be\namortized in three years; the demolition and backbone will take two\nmore years; the project is phased; interim leasing could be done;\nthe frustration is nothing is being done; that she understands the\neconomy the City appreciates the $8 million to get Stargell done;\nthe perception is nothing is being done.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated Catellus stepped up and facilitated\nStargell; the City is not out trying to attract tenants; getting\nfinancing is very difficult; banks are not lending and are sitting\non cash waiting for the commercial real estate market implosion;\nthat she understands the frustration and feels it; however, the\ndeveloper is trying to bring in a tenant in the worst market since\nthe depression.\nMayor Johnson stated Catellus obtained the project entitlement\nduring the good economy stated that she is anxious to hear what is\nbeing done; inquired what year Catellus received entitlement.\nThe Economic Development Director responded the original DDA was\napproved in 2000; the project was bifurcated in 2003 to allow\nBayport to go forward; re-entitlement was not done until 2006.\nChair Johnson inquired what year the Exclusive Negotiation\nAgreement (ENA) was done.\nThe Economic Development Director responded that she does not have\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n6\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 7, "text": "the history; stated that she heard there was not a lot of interest\nin the property.\nCommissioner deHaan stated five developers were boiled down to\nthree and all were substantial companies capable of completing the\nproject.\nThe Economic Development Director stated the 2003 changes\nrecognized the office market was gone.\nChair Johnson stated housing would not be built right now because\nhouses would not sell even if financing could be secured.\nThe Economic Development Director stated half of the potential\ntenants from one year ago do not exist.\nSean Whiskeman, Vice President of Retail Operations for Catellus,\ngave a brief presentation on the history of the company and\nproject; stated Catellus has a signed letter of intent with Target\nand is in active negotiations with several other retailers;\nCatellus is in a position to justify a project that is quite a bit\nlarger than the project that went through the community and staff;\nthe City's [ 2004] Retail Study put the project on hold; Catellus\nhas not been sitting idle; the real investment ] number is close to\n$20 million, including entitlement money, designs and plans,\nwithout any return.\nChair Johnson stated the City has been involved in the steps; not a\nlot has happened in the past couple of years.\nMr. Whiskeman stated it is a new market; the rules changed\nSeptember 2008; retailers have put expansion plans on hold, filed\nbankruptcy or liquidated; Catellus has to have a tenant in order to\njustify the construction expense building cannot be done on a\nspeculative basis; discussed the Target negotiations and deal ;\nstated Catellus hopes to commence the process in early 2010 and is\nexcited about discussions with a potential second anchor.\nChair Johnson stated the fundamental question is whether Catellus\nwill be able to meet the first performance milestones.\nMr. Whiskeman stated Catellus is very aware of the timeframes,\nbelieves milestones can be met and is reviewing commencing the\nfirst residential phase, which would have a significant lead upi\nCatellus is trying to advance aspects other than just retail.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n7\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 8, "text": "Chair Johnson inquired whether the demolition and backbone\nconditions would be met by December 2012, to which Mr. Whiskeman\nresponded in the affirmative. stated Catellus could even be ahead\nof schedule.\nChair Johnson inquired whether something would be submitted to the\nPlanning Board in January or February.\nMr. Whiskeman responded in the negative; stated the process would\nstart; the site plan works but needs to be revisited; starting in\nearly 2010, Catellus would work with staff to build the package and\naddress issues.\nChair Johnson stated the Commission needs to hear whether or not\nthe project will move forward; Catellus should not plan on land\nbanking; her intent is not to allow the land to sit.\nMr. Whiskeman stated dialog with staff would continue; nothing will\nsneak up on anyone; that he is making a presentation to the West\nAlameda Business Association (WABA) ; Catellus has supported WABA\nevents and pledged money to the Miracle League.\nChair Johnson stated more frequent reports would help the\nCommission understand the status.\nMr. Whiskeman stated that he would be happy to do so; one of the\nDDA commitments is to meet with the City Manager's office once a\nquarter, which has been done.\nChair Johnson inquired whether the leasing discussed is for\nexisting structures, to which Mr. Whiskeman in the negative.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the quarterly meetings should be\nofficial reports to allow the Commission to hear directly from the\ndeveloper.\nMr. Whiskeman noted names [of potential tenants] would not be\ndiscussed in public.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated that he wants to hear about\nactivities; the Commission needs to be informed if the project is\ndead in order to start formulating decisions that would need to be\nmade in the event the milestone is not met.\nChair Johnson inquired whether the December 2012 decision point\nwould be whether the project would go forward as scheduled or if\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n8\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 9, "text": "Chair Johnson inquired when Catellus would have a good sense of\nwhether Target wants to come to Alameda.\nMr. Whiskeman stated Catellus has a good sense that Target wants to\ncome to Alameda now; it is the beginning of a long processi\nCatellus will work towards needed approvals to meet the projected\nopening date.\nChair Johnson inquired what is the opening date.\nMr. Whiskeman responded the date is in flex right now, but is\nbefore December 2012.\nCommissioner deHaan stated when Catellus was bought out, it was six\nto eight months before decisions were made about the company\ncontinuing to do development ; in the past, not too many acres were\ngoing to be given to Target; the staff report indicates Target\nwould now have 10 acres and be sprawling; inquired whether Catellus\nis contemplating selling off that much property.\nMr. Whiskeman stated the project would be one of Target's smaller\nstores and would be around 130,000 square feet.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired how much parking would be required, to\nwhich Mr. Whiskeman responded right now the project includes the\nCity maximum of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet.\nIn response to Commissioner deHaan's inquiry, Mr. Whiskeman stated\nTarget prefers to be part of a shopping center, but does do stand\nalone stores; noted guidelines setting maintenance standards would\nbe recorded against the property.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether Catellus anticipates\ndeveloping the shoreline.\nMr. Whiskeman responded Catellus has an interest; stated there are\nrestrictions; the largest available land use is commercial/office\namenities will be out near the waterfront; other land uses are\nbeing considered, such as senior housing.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether longer-term leases could be\ndone to span the time.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n9\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 10, "text": "Mr. Whiskeman responded Catellus is open to cooperating stated\nmany buildings are generating revenues.\nCommissioner Tam stated Catellus has been in various negotiations\nin the past including Clif Bar and Target; requested that Mr.\nWhiskeman elaborate on lessons learned; inquired whether Target\nterminated a previous letter of intent.\nMr. Whiskeman responded that he was not involved with Clif Bar\nnegotiations; stated the site and building could not be delivered\nin a time frame that worked for Clif Bar; the first time around\nwith Target, the City made a decision to take a collective time out\nto do the Retail Study; analysis took time.\nChair Johnson stated the City is fortunate office buildings were\nnot constructed because they would have been empty; Towne Centre\nwould have been half empty if Catellus had gone forward with the\nretail; buildings would be empty if the City had been more\naggressive.\nCommissioner deHaan noted that the City of Alameda did everything\npossible to move the Clif Bar project forward.\nMr. Whiskeman stated Catellus underestimated what it would take to\ndeliver the site to Clif Bar.\nChair Johnson stated Clif Bar was concerned about being in the area\nalone; other businesses would not commit to locate at the site.\nCommissioner Tam stated Catellus has holdings in other Bay Area\nlocations; inquired whether getting a planned development to move\nforward in Alameda is more difficult than other cities.\nMr. Whiskeman responded the 1.1 million square foot project in\nFremont was a different experience because the site is not near\nresidential and there was a lot of City and community support.\nChair Johnson stated projects get sidetracked, such as the gas\nstation at Towne Centre; the process needs to be streamlined and\nshould not take so long.\nMr. Whiskeman noted it costs money when approvals take a long time.\nCommissioner Tam stated community members are concerned that there\nshould be a way to control the mix or types of stores that go into\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n10\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 11, "text": "a retail development; people want stores similar to Emeryville;\ninquired how high end stores make decisions about where to locate\nand whether said stores would go in next to a Target.\nMr. Whiskeman responded the City is an Island with a primary trade\narea that can only rely on Alameda, which is almost always not\nenough; high end retailers end up in communities with a greater\ndraw; provided examples; stated there are exceptions.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated limitations are understood, but the\nproject needs to be sold.\nIn response to Chair Johnson's inquiry regarding retail leakage,\nMr. Whiskeman stated Target has been trying to locate in Alameda\nfor ten years.\nChair Johnson stated the City needs to be ready to proceed when\nTarget is ready.\nCommissioner deHaan noted Bridgeside did not live up to\nexpectations; stated Catellus is required to inform the City about\nthe type of businesses that will be built.\nMr. Whiskeman stated the retail industry has changed disposable\ndollars have evaporated; the way people shop is changing.\nIn response to Chair Johnson's inquiry about current leakage\nnumbers, Commissioner Tam stated the 2006 leakage report shows the\nCity loses $0.74 of every $1.00.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated quarterly updates are important to\nensure months do not go by without addressing where things are\ngoing and the Commission can help manage the process and set\npriorities an objectionable project will not go forward because\ntimes are tough; the Commission will not let Target slip through\nthe City's fingers.\nChair Johnson stated standards should be set in advance for\nbusinesses trying to locate in Alameda the City's procedures need\nto be set so locating in Alameda is not a multi-year process.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated the Commission looks forward to\nCatellus returning in three months time for additional discussions ;\npublic, developer and tenants expectations need to be managed for\ndevelopment projects; the City's task going forward is to let\neveryone know how long the process takes and what is possible.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n11\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 12, "text": "Commissioner Matarrese stated Target should be mindful of the\nCity's past discussions on labor, big box and parking requirements;\nthe laundry lists should be revisited; the City needs to clear the\nway and ensure people understand what is coming.\nMr. Whiskeman stated people in the industry might be willing to\ncome to the quarterly updates to provide additional information.\nCOUNCIL REFERRAL\n(09-495 CC/ARRA/09-56 CIC) Discussion of Policies for Leases at the\nARRA and Tidelands Leases under the City's Jurisdiction.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese made the referral\nbecause it dovetails on earlier discussions regarding the maritime\nindustry in Alameda. He would like to have the Council/ARRA/CIC\nprovide direction to the Interim City Manager to look at leasing\npolicies and consider a few points: 1) look at terms of leases and\nthe City's ability to have longer term leases with the goal of\nbuilding a business community and a business sector out at Alameda\nPoint that will be the future commercial occupants, so that the\ndeveloper does not says there is no market for commercial at\nentitlement; 2) because we are an island and have a great seaside\nlocation, there need to be review of what can be done to support\nand make-healthy marine-related industries, whether it is ship\nbuilding or the private boat sector, which throws off a significant\namount of sales tax; 3) also look at protecting the waterfront - a\nlot of installations are on tidelands where there is potential for\nsomeone else to maintain the bulkheads and the shore side\ninvestments. The key issue is creating a leasing policy to grow a\ndiverse commercial sector and not a monolithic commercial sector\nleasing strategies should include a diverse economic base to take\nadvantage of potential, such as maritime industry, a growing\nspecialty foods industry, a wine and distillation industry,\nentertainment production, and a potential for green businesses. If\nmarketed correctly and the City can get some relief from the Navy\non the provision of unilateral termination of leases, in order to\nbuild the sector that is going to be the future commercial tenants;\nrisk will be spread in economic downtimes and benefit to the City\nwill be maximized that will also relieve over-reliance on\nresidential property taxes. He would like to get direction on\ngiving these points to the City Manager and looking at revising\nlease policies that go back to 2007.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that if the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n12\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 13, "text": "Council/Board/CIC decides that this is a good idea, changes should\nnot be done in a vacuum. One of the items pulled from the agenda\nthe other night was a long-term lease with WETA. The WETA lease\nshould be analyzed in the context of whatever new policies are\ncreated, because that could very well be the template for moving\nforward as WETA will be a major tenant out there for a very long\nperiod of time. How the City deals with WETA could very well set\nthe stage for how the City deals with any other industries. It is\nsomething in hand now, is not something being theoretically talked\nabout, and is also a maritime industry.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese added that WETA\nis trailing $20 million that they want to plant on the shoreline.\nHis main point is that templating leases was tried before. There\nare some speakers that can talk specifically about some of the\nunique facets of the private marine industry; WETA is a public\nagency with a different guarantee of revenue than the private\nsector. The City has to diversify and look at policies not in a\ntemplate, but against goals; some goals may not be revenue-\nparticipation as mentioned in 2007, but may be more investments in\nthe land side structure to keep the bulkheads intact so that the\nIsland does not slide into the water, or to maintain the berths, or\nto bring jobs, or to generate sales tax. Opening with a set of\ngoals to attract and establish desirable businesses and industry at\nAlameda Point, have diversity rather than a monolithic, single\nsector-driven development, which could be the future of commercial\ndevelopment; when entitlement happens, the developer does not come\nback to tell the City that they have to build more houses because\nthere is no commercial market. The City should build its own\nmarket, look at the issue comprehensively and set up a flexible\npolicy, more goal-driven, and not narrow.\nMayor/Chair Johnson clarified that there is no current leasing\npolicy in place except for de facto policy. potential tenants go\nthrough a lengthy and delayed process and eventually give up.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that one of the ways to tackle the\nissue, because it is comprehensive, rather than wait 90-120 days\nfor a paper with a huge narrative, is to engage in dialogue.\nSuggested the issue be placed as an item on the ARRA meeting in\nFebruary and a discussion start with a City Manager presentation of\na working outline that deals with policy parameters, financial\nissues, users, the major big categories; then take Council's\nthoughts, incorporate them, have dialogue and get reactions to the\nworking draft outline before staff starts crafting language and\nfinds out it is going in a totally different direction than the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n13\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 14, "text": "Council wants to go. A comprehensive asset management policy and\nstrategy will take months to draw up, so before staff starts off in\none direction, let's get a working outline, make sure we are on the\nright track in terms of business points, and then it is easier to\ngo back and deal with the language.\nMayor/Chair Johnson called the speakers Andy McKinley, General\nManager and Harbor Master of Grand Marina, expressed his support in\nworking with the City to maximize the income from the marine\nindustry. He provided the Board with a copy of a letter regarding\nan economic threat (permit) by the State Water Resources Control\nBoard.\nBill Elliot, Bay, Ship & Yacht Company President expressed his\nconcern about the two owners (Alameda Gateway and the City) of the\nproperty which Bay Ship & Yacht occupies; that they are in\nlitigation, which puts their business in an unsuitable situation.\nHe wants to work with the City to draw up a lease, which is\nmutually beneficial to all parties.\nMayor/Chair Johnson recommended that a more appropriate approach\nfor Mr. Elliot to discuss this issue is to set up a meeting with\nstaff, as the larger impediment is the litigation.\nThe Interim City Manager agreed and stated that it is a strategic\nissue and is best that the Council has an opportunity to discuss\nthe issue in Closed Session and get an update from the City\nAttorney as to the status of the litigation, and to see what role,\nif any, the Council and staff can deal with in terms of the\nstrategy with respect to the litigation and how it can positively\nimpact Bay Ship & Yacht. As the Mayor stated, the issue needs to\nbe carefully discussed inside so as not to compromise either side.\nBob Henn, Bay Ship & Yacht, also supports having a dialogue with\nthe City. The Assistant City Attorney committed to calling Mr.\nHenn to discuss the issue without possibly jeopardizing any\nconfidential settlement communications.\nLeslie Cameron, Owner of Bay Ship & Yacht, supports a continued\nrelationship between the City and Bay Ship & Yacht and stated some\nkey points: Bay Ship & Yacht provides $90,000 to $110,000 sales tax\ndollars per year, has spent $17 million on its facility, pays over\n$100,000 per year in property taxes, spent $600,000 in Alameda this\nyear, and is actively involved in many community projects. Bay Ship\n& Yacht currently employs 250 people. Ms. Cameron expressed that\nshe appreciates the support of the City.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n14\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember/Board Member/Commission Tam made statements to\nunderstand and clarify the discussion. She stated that the issue\nof Bay Ship & Yacht and the revision of the guidelines are separate\nmatters. She further stated that Councilmember/Board Member/\nCommissioner Matarrese has submitted a request to revise the\npolicies for leases at Alameda Point.\nThe Interim City Manager suggested a fuller discussion at the next\nARRA meeting be held to try to understand expectations and develop\nan asset management strategy.\nThe Council/ARRA/CIC agreed with Councilmember/Board Member/\nCommissioner Tam's statements and agreed with the Interim City\nManager's recommendation to itemize the issue to discuss and create\na working draft outline at the next ARRA meeting in February.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nJoint Meeting at 11:04 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nIrma Glidden\nSecretary, ARRA\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n15\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-02.pdf"}